Talk:Neuro-linguistic programming

first line

I work on leads a lot, and I edited the first sentence to make it describe the subject better. It's NPOV to say that NLP is "largely discredited" because our reliable sources say exactly that. NPOV means reporting what the RS's say without a POV distortion. The RSs say that it's largely discredited, if not entirely. Leadwind (talk) 23:40, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm afraid that 90% of reliable sources are not an experts in NLP, They are experts in other fields that are commenting on what they believe is NLP. Would you ask a farmer to fix your truck or would you ask a mechanic?

Has anyone noticed, that there is nothing about what NLP actually is in this article?

I am an expert in NLP and yet I'm getting stonewalled at every corner even though I'm following wikipedia protocal to best of my newbie knowledge. All I'm wanting to do is include what nlp is..not what people claim it can or can't do. Things like NLP well formed goal setting, eye accessing cues, rapport building and maybe a quick explanation of the NLP decision making process(meta model). I just want to say what it is.... nothing else. let people decide if it's useful or not. Instead I get NLP is a largely dicredited approach to..... let's forget about an explanation of what nlp is and just jump into the biased sources of non-nlp experts. The sources in the article are not porportionately balanced and represent only those 'anti nlp' views and from what I have experienced, every effort is being used to keep any positive nlp information from being included. Even most of the reliable sources in this article are from people who haven't even taken an NLP course.

The article is called 'Neuro Linguistic Programming' not Anti- Neuro Linguistic Programming. I'm a Christian and I can tell you I'm scared to death to look anything to do with my faith on wiki because of how totally biased and plagued with opinions wiki really is. Just an idea how about we all go old school and make 'neutral' neutral again. not just in this article but all of them and that would include making sure all sources are neutral or well balanced. Mike00764 (talk) 13:27, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Please use colons to format your comments. You are understand a NLP practitioner? That means to a degree you have already taken a position. No attempt is being made to keep properly referenced material out, if you have some list it here and we can look at it. Otherwise the sources come from reputable sources, academics who have reviewed cases and the literature and formed conclusions. You don't have to take an NLP course to form an opinion on it, any more than you have to experience full emersion baptism to form an opinion on the validity of the Baptist Church. At the moment you keep arguing your opinion. That will get you nowhere. Sources please and argument based on those sources. ----Snowded ^TALK 15:26, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

This is a horribly written article, especially the lead. Someone (Leadwind?) who does not like NLP has taken ownership of the article and has twisted the whole thing into an attack. To say that many of the critical readings of NLP are critical is as an obvious tautology as you can get. They are not neutral, so claiming that repeating them is NPOV is absurd. This kind of behaviour undermines Wikipedia and shows a very weak understanding of what an encyclopaedia article should be. Sleeping Turtle (talk) 19:30, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

What a hornet's nest!

I know nothing about NLP. Only came to the page because someone in China wrote to say they just completed the first NLP course and found it of value. Knowing nothing about the course, I came here to learn. After reading this page, I still do not understand what NLP is about, only that the people who wrote the Wikipedia page are quite convinced that it is a discredited course that does not deliver on what it promises (or something to that effect).

Accordingly, this page reads more like a Medieval religious debate than an encyclopaedic article, with a clear bias that NLP is bad.

I recommend that it be completely rewritten:

1) Present a neutral description of what NLP is so that people who do not understand anything get a good overall understanding of what it is about.
2) Create a criticism section that flips back and forth from positive claim to negative rebuttal, but write both sides in a neutral, dispassionate way
3) Do not presume just because someone has written a debunking article that can be quoted that this is The Truth. Rather present the gist of the debunking article in a neutral way so readers can form their own opinion

Historia Errorem (talk) 09:49, 13 November 2012 (UTC) - - - -

Wikipedia works from reliable sources and the article reflects what those sources say. We are not required to be neutral between pro and anti-NLP groups, but to reflect those sources. Please read up on the five pillars of WIkipedia. ----Snowded ^TALK 21:10, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

- - - - I am familiar with the five pillars, including this one:

Wikipedia is written from a neutral point of view. We strive for articles that document and explain the major points of view in a balanced and impartial manner. We avoid advocacy and we characterize information and issues rather than debate them. In some areas there may be just one well-recognized point of view; in other areas we describe multiple points of view, presenting each accurately and in context, and not presenting any point of view as "the truth" or "the best view". All articles must strive for verifiable accuracy: unreferenced material may be removed, so please provide references. Editors' personal experiences, interpretations, or opinions do not belong here. That means citing verifiable, authoritative sources, especially on controversial topics and when the subject is a living person.

The article is not neutral. As a neutral person coming to it to learn about something someone has attended, all I learn is that it has been discredited by people. I did not learn much about the subject, but only its opposition. Also, while I won't take the time to check it out, "authoritative" probably needs more support than in this article. Just because it is quoted, does not mean the sources are authoritative. Indeed even academics with degrees and prestigious chairs does not mean their work is authoritative; especially when they become judgemental.

Like Scientology, it obviously is a subject that has both believers and opponents, and it appears the opponents are vociferous and well represented on Wikipedia. But what if I was an anthropologist seeking to understand the belief systems? I would suspend judgement about the validity of those belief systems but this would not mean that I would not document them.

When an anthropologist is told "witches fly to the full moon on a broomstick", do they begin by saying "what utter nonsense, don't be absurd. No one flies on broomsticks?" Well, actually the bad anthropologists do say exactly that, but the best ones don't. Instead they say "OK, I accept what you say, now let me work out how they do that since it is outside my scope of reality." That anthropologist sees that before the witch flies she has a big cauldron with a witches brew that she stirs with a broomstick. The anthropologist observes the witch putting in deadly nightshade into the pot, which on chemical analysis shows bella donna, a powerful mind altering drug. Then the witch puts the broomstick between her legs (not wearing underpants) where the drug penetrates the skin at the right rate... enough to induce hallucinations, but not enough to poison the body. Now curious, and being a bold scientist, the anthropologist tries the drug and has a mind-blowing "trip" where everything seems absolutely real, except their assistant video taping shows the anthropologist never left the room. It all was in the mind, but the drug set the mind on a dream as real as daily life. So the answer comes clear. Yes, the witch does fly, but not in the physical world, but the world inside her mind. Of course the next step is to ask if that other world is real, but the anthropologist steps back, because in academia, there is a clear line over which one steps into religion. That is dispassionate science. It explains rather than judges.

So I would like to have a dispassionate explanation of NLP first, before it is trashed with scholarly quoted judgement.

However, I won't do it, because frankly, I have more important things to do in my life. I added this comment just to help save Wikipedia from bad reporting. Historia Errorem (talk) 00:34, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Its a common mistake to thing that NPOV means balanced between all points of view. It does't, it means neutral in representing what reliable sources say. As to the example, may be the anthropologist should leap off a cliff with the broom to be authentic? The Anthropologist is in an event carrying out primary research. That is not our task here, we summarise in an encyclopaedic way what the sources say, and they says its discredited. ----Snowded ^TALK 00:43, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Proper methodology

Have all the cited studies been done double blind, placebo controlled ,and with exact methodological reproducibility? If not i suggest you remove them or mention this lack of credibility. An adaptive system (talk) 02:06, 26 November 2012 (UTC)An adaptive system (talk) 08:04, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

if you think any of the sources fail WP:RS then raise it. It's not our place to criticise the methodologies used. ----Snowded ^TALK 08:57, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Actually " neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view." There is a definitive lack of "all significant views" that are published by "reliable" sources in this article. Mike00764 (talk) 13:40, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Then come up with some sources that you think should be represented and we can look at it. But use the talk page first please, your edit warring is going to get you blocked if you carry on ----Snowded ^TALK 14:55, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

If you agree that a proper methodology should be free from distortion, then the methodology of this article is not proper. Firstly, it does not define NLP, instead beginning with a huge and unsupported generalisation. Secondly, it ignores the area of NLP that has the greatest amount of reliable sources: the scientific reviews of the work of Milton Erickson. Thirdly, it is extremely selective in its choice of so-called "Reliable Sources". "Reliable" seems to mean those that support the editor's preconceptions. What are the editor's credentials in this area that give you the expertise to decide what is a "reliable source?" Cliftonconsulting (talk) 14:12, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

"a largely discredited approach"

In the lead sentence of the lead paragraph of the lead in the article ... such a POV statement needs a citation, not SYN. htom (talk) 02:50, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

lede summarises the article, it not normal for there to be citations. ----Snowded ^TALK 05:06, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

The leading paragraph has seven citations. Add another for that phrase, or I'll have to remove it as SYN. htom (talk) 05:36, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Might be better to remove the other references, they don't belong in a lede. Lets see what other editors think, so far attempts to remove it have been reverted by several different editors so you are in a minority and would be edit warring abainst consensus (again) ----Snowded ^TALK 06:26, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

The current version looks representative. Htom, I can have a search through the newer literature on the subject. Did you have the particular request?

The current citation at the end of the lede states neuro-linguistic programming to be "certainly discredited". An alternative could just be simply; discredited. Lam Kin Keung (talk) 06:39, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Someone actually saying "largely discredited approach" would be appropriate. Another alternative would be to leave the name-calling adjectives for later in the paragraph. htom (talk) 17:17, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

"a largely discredited approach" This statement is vague and unquantifiable. I believe this falls under the weasel words category. I am shocked no one has questioned the neutrality of this article maybe some one can help me I'm new to this side of Wikipedia.

I questioned it and consequently read it. Its fine. "a largely discredited approach" might be inferior to "discredited" though. Karbinski (talk) 18:41, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

I think the best response would be to name the number of qualified academics who claim nlp to be discredited. something along the lines of "according to..." An adaptive system (talk) 02:08, 26 November 2012 (UTC)An adaptive system (talk) 23:44, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Of course, the sentence wouldn't have to open with "according to".

There is no requirement to do that, unless and until you can produce some real sources to support a contrary view. Todate you and the latest cluster are all making the same general statements with no supporting evidence. ----Snowded ^TALK 04:03, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

This really needs to go to the POV noticeboard to get an independent opinion. --Reconsolidation (talk) 22:17, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps the most important thing one should know about NLP is that it is largely discredited. The most important thing should be in the opening definition. Probably we should also say up front that it was part of the human potential movement. Saying that it's a pseudoscience might be going to far. It's not a POV statement if it's what the experts say. Treating NLP as a legitimate discipline would be POV because the experts say the opposite. Leadwind (talk) 04:51, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Opening section

I'm sorry but this whole first section hardly says anything on what NLP actually is. It seems like it was written only by people who are trying to prove that it is discredited. If people want to use Proper unbiased evidence that's fine but not at the expense of understanding of what NLP is or is supposed to be. If you look at pages related to Freudian subjects they don't seem to have the same burden. What is going on in those pages that prevents them looking like this page? If anybody can provide me with a specific answer I'd be much obliged. — Preceding unsigned comment added by [[Special:Contributions/An adaptive system] (talk) 00:11, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Reviews of empirical research on NLP indicate that NLP contains numerous factual errors,[10][12] where in these 2 articles does it say that there are factual errors? Facts are what is, NLP deals with outcomes and ideas to help attain them The only facts you will need are the distinctions that you could make by using NLP skills, otherwise you are dealing with a sophisticated linguistics device. either way the claim that there are "factual errors" is not demonstrated here and if it is an offshoot from that link you should provide the correct link or change the article to 'articulate' more closely the authors opinion. Enemesis (talk) 03:05, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Its not for editors to evaluate a reliable source but to summarise what it says. If you think that has not been done give examples. If you have other reliable sources then raise them. Your comments on "the only facts you need" fail to understand the nature of editing for an encyclopaedia. ----Snowded ^TALK 03:09, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry I read those 2 articles and they in no way reflect factual errors. maybe you misunderstand fair interpretation of an article. read those links again there is no such allusion to "factual errors" 10 refers to the fact that they have not researched the topic enough, "paucity of data". the other does not mention NLP and if it does refer to NLP it does allude to the fact that the content is unbalanced but that will depend on the institutions you go to learn and what applications you would like to learn it for. "Concentrating primarily on techniques with strong claims for enhancing performance, the committee found little support for some (e.g., sleep learning, meditation, parapsychological techniques, hypnosis, total quality management)" who made these claims? are they relevant to this article? what is total quality management? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parapsychological "The Parapsychological Association regards the results of parapsychologists' experiments as having demonstrated the existence of some forms of psychic abilities,[12] and proponents of parapsychology have seen it as an "embryo science",[13] a "frontier science of the mind",[14] and a "frontier discipline for advancing knowledge".[15] NLP to me has never said that there was an element of being psychic (that is reading someones thoughts from thinking about someone or seemingly from thin air), The founders do claim that your senses can become so attuned to distinctions ie. micro muscle and facial color changes that this is a pattern to observe and note to gauge the clients mood and his /her emotional associations from these distinctions and that from these distinctions that you may appear as if psychic but being "Psychic" is not the claim. other wise provide the link that says the founders have said that NLP is a way to become psychic otherwise either you or your source may have been confused as to what the claim actually means. Enemesis (talk) 04:04, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

It seems you aren't reading the full articles. Ref 10 states quite directly, "NLP is based on outdated metaphors of brain functioning and is laced with numerous factual errors." (p 290) - SummerPhD (talk) 04:08, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Further: "Where controlled studies have been performed attempting to test NLP hypothese...they consistently have failed to do so.... NLP is limited by a lack of supportive empirical evidence and is too simplistic to account for verbal behavior adequately....'ther is little or no evidence to date to support either NLP assumptions or NLP effectiveness.'" - SummerPhD (talk) 04:20, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Snowded said : "Its not for editors to evaluate a reliable source but to summarise what it says." what? the whole process is evaluating what the article says. What the subject matter is about and how it relates to the NLP article. You will now have to provide samples of claims about Parapsychology in NLP, sleep learning in NLP, meditation and total quality management to qualify the article as being a reliable resource. and by saying that you are saying what you have said it is not a reliable resource.Enemesis (talk) 04:04, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Once we have determined that a source is a "reliable source", we do not evaluate whether or not the source is "correct". Rather, we work on the basis of verifiability: We report what reliable sources say. We are not in the business of arguing that this, that or the other source is correct. How could we? There are people in this world who believe that we live on the inner surface of a hollow Earth, with the Sun and stars in the center, others believe most U.S. presidents were/are actually lizardmen from the Draco star system, some believe humans are meant to eat only fruit (as vegetables are "murdered" for vegetarian diets), etc. If we are to say X is true and Y is false, we will never be able to write anything. Rather, we report that "X says..." or, in this case, "Reviews of empirical research on NLP indicate..." If X is a reliable source, we report what it says. - SummerPhD (talk) 04:15, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Then you would live on the planet Draco? How do you know what a reliable source is if you cannot even debate if it is reliable source? You will need to provide much more here to show that 1. claim x is the common consensus on the topic by the community 2. the professionals have gotten a common consensus on the topic on claim x with some form of scientific research. 3. They are in a position to comment on the general consensus on topic x 4. It is worthy of being a resource on wikipedia if all its counter claims are shown against community claims and not individual claims. x could be absolutely anybody and the source could be from anywhere and totally incohere the total article toward an NPOV result. Also if your article tackles an entirely different result or any subject matter not expressed by the community that you can argue, you can consider it void. also Use ur tilds for chris sakes. you look amatuer. Enemesis (talk) 05:10, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

You can argue that a source is not reliable, but that is about the journal itself, not your opinion as to the content of an article in a journal. If you want to change the editing rules for Wikipedia then raise it elsewhere, not an individual article. If you have reliable sources which make counter claims then list them. For the moment you are simply opining, which will get you no where.----Snowded ^TALK 05:15, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

You would also need to show that the research was emirical as was noted by me to be word that headleydown would use when editing the article. Enemesis (talk) 05:18, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Incorrect. We do not need to show anything about the research. That would be us evaluating the source's conclusions. We must show that the peer-reviewed journal is a reliable source. Please see WP:MEDRS. "Ideal sources for such content includes general or systematic reviews published in reputable medical journals, academic and professional books written by experts in the relevant field and from a respected publisher, and medical guidelines or position statements from nationally or internationally recognised expert bodies." - SummerPhD (talk) 05:22, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

(ec):And you made all sorts of silly accusations about headleydown back in February when you arrived from no where as a SPA parroting material on NLP web sites which are obvious examples of soliciting meat puppets. You promised then to report your evidence of various wild accusations about sock puppets to the appropriate authorities (along with other bluster) but did nothing. You've had the rules explained to you before; you are wasting people's time. ----Snowded ^TALK 05:26, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Incorrect. We do not need to show anything about the research. That would be us evaluating the source's conclusions. We must show that the peer-reviewed journal is a reliable source. Please see WP:MEDRS. "Ideal sources for such content includes general or systematic reviews published in reputable medical journals, academic and professional books written by experts in the relevant field and from a respected publisher, and medical guidelines or position statements from nationally or internationally recognised expert bodies." For this particular claim, the sources being cited are Human Resource Development Quarterly and Journal of Applied Social Psychology. The first is a good source. The second is, IMO, an excellent academic journal, published by a widely respected publisher (Wiley-Blackwell). I cannot say I can see a way that this would be supplanted. If other reliable sources say something contrary to JASPs conclusions, I would expect that both would be discussed. - SummerPhD (talk) 05:22, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Dude, it's simple. Tell me where anyone said NLP made people psychic. Enemesis (talk) 05:27, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

NLP makes testable claims about human functioning. It falls under WP:MEDRS. Reliable sources say point blank that it's bunk, but a small number of people continue to claim it damned-near makes people psychic. This is a fringe claim. - SummerPhD (talk) 05:31, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Because of wikis no reveals you're protected snowded. Other than that you are wasting peoples time here including mine which was resolved some 7 years ago. get the hell out, this subject is not neutral territory for you. provide the source Summer or it's nothing. Enemesis (talk) 05:35, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

If you want to make a sock puppet report Enemesis please do. I'll happily co-operate and a checkuser can investigate your claim. ----Snowded ^TALK 05:38, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

It's not sock puppetry I'm interested in Snowded, It's a conflict of interest that concerns me. provide the source Summer or it's not much at all, the community does not support this and neither do I . It's rather a niche opinion and has very little relevance to mainstream unless you would like to describe it as so in the NLP article on wikipedia. Enemesis (talk) 05:35, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Given up on that have you Enemesis? Then why mention headleydown? Your predecessors tried the COI claim as well without success. Try and focus on understanding how wikipedia works, and then suggest edits within those constraints please. ----Snowded ^TALK 05:48, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure what Enemesis is claiming. Am I supposed to be Snowed, i.e. a sockpuppet? Or is one of us supposedly editing on the other's behalf (a "meatpuppet")? It can't just be that we agree... Snowed started editing Wikipedia in August 2006 and I got here just a few months earlier. If we are socks, we're really, really, really patient, waiting around 6 years before striking. (I'm guessing we must have run across each other at some point over the years, but I can't say I recall.) - SummerPhD (talk) 05:50, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Conflict of interest? Me or Snowed? Who am I supposed to be now? (I am and "academic", but my field is very distantly related (at best) to psychology. - SummerPhD (talk) 05:51, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Because its part of the whole sordid story with you and it makes sense to me. You are going to get all sorts of crazy claims from various NLPer's whether you chose the mainstream will depict this article. if you chose one or two and decide to have a general opinon and then let that be the general consensus then Im going to step in. make sure your opinions are consolidated upon the NLPer's consolidated opinions and claims or you are just being horribly manipulative. Enemesis (talk) 05:56, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

I can honestly say I have no idea what you are trying to say here. - SummerPhD (talk) 06:06, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

It can't just be that we agree... Snowed started editing Wikipedia in August 2006 and I got here just a few months earlier. If we are socks, we're really, really, really patient, waiting around 6 years before striking. (I'm guessing we must have run across each other at some point over the years, but I can't say I recall.)

I have got to say you guys are rather paranoid and for no real reason. Enemesis (talk) 06:01, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Paranoid? I don't particularly feel persecuted, so I don't know what you mean. You mentioned a conflict of interest. Was that me or Snowed who you feel has a COI? Can you elaborate: who or what do you think one/both of us has a close connection to? - SummerPhD (talk) 06:06, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Snowded, I have not given up on the idea. You are a sockpuppet of headleydown who was run out of here in disgrace seeing as he could not be taken seriously on wikipedia altho had much fun with the damage that he had caused he could not stay away, you have returned on a more beuraucratic level . There are things that give it away your tone is very similar as is your content, links and bulldog attitude to doing things. I do understand now, the motives seem to be the same otherwise I would not understand the persistence on the article. Summer it is and always has been snowded who has a COI. I could provide documentation of proof but it would go against wikipedia policy which sucks. Now while I go on about this stuff you guys have managed to avoid the obvious questions above please address them accordingly or it is an admittance that you are not doing the right thing. Enemesis (talk) 08:40, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Read up on NPA. That repeated false accusation pretty much links you to the meat puppet farm. Put up or shut up on your claims for evidence. Continue like this and it's probably time to treat you as a disruptive SPA ----Snowded ^TALK 10:31, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, that's more than enough talking about other editors. If you have concerns about the sources provided, which I have quoted above, please explain. Do you believe they are not reliable sources? We can certainly take them to the noticeboard. If you do not believe it says what I have quoted it as saying, please explain how this is possible. If you have other concerns, please explain. In my opinion, the sources very clearly support the statement in the article. - SummerPhD (talk) 13:05, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

What kind of evidence do you need to describe a topic as "largely discredited"? It seems that there are academics who would disagree with that. In this book chapter[1], under "What is NLP?", Tosey describes it as "an emergent, contested approach". Is it clear that a debate about its credibility continues? --Reconsolidation (talk) 13:07, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

And Tosey is also an NLP Practitioner and even his summary is qualified. There is an argument that NLP has largely withdrawn from the arena it originally sought to contest and is now focused on its management coaching and training programmes. Some of that could be reflected. However Tosey (and others) have fallen back to arguing that any NLP claim has to be phenomenological and that is itself problematic. Oh, and the usual question to yet another IP emerging from Sydney - have you edited under another ID before? Linked to Scott? ----Snowded ^TALK 15:13, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

I think they argued that NLP contributes to phenomenological research, for exploring inner subjective experience. They encouraged researches to pursue multiple methodologies to investigate NLP further. The important point is that the debate continues about its credibility and that research continues into the efficacy of NLP (in therapy). Richard Gray, who is Assistant Professor, School of Criminal Justice and Legal Studies, Fairleigh Dickinson University is currently running studies into NLP and PTSD. In a recent comparison study by Simpson and Dryden (2011), there was no difference between NLP technique (VKD) and REBT in the treatment of PTSD[2] Dryden is very well respected in the field of CBT. Research continues.[http ://nlprandr.org/projects/nlp-and-ptsd-the-visual-kinesthetic-dissociation-protocol/] --Reconsolidation (talk) 22:19, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

You are arguing, as you (or someone very like you) has argued before from individual research projects to general conclusions. We've been through this one so many times, in so many guises. Now please answer the question. There is a long term pattern of IP addresses linked to two past editors all emanating from Sydney. Have you edited before either under another IP or as a named editor. No problem if you have but you need to declare it. ----Snowded ^TALK 23:29, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

I see what you mean about general conclusions - .we need strong sources for the opening section. The ongoing research would be mention briefly in the opening. But my IP address or location has nothing to do with this discussion. There was a review paper cited by Simpson and Dryden (2011): Dietrich, A.M. (2000). A review of visual/kinesthetic disassociation in the treatment of posttraumatic disorders: Theory, efficacy and practice recommendations. Traumatology. VI(2), Article 3 (August). [3]. Here is a more recent case study by professor Gray that also suggests further research[4] You could justify a subsection on NLP techniques including VKD. --Reconsolidation (talk) 04:10, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

You have not addressed the issue. Have you edited under other IPs and/or names? - SummerPhD (talk) 04:22, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Surely asking for my name and IP addresses is against wikipedia policy. See Wikipedia:Harassment. --Reconsolidation (talk) 05:19, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Same line you took last time Scott (I assume its you again) and a similar patter of response. Its serial name changes. I'll pull the references together and put them at check user. Also the meat puppetry evidence ----Snowded ^TALK 15:26, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

There is a line of studies on NLP/VKD that I cited above including a review[5]. That research is not cited in this article at present. You might not like that but please don't shoot the messenger. --Reconsolidation (talk) 21:27, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

The problem is that said messenger keeps coming back periodically, supporting or supported by a small flock of newly created SPAs and using a new ID each time. On the content issue you are still attempting synthesis ----Snowded ^TALK 23:39, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Isn't it only a synthesis when you imply something not supported by the sources? What new conclusions did I imply? See WP:SYN - I don't think I am suggesting anything against this policy - can you give an example? I'm just saying that this particular research into NLP's rewind technique (VK/D) is missing from the current article and may be a notable addition. As I understand it, it is not a synthesis if the sources are closely paraphrased and you don't combine them to imply new conclusions not supported by the sources. I'll just write up a brief summary for discussion which could be included in this article, the methods subarticle or a separate topic article. --Reconsolidation (talk) 01:10, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

eye lie detection myth

There is a recent article which tested the myth that eye movements can detect lies: "The Eyes Don’t Have It: Lie Detection and Neuro-Linguistic Programming". The authors established that this lie detection myth is still quite prevalent on the internet (based on youtube and google searches). They found that eye movements failed to predict lies. Can this be covered in the current article or should it be covered in the representation system subarticle under the subtitle "lie detection myth" or something like that? --Reconsolidation (talk) 08:55, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

lol, who in the NLP commounity is making that claim? as far as I know the teachings are that there are habits formed from eye accessing cues. http://www.nlp-practitioners.com/interactive/nlp-eye-access-cues-game.php . as in this example or there is another which refutes the lie detection myth. Lie detection myth as explained by Nlpers in England In essence you are writing about fringe claims. Please tackle the mainstream. Enemesis (talk) 09:28, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

I'll just quote the article I cited above: "Although the originators of NLP didn’t view ‘constructed’ thoughts as lies, this notion has become commonplace, leading many NLP practitioners to claim that it is possible to gain a useful insight into whether someone is lying from their eye-movements". --Reconsolidation (talk) 09:55, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

http://coachingleaders.emotional-climate.com/another-nlp-claim-debunked-but-was-anyone-claiming-it/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by An adaptive system (talk) 02:09, 26 November 2012 (UTC)An adaptive system11:35, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

tbh mate I have never read that, infact the literature is usually the same summary of eye accessing cues. The idea that you could detect lies with NLP is considerred bad practice and is not existent in mainstream NLP literature. common ideas on eye accessing cues . The idea that you can detect lies seems more like a weak hook to gain clientelle by fringe Practitioners an opinion on eye accessing cues not found in mainstream or the creators intent. infact it further states in the first article and in regards to mind reading abilities or being psychic as referred to by article reference 10,12 it states "Learning to read eye-accessing cues will not make you a mind reader but will give you a clue to the way the other person is thinking." This directly debunks those articles claims of what the creators have said NLP can do in terms of developing "psychic" powers or and I have to ask. What is sleep learning? I've never heard of this tbh. Visually constructed eye accessing cues are primarily to see someone become imaginitive usually with outcomes in mind this is a very pleasurable experience of viewing and constructing a future or seeing how they would feel with new emotional resources. You would then layer it with audio constructed resources that will build congruency in the feeling and the momentum of the new action and mindset that will take place with the client. This is never really explained however it becomes part of the outcome of learning eye accessing cues. the reason it is not highlighted as the outcome I guess is because you take the tools and make the connections between each part yourself that is making the neural connections within your mind takes a deeper hold and a great reference point for putting a system of parts together in which the world is full of systems to be explored found and improved upon. That is just my opinion. Enemesis (talk) 12:08, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Using eye movements, state shifts and calibration to allegedly detect lies is often traced to NLP. It was not a claim made by the originators but it has been claimed by other proponents of NLP according to the study. I really think it should be included in this article supported by the study by professor Wiseman and other points of view if covered by reputable sources. "Proponents of Neuro-Linguistic Programming (NLP) have long claimed that it is possible to tell whether a person is lying from their eye movements. Research published July 11 in the journal PLoS ONE reveals that this claim is unfounded, with the authors calling on the public and organisations to abandon this approach to lie detection."[6] --Reconsolidation (talk) 22:06, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Discredited citations

Although the last two citations use the term "discredited" they refer to specific interventions and probably don't belong in the opening section. Anyway, they don't offer any evidence for NLP (bieng discredited) as a whole. I'm sure there are people who would have a problem if positive results were posted for specific areas of intervention in the opening section. As far as the other two sources that use the term "discredited" the first one is based on the delphi method which has been "discredited" itself - "The most extensive critique of the Delphi method was made by Sackman (1974) who criticizes the method as being unscientific and Armstrong (1978) who has written critically of its accuracy." One systematic analysis based on a hand full of studies can hardly be conclusive. regardless even if you include both studies how can one claim scientific consensus based on these. They are a drop in the bucket compared to the field(s) of therapy intervention and most importantly experimental psychology. I thought I read the burden of proof is on the editor to prove the veracity of their clams. A small number of studies is just fringe research compared to the discerning whole of the field(s) of psychology.

p.s. Just out of curiosity who thinks Deep structure constitutes a pseudoscience term, And if so, can you explain it in the both the NLP and linguistic aspects? (this question is bieng asked for direct and civil answers only)

Sock puppetry case

A sock puppetry case has been opened concerning some of the editing in this article. Interested editors are invited to comment at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Enemesis. - SummerPhD (talk) 14:46, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Semi-protection

This article should be permanently semi-protected, so that IPs can't edit it. GoodDay (talk) 22:41, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

For the record I have not yet tried to Edit the Wikipedia page itself I have tried to go through the suggested process of a discussion first. I may have been a little bold in my very first statement as i didn't realize Wikipedia's policy on evidence. If I were any sort of puppet I probably would have had the wherewithal not to make such a statement in the first place.02:13, 26 November 2012 (UTC)An adaptive system 01:13, 24 November 2012

Why can't you IPs create an account? It's not that difficult. GoodDay (talk) 17:32, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

There I created an account. I am 99.249.47.79 or whatever similar ips showed up (my service has variable ips) An adaptive system (talk • contribs) 08:05, 25 November 2012

Do I need to retro actively change my signings some how so It doesn't make me look like a sock puppet? An adaptive system (talk • contribs) 08:12, 25 November 2012

You use copy and paste into a text editor to change your previous signatures. My IP was 58.*. --Reconsolidation (talk) 11:03, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

influences on NLP

The article currently says "NLP finds its therapeutic roots by drawing influences from Gestalt therapy" citing Wake 2008. However, Wake states that "It is important to consider the historical background of the development of NLP, as NLP itself is not a psychotherapy, but has developed through Bandler and Grinder's modelling of the world of three therapists: Milton Erickson, a psychiatrist and hypnotherapist; Virginia Satir, a family therapy and Fritz Perls, a gestalt therapy."(p.14)[7]. --Reconsolidation (talk) 05:51, 24 November 2012 (UTC) I've made the adjustment to the article based on this quote. I think early history should be renamed to "Historical roots". Then we can focus on what the originators of NLP claim as their influences and what the various commentators have stated. Lisa Wake's book is mainly concerned with neuro-linguistic psychotherapy (NLPt) but also covers NLP in detail. The publisher Taylor & Francis is a respectable publisher. --Reconsolidation (talk) 06:15, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I think this is more true to the sources, and is more precise than the loose statement from before. Vcessayist (talk) 18:26, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

statement not supported by references

The following statement appears in the lead: "NLP is used as an example of pseudoscience for facilitating the teaching of scientific literacy at the professional and university level." None of the references (Lum 2001; Lilienfeld et al 2001; Dunn et al 2008) directly support the statement. Please provide additional references that actually support the reference or remove it from the article. I think this was intentionally to see how long it would take for someone to check it. --Reconsolidation (talk) 07:47, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

In one of your various previous identities you might recall the conversation about this one ----Snowded ^TALK 07:48, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

I think you're attempting synthesis. If you are supporting the statement as it stands, can you provide quotes from those references or provide alternate references that directly support the statement? --Reconsolidation (talk) 07:59, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

As a serial editor you have some responsibility to remember previous conversations, mind you constantly changing your ID is not very responsible in the first place so maybe its asking too much? ----Snowded ^TALK 08:03, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

We can wait for someone else to check it then. Its just not in the reference as far as I can see. I think it was deliberate joke to test if people actually check the sources. --Reconsolidation (talk) 08:13, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

False memory syndrome? It was a MIT professor as you well know. ----Snowded ^TALK 08:15, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Do you remember the professor's name? That does not explain why it is not supported by the current references. --Reconsolidation (talk) 08:24, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes Scott I do, and if you check your previous ID's edit history you will probably find the discussion. As I recall there were several but Pentland was the MIT one. ----Snowded ^TALK 08:29, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Alex Pentland at MIT? Do you have a reference for that or any of the others? I cannot find it in my database. Seems like double standards. --Reconsolidation (talk) 08:48, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

As I said, look thorough your previous IDs editing history and you will find the material. You have only ever edited on one subject so it shouldn't be difficult. Just to be clear, what you are doing is highly disruptive. You periodically change IDs in order to be able to raise again issues which have previously been resolved. Its not technically sock puppetry as you only, briefly had an overlap but it is disruptive. How to deal with it awaits advise. ----Snowded ^TALK 09:37, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Snowded, I've already answered the sockpuppet case. Please don't harp on about it which I feel is a kind of harassment. As you know a vital aspect of wikipedia is wp:verifiability: verifiability means that people reading and editing the encyclopedia can check that information comes from a reliable source. If the issue had been previously resolved as you claim, then the references would be correct. If you have evidence that Alex Pentland at MIT said something about NLP then it should be verifiable. --Reconsolidation (talk) 10:19, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Sorry I've not accused you of sock puppetry, but of using different IDs to allow you to raise resolved issues and of meat puppetry. I'm waiting for advise as to where to raise that behaviour issue. If you want to fact tag that section feel free. I am more concerned at this stage at the long term disruption that is associated with you. ----Snowded ^TALK 04:46, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

The sockpuppet investigation was closed because I was unrelated to the accounts you accused me of. The clerk cannot comment on IP addresses for privacy reasons anyway. My door is open if you want to engage in dispute resolution. --Reconsolidation (talk) 22:34, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

To repeat, I have never accused you of sock puppetry but of serial name changes, and on at least once occasion meat puppetry. The last time you backed off when the community was about to investigate and stopped editing for an extended period, then returned with yet another name change and a cluster of new SPAs. If you want to make a clean breast of your past names then it might be possible to work with you ----Snowded ^TALK 05:06, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

obscure sources

"[6][15] NLP is used as an example of pseudoscience for facilitating the teaching of scientific literacy at the professional and university level."

6 is a bunch of reboots to the NLP page with no other links, how does it qualify to be a source? 15 has a short blurb about a study into bad psychology practices. The full text costs 11.95 and the rss feed does not mention NLP. Neither seem to be related to the subject matter "facilitating the teaching of scientific literacy at the professional and university level" unless I'm missing something. Enemesis (talk) 00:16, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

"[20] However, Noam Chomsky does not himself practice or recommend NLP. His original work provides theory and terminology for analyzing language, but was never intended for therapeutic purposes." [20] has only a reference to a book which may or may not have the information that you have described. Please use sources that can be validated and confirmed by all editors without paying exorbitant fees on books, sites etc... Enemesis (talk) 00:44, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

"According to Clancy and Yorkshire (1989), Bandler and Grinder say that they studied Perls's utterances on tape and observed a second therapist, Virginia Satir, to produce what they termed the meta model, a model for gathering information and challenging a client's language and underlying thinking."

Who are Clancy and yorkshire? are they prominent? featured on wikipedia even? There is no link therefore no way to say that the correct terminology is "challenging a clients language" or that these people exist much less the dialogue. The source is erroneous and the wording and motive is deeply questionable. challenging would not be the word to describe. Enemesis (talk) 00:57, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

scientific criticism a whole section of the article practically devoid of any source citations. Enemesis (talk) 01:26, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

If there is more. I will get to it in time. Enemesis (talk) 02:41, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

When raising an objection about specific part of the article here please refer first to archives for relevant issue. It has usually been dealt with already often many times before by possibly same editors. Present those links here to make discussion productive.[8][9][10]. Lam Kin Keung (talk) 02:51, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm confused. which parts would you like me to look at? It's all garbled nonsense to me about past edits unless you can spell it out for everyone. much like the obscure sources section I have just started. No I do not think it has been handled as the wiki article has been edited since then and also has a different tone since that time. If your attempt is to daze and confuse you have succeeded if it is to clarify it has failed. Enemesis (talk) 03:36, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Please read carefully those archives.

The links of the present article go direct to Lum.C (2001), Lilienfeld.S, Mohr.J., Morier.D.. (2001), and Dunn D, Halonen J, Smith R (2008) clearly stated in the references section. Those are references that teach scientific literacy at the professional and university level.

The Chomsky reference is Stollznow.K (2010). "Bad language: Not-so Linguistic Programming". Skeptic 15 (4): 7. Clancy and Yorkshire appear to be reasonable sources.

The Scientific Criticism section does not necessarily need to include statements by founders or promoters of the neuro-linguistic programming. The existing citations of the section appear to be fine. Lam Kin Keung (talk) 06:19, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry maybe you dont understand, I dont want (and from now on) I do not want subtle sources or nought concrete definitions. in case you do not understand I want it explained to me in full and in this context. right here or I feel when you leave links I am in a totally different conversation. leave your stuff here please so I and others may understand please . Enemesis (talk) 06:58, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

You would of course have to givre notice of where this takes place to be clear ---> The links of the present article go direct to Lum.C (2001), Lilienfeld.S, Mohr.J., Morier.D.. (2001), and Dunn D, Halonen J, Smith R (2008) clearly stated in the references section. Those are references that teach scientific literacy at the professional and university level.

"Bad language: Not-so Linguistic Programming". Skeptic 15 (4): 7. Clancy and Yorkshire appear to be reasonable sources. clear but to whom? according to ur links it does not exist and is not accesable but only on your say so. please give reliable links to your sources or as far as I know it does not exist. Enemesis (talk) 07:07, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I think you need to clarify on which sources exactly you think do not exist and why you do not think they exist? Lam Kin Keung (talk) 07:24, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

About 10 seconds of research is all that is requried to determine that the source is, in fact, real: [11][12]. siafu siafu (talk) 13:41, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Siafu, 1. If editors want me to chase down all their sources when editting wikipedia every time thats going to be a hell of a lot of 10 seconds adding up. 2. I can't read that source to validate it. Enemesis (talk) 16:06, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

1. If you are going to claim that a source "does not exist", it would be entirely appropriate to take ten seconds to see if that statement could be plausibly true first. 2. WP:OFFLINE. siafu (talk) 17:25, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

And there is no reason why you should be exempt from the duties on any editor to do basic research and to read the archives if necessary. ----Snowded ^TALK 11:03, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Which source is more reliable as a source for the early history and origins of NLP: Clancy and Yorkshire (1989) "Bandler Method" or Robert Spitzer's "Virginia Satir & Origins of NLP". --Reconsolidation (talk) 21:24, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

You have told before that asking general questions outside the context of proposals for change is inappropriate ----Snowded ^TALK 06:06, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

The context would be the section on the history and origins of NLP and the collaboration between Bandler and Grinder and the three psychotherapists they studied. It could also cover how they met Bateson through Spitzer who introduced them to Erickson. --Reconsolidation (talk) 13:18, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

You have to propose text for a judgement to be made about sources. I am pretty sure both your Action Potential, and the last IP identity were told this. ----Snowded ^TALK 14:26, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

You lost your sockpuppet investigation because the accounts and IP addresses were unrelated and on separate convenient with different behaviour. --Reconsolidation (talk) 21:29, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm all for improving the sources, but this is a pretty source-rich article. We'd be better off prioritizing and targeting our work. The first question I'd ask is if there are any sources that are promoting obvious falsehoods or fringe POVs. If there are none, and it's just a matter of having decent information with obscure sources, we can try to find additional sources for each point one by one. But we're better off going a section at a time, or a few points at a time. Vcessayist (talk) 18:28, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Nobody seems to agree on content changes. That's why I'm suggesting we work on improving the sourcing method in the meantime. I will do it if nobody else wants to. It will be much easier for new editors to check existing sources and collaborate. --Reconsolidation (talk) 21:29, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

cite isbn or cite doi templates

I've started migrating to the new cite isbn and cite doi formats so it is easier to manage the citations in this article. Could you please help me out by filling in the isbn references that need completing. Also, please try to use these formats as you work on this and related articles. --Reconsolidation (talk) 13:38, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Credibility

I added a new reference to a new poll by Norcross et al. The Fala et al (2007/2008) poster or manuscript cited by in Glasner-Edwards et al 2010's list for addition treatment was eventually published by Norcross et al. in the Journal of Addiction Medicine - I put the doi in the page. We should move this to a section in the article on credibility and discuss it more broadly. --Reconsolidation (talk) 22:28, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Summary of Norcross' delphi polls: "In research designed to establish expert-consensus of discredited treatments in evidence based practice (EBP), Norcross et al. (2006) [15] list NLP as possibly or probably discredited for treatment of behavioural problems, and Norcross et al. (2010)[18] for the treatment of drug and alcohol dependence it was rated as certainly discredited which was eighth in the list.[19]" --Reconsolidation (talk) 23:04, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

An argument you made in a previous guise. This confirms your disruptive intent. Creating a series of new IDs to raise the same issues again and again ----Snowded ^TALK 00:03, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Would you like to get RfC how best to cover norcross' polls? Why did you delete the reference to EBP? What were your reasons for reverting it? --Reconsolidation (talk) 08:20, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

You have previously attempted (in another guise) to qualify those statements and the matter was extensively discussed. If you want to propose a change again then outline your reasons here, but please reference what has changed since the last time. ----Snowded ^TALK 09:03, 30 November 2012)

I can have a look at what was proposed in the archives. I assume your just trying to save time but accusing everyone of sockpuppetry is not on. --Reconsolidation (talk) 09:48, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

I repeat, I have not accused you of sock puppetry. Stating the fact that you use serial identities to allow you to raise issues again and again is a different matter. I'm not sure that has a name on wikipedia but it is disruptive.----Snowded ^TALK 10:08, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

The only reason I raised the issue here is because what is in the article is not what is in the source. I'm not trying to waste your time or mine. I only have 4 months long service leave. --Reconsolidation (talk) 21:20, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 30 November 2012

I would like to formally request the changing of the referring to the field of Neuro Linguistic Programming as "largely discredited" on the grounds that it not only is it untrue but arguably contentious, NLP is only discredited by those individuals who stand to lose by the field becoming prevalent, for instance those in the fields of applied psychology and counselors who charge patients vast sums of money, having them attend weekly sessions often costing what amounts to thousands of dollars, without any fundamental improvements taking place. NLP threatens because it treats people effectively and rapidly and does these professionals out of work, it is far more preferable for them to write in peer reviewed papers that is is discredited than admit that they are losing business to a field that treats patients far more effectively, NLP is prevalent in all areas of business and it's techniques are seen in fields ranging from sports to politics. To say that is is largely discredited is just an absolute fallacy and speaking to anyone in business or politics will confirm not only is it highly credited but the most effective method for personal enhancement

Savannahcharles (talk) 17:14, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Thats your opinion, but wikipedia reflects what is found in the reliable sources. The lede summarises the article. So you have to either challenge the sources and/or find equally reliable sources to challenge them. Oh and "speaking to anyone in business or politics will confirm ...." is hardly an objective statement. You will find a lot agree with the sources. I note by the way this is your first edit, and on a subject about which you obviously care. Might I ask what brought you to the article? ----Snowded ^TALK 17:39, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

. Why exactly do we need to put it as "largely discredited" in the first sentence? That is something that could go to an request for comment (RfC). We need to reflect what the sources say according to their weight, and aim for a neutral point of view. There is a good guideline for writing about fringe topics which might help you better understand how this topic is to be handled. --Reconsolidation (talk) 21:40, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

tbh this to me has always been a very acceptable format/template for describing a film on wikipedia. ----> a typical article about a film on Wikipedia/Dark City . Notice the article Describes the film, it's different components (dispassionate of any outside viewws)it also has its own section on both its detractors and it's successes. This to me is a reliable wikipedian article and gives the audience freedom of choice. Enemesis (talk) 22:25, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

What we need is a complete format change that is both educational and enlightenning for this article to work. Otherwise we could find people using this article and any of the source material and feel encouraged to be totally none the wiser on the subject matterEnemesis (talk) 22:27, 30 November 2012 (UTC)