Talk:Neuro-linguistic programming

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)

Is NLP using deep/surface structure in a scientific way? Definitely not as there is no NLP research about it. Take in account the fact that NLP is not an academic or a scientific research field except in some countries as Germany, Belgium, Australia, Nicaragua.... Is it pseudo science? Only 3rd party sources could tell. Have a look to http://epubs.surrey.ac.uk/1193/1/fulltext.pdf, and then to http://theletterworthpress.com/nlpworld/7-3ROBBIE.PDF . Even if theses refs are not the best (scientifically), they say that meta-model (related to deep/surface structure) is related to Chomsky's earliest work and fail to take in account later developments. But, as it was evaluated by 3rd party, as this research was accepted by part of NLP community (especially 7th world congress of NLP, ANLP annual conference etc.) it fails to meet at least one of the main criteria of pseudoscience. / Damien Raczy (talk) 05:29, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

No. Acceptance of a pseudoscience by the community that created the pseudoscience obviously does not connote credibility, especially when that community has a vested financial interest in promoting the ideology. (That would be like letting Vorilhon write an encyclopedia article about Raëlism.) Please look up the meaning of original research as well. I think after the meat farm banning a few weeks ago, we are all a little fed up that you are taking the same positions without regard for the reliable sources rules.Encyclotadd (talk) 12:06, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

RFC: Is the lead currently sufficiently neutrally written?

This RfC is to pose the question whether the lead in general is sufficiently neutrally written. Specifically the use of the qualifiers "a discredited approach" and "unsubstantiated claims".

Survey

• not neutral The question is complicated by the fact that this is clearly a fringe theory, and the majority view should come clearly across. Nonetheless the lead as it stands to me reads as a clear POV piece, and I believe it is both possible and desirable to conform to WP:PSEUDOSCIENCE and WP:FRINGE while maintaining a more neutral and non-editorializing writing style. I believe that currently the article is not conforming to finding 3 of the arbcom ruling on NLP - because in adding qualifiers to statements it uses wikipedia's voice to make evaluative claims that should be ascribed as a point of view.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:47, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
• About as far from neutral as it gets. (I came here via WP:NPOV/N.) So you can see where I'm coming from: In my opinion, NLP is ultimately a label for popularisation of numerous effective and ineffective methods from the psycho-sciences. NLP is not concerned with science at all but with the art of manipulating people. NLP has no mechanisms to prevent the application of this art to the people attending NLP courses, and in fact I am under the impression that this is universally condoned and general practice. As a result, NLP has in some respects strong similarities with multi-level marketing schemes and with self-improvement religions such as Buddhism. NLP is very popular among business people. For many, the first contact with NLP is in courses organised by their employer. This, in turn, is for many the first/only contact with practical, hands-on psychotherapeutical methods as opposed to the much better known, largely ineffective and genuinely pseudoscientific psychoanalysis.
  I wouldn't consider my view on NLP as a positive one at all, yet I was shocked when I just read the lead. "The balance of scientific evidence reveals it to be a largely discredited pseudoscience." Such a statement only makes sense for something that aspires to be a science. I don't know if anyone within NLP claims that, but even if someone does, it would be unfair to NLP to take this seriously. Similar claims can be found from advocates of Buddhism, Christian Science, various pyramid schemes etc. That does not make these pseudosciences, because they are primarily something else that is quite a bit off the science-pseudoscience scale. The same applies to NLP.
  There are no doubt pseudoscientific elements in NLP. NLP has taken the state of the art of certain schools of psychotherapy in the 1970s, has run away with it, and is not updating it to newer research – or at least not to the extent that one could expect. I suspect that the methods taught under the NLP label are selected at least as much by their effect on the audience as by efficacy. That's pretty bad, but it doesn't justify giving only an extremely brief description of what NLP is and using the rest of the space for debunking it.
  The lead treats NLP exclusively as a pseudoscientific school of psychotherapy and so measures it by the standard of scientific research and medical interventions. That's not a fair standard for overall assessment. A fair standard would be that ordinarily used for popular non-fiction books and for motivation courses. A correctly written lead would still be very annoying to read for NLP fans, but it would be a lot fairer than the present one. Hans Adler 08:59, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

PS: Apparently I misunderstood the note at WP:FRINGE/N. This RfC is clearly over and is supposed to have been implemented. That doesn't seem to have lasted long. I am leaving my comments anyway as there has been very little input overall. Hans Adler 09:32, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, this RFC was closed and resolved successfully with a consensus. (If you look more carefully, the change that resulted persists in the article as well.)

I'm sure everyone appreciates your sharing your personal opinions about NLP. But Wikipedia rules require us to reflect third party reliable sources.Encyclotadd (talk) 14:53, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

The point of the detailed explanation of my personal opinion was to demonstrate that I am not here as a fringe POV pusher but have a thoroughly negative opinion about NLP. And yet I consider the lead way out of line and much too negative. Even after the changes. Or maybe because of the changes? In any case the text that is in the lead now is worse than the text that was approved in the RfC. Hans Adler 15:17, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Proposed changes

Specifically I propose the following changes of wordings in the lead:

1. proposed change

1."Neurolinguistic programming is an approach to communication, personal development, and psychotherapy. It is considered to be pseudoscientific/discredited by mainstream psychologists/psychotherapists."

1. Survey
- Support

1. as proposer.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:52, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
2. if we remove the qualification of "by mainstream psychologists/psychotherapists" with (say) "in psychology and psychotherapy" ----Snowded ^TALK 07:16, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
3. and "...is a approach..." should be "...is an approach..." :) GoodDay (talk) 07:47, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
4. Support the first part but the second sentence makes no sense LTMem (talk) 02:25, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
5. Yes, the proposed lines are an improvement. A fair approach. Lam Kin Keung (talk) 06:56, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
6. Good step in the right direction. Hans Adler 09:05, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

- Oppose

1. GoodDay is right that we need an 'n in the sentence for grammatical correctness. But this change and Snowded's suggested qualification "in psychology and psychotherapy" are just flat wrong. You guys are setting us up for problems with other editors down the road because the existing sources do not limit the criticism to psychology and psychotherapy. Many are skeptic society and reflect scientific consensus. Eye accessing cues have been rejected in a variety of other contexts. New reliable sources are what's needed here to avoid this coming up repeatedly.--Encyclotadd (talk) 15:47, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

This can be remedied by changing "psycologists/psychotherapists" to "science". I have added an ALTernative wording.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:55, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Manus, Your proposed edit would be a step closer to my view of the subject. But it would not reflect the sources cited in the article. Read some of the sources in the lead all the way through -- they are diatribes.--Encyclotadd (talk) 16:17, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't think that that necessarily means that the lead has to be a diatribe. I think that logically we should put the tone of the article somewhere between the warm recommendations of the proponents and the diatribes of the opposition - I realize of course that we should put it closer to the opponent side as that does seem to be the majority view.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:20, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately it does if we are to accurately reflect the existing sources in the article. A week from now other editors will read the sources and we'll be back to the same conversation again, and again, and again, as we have now for several years. New sources, however, which can balance the article, would be a smarter approach, and will receive my full support.--Encyclotadd (talk) 16:30, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

ALT1: "Neurolinguistic programming is an approach to communication, personal development, and psychotherapy. Its validity is contested and the scientific consensus is that its effectiveness and assumptions are not supported by empirical evidence, and it is frequently classified as a form of pseudoscience.

Survey
- Support

1. as proposer.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:55, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
2. as discredited has been removed. GoodDay (talk) 16:12, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

- Oppose

1. We'll be debating this weekly because the existing sources cited say directly that the subject has been discredited. The right way to change the article is by identifying new sources.--Encyclotadd (talk) 16:24, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
2. too many qualifications ----Snowded ^TALK 17:03, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
3. Lam Kin Keung (talk) 07:05, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
4. Certainly much better than the current first paragraph. Hans Adler 09:05, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Actually as far as I can see they only say that there is a majority of experts who consider it to be discredited as a form of evidence based therapy. Even Witkowski says that there are a significant amount of studies that report positive evidence - he just doesnt consider them sufficiently rigorous. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:30, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

I was always happier with largely discredited so I have reflected that in alt2 below ----Snowded ^TALK 17:07, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

ALT2: "Neurolinguistic programming is an approach to communication, personal development, and psychotherapy. The balance of scientific evidence sees it as a pseudoscience and largely discredited"

Survey
- Support

1. as proposer ----Snowded ^TALK 17:06, 20 January 2013 (UTC).
2. Also works for me.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:29, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
3. Yes this is also a good alternative. Largely discredited is fine. Lam Kin Keung (talk) 07:02, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

-Oppose

1. Where are you getting the word "largely" from in the sources? Norcross lists NLP in the top ten most discredited interventions and Glasner-Edwards and Rawson list NLP as certainly discredited. Let's not kick the can down the road again, and stick with what the sources say, until we identify new third party secondary ones addressing Norcross and Glasner. Obviously only then will a change be stable.--Encyclotadd (talk) 17:35, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Well as far as I can see at least one of Norcross studies state that the results are preliminary and should be used cautiously.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:45, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Nothing like a convert for zeal  :-) By removing the psychology and psychotherapy qualification we are extending the field and that includes management and organisational studies. There are also papers in reputable journals that cover self-reported effects. Better a mild qualification that continued controversy. Lede summarises the sources by the way it doesn't have to ape them ----Snowded ^TALK 17:41, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm all for improving the POV in the article but the right way. If we misrepresent the current sources cited, they will become confused by what we mean, and that's not an intelligent way for us to clarify a complicated subject matter. So far only one new source has come up in context of this conversation and Wake was refuted correctly for COI.--Encyclotadd (talk) 18:41, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

I think it always pays to be cautious in summarising material on controversial subjects. But we may have to disagree. Its about time some other editors got involved (although please not the meat puppets) ----Snowded ^TALK 20:06, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

# as discredited is being used. GoodDay (talk) 17:43, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

GoodDay, "discredited is in the sources, you have to have a reason for opposing it, just opining is as we know bad. Its also the current text so I suggest you consider something which is less stark that the current. Removing the word is unlikely to gain acceptance. ----Snowded ^TALK 18:23, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it's in the source, but having it in the opening paragraph still comes across as breaching NPoV. GoodDay (talk) 18:35, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

You can't breach NpoV if you reflect what the sources say. Please ----Snowded ^TALK 20:06, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Sometimes you can, if for example sources disagree and you give one pov in wikipedia's voice.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:11, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Then you wouldn't be reflecting the sources ----Snowded ^TALK 20:37, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Guys, that's why we're going about this the wrong way. If we try to rightly soften the criticisms of existing sources, we'll end up back there again. Only new sources can be the basis for change. Even if we agree now, a week from now other editors will simply check the sources we were discussing and disagree with our thinking. We'll be right back to having "discredited" again.--Encyclotadd (talk) 21:50, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

It is a very odd argument for not improving something that it is in our power to improve that in the future someone else is likely to undo it. If we currently do not reflect the sources, but overstate them and we all agree about that then the only possible course is to propose a wording that better reflect the sources. Now about the sources: No source says that NLP has unanimously been rejected or discredited - not even hardcore skeptics like Witkowski. Some sources say that out of an array of approaches that they have surveyed among a group of experts NLP has had a high dissapproval rate - i.e. a majority of practitioners (or are those experts scientists?) consider it to be discredited. Its rate of "discreditedness" is not on the level of creation science or flat earth theory, or the vaccination/autism hypothesis because as Snowded points out studies still come out in reasonable journals that report positive findings. They are a clear minority, but they are still there.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:18, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

You don't understand maunus. As long as these are the sources in the article, we will always be discussing how best to express the precise level to which NLP has been discredited, because that's how virtually all of our present third party sources frame the subject. That's how Wikipedia rules work. One person on this talk page will say more discredited. One person on this talk page will say a little less discredited. But discredited pseudoscience will remain. I'm advocating for new sources rather than this circular game we're playing. With the sources we currently have, the article obviously already correctly reflects them.--Encyclotadd (talk) 23:35, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

But how can you argue for new sources if we don't have any? And I disagree that the current lead accurately reflects the sources and I also don't think it follows our NPOV policy. That means I can't just sit back and wait untill someone publishes new sources.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:00, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

That's a steeply up hill argument Maunus if I've ever heard one, because the sources in the article state very clearly that it's a discredited pseudoscience. According to our present sources, it fails the "quack factor test" etc. Those sources have furthermore been supported by noticeboard after noticeboard, and even by administrator intervention, if you look back at some of the history. What would move us forward are NEW sources. There are a world of them out there that we can add to the article, including many in the American Psychological Association's psych info database. Had you started there (not with a COI suggestion like Wake, but reliable third party secondary sources without conflicts) we might be having a very different conversation than the circular one we are engaged in now.--Encyclotadd (talk) 01:14, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

I also don't buy the argument that sources written by practitioners are necessarily COI sources, the book by Wake, Gray and Bourke is published by a respectable publisher and must have been through peer review. If you were to apply that thinking to other scientific theories then all articles would have to be based on sources written by people who don't believe in the theory. Proposing a theory does not give you more of a COI in relation to that theory than the scholars arguing against it. Science progresses through dialogue and only once a viewpoint has left the dialogue entirely can it be said to have been rejected or discredited. Now the article clearly should mention the fact that it is a prominent viewpoint that NLP is discredited pseudoscience, but it does not need to characterize it as such in wikipedia's voice.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 02:33, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

1. Oppose. You can't have it both ways Snowded. Its either discredited or useful for cult mind control. LTMem (talk) 02:28, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

2. proposed change

2. "Bandler and Grinder claimed that NLP is capable of addressing problems such as phobias, depression, habit disorder, psychosomatic illnesses, and learning disorders. Reviews of the empirical evidence have found these claims to be unsubstantiated."

2. Survey
- Support

1. as proposer.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:52, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
2. (agree with Encyclotadd below) ----Snowded ^TALK 07:16, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
3. if we say "reviews of empirical research" rather than "reviews of empirical evidence" because the third party sources have not looked at the data directly but are responding to research reports.--Encyclotadd (talk) 15:47, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
4. Yes its fine. You could add "The founders, ", or Originators, but just optional if it is not clear from the previous sentences. Lam Kin Keung (talk) 07:10, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
5. I take it that this is meant to replace the first two sentences of paragraph 2. In that case it is certainly an improvement. (I am assuming that the assertion by LTMem is incorrect, though I am prepared to be convinced otherwise by hard evidence.) Hans Adler 09:10, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

- Oppose

1. You have got it wrong altogether. NLP is a process for modeling. That is all. Can we please have someone qualified in the subject to edit for a change. LTMem (talk) 02:31, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

3. proposed change

3. "Reviews of empirical research on NLP show that NLP is based on counterfactual and disproven assumptions, and has failed to produce reliable results for the assertions of effectiveness made by NLP's originators and proponents."

3. Survey
- Support

1. as proposer.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:52, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
2. ----Snowded ^TALK 07:16, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
3. We would remain closer to the sources by using the terms "false" and "invalid" rather than "disproven," which incorrectly suggests the assumptions were empirically evaluated.--Encyclotadd (talk) 15:47, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
4. Yes, this is also a good line, clearer than the above. Lam Kin Keung (talk) 07:13, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

- Oppose

1. This sentence will need a lot more qualifiers. Already it is clear that it is from cherry picked sources. There are just too many sources that say NLP has support. LTMem (talk) 02:36, 21 January 2013 (UTC) — User:LTMem (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

You realize that opposing this proposal just means that the current text stands?·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 02:40, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

And more ove LTMem has never produced these sources so its all puff and no content ----Snowded ^TALK 07:10, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

- Neutral/undecided

1. I can't make out what existing text is supposed to be replaced by this proposal. Without that information I can't say if it is an improvement. There may be problems with the identification of NLP's underlying assumptions. (I don't know if major NLP authors agree sufficiently what they are, or whether that has any connection to the actual underlying assumptions as opposed to being lip service.) After identification I would have to check that they have really been disproved. And I am uneasy about the claim about the assertions of effectiveness, i.e. virtually all of them. That seems unlikely, especially when one applies the relaxed standard appropriate for something like NLP. It is likely that a number of qualifications are required to make the sentence correct. Hans Adler 09:24, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Close Rfc

May aswell close it down, as the puppets are back. GoodDay (talk) 04:02, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Not helpful GoodDay, we have one established editor who consistently breaks WP:CIVIL and newly created one time SPAs can legitimately be ignored. As far as I can see we have agreement on the second alternative if Encylotadd will agree "largely" which hopefully is a minor issue for him. LTMem has already made enough personal attacks and disruptive edits to warrant an ANI report if s/he persists and is in a minority anyway. Lets get this one done. ----Snowded ^TALK 07:21, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. GoodDay (talk) 07:24, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I'll accept editor consensus on the word "largely."--Encyclotadd (talk) 13:06, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

OK then I think we can implement those changes and remove the PoV tag ----Snowded ^TALK 06:50, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

ACTIONED ----Snowded ^TALK 07:21, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Rewriting soon

Hello, I would like to announce a rewrite of this article is taken from the French article, which will be partially translated. The work starts soon. The work page is on the French Wikipedia, at : this personal work page. For any questions, please contact the user Ath200 or I (please leave me a message on mine french page). Thank. Prosopee (talk) 06:48, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Any editor is free to propose changes or even a rewrite. However given the effort which has gone in here I suggest you take careful account of what has already being discussed before making any proposals. ----Snowded ^TALK 09:19, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Welcome Prosopeel. Please note that Wikipedia is not a reliable source for Wikipedia (French or otherwise). But your specific edit proposals - especially any based on new third party reliable sources - would be appreciated.Encyclotadd (talk) 13:16, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

OK I read the french article. Now my french is not brilliant, but its good enough to see that said article has hardly any third party references, largely uses NLP material and is a puff piece. Huge amounts of original research and synthesis as well. In effect its propaganda rather than an encyclopaedia entry. So if the proposal is to use that text translated as far as I am concerned its a complete waste of time. ----Snowded ^TALK 07:09, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Prosopeel, Since there are very few citations in the French article, you may want to add some of our reliable sources to the French article to improve it. We can help you clean it up..Encyclotadd (talk) 13:07, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

I think they would be better translating this one. The French article is simply an NLP manual written by an NLP practioner. ----Snowded ^TALK 17:27, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Thats a shame. What exactly are the rules about articles without sources? Do they get proposed for deletion? Is it even worth revising? Encyclotadd (talk) 19:40, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

If you want to edit the French Wikipedia yes! This is just another meat farm attempt - the complete rewrite has been their line for a couple of years now. ----Snowded ^TALK 22:24, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi, thank for your advice. I am a former wikipedian on French WP thus i understand the basic points... The goal is not to translate without adaptation, however assertion "In effect its propaganda rather than an encyclopaedia entry" seems to me exaggerated. Article was elected quality article by the French community and it presents balanced and varied sources (some of NLP, other critics). Prosopee (talk) 15:26, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure if generally articles that aren't sourced are deleted, but clearly Wikipedia rules require that reliable sources are reflected, not personal opinion. You wouldn't want a group of German cult followers, for example, to write about their cult favorably in German, and for that to serve as an example for an English article. I'm not saying that's what you are proposing at all-- just that we are on solid footing relying on American Association Peer reviewed and other such reliable sources - the only way to build consensus here.Encyclotadd (talk) 18:19, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Sorry Prosopee, but I think I was understating if anything. If you check the citation count its nearly all from NLP sources. There is one token reference to criticism. Its a puff piece and attempting to present it as an alternative to the current version here which is balanced and in the main uses third party sources, is not on. ----Snowded ^TALK 18:47, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

There are many interesting points here and the two articles are so different that a combination would be great. So, yes, the french article should not spoil the great job that have been done here as in my opinion, there are many relevent discussions, many quality references about criticism… The french article is interenting in another point of view And the point is that if there is a translations, the purpose MUST be to enrich this article, non spoil it. The question might be how to cooperate for the best, isnt' it? --Damien Raczy (talk) 20:12, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

The French article repeats most of its material from NLP handbooks. Some of that may be valid to expand the "What do NLP people do" type sections a little, but not much and there are going to be questions on the source. A lot of French article is unsupported (other than NLP sources which do not count) claims for the range and "effectiveness' of NLP. Most of that should be deleted from the French Wikipedia (not that I intend to engage). ----Snowded ^TALK 20:36, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Anyone know how to say pseudoscience in French?

Developing the "What do the NLP people do" section here will just go in circles because of the sources that have conflicts of interest in there. Adding foreign language COI cannot undue an existing problem. Not sure what I'm missing here.Encyclotadd (talk) 21:27, 1 February 2013: (UTC)

Pseudoscience - c'est le même mot en français. siafu (talk) 21:54, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for these interesting comments. May I suggest being more factual? For example, it is said that French article repeats most of its material from NLP handbooks. I'd be curious of any evidence supporting that. Another example is about linguistic origin of refs. I am not sure a ref in French originally in English is a French ref. And actually there are 43 English refs (translated or not) and 35 French refs so English refs are definitely more numerous. It also is said that if you check the citation count its nearly all from NLP sources. It is not true as it is exactly 2/3 of NLP sources (27/80). And there are many other points. Despite of this lack of precision, these comment are interesting and pointing good opportunities for improving material. --Damien Raczy (talk) 08:20, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

If this is another sock/meat we're really wasting time here. I'm not saying that's the case but let's also not get distracted.

Raczy, if you have a particular edit you want to make to this article, propose it here on this talk page with your source and I'm sure everyone will be glad to consider it.Encyclotadd (talk) 17:01, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

About writing a proposal, thank for your suggestion: I am currently working on it and it is the reason why I carefully read the comments, in order to take them into account, because I do not want to waste my time -- Damien Raczy (talk) 19:07, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Raczy, you give the game away with the heading in your "rewrite" towit NLP is not a science}, which is one of the standard new NLP assertions to try and overcome the criticisms. Otherwise my comments stand - a neutral article does not have 2/3 of its material from NLP sources. I think my comment was factual and precise. You would be better engaged in suggesting specific changes to this article, supported by third party sources. ----Snowded ^TALK 18:41, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Encyclotadd. As you have my full name, you can have a look on who I am. If you have any evidence that I could be a "sock/puppet", I am ready to read it. It not, "sock/meat" is just name calling.

Snowded. You are right about the frame of this "prototype". It was written fast and dirty and it will go to trash. About "NLP is not science", I partly (dis)agree as "NLP is not science" is not really a _new_ standard. The reality is that while a lot of NLPers tried to create a pseudoscience to make a lot of money, many others behaved is various ways. I believe that today, there are three different approach emerging. Those who are willing to go back to the "non scientific" basis (for me it is OK), those suporting the pseudo scientific way (for me it is NOT OK), and those who are willing to do (good) research (OK for me). The difficulty is that all that is melted with money and marketing. One of the things to do is to find good papers describing that. And I don't know if NLP community have been studied by sociologists or anthropologists, but I try to find reliable sources describing this -- Damien Raczy (talk) 19:07, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

To work the "three different approaches" you are going to have to find a third party source that makes that point. Otherwise its simply your opinion or original research or both. I think from what we have found that most people have given up on studying NLP other than NLP practitioners and those have to be used with caution if at all. ----Snowded ^TALK 19:44, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Raczy, I didn't realize that you disclosed your real identity. Thanks for pointing that out here.

Are you aware that Wikipedia encourages disclosure of conflicts of interest? Editing with COI is strongly discouraged. I read Wikipedia rules as explicitly restricting you from editing because you are marketing NLP and benefiting financially from it. Please see Conflict of Interest guidelines.Encyclotadd (talk) 20:45, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Encyclotadd you'll have to _prove_ your claims of COI or apologize quickly. Have a look to my profile, go on the web, and you'll discover I never certified anyone in NLP and NLP in only one of my skills. And my skills are also psychology (PdD), anthropology (masters), cognitive sciences (masters), public law (bahelor) etc. So, _prove_ your claims or apologize. --Damien Raczy (talk) 07:17, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Cool it both of you. Raczy, your profile makes the NLP stuff very prominent (Google+ tag line "I am a certified Trainer and NLP Coach.") so there is a legitimate concern. Encyclotadd, he is not excluded from editing because he is a "master" or what ever. What matters is if he lets that interest influence his edits. So far we have seen some drive by tagging but nothing serious so lets wait and see. It is however a common confusion on COI and there are grey areas so I don't see any reason for anyone to apologise. Lets keep this to content issues please. ----Snowded ^TALK 08:49, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Snowded, Encyclotadd, I had the honesty to comply with the first rules of wikipedia: "being transparent". In return, be kind and restectful, and presupose god will. Are you OK with that, or not ? ... One more thing, My first name is Damien so, as you are not talking to my family, call me Damien . --Damien Raczy (talk) 09:32, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Damien, I'm sure everyone appreciates how you have used the talk page prior to making any edits and your honesty about your identity. I'm also sure all editors (including me) welcome any suggestions you have. Just please base them on reliable third party sources instead of an unsourced wiki article in a foreign language.

Also, as you review the rules we all follow here, please note that there is no requirement that you are transparent about your identity. Anonymous editing is welcome. But when you have a COI, it's strongly encouraged that you reveal it. Denying a financial interest in NLP when obviously you brand yourself professionally with it is silliness. But again, I welcome your proposals for edits.Encyclotadd (talk) 12:54, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Encyclotadd. Your writing is still personal, labeling and speculative ("Denying a financial interest in NLP when obviously you _brand_ yourself _professionally_ with it is _silliness_"). There are two rules about COI : "Be transparent about your conflict of interest" and "Do not edit articles about yourself or your clients". The article is about NLP, NLP not about my clients, and the paper is not about myself, I dont work for NLP companies... If you ve facts, put them here. Please also note that "certified trainer" in my CV is not a job but a "diploma". And to be really clear, my main valuable skills are related to cognitive psychlogy and anthropology as I am a specialist of crosscultral issues in organizations. Got it? So, be factual and don't label. If you have facts, put them here. if it is a personal opinion, drop it down. --Damien Raczy (talk) 19:00, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

I add that non welcoming, suspicious and name calling behaviour might encourage dishonest behaviours. -- Damien Raczy (talk) 19:03, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

I just want to welcome new voices to the discussion, and hope a better article results. htom (talk) 19:08, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Htom! In my mind we are all wikipedia contributors because we all love good standing, neutral and well written papers. Overall, we love getting better article, and getting better teams, don't we? -- Damien Raczy (talk) 19:40, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

We do love getting better teams, and we love better articles.

We also respect Wikipedia rules.

One of the rules is that talk pages are for discussing specific edit requests. If you have a specific edit in mind, please let us know.Encyclotadd (talk) 20:20, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

You know, I don't think I've ever seen that rule, at least expressed that way. That's one of the things talk pages can be for, but it's not the only thing, and that's not the only way that changes can be made to articles. htom (talk) 05:53, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Then you need to read up on the four pillars, the talk page is for discussing changes to the article, not a general discussion of the subject matter. ----Snowded ^TALK 06:50, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

We agree -- for editors to discuss changes to the article, not only for submitting specific edit requests to your consideration. htom (talk) 00:59, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

On first sight, the French article (which is a featured article) appears to be way better than the present one. As far as balance is concerned, the same can be said about the much shorter German article. I haven't analysed the group dynamics at this article, but its present state suggests it is one of the playgrounds of the parascientific crowd that brings science into disrepute by treating it as a religion and playing capture the flag with Wikipedia articles. Hans Adler 09:47, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Historical perspective

On wikipedia, how can you see the historical perspective to the development of both NLP and her critics? NLP has been around for 40 years. For example, 40 years ago what was said in neuroscience? Were not there any mistakes ? Hasn't been any correction since then? Can't we imagine such changes also in NLP? How can we detail this here? Ath200 (talk) 16:59, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Not sure what you are talking about. We reflect third party reliable sources here. Cognitive Neuroscience has a wide body of third party literature which testifies to its progress. NLP in contrast is (as the article says) largely discredited in scientific circles. ----Snowded ^TALK 20:17, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Ath, Comparing a pseudoscience to neuroscience is a little like comparing fake wrestling to the honest Olympic sport.Encyclotadd (talk) 21:44, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Lede

I was referred to comment here by an RFC which seems to be either closed or not going anywhere, but after reading this article, I made a change. I found the article to read as too biased against the subject matter by having an entire paragraph of criticism in the lead. I think it's sufficient to begin the article by saying, "Neuro-linguistic programming (NLP) is a controversial approach to communication, personal development, and psychotherapy..." and allowing the Scientific Evaluation section to speak for itself. The statement in the lede that the scientific community calls it pseudoscience is stated in the first paragraph and sufficient to summarize the Scientific Evaluation section without going into all the well sourced detail. I have added the word "controversial" and moved that third paragraph to be the intro for the Scientific Evaluation section. Without this change, this article does not read like a neutral article. Allisgod (talk) 00:09, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

You've been reverted, per BRD. Please get a consensus (here) for the changes you propose. GoodDay (talk) 01:24, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

The altered sections were discussed at length and wording chosen to reflect consensus. Barring new sources, I agree with GoodDay's decision to revert.Encyclotadd (talk) 01:49, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

This lead is written with so much bias that it actually discredits Wikipedia as a neutral source of information regarding this subject. If I knew nothing of this subject, I would become skeptical of the source after reading the lead and look for another source. I am not for removing content, just mainly for moving the excess criticism into a more appropriate section. Allisgod (talk) 07:22, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

You do know we are meant to be balanced as to the reliable sources, not balanced between pro and anti-NLP views don't you? Otherwise if you want to propose a specific amendment here, do, but please respect the prior discussion on the lede and try and build on that. ----Snowded ^TALK 08:04, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Ah, is that a continuing discussion. I thought it was closed. Allisgod (talk) 08:06, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

It was and settled. You can always suggest changes however. But please don;t waste people's time with general comments ----Snowded ^TALK 09:11, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

RfC: Propose to move Second Paragraph to Scientific Evaluation Section

(note: since this RfC began a day ago, editors switched the second and third paragraphs, so the title has been adjusted to reflect this change) htom (talk) 23:11, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

The article lead is too heavily weighted toward scientific criticism rather than mainly introducing the reader to what NLP is all about.

• The first paragraph includes: "The balance of scientific evidence reveals it to be a largely discredited pseudoscience."
• The third paragraph includes: "..reviews of empirical research show that NLP has failed to produce reliable results for its core tenets."
• The second paragraph adds detailed scientific criticism that sounds excessive for the lead in combination with the above sentences. Those sentences are clear enough on what the scientific community believes about NLP. The excessive weight toward scientific criticism in the opening discredits the article as a neutral source of information regarding this subject. If I knew nothing of this subject, and just wanted to know what is the meaning of "Neuro-Linguistic Programming" I would become skeptical of the source after reading the lead paragraphs and look for another source. The second paragraph ought not at all be removed, but placed more appropriately in its own section (as the opening paragraph to the Scientific Evaluation Section) where it I think it belongs. Few articles on Wikipedia go out of their way in the opening to discredit the subject matter with such relentless detail. I think this could be a good solution in making this article more neutral. Allisgod (talk) 00:49, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Why should a RfC on a medical article be added to either the "religion and philosophy" or the "languages and linguistics" list? I'd say science, or possibly society if we want to claim it's not scientific, would be much more appropriate.

Feel free to add those to the list. Allisgod (talk) 02:43, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

"Neutrality" does not mean that we should give both sides equal time. "Neutrality" means that we should report what reliable sources have to say about the subject, and in proportion to the weight of the sources. If there are a few books by NLP proponents that say it's a fine technique and the overwhelming majority of medical publications on the subject say it's unproved and largely discredited, even a textbook example of a pseudoscience, then we should focus on that and not provide fake "balance" by removing the criticism from the lead. And I, for one, would prefer an article on pseudoscience which clearly states it's pseudoscience to one that peddles pseudoscientific mumbo-jumbo before stating as an afterthought that actually all the article describes doesn't really work. Huon (talk) 01:38, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Pseudoscience and negative research is already addressed in the first/second paragraphs. When I go to Psychic_reading I see a summary of what it is and included is a *brief* understanding of what scientific minds think of it. Here, it reads like a bit of a tirade against the subject at the outset. Allisgod (talk) 02:43, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

This is a waste of time because the purpose of the lead is to summarize the article. The third paragraph is thoroughly referenced and summarizes the article well. Moving that summary into the body would obviously be a confusing mistake. It belongs where it is.Encyclotadd (talk) 04:35, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Rather than moving the third para to another section, why not move it so that it is the second paragraph, and make the current second paragraph the third one?Roxy the dog (talk) 10:08, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree that the third paragraph would read better if we moved it ahead of the second paragraph.Encyclotadd (talk) 14:49, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

I assume you mean switching the places of the second & third paragraphs. Moving the third paragraph 'ahead' of the second paragraph, would make it the first paragraph. GoodDay (talk) 18:55, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Moving the third paragraph ahead of the second would mean making it the second paragraph; moving it ahead of the first would mean making it the first paragraph. Either way, I think this is a good idea to improve readability. siafu (talk) 20:36, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

The purpose of the RfC is moving the third paragraph down because, according to Allisgod, it is "too heavily weighted toward scientific criticism rather than mainly introducing the reader to what NLP is all about". I counted word "scientific criticism" oriented and words "introducing NLP" oriented. I got the following result: the ratio "179 scientific critic"/"117 neutral presentation" (number of words, counted with ms word). Even in the header of astrology, there is not such a high ratio. I strongly suggest you make your own stats to verify and comment my analysis. How should I proceed to show how I have sorted out words and don statistics of the header? -- Damien Raczy (talk) 20:30, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

"Scientific criticism" vs. "neutral" is a false dichotomy. siafu (talk) 22:20, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Siafu, I apologize for not being absolutely fluent in English, and therefore not being perfectly precise. In my post "neutral presentation" stands for "not (scientific critic)". I have also done some other sorts such as "non(evaluating)/evaluating", "not (negative wording)/negative wording", "not (neutral-positive wording)/neutral-positive wording", "connoted wording/not(connoted)"... My suggestion is to do it yourself if you are willing to, and then critic in a useful way, evently suggesting useful keys to sort and analyze this header objectively. Once again I humbly apologize for not being perfect when writing in English - Damien Raczy (talk) 22:56, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I don't think the third paragraph can be used as the first. But I'm for using it as the second paragraph if we can build consensus around that idea. I disagree with editors who think the paragraph is too lenient-- there are a few points we can expand upon but it reflects the sources.Encyclotadd (talk) 01:31, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Happy to move the paragraphs. Raczy, good or bad English aside our job is to be neutral in regard to the sources, not neutral in respect of the subject. Your search suggestion misses that point. ----Snowded ^TALK 04:37, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Attempted a good faith edit to reflect growing consensus for moving third paragraph up one spot so that it becomes second paragraph. To me this makes sense but it highlights the redundancy of one of the sentences in the formerly second (now third) paragraph.Encyclotadd (talk) 13:10, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Pretty bold of you to make an edit that's an opposite approach of this RfC. There's obviously no consensus for that. I can agree to moving up the second paragraph if the paragraph is significantly condensed. (by the way this is the original poster "All is god" - did a name change) NaturaNaturans (talk) 16:45, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Whether or not it's the original approach of this RfC is completely irrelevant, and there is indeed a consensus for the change, as can be seen in the discussion here. siafu (talk) 17:10, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

This RfC is barely 2 days old and at least 2 people have expressed disagreement with the lead here (and more in the sections above which have not had a chance to express their views here). Just because a few of you are quick to respond and have formed some kind of police group here doesn't mean you have established consensus. NaturaNaturans (talk) 17:16, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

The RfC is not closed, and if you're able to build consensus for the change you've suggested, then that can be done. So far it doesn't seem to be going that way, but regardless there's no reason not to make a switch of the ordering of the paragraphs if the current consensus supports that. siafu (talk) 17:23, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

The reason not to change the order of the paragraphs is that that, the order, is the topic of the RfC. People coming here may be confused as to the order change being proposed. I urge that the order be left as it was when the RfC started. Psychology, Neuroscience, Medicine, and Mind&Brain should have probably all so been included in the RfC notice. IMAO, the article needs many changes, this would be a start. htom (talk) 17:57, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

htom can you please add whatever you think should have been added to the notice NaturaNaturans (talk) 18:29, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

NaturaNaturans aka AllisGod, If you are so bent on changing the POV in the article, why not look for new sources rather than trying to make changes to copy that's properly sourced? The current version of the lead has been discussed, agreed upon and thoroughly vetted so many times before. If you think, on the other hand, that we're being too lenient on NLP, you can prove that with new sources as well. The key is to add rather than subtract from the work of other editors to move the conversation forward.Encyclotadd (talk) 18:02, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

that wasn't me that you just responded to NaturaNaturans (talk) 18:16, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

htom is correct that editing the page's paragraphs while an RfC that specifies paragraph numbers is inappropriate. I have reverted the paragraph switching NaturaNaturans (talk) 18:22, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

It would make more sense for you simply to change the numbers in the RfC rather than to revert a change that had consensus. U've made the change. Improving the article doesn't stop because the same issue is being raised yet again ----Snowded ^TALK 18:32, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

a few of you here have a twisted view of what consensus means. NaturaNaturans (talk) 18:55, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

NaturaNaturans, if you would simply focus on what the reliable sources say, rather than on your personal opinions, you'll find everyone delighted to consider your opinions towards consensus. So far you haven't contributed a single source and have just tried to undue the hard work of others. Your edit warring has to stop.Encyclotadd (talk) 19:00, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

If the concern is that the introduction does not sufficiently explain what NLP is, the best solution would be to propose an addition to it. Another paragraph for the lead, for example, that covers what you believe is missing. If you would care to do that, and propose it here, I'm sure we would all be quite willing to discuss it, and I for one would not object to adding such a paragraph to the lead at least in principle. Removing or marginalizing the scientific criticism, however, smacks very hard of POV-pushing, as the current form is merely representing what the reliable sources say. siafu (talk) 19:04, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm not even disputing the sources or the content, just the manner in which it is presented. If you would like for me to consider challenging the content and its weighted significance here, I can do that also. This article is not the Scientific Evaluation of Neuro-linguistic Programming page, it is Neuro-linguistic Programming and ought to be treated as such. NaturaNaturans (talk) 19:11, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

NaturaNaturans, Your slow edit war won't work. Take Siafu's suggestion and write something new with proper references for a change. That would be a good way for you to contribute positively. Trying to edit war agreed upon references out is just wasting everybody's time.Encyclotadd (talk) 19:41, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree witn Encyclotadd, slow edit won't work. And I agree with NaturaNaturans whet he says this is the NLP article and not the "Scientific Evaluation of Neuro-linguistic Programming" article. And it would be great to create that special page as there is a great job to do in writing an article on the subject. I am quite sure that there would be a great opportunity to frame something interesting and encyclopecic. That would also helps in getting more credibility for the main article which might, sometimes, for some parts, sounds more like a prosecution than like an true encyclopedic article. So, NaturaNaturans, If you are willing to do it, as you first wrote the idea, it is up to you ! -- Damien Raczy (talk) 07:23, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Though I did assess my suggestion about paragraphs two and three carefully enough to know that it would work, the reason I actually made the suggestion was to counter the rather unfortunate proposal to weaken the factual nature of the lead by moving said paragraph away. I believe that in fact, the lead is rather biased against rationality, and could be improved to present NLP in a much more realistic light. In the first para, the last sentence reads "The balance of scientific evidence reveals it to be a largely discredited pseudoscience." Could we not change this sentence to read "The overwhelming scientific evidence reveals it to be largely discredited." This gets rid of the word 'pseudoscience' that the NLP people hate so much, and presents a far more accurate picture.Roxy the dog (talk) 11:59, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Roxy, I appreciate your intention to reduce the influx of SPAs. But the problem we would face with such a change is that our reliable sources do expressly call it a pseudoscience, and even proponents acknowledge there is good reason.Encyclotadd (talk) 18:19, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Damien, You aren't addressing the universal answer among experienced editors to your edit request, which is that you are advocating for the pro NLP perspective rather than for balanced reporting of the sources. You don't love the word pseudoscience but that's what leading academics call it. You wouldn't ask editors of an article about a cult to balance perspectives of the "faithful" with those of peer reviewed journals, would you? Please focus on the sources NOT personal opinion. Otherwise you're wasting everyone's time.Encyclotadd (talk) 12:21, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Aha! I should edit from the ANTI-NLP perspective, pushing the text completely into the Scientific Denunciation of Neuro Linguist Programming article, and wait for the slow editorial process to complete the cycle into the Rational Explanation of What is Neuro Linguistic Progamming, Anyway that I wanted. There are many cults, and I suspect there's one here: an Anti-NLP Cult. htom (talk) 13:58, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

If you feel that the article fails to explain what NLP is, please propose additional text that will accomplish that purpose rather than trying to remove or marginalize the realistic assessment of NLP. Just removing or hiding this assessment would leave the article in a very non-neutral state. siafu (talk) 16:39, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

• Here from the NPOVN, but I've been here before. NLP started as some kind of magical or wishful thinking (mostly wishful thinking from the founders that it would work and/or make them rich and famous, probably) and developed into a scam or hoax. Whitewashing the lead does no service to our readers; the Rfc reads "If I knew nothing of this subject, and just wanted to know what is the meaning of "Neuro-Linguistic Programming" I would become skeptical of the source after reading the lead paragraphs" - take out the word "source" and why not? You should be skeptical of something which has no science behind it and doesn't work. I'm skeptical of snake oil salesmen, myself, glad to hear others are too. But the source? If one article with this many editors can completely put you off Wikipedia, then you're probably a proponent or advocate on the one hand, or an opponent or protestor on the other. IOW, one would generally need an opinion of their own to be assailed to discredit the entire encyclopedia. I leave to the regular editors whether the lead needs any fine-tuning, but moving the entire critical paragraph out of the lead is whitewashing, however it is intended. One puppy's opinion. KillerChihuahua 12:29, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't know much more about NLP than what is presented in this article, but I know that "magical or wishful thinking" is why I am a successful person. I come to Wikipedia to learn and understand, not just get the overwhelming Skeptics View of NLP. Humans are not perfect and science is not infallible. Is Wikipedia just for science worshiping activist editors who think they have all the answers? That's what your post suggests to me. One cat's opinion. NaturaNaturans (talk) 20:44, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Encyclopedia articles are obviously not the place for you to express wishful thinking. They are a place for reflecting reliable sources. There are plenty of discussion forums and blogs where you can engage in that kind of speculation where it won't be reverted.Encyclotadd (talk) 20:50, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

That wasn't my point. My point was that subjects that YOU consider to be wishful thinking ought to be treated in a neutral manner here. This is not the Skeptics Guide to NLP page. Scientific evaluation of the subject is given undue weight here. NaturaNaturans (talk) 21:01, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

The scientific evaluation of NLP is not, in and of itself, a POV that can be weighted. As I have mentioned multiple times, if there is insufficient explanation of NLP itself, please propose some additions that would clarify the subject. If you feel that rational evaluation is excessive, perhaps an encyclopedia is not the place for you. siafu (talk) 23:45, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

This entire circular conversation would end, NaturalNat, if you would just read Wikipedia's rules about reliable sources. You are wasting everyone's time.Encyclotadd (talk) 16:21, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Not sure the time is waste if it leads to better undertanding and good relationships. One point, what specifically do you suggest NaturaNaturans read? It is one thing to assert "would just read Wikipedia's rules about reliable sources", and another to welcome and help people to find and read reliable stuff to read and understand wikipedia. So, please, be specific and helpful. Might you indicate the proper link? == Damien Raczy (talk) 19:24, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Its been explained several times. We are neutral as to the sources, not neutral as to pro and anti NLP groups. Advocacy of the role of magic in your own life has nothing to do with improving the article. Phrases like "science worshiping activist editors" are not acceptable. I could go on but there are multiple examples. If you don't know the link for reliable sources then shame on you. ----Snowded ^TALK 19:48, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Let me be as concise as possible then: I'm here proposing an RfC because of the undue weight given to scientific evaluation of the subject in the lead. Period. NaturaNaturans (talk) 20:02, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

I second NaturaNaturans proposal. I've gone through the previous discussions and read the article and I am of the same impression, meaning: the article's tone is biased. As a reminder, consensus can change.--Ljfeliu (talk) 20:13, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

The invocation of WP:UNDUE here is entirely misplaced, and, frankly, baffling. Scientific evaluation is not, in and of itself, a POV at all, and a fortiori not a POV that can receive excess weight. The denunciation of NLP as pseudoscience, however, is a POV, but in this case it happens to be the POV supported by the vast majority of reliable sources, as demonstrated by the sources and previous discussions on this talk page, and therefore it is most certainly not unduly weighted. siafu (talk) 20:39, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Obviously we would reflect peer reviewed psychological journals over hocus pocus magic advocacy groups. Roxy, Siafu|siafu and Snowded are right- this is a huge waste of time.Encyclotadd (talk) 20:56, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

The number of times you write, "waste of time" etc. is unhelpful and disrespectful. Please stop. NaturaNaturans (talk) 22:56, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Try this analogy. Deism is a kind of alternative theology. If we were to overwhelm that page with POV from experts in theology (which would qualify as reliable sources) from those who criticize deism (practically all theologians), that page would be a bigger mess than this page. NLP does not claim to be establishment psychology with names such as "Structure of Magic" and "Frogs Into Princes". NaturaNaturans (talk) 22:56, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

NaturaNaturans, We reviewed the literature claiming NLP is a religion and cult. While several sources characterize it as a cult, editor consensus here was that we should not include that characterization in the article. So I'm not sure theology is the right analogy. The conversation we're having is less about whether a religion should be considered scientifically, and more about whether a pseudoscience should be considered scientifically, and I believe the balance of the reliable sources support the views expressed in the article. Really if you focus on the rules about sources and sources themselves we can (finally) make some progress. I'm sorry if you don't like my characterizing this conversation as a "waste of time" but really the conversation should be about sources and not your personal opinion.Encyclotadd (talk) 23:06, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure I follow the analogy; if you read the deism article you'll find that the majority of it is a discussion of deism in theological and philosophical terms, with the exception of some parts in the "History of classical deism" section. Also detracting from any power your analogy might have is that deism is merely a belief system, with no testable claims or conclusions, and ipso facto does not and cannot have a scientific or realistic evaluation. If you feel that there should be a comparable discussion of the history of neuro-linguistic programming that is currently missing, please feel to propose the additional text. siafu (talk) 23:12, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

If it's hard to understand the "deist" analogy, try this other one: [...]Psychoanalysis is a kind of psychotherapy. If we were to overwhelm that page with POV from experts in cognitivism and behaviourism (which would qualify as reliable sources) from those who criticize psychoanalysis (practically all cognitivists and behaviourists), that page would be a bigger mess than this page [...]. The fact is that even if I agree with the evidence of lots of pseudoscientific "proofs" in NLP, scientific evaluation of NLP is definitely not the core of NLP. And there is no references here that could prove that scientific evaluation of NLP is the core of NLP, are there? So, I strongly suggest to create a special page for Scientific evaluation of NLP as it is a wide and subject (I would be a good willing contributor) and I also suggest to focus here more on NLP in itself, and less on criticism. -- Damien Raczy (talk) 23:40, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Also detracting from any power your analogy might have is that deism is merely a belief system, with no testable claims or conclusions, and ipso facto does not and cannot have a scientific or realistic evaluation. If you feel that there should be a comparable discussion of the history of neuro-linguistic programming that is currently missing, please feel to propose the additional text. siafu That would be Frogs into Princes, page 178. That's why I've been saying that the denunciation as pseudo-science is nonsense. It is (or was, at one time) a method, a belief, a set of practices, in how you could communicate with a patient/client (or yourself.) It is not a theory of psychology or therapy. (It is, in a way, a model of one of many possible communication processes.) What the practitioner did with that was up to them. The greedy took it and did things they probably shouldn't have, as did some cult leaders. Others tried to test it, taking either the first or the second path to the failure of the method that is described on that page. That the greedy and the cults find it so useful, and science finds it ineffective, I think says something, but it's not that NLP is ineffective. It's that it's not rational, it's ... there's a word for that, it will come to me. htom (talk) 00:03, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

This claim that "NLP is not a theory of psychology" and thereby somehow not subject to scientific analysis is an absurd evasion of the issue. NLP does claim to be able to do things, whether proponents chalk it up to psychology, linguistics, or just plain magic, and these claims are indeed testable, have been tested, and have been shown to be bogus. None of these things is possible, even in principle, for something like deism, which is what makes the analogy inoperative. siafu (talk) 16:20, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

One more point. There are far more sources about “what NLP is” than sources about "scientific evaluation of NLP". So, even if scientific evaluation is interesting, I really don't understand why scientific critic is so prominent in this article, partly hiding the core of the subject Damien Raczy (talk) 00:14, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Partly hiding the core of the subject is exactly the point, I suppose. I have seen this mechanism at work at the homeopathy article for years. Imagine the staff of the Spanish Inquisition working on the article Satan. They think it's a seductive topic that readers should not know too much about because it's so dangerous for their souls. So as much of the lead as they can get away with will consist in warnings that good Christians should not study this guy and what bad things will happen if they try it anyway. Maybe the rest of the article will contain some information about the cultural history of the topic, but not the lead. The lead will only be concerned with warnings that Satan is pseudoscience anti-Christian and how to recognise possessed people and how to drive him away and how to treat witches. Now very much the same kind of thing happens when several subscribers to the Skeptical Inquirer or regular Quackwatch readers assemble at an article like this one. They just can't be relaxed about any topic that smells even remotely like pseudoscience. Hans Adler 00:40, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Nobody is trying to suppress additional information about the topic, or that "readers should not know too much about [it] because it's so dangerous". On the contrary, I and other have asked repeatedly for suggestions for additional text that will fill the void of information you are complaining about. If the article does not sufficiently explain the history and purported function of NLP, that is no reason to remove or marginalize the scientific evaluation, and every reason to write more on the history and nature of NLP. Please do so. siafu (talk) 16:29, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

We discussed Freud before and decided he was not analogous. Too academically accepted to be even remotely like what we have here.

I think we should move on to discuss edits based on reliable sources. The whole "lets remove science" argument is nonsense.Encyclotadd (talk) 00:48, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Definitely I agree with you Encyclotadd when you say that getting more reliable sources is a good outcome. And as a reliable source is not reliable in itself but reliable as related to a topic, we cannot avoid the subject of what this article is about: NLP or NLP scientific evaluation. So, I suggest refocusing on the topic of the article, NLP, and create another page about scientific evaluation of NLP. This doesn't mean that the NLP article must be NLP "friendly", it just means that evaluation is just a part of the topic. At the moment, more than 2/3 of the header is dedicated to NLP scepticism, so it is not an article about NLP, but about NLP scepticism. -- Damien Raczy (talk) 02:59, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Scientific evaluation obviously belongs in an encyclopedia article about a pseudoscience. It's that simple.Encyclotadd (talk) 03:11, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, we agree on one point: scientific evaluation must a part the article. It is obvious! The question is what is this article about? Is it about "NLP" or about "scientific evaluation of NLP"? And, if we agree on the fact that the article is about NLP, can "scientific evaluation of NLP" be the biggest topic of the "NLP" article? If yes, can we rename the article in order to reflect it's main topic. If not, may we create a good and clear article about "scientific evaluation of NLP"? / Damien Raczy (talk) 03:54, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

This is becoming tiresome and you are starting to be disruptive. The lede reflects the article and that both describes NLP but also describes how it is treated in third party reliable sources. If you have ideas to improve the description of NLP and you can come up with suitable sources make the proposal. There is a section on the scientific evaluation, it is not excessive. We can almost certainly find ways to improve the lede but that does not mean moving sections whole scale. I think it could be more succinctly summarised without loosing its essence but its difficult to do that with the constant assault by NLP practitioners trying to make it into a puff piece. If we can close this meaningless RfC I'm happy to come up with some proposals for that. ----Snowded ^TALK 07:21, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Since the beginning, NLP claims being NOT scientific as Mann & al (2012) say:

On page 7 of their book Frogs and Princes they explain that they are not psychologists, theologians or theoreticians; that they have no idea about the real nature of things; and are not particularly interested in what’s true. Their aim is to describe something that is useful. They further report on page 7 that “If we happen to mention something that you know from a scientific study, or from statistics, is inaccurate, realise that a different level of experience is being offered you here. We’re not offering you something that’s true, just things that are useful.” (Samantha Mann & Aldert Vrij & Erika Nasholm & Lara Warmelink & Sharon Leal & Dave Forrester, 2012, J Police Crim Psych, The Direction of Deception: Neuro-Linguistic Programming as a Lie Detection Tool)

So, scientific (in)validation of NLP is very interesting, must be present in the NLP article and should not be underweight. On the other hand, as it is not a part of NLP, it should not be overweight. IMHO, a dedicated page would be useful. It will be a great opportunity to increase quality of both “NLP” content and “NLP evaluation” content - Damien Raczy (talk) 10:23, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes and we all know that is the line taken by Grindler in his attempt to relaunch NLP. Now can you please stop the original research and come up with some sources. Interestingly the "a different level of experience" is a classic psuedoscience statement. Also the scientific evaluation is not the largest part of the article, you statement there is false. If you have (supported by references) ideas to improve the other sections we would all welcome them. The obfuscation of proposals for different articles etc. is all to characteristic of the attempts by the now permanently banned Comaze and several of his meat puppets by the way. ----Snowded ^TALK 10:47, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Snowed, are you seriously suggesting that Grinder is attempting to relaunch NLP with a quote from him from 1979? Relaunching with out the crud attached by others and denounced by the skeptics might be useful to the world at large. Your paranoia about anything published by anyone who isn't a third-hand skeptic of NLP is a bit tedious. htom (talk) 21:31, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Useful or not its not our affair, and its not my paranoia but wikipedia that insists on third party reliable sources. Your designation of that rule as third hand and skeptic is pretty typical of your tendentious style and refusal to attempt to understand how wikipedia works. Try not to judge others by your own standards for polemic. ----Snowded ^TALK 23:18, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm saying it's your judgement that's requiring third-hand skeptics' opinions, not Wikipedia's. I suppose you can complain about that; I think it's tendentious on your part. htom (talk) 00:54, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Snowded was right that Grinder was trying unsuccessfully to relaunch the subject with New Code, and that effort started around 1979. I don't have any opinion on that particular quote but generally he has the history correct.Encyclotadd (talk) 22:58, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure when the "New Code" project started (1995?), but Frogs into Princes was their third or fourth book, covering material from the late 1960s and early 1970s, decidedly part of the "Old Code", and it had several successors before Grinder and Bandler's falling out in the 1980s. htom (talk) 00:54, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Snowded. Are you suggesting I ll be banned? = Damien Raczy (talk) 11:34, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Raczy, I don't think Snowded was suggesting you are part of the meat puppet farm that was recently banned-- more that you have taken the same positions and tactics as that meat farm, and that your indefensible insistence on "removing science" from the article is disruptive. We've now heard you out at length and editor consensus is that peer reviewed journals and other such reliable sources do indeed belong in this article, just as Wikipedia rules require that they are. If you want to add constructively, please provide some edit suggestions with references. But if you just wish to extoll the virtues of magic etc long wind, find a discussion forum or blog. This is an encyclopedia.Encyclotadd (talk) 11:46, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

My main suggestion is : if scientific evaluation is not the main topic of the article, as Snowded agreed with, so it should not be the main topic of the header. --- Damien Raczy (talk) 18:01, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

All of your suggestions Raczy amount to less science and more magic. The problem is that this article is based on reliable sources, and our sources say not only science but pseudoscience. Lots of editors now have politely tried to explain the rules to you. If you don't like the sources, provide some new ones. If you don't want to have to focus on sources, go write about you theories on meta magic on a blog or discussion forum somewhere else because this is an encyclopedia.Encyclotadd (talk) 22:58, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Wow! After claiming COI, you are inventing I am pro-magic. One may think differently without falling in the abyss of magical thinking or COI. And please read more carefully, especially the references mentioned above before criticizing. It is not pro or anti, not opinion or beliefs, it is only facts. What is ungrounded belief if for example speculations about why and how Grinder is marketing to renew NLP. For this claim about the renewal of NLP, I know absolutely no valid ref. And I suppose there is no valid ref about a renewal of NLP simply because NLP is at the end of its paradigm. (http://www.sueknight.co.uk/Archives/Publications/Articles/NLP_Plausible.htm). ~ Damien Raczy (talk) 02:34, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Raczy, I'm not calling you out for a conflict of interest. I'll leave it to other editors to decide whether your NLP consultancy and coaching business is a conflict. However, you have posted a lot of links on this talk page to NLP training seminars, including the one above to Sue Knight. You should know that marketing is frowned upon here. Please do keep that in check.Encyclotadd (talk) 03:07, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Encyclotadd. You write that I "have posted a lot of links on this talk page to NLP training seminars". Prove it, and be factual. = Damien Raczy (talk) 03:34, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

I think part of your confusion is that you think NLP consultants are sources reliable by the same standard as peer reviewed psychological journals. The link you posted two paragraphs above was to Sue Knight's NLP consultancy training business: http://www.sueknight.co.uk/Programmes/nlp.htm I suppose that's not necessarily marketing, and you were using her consultancy business as a source. But regardless your entire focus should be on reliable sources. The whole conversation about making the article and lede less scientific is just hogwash.Encyclotadd (talk) 04:01, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

You write above that I posted a link that was http://www.sueknight.co.uk/Programmes/nlp.htm. This is false as the link was http://www.sueknight.co.uk/Archives/Publications/Articles/NLP_Plausible.htm . And the link was towards to a sceptical point view / NLP and not towards to a training.

And, please, refocus on the subject : the header of the article = Damien Raczy (talk) 04:20, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

You are both right, yes in her archives she lists one partially skeptical article; yes the header links to her training and consultancy. Overall she is not a reliable source for a third party view of NLP. She would be a source for what NLP is. I bought her book when I first got into editing this page to get a view of the subject and its a good summary and she is well respected. Raczy, the proposition still stands, if you want to suggest improvements to the What is NLP sections, which could do with improvement do so, then we can reflect that material as appropriate in the lede. The criticism section has been through hell and back to validate its sources under multiple attacks from many editors and its sound. How we summarise it in the lede then becomes an issue. I'm happy to work on that when this RfC is over. There is repetition and we can improve it and make it more representative, but the solution is not to move one paragraph out whole scale which is what the RfC is about. Also the RfC is not about renaming the article, that I am pretty sure is a non-starter ----Snowded ^TALK 07:01, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Snowed. I am happy to read your last post. I am currently "trying" to write something short and balanced. The main issues are not using the NLP '"jargon", not copy paste "incantations", not being "anti" nor "pro" etc. and for sure, I'll need help. I hope collaboration will be respectful and flowing. It should be written in a couple of days. As it is adding significant material, where should I post my short proposal for a constructive collaboration ? . Damien Raczy (talk) 08:09, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Create a section here. But some advise. Tightening up the existing wording is one thing, rewriting it I am less sure of. There has been a lot of discussion and agreement over the years on this and given some of your comments above I don't think you have fully grasped what NPOV means here. ----Snowded ^TALK 23:16, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

That's a balanced suggestion from Snowded. I guess it's up to an uninvolved editor to close the RfC, and we would (I'm sure) all welcome a new section of the talk page for conversation about the article based on reliable sources.Encyclotadd (talk) 23:54, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

I've made three contributions to this talk page, and no edits to the Article. Am I uninvolved enough to close the RfC, and if so, how do I do that? (insert smiley here)Roxy the dog (talk) 23:01, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes that would be consistent with the spirit of the rules I think. There are instructions here: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:CLOSE#section_3 Encyclotadd (talk) 01:16, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

I think its dead so if you just want to close it as unresolved I can't see anyone objecting. On the other hand if you want to make a determination involving any change you are an involved editor ----Snowded ^TALK 07:19, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

I can't do it, I'm too involved, so I asked a much more experienced mate to do it, and he refused stating that ethically it would be wrong, as it is exactly what the "baddies" do, get mates to come along and vote. He's right. Instead, I've asked on the NPOV/Noticeboard where Alisgod opened the discussion. I hope that is OK Roxy the dog (talk) 12:03, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

THere is no consensus to change so closure is easy. Are you hoping otherwise? Otherwise to note for any new editor, Alisod who opened this discussion also contributed as NaturaNaturans. The editor seems to be in a quandary as to which name to use. ----Snowded ^TALK 12:29, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

The editor may be using multiple machines with bookmarks to the different names, and hasn't brought them into sync. Especially unhelpful in fixing this can be external browser syncing and login tools, which may "fix" the changes you try to make.

I hope that's what it is, and that the editor using multiple handles (NaturaNaturans aka Allisgod) is not associated with the recently banned sock/meat accounts. It would be nice to improve the article without disruptive behavior. Obviously we should assume good faith.Encyclotadd (talk) 15:27, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

god this is such a happy place as long as no one ruffles snowdeds feathers. encyclotadd ur a sell out. Enemesis (talk) 05:24, 28 February 2013 (UTC)