Talk:Neuro-linguistic programming

Stollznow

This has been tagged as dubious: “According to Stollznow (2010), "NLP also involves fringe discourse analysis and “practical” guidelines for “improved” communication. For example, one text asserts “when you adopt the “but” word, people will remember what you said afterwards. With the “and” word, people remember what you said before and after”

This could be placed in clearer context. Stollznow also states “NLP is simply another pseudoscience with a pretence to science in its name, terminology, and alleged lineage.”

“Bandler and Grinder’s infamous Frogs into Princes and other books boast that NLP is a cure-all that treats a broad range of physical and mental conditions and learning difficulties, including epilepsy, myopia and dyslexia. With its promises to cure schizophrenia, depression, and post traumatic stress disorder, NLP shares similarities with Scientology and the Citizens Commission on Human Rights, CCHR.” Lam Kin Keung (talk) 01:44, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

If you are going to cite opinion then provide balance or identify bias. --122.108.140.210 (talk) 02:14, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Find reliable sources that support that view, then we can look at incorporating it --Snowded ^TALK 08:57, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

The paragraph quoted above has another problem: the opening and closing quotation marks do not match, so the reader cannot tell whether the For example is a continuation of the same quotation from Stollznow, or is another quotation from one Stollznow text. - Fayenatic (talk) 17:16, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

paragraph moved from lede

• Reviews of empirical research on NLP showed that NLP contains numerous factual errors, and failed to produce reliable results for the claims for effectiveness made by NLP’s originators and proponents.

This is a selective summary of the research. If you want to summarize the positivist literature then make that clear. Don't pretend that this is an objective summary of the academic literature --122.108.140.210 (talk) 02:10, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

• According to Devilly, NLP is no longer as prevalent as it was in the 70s and 80s; “controlled studies shed such a poor light on the practice, and those promoting the intervention made such extreme and changeable claims that researchers began to question the wisdom of researching the area further”.

That's just Devilly's skeptical opinion. There are many studies that followed Sharpley. How does Devilly know what researchers were thinking? Cite the evidence, not opinion. If you want to cite opinion, then characterize the bias or provide alternative views for balance. --122.108.140.210 (talk) 02:10, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

• Criticisms go beyond the lack of empirical evidence for effectiveness; critics say that NLP exhibits pseudoscientific characteristics, title, concepts and terminology .

These authors are writing for skeptics type publications. The bias should be identified clearly. Opinions should not be presented as fact. This is extremely selective given that you do not provide balance. Skeptic's publications are meant to be NPOV. --122.108.140.210 (talk) 02:10, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

• NLP is used as an example of pseudoscience for facilitating the teaching of scientific literacy at the professional and university level .

On what evidence does Lum, Lilienfeld and Dunn make their claims? Do not present opinions as facts. I checked this before, the sources do not support these summary statements. Cite evidence, not opinion. --122.108.140.210 (talk) 02:10, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

• NLP also appears on peer reviewed expert-consensus based lists of discredited interventions.

On what basis does Witkowski make this claim? Cite the evidence rather than the commentary. --122.108.140.210 (talk) 02:10, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

• In research designed to identify the “quack factor” in modern mental health practice, Norcross et al (2006) list NLP as possibly or probably discredited

Norcross et al (2006) does not make any inference regarding level of discredit. Where does the paper make the inference that we can be 95% confident that NLP may be "possibly or probably discredited"? --122.108.140.210 (talk) 02:10, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

• and in papers reviewing discredited interventions for substance and alcohol abuse, Norcross et al (2008) list NLP in the “top ten” most discredited,

Cite the evidence! On what basis is this claim made? --122.108.140.210 (talk) 02:10, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

• and Glasner-Edwards and Rawson (2010) list NLP as “certainly discredited”.

Glasner-Edwards and Rawson cite an old Norcross paper. You are trying to give undue weight to this claim. --122.108.140.210 (talk) 02:10, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

User 122... your objections have been answered before. Your last blanking edit constitutes vandalism. Lam Kin Keung (talk) 02:48, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Here are some of my objections:

• "Reviews of empirical research on NLP showed that NLP contains numerous factual errors" citing Von Bergen (1997) in Human Resource Development Quarterly. Why choose Von Bergen here and ignore all the positive literature in HRD?
• "and failed to produce reliable results for the claims for effectiveness made by NLP’s originators and proponents." Cites Sharpley (1987) review without any reservation or reply.
• Cites Witkowski (2010), a skeptical linguist publishing in a skeptic's magazine? Clearly not an impartial source and bias needs to be identified if used.
• Devilly is self-described a skeptic and his opinion is not impartial. If you include this opinion you need to balance it out.
• Cites Corballis 1999. A skeptic's book is a partisan source. These books are intentionally biased to try to counter the overly positive literature by proponents.
• Cites Stollznow, a linguist publishing in a skeptics magazine is cited as s critique of NLP "concepts and terminology".
• Cites Lum 2001 for this statement: "NLP is used as an example of pseudoscience for facilitating the teaching of scientific literacy" - what exactly is your Lum's here? Is this mere opinion? On what evidence is this statement made?
• "expert-consensus based lists of discredited interventions". Is this code for EBP? Don't try to give it more weight than it deserves.
• "possibly or probably discredited"? What is this based on? Where is this inference made? This error has been repeated without checking the facts.
• "“top ten” most discredited", this is misleading without context.
• Why quote Devilly stating that "researchers began to question the wisdom of researching the area further" without noting the researchers who have continued studying NLP?

--122.108.140.210 (talk) 11:43, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

User 122..., there is nothing new in your objections, and considering the discussion of issues, your partial blanking of the lede constitutes vandalism. Lam Kin Keung (talk) 13:16, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Its persistent vandalism. Theses issues have been resolved, but the IP simply waits some weeks then tries again --Snowded ^TALK 03:46, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Lede para length

I suggest that it is too long for the article's length. ISTB351 (talk) 03:23, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

When I first starting commenting on this discussion page Snowded told me that, ideally, there should not be any references in the lede. Currently there are 26. Willyfreddy (talk) 07:32, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Have a look at the recent history of the page. Among the edit warring and paragraph blanking some editors stated a need for citations for the summary information that was there. So they were provided. Lam Kin Keung (talk) 11:35, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

This does not divert from the fact that the lede is far too long. ISTB351 (talk) 21:35, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

The length of the lede looks fine to me. Lam Kin Keung (talk) 00:48, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I am aware of that. My point is that if the text in the lede is so controversial that it needs to be referenced, then perhaps it should not be there at all. In my opinion, the second and third paragraphs of the lede should simply be removed. Willyfreddy (talk) 17:11, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

NLP is a controversial subject/intervention/field, that includes controversial statements and scientific claims. That can be mentioned in the opening line. I will have a look for the relevant sources stating that NLP is controversial. Lam Kin Keung (talk) 03:31, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

You will try to find another reference to add to the lede?! You have clearly not understood my point at all. Nevertheless, there has been no resolution of this issue within the discussion page and so I am going to revert your removal of the tag in question. Willyfreddy (talk) 18:57, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Without substantial suggestions the tag is not necessary. It cannot stay there indefinitely. Lam Kin Keung (talk) 01:08, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

There is still an open discussion about it and so I do not think it is appropriate for you to just assume the discussion is closed and revert the tag yourself. Willyfreddy (talk) 03:39, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Despite your reversion, you made no discussion or suggestion relating to the lede section guidelines. So the tag is inappropriate. Lam Kin Keung (talk) 12:12, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your opinion. However, as I stated before, this is an open discussion and therefore it is not appropriate for you to single-handedly decide that it's closed. Please do not remove it again until a joint resolution has been found. Willyfreddy (talk) 18:48, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

You have offered no guideline-based justification for the tag. The onus is on you. Tags cannot be left on articles indefinitely. This article has suffered a lot of drive-by tagging in the past. When challenged they require justification from those wishing to present them. If you do not discuss relating to the lede guidelines, the tag will be removed. Lam Kin Keung (talk) 01:13, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

This started because you unilaterally removed a tag that was involved in an open discussion, without even mentioning it in the discussion itself. It does not follow that, since I reverted your change, I believe the tag should be left on indefinitely - that is a horrendously obvious non sequitur. Nevertheless, I do agree that if a more substantive argument/suggestion cannot be made shortly (let's give it few more days) then it should be removed. Willyfreddy (talk) 23:14, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

You have still not presented any guidelines-based reason. So the tag can go. Lam Kin Keung (talk) 01:34, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

You're just like talking to a broken record. I will not repeat myself again: I agree to take it down in 3 days, after other readers (including the user that started the discussion) have had a chance to see that this is happening and can weigh in. Do not remove it before then, any attempts to do so will be reverted. Willyfreddy (talk) 01:40, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Alright, it's been a few days and there has been no argument presented in favour of keeping the tag, so as promised it will be removed. As stated below in the next discussion, I agree with LKK that (at first glance) the tag seemed inappropriate based upon the guidelines. However, in this case, I also thought LKK's behaviour was inappropriate and that has lead to the "tennis match" that others have commented on here. For the future, I'd like to suggest how this topic SHOULD have been handled: (A) ISTB351 should have opened a discussion on the topic without actually placing the tag on the article; (B) LKK should have stated his opinion immediately that because there was no grounds given for the tag's addition, especially in relation to the guidelines, then he believes it should be taken down. If, after a given amount of time passes without rebuttal, the tag would be removed and LKK would say so in the discussion page; (C) LKK should have immediately reverted the change, stating why by citing the guidelines on the talk page, and asked for arguments in support of the tag's addition. Anyhow, that's just my two cents. Willyfreddy (talk) 18:58, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

BRD seems reasonable to me. [1]. You can argue for nuances to it here: [2].Lam Kin Keung (talk) 03:04, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Is the lede too long?

Sorry, the previous section seems to be a tennis match - is to, is not, is to, is not. Perhaps a new section could allow discussion by other editors of the subject, with an emphasis on stating an opinion, with brief arguments. Other interested editors?

No, the lede is fine. NLP is neither simple to describe (1st paragraph) or to characterize what is 'true' about it now. I think the lede is a little bit too detailed, but overall is just fine. If anything, the the 2nd and 3rd paragraphs could be paraphrased, assuming their specific comments are in the body. But generally, I think we have a duty to talk about the whole article in the lede, not just provide a definition (the first paragraph).Ratagonia (talk) 02:03, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Lede length is okay, but needs significant changes. I think the lede is in bad shape. Previously I suggested that the second and third paragraphs should be removed. However, after looking at the Lead section guidelines, I no longer believe that would be appropriate due to: a) the 3 paragraph length follows the guidelines, b) the guidelines allow for citations, c) the guidelines allow for criticisms in the lede. Nevertheless, I think the text of both paragraphs should be re-written. For a summary, I would highlight that NLP was derived from the work of Erickson, Perls, and Satire. As for the criticisms, I believe the lede drastically overstates the case. I think it should highlight that certain aspects of NLP theory - as well as certain claims by its founders and specific practitioners - have been criticized empirically. I do not believe that any reference provided in the article warrants any statement stronger than that. Anyhow, that's my two cents. Willyfreddy (talk) 06:13, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

According to the guidelines the length is fine, so I have removed the tag again because it is clearly unnecessary. The criticisms are about right and represent the criticism in the main body of article. The scientific view is very important, especially in the context of pseudoscientific subjects. Any changes to it should be considered in the context of prior discussion: [3]. Quotes and citations were requested and they were supplied. I did remove a large quote though[4].

The other paragraphs 1 and 2 could be balanced. I can add more citations regarding NLP as a controversial subject if requested.

Apart from that, there is more work to do to expand some of the other sections of the main body. There are a selection of new age practices and associations that can be added. The history section can be explained better with reference to historically associated pseudosciences that developed at the time (EST, Scientology, Emin etc). Lam Kin Keung (talk) 01:54, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

P.s. User Willyfreddy, please learn to assume good faith: [5]. No edits were forced, discussion was encouraged, and it is hardly difficult to re-add a previously threatened guideline-less tag. Lam Kin Keung (talk) 03:10, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

I attempted to address you directly on this point numerous times. You simply ignored my reasoning and continued to act unilaterally. Please learn to engage other authors properly. Willyfreddy (talk) 03:19, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

User Willyfreddy. You have still offered no guideline based reason for the tag. Lam Kin Keung (talk) 03:51, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Once again with the broken record routine - continuing to ignore what I actually said. Willyfreddy (talk) 04:05, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

User Willyfreddy. Please stop the attacks. You argued, but not with reference to the guidelines. So there is no guideline based reason for the tags. Its as simple as that. Lam Kin Keung (talk) 08:36, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

And again... ignoring my points completely. Obviously it's NOT that simple to others. Please learn that you are not the only editor here whose opinion matters. Willyfreddy (talk) 18:50, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

User Willyfreddy. My opinion, or your promises, are not the issue. The guidelines are the issue [6]. Lam Kin Keung (talk) 02:59, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

No, your behaviour was the issue. And let's not make the naive mistake of pretending that opinions aren't involved in editing articles. Anyhow, I'm done with this discussion point. Willyfreddy (talk) 10:47, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

I am not pretending. Please WP:AGF.Lam Kin Keung (talk) 11:43, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Dear friends, I came here to learn a bit about NLP, and found an extra-large lede that makes continuous criticism, and practically introduces NLP as a "pseudo-science". If "the criticisms represent the criticism in the main body of article", as Lam Kin Keung states, so maybe we have a problem with the whole article, which may be overloaded with criticism against NLP. Anyway I think the lede is too long (do I need to prove it by citing the guidelines?)--Xabadiar (talk) 10:48, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

The lede references the criticism but its not the only thing in it and within the main article the criticism section does not dominate the article. I suggest you read it and the references before jumping to conclusions. Proposals to reduce the lede are welcome as it could do with tightening up, but it does need to summarise the article so if you have concerns those should be raised first. --Snowded ^TALK 11:46, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks.--Xabadiar (talk) 08:18, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Sample audio clips

I think this article and subarticles would benefit from some sample audio clips selected under fair use. For example, we may include some samples of Grinder and/or Bandler imitating Fritz Perls, Milton Erickson and Virginia Satir. --122.108.140.210 (talk) 10:38, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

If you can provide any links I'm sure some people here would be happy to evaluate them. Willyfreddy (talk) 03:40, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

LKK's automatic reversion(s)

LKK, could you please point out the Wikipedia policy which states that all changes to an article must first be discussed on the talk page? You reverted Encyclotadd's changes without any reason given except for: "Please discuss such changes on talkpage". I'm guessing this isn't the first time you've done this. Thank you. Willyfreddy (talk) 03:13, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

User Willyfreddy. I have no automatic editing function in this regard. Please assume good faith. [7][8]Lam Kin Keung (talk) 03:56, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Alright. If there is no Wikipedia policy that states all changes must be discussed on the talk page first, then your reversion of Encyclotadd's changes should itself be reverted unless you have specific grounds for removing his changes. Willyfreddy (talk) 04:02, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Willyfreddy. I suggest you read the link I supplied again:[9]Lam Kin Keung (talk) 08:38, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

It seems that you also need to assume faith. This is one of the most recurring problems on WP - that of editors who expect others to assume good faith but fail to do so themselves. Afterwriting (talk) 09:34, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Hello Afterwriting. I have heard of this problem, but I do not see it in this case. Could you please explain. Lam Kin Keung (talk) 11:10, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

I have read it. There is no policy that states all changes must be approved. In fact it even states that BRD itself is explicitly NOT a policy that you can force other editors to adhere to. Additionally, BRD is for 'bold' changes, and I see nothing in his content that represents a 'bold' change. Finally, it states that BRD "is not a valid excuse for reverting good-faith efforts to improve a page simply because you don't like the changes". So, on behalf of the changes that were made by Encyclotadd, I'm starting a discussion here (if that wasn't obvious already). If you have specific objections to the content, based upon Wikipedia policies, then please present them here. Otherwise, I believe the content should be re-added. Willyfreddy (talk) 19:14, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

The change to the Von Bergen line from numerous to some is factually incorrect. [10]

It is uncited commentary to conclude “some critics mischaracterize it as an intervention.”

Adding “Devilly criticisms” is both factually and grammatically incorrect.

There are further illogical arguments and commentaries about NLP not being a school, therefore not an intervention.

There is also a weasel argumentative phrase such as “Yet the title of NLP is singled out as pseudo-scientific” If any editor wants to argue for the inclusion of these points, then go ahead with reference to sources. Lam Kin Keung (talk) 02:55, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

LKK's re-addition of 'controversial'

LKK has unilaterally changed the first sentence to be: "Neuro-linguistic programming (NLP) is a controversial [1][2] approach to psychotherapy..." There was no discussion of this in the talk page, except for the following: "I can add more citations regarding NLP as a controversial subject if requested." It was not requested. More importantly however, that particular opening sentence (with citations) was previously the catalyst for a massive debate that resulted in an arbitration ruling, whereby the term 'controversial' was removed. Such behaviour surely makes it VERY difficult for anyone to assume 'good faith' on his part. Based upon the earlier debate, and subsequent arbitration ruling, I believe the term 'controversial' should be removed immediately. Willyfreddy (talk) 19:58, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Willyfreddy. I am unaware of any such arbitration ruling against the inclusion of "controversial". Could you please provide a link. Lam Kin Keung (talk) 02:56, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Well you were present, and involved in, the debate that I am referring to, so I can only assume that my use of the term 'arbitration ruling' is incorrect. If that's the case, it's my mistake. Nevertheless, you are well aware of the fact that this topic was debated to death, and the outcome of that debate included the word being removed (seems like Mar 6/2011 was its last appearance: [11]) My understanding was that an external and objective outsider was called in to evaluate the debate and the article itself. That might be mistaken too. Regardless, the use of the word 'controversial' has already been debated and resolved. Accordingly, I believe it should be removed immediately. Willyfreddy (talk) 10:39, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

The term was removed by a single purpose account: User Jeanmb[12]. No reason at all was given in the edit summary. The reason given in by the SPA in the talk page was that a majority wanted it removed. Concerning your assertion that I am aware of the issue being debated to death, I see no evidence of it, and I do not think what you say I think. I added the phrase in good faith. According to WP:AGF you really should assume that good faith.

From the evidence of the talk page on that date [13], there appears to be no agreement or consensus and I was not a part of that discussion.

Judging by following discussion [14] the term controversial seems to have been removed despite there being no guideline based reasoning for the removal. The main reasons for removal seem to be 1. those wanting the term are not trained in NLP, 2. NLP is not about what is true, but just useful 3. its appropriate for the lede, but not the lede opening line (no lede guideline cited).

The lede guidelines WP:LEAD show the need for controversy to be included. Controversial is not inherently good or bad. It is just a description that both NLPers and NLP critics give to NLP (according to the citations). The lede should stand alone as a concise overview. “Controversial” is a useful concise word for the lede opening line. It helps the reader understand straight away that views from multiple perspectives consider NLP to be controversial. Therefore it should be included. Lam Kin Keung (talk) 11:39, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Okay, that was my mistake in stating that you took part in the debate. I had you confused with Snowded. Apologies. Nevertheless, I do not believe the guidelines offer any support for labeling NLP as a controversial therapy. It states that "The lead should establish significance, include mention of notable criticism or controversies". Establishing the controversies within a topic does not equal labeling the topic itself as controversial. That is a judgement call. If one follows the logic that you are using here, the opening sentence of psychiatry, psychoanalysis, astrology, dianetics, etc. would all require the term 'controversial'. If anything, I believe that those guidelines support removal of several of the criticisms currently present in the lede, as it is questionable how many of them would be considered 'notable'. Are any of the criticisms from Tier 1 journals? If the referenced books contain original research, has it been peer reviewed? If the books reference published results, then those results should be linked to directly. Of course, whether or not these references are 'notable' is also a judgement call. Willyfreddy (talk) 19:53, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Accepted. This can be resolved with reference to sources. There may be no sources stating that psychiatry, psychoanalysis etc are controversial subjects. There may also be sources stating they are uncontroversial. Are there any sources that state NLP is uncontroversial? Lam Kin Keung (talk) 01:13, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Wow. Well, this conversation is certainly indicative of why there has been so little progress made on the article. Nevertheless, I'll address it. As mentioned, establishing a controversy within a topic does not equal labeling the topic itself controversial. And whether or not an individual author believes a subject to be controversial is of itself not notable, as it is a judgement call. Similarly, an individual author stating that he believes a topic is NOT controversial would be no more notable. There is no standard way to quantify such judgements empirically across a range of subjects. Even if, for example, 75% of all the registered Psychoanalysists in the world expressed a belief that Psychoanalysis was controversial, that would not support an introductory sentence of "Psychoanalysis is a controversial psychological theory...". It would merely support a separate statement of "75% of all registered Psychoanalysists in the world believe the topic to be controversial". I believe that clearly separating subjective and objective facts is one of the most important steps to ensuring a quality article. Willyfreddy (talk) 18:18, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Hello Willyfreddy. I believe there is progress. Here is the line in question:

Neuro-linguistic programming (NLP) is an approach to psychotherapy and organizational change based on "a model of interpersonal communication chiefly concerned with the relationship between successful patterns of behaviour and the subjective experiences (esp. patterns of thought) underlying them" and "a system of alternative therapy based on this which seeks to educate people in self-awareness and effective communication, and to change their patterns of mental and emotional behaviour".

Could you indicate which parts of this sentence are objective and which subjective? How would they differ from the term “controversial”?

Also, do you think all relevant scientific views of the definition of NLP captured in the line? Lam Kin Keung (talk) 10:14, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

If there are no further replies, I will reinstate the edit. Lam Kin Keung (talk) 01:52, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

If you do, it will be immediately reverted. I have made my case and you have made yours. It's clear that we will have to agree to disagree. Please feel free to raise this as an issue requiring arbitration. Willyfreddy (talk) 07:58, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

I would support the restoration of the word "controversial", as it reflects what good sources say and is surely important enough to appear in the lede. bobrayner (talk) 11:15, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Controversial was there for a long period of time and is fully supported by the references so I am restoring it. Willyfreddy I suggest you don't revert as you are in a clear minority here. Content issues not resolved by arbitration. --Snowded ^TALK 12:13, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

It is not "important enough" to be in the very first sentence as a defining description. This is entirely inappropriate and I will also continue to remove it if is restored for this reason alone. No editor has the right to insist on including a contentious term in this way regardless of what some "good sources say". Afterwriting (talk) 15:23, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

As promised I have removed it again and will continue to do so until a more appropriate and actually consensual opening sentence is agreed to. Content issues are not resolved by bloody-minded insistence on including a contentious term in this way. You can either continue this dispute until hell freezes over or you can develop a common sense solution instead. Afterwriting (talk) 15:33, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Afterwriting. Many points above have not been answered. I gave editors time to answer (several weeks). As such it is very reasonable to add the term now. The term is quite neutral and sources pro and critical show it to be a fact. The article itself shows it to be factual. Please this not intended to antagonize. It is not intended to be a criticism. Consider that some interesting subjects are controversial. Lam Kin Keung (talk) 15:53, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

I vote no. So where is your consensus now, socky? Colemchange (talk) 02:01, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

WP:CONSENSUS is not a vote and Wikipedia is not a WP:DEMOCRACY, consensus is based on arguments appealing to policy. I am new to this page and have no affiliation with NLP. My reading of the arguments and of the sources leads me to conclude that it would be a POV violation to omit controversy from the lead. The sources that make the claim are reliable, and thus we must report what they say. As was stated above, if there are better sources that claim that NLP is not controversial then we can do some tweaking, but insofar as our reliable sources claim it to be controversial, we claim it to be controversial. Yes, it is the author's opinion that it is controversial, and there is nothing wrong with us quoting an expert's opinion as an expert opinion outweighs the opinion of any wikipedia editor. On that note, something that all editors need to keep in mind is that your opinion means zero, the only thing that matters is the sources. N^oformation ^Talk 02:57, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

@Afterwriting: on the contrary, the only thing that matters is what good sources say. Your opinion on the matter is irrelevant - that's the entire point of our WP:NPOV policy N^oformation ^Talk 02:57, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Its clearly controversial, just look at the body of the article and the evidence. Also its been in the article for some considerable period of time. Its neutral as a term --Snowded ^TALK 03:39, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

• The fact that there is citations to show that some people have described NLP as controversial does not mean that it is necessary to use it as the fourth word of the lead. I could provide similar sources for half of the US' presidents' being controversial, still we don't write "Andrew Jackson was a controversial president of the US". Describing something as controversial does not add information or make the reader more knowledgeable about the topic (both Gandhi, Jesus and Hitler could be labelled controversial). The lead should not define the topic as controversial it should describe what NLP is including what it controversial about it and how. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:19, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the suggestion Maunus. From the point of view of the clarity the task seems to be to write the first paragraph in a clearer way that captures the controversy. For example:

NLP is an approach to psychotherapy, self-help and organizational change. Bandler and Grinder state NLP to be "a model of interpersonal communication chiefly concerned with the relationship between successful patterns of behaviour and the subjective experiences (esp. patterns of thought) underlying them" and "a system of alternative therapy based on this which seeks to educate people in self-awareness and effective communication, and to change their patterns of mental and emotional behaviour". NLP is considered to be controversial in that it is largely unsupported by reliable independent evidence, and its concepts, terms and claims are considered to be pseudoscientific (refs).

That would help the reader see the main purpose of NLP up front, with the more obscure NLP line coming second, and the clarifying science view last in the para. Lam Kin Keung (talk) 15:51, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

I think that is a better approach, I would caution about using the passive for "is considered" - do let the reader know which groups consider it to be this. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:55, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree Maunus. Attribute to the group is better. I will propose an updated one in below section [15]. Lam Kin Keung (talk) 02:03, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Voluntary Timeout for LKK and Willyfreddy?

Yo, Editors. May I suggest LKK and WF have an Ownership problem WP:OWN with this article, and it might be a good idea for them to, together, take a time-out from editing this article? Say, until October 23rd? This might allow some room for other editors to make an appearance, if there are any that have not yet been elbowed out of the way. Boys? Ratagonia (talk) 18:28, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

If users could be 'voluntarily' suspended by consensus, then I do believe that Snowded and LKK's editing privileges would have ended a long time ago. But I digress. As for the statement "This might allow some room for other editors to make an appearance, if there are any that have not yet been elbowed out of the way." I'm not sure that I agree with your conclusion that a lively debate is likely to drive away editors, rather than attract them. Regardless, I do believe that both LKK and Snowded have demonstrated Ownership problems with the article and that has driven my behaviour. Although I believe your assessment to be wrong, I do understand how you could have concluded that I too have that problem. That was certainly not my intention. Willyfreddy (talk) 20:05, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Please refer to WP:OAS Lam Kin Keung (talk) 01:17, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

- I'm not an alcoholic - THEY go to meetings. Denial is not just a river in Africa. Ratagonia (talk) 23:45, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

- My REQUEST has not yet been answered. Children? Ratagonia (talk) 23:45, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Hello Ratagonia. I have answered your request [16]. Also, please see: WP:CIV. Lam Kin Keung (talk) 10:11, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

• • • • Hello LKK and Willyfreddy. I am not suggested you two be suspended by consensus. I am REQUESTING that you together take a timeout to gain some perspective. Ratagonia (talk) 00:50, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
      • My argument that you have elbowed other potential contributors out of the way is based on a review of the talk page, which consists of contributions from IP User 122.108.140.210, a few comments from me (mostly in the meta-conversation domain), and a dynamic childish back and forth between LKK and WF. ipso facto. Denying the plain facts is "Denial", nothing more. Ratagonia (talk) 00:50, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
      • LKK: a passive-aggressive claim that your "Ownership" is better characterized as "Stewardship" is noted, though not agreed with by me. It is also not a reply to my REQUEST.Ratagonia (talk) 00:50, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
      • LKK: a passive-aggressive to the article on Civility, while itself rather civil, is not a reply to my REQUEST. My request is made in a civil manner (well, at least in my opinion). Perhaps your opinion is different, but I find your directing me to the CIV article to be uncivil. Ratagonia (talk) 00:50, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
      • LKK and WF: I make this request because I think it in the best interest of the Article, and the Wiki. I also think you will find it better for BOTH of you, as the beating your heads against the immovable wall that is the divide between you cannot be good for your mental healths. In the past when I have acted much the same, a Timeout was what I needed. I offer this opportunity as a (small-m) mediator. I look for an answer to my REQUEST in the form of "Yes", "no", or "I will if (s)he will". Very simple. Ratagonia (talk) 00:50, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Hello Ratagonia. No. Also, I suggest you propose such requests on user talk pages. The talk page here shows evidence of constructive discussion when it focuses on article content. Lam Kin Keung (talk) 01:47, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

LKK's behavior is consisted with prior HeadleyDown/David Snowden sockpuppets. Remove this comment again, Snowded, and I'll put every waking moment of effort into getting you booted once AGAIN. 76.243.106.37 (talk) 15:44, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes it is obvious the information on the sockmasterouting site is accurate. It is only a matter of time before they get banned again. Colemchange (talk) 01:51, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Hello IP and Colemchange. If you have the genuine reason to suspect an editor of sockpuppetry, then make a proper investigation: WP:SPI. Lam Kin Keung (talk) 04:10, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, making SP accusations without evidence can be construed as a personal attack. N^oformation ^Talk 04:15, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

They and others have been doing it on and off wiki for months. Colemchange's language above is familiar as well, will look back over conversations when I have time--Snowded ^TALK 04:29, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Encyclotadds Edits

Dear Lam Kin Keung,

There have been advancements in our understanding of neurology over the past few years that corroborate a view long articulated by the co-creators of NLP documented in some of their earliest writing.

You can easily learn about the advancements in our understanding from the Discovery Channel video located here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TSu9HGnlMV0&feature=player_embedded

Please pay attention 4 minutes into the video about the empirical research indicating both hemisphere of the brain can handle 100% of the tasks of the other hemisphere. That's a profound claim by modern neurologists.

Please also note that Dr. Droidge of Columbia University, who is one of the most well respected people psychoanalysts in the APA, wrote about the same advancements in his book "The Brain That Changes Itself." But you do not have to read that book to learn about those advancements. Those ideas are also reflected in this YouTube video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t3TQopnNXBU

You will hear the term neuro plasticity, which refers to the changing nature of the brain in the aforementioned videos and text. This is precisely what Bandler and Grinder have been saying in seminars and writing for several decades.

The earliest example I could find of Bandler and Grinder predicting science would show this was in "Patterns of the Hypnotic Techniques of Milton H. Erickson." Please search in that book for the words "plasticity" and "equipotentiality." Please notice the authors were saying exactly the same thing about the hemispheres of the brain 36 years ago. In fact, equi (meaning equal) and potentiality (meaning, obviously, potential) is the very word they use to describe the two hemispheres.

That's a very profound finding that should obviously be reflected on the Wikipedia page.

All of the edits that I made over the past few days were to reflect this information.

This is the way that I added the information in the body of the article, which was sadly deleted repeatedly without explanation or reference for the deletion. I hope it can be accepted as is or in an edited form that communicates the point well.

In "Patterns of the Hypnotic Techniques of Milton H.Erickson: Volume 1," Bandler and Grinder pointed to evidence that the generative capacity of the brain (plasticity) far exceeds what was understood at the time. Specifically, they argued that language can change brain physiology, writing that, "This equipotentiality or plasticity of the human nervous system is another piece of evidence pointing to great human potential so far largely unexplored."[58] This view that thinking directly affects physiology is now supported by empirical research. Psychiatrist and Psychoanalyst Dr. Norman Doidge, who is on the faculty of the Columbia University Center for Psychoanalytic Training and Research in New York, said that, "What you think and imagine can [indeed] change the structure of your brain."[59][60]

Best regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Encyclotadd (talk • contribs) 06:51, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Hello Encyclotadd. Your edit comes under the category of original research WP:NOR. That is, your inclusion concludes or indicates that Bandler and Grinder were highly insightful. In fact, plasticity was known at that time in neuroscience. Your sources (Videos) do not support your conclusion of NLP or BnG in forecasting plasticity. Also, it would help if you do not force your edits into the article during discussion. Lam Kin Keung (talk) 11:32, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

LKK, I am commenting here rather than forcing the edit to be respectful of your request.

You are absolutely right that the term neuropalasticity existed at the time of Bandler and Grinder's writings. They were not the only people to predict that neuroplasticity would be born out by additional research. But the prevalent view, as documented in two sources in the article and two sources in this discussion at the time of their writing about it was that neuroplasticity was nowhere nearly as important as it's understood to be today. This is a profound fact in context of NLP because the founders have been arguing in favor of neuroplasticity repeatedly for decades, which has also been documented in the article itself including with direct quotes and page references. But for additional information, consider the name of the field "neuro-hypnotic repatterning" created by one of the founders. That name itself, which predates the research highlighted in this article reflected their strong and repeated view that neurology can be re patterned through activating and leading the imagination. (In my opinion, at their core, NLP and hypnosis are both imagination exercises. It's fascinating to consider how imagination impacts us physically. I would add more about this in the article but to do so would require moving away from easily referenced factual statements into more of a speculative realm. So I have not done so.)

You have stated that the inclusion comes under the category of original research. According to Wikipedia, "The term "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published source exists." You have suggested this might apply. However, I've heavily referenced every single sentence in the inclusion, and my references are both to the original writings of the founders and to the most respected psychologists alive today. Wikiepdia goes on to say about original research that, "This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position not advanced by the sources." The perspective I have edited is totally and completely advanced by the sources.

I would welcome a direct conversation with you LKK about this. Maybe we can talk by phone or on Skype. I believe your intentions are outstanding.

Hello again Encyclotadd. Unfortunately, none of your sources explicitly mentions the conclusion you give. The conclusion seems to be yours. It is your synthesis. That makes it original research, which is not allowed WP:NOR. Also, it is not empirical research on NLP. The author, Doidge, does not seem to mention NLP at all. You also changed "research reviews" to "research". In fact it is important to focus on reviews of the research, rather than present all the individual pieces of research here (there are too many). It is the reliable independent reviewers who's conclusions can be presented. Lam Kin Keung (talk) 01:55, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

LKK, Any choice to include or exclude a referenced fact represents opinion. Your criticism of my addition of referenced facts is therefore invalid, because it can be applied to virtually any addition or subtraction in Wikipedia. You incorrectly condemn the entire wikipedia with that approach. Please focus on the facts I've added and comment on the validity of the facts, or contribute your own additional ones. Thanks, Encyclotadd

No Encyclotadd, if a view comes from a sufficiently reliable source then it can be included, as per WP:NPOV. If the source does not make a clear reference to NLP, then it is not relevant. In the case in question your inclusion is original researchWP:OR. Please stop forcing edits. Lam Kin Keung (talk) 02:47, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Hello. Here are Encyclotadds edits:

In "Patterns of the Hypnotic Techniques of Milton H.Erickson: Volume 1," Bandler and Grinder pointed to evidence that the generative capacity of the brain (plasticity) far exceeds what was understood at the time. Specifically, they argued that language can change brain physiology, writing that, "This equipotentiality or plasticity of the human nervous system is another piece of evidence pointing to great human potential so far largely unexplored."[58] This view that thinking directly affects physiology is now supported by empirical research. Psychiatrist and Psychoanalyst Dr. Norman Doidge, who is on the faculty of the Columbia University Center for Psychoanalytic Training and Research in New York, said that, "What you think and imagine can [indeed] change the structure of your brain."[59][60]

“Empirical research on NLP has shown that NLP contains factual errors,[9][10] and failed to produce reliable results for some of the claims for effectiveness made by NLP’s originators and proponents” etc: [17]

Encyclotadd. Please offer a justification for the inclusion of these edits and discuss. Lam Kin Keung (talk) 10:08, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

LKK, I see that you have been active on Wikipedia today, including commenting in this discussion, and I can tell that you are someone interested in scientific truth. That's why I was hoping for some kind of response or invitation to speak with you directly. Best regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Encyclotadd (talk • contribs) 01:57, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Hello Encyclotadd. Thanks. Feel free to contact me or open discussion on my talk page. Lam Kin Keung (talk) 03:46, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

LKK, I've attempted to contact you outside of Wikipedia but I'm not sure if it's the same LKK. I have more information to share and am interested to learn your views.

If there is another way to add the information from the noted psychoanalyst from Columbia University and the quote from the founders of NLP, please do let me know. I'm open to adding the information in any way that's accurate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Encyclotadd (talk • contribs) 20:47, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

LKK, Please let me know if you have received my request to connect outside of Wikipedia or if I attempted to contact the wrong LKK. Thanks, Encyclotadd

Encyclotadd. I respond to Wikipedia related issues here: [18]Lam Kin Keung (talk) 02:47, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Ninja'd

I was in the middle of copyediting when I got ninja'd by the protecting admin. Anyone oppose these changes?

• Current

In "Patterns of the Hypnotic Techniques of Milton H.Erickson: Volume 1," Bandler and Grinder pointed to evidence of the generative capacity of the brain (plasticity). "[The] equipotentiality or plasticity of the human nervous system is another piece of evidence pointing to great human potential so far largely unexplored."[57] Today their view is supported by empirical research. Psychiatrist and Psychoanalyst Dr. Norman Doidge, who is on the faculty of the Columbia University Center for Psychoanalytic Training and Research in New York, said that, "What you think and imagine can [indeed] change the structure of your brain."[58][59]

Other arguments by Bandler and Grinder have not been supported by subsequent empirical research, however. In the early 1980s, NLP was hailed as an important advance in psychotherapy and counseling,[15] and attracted some interest in counseling research and clinical psychology. In the mid-1980s, reviews in The Journal of Counseling Psychology[13] and by the National Research Council (1988; NRC) committee[53] found little or no empirical basis for the claims about preferred representational systems (PRS) or assumptions of NLP.

• Revision

In "Patterns of the Hypnotic Techniques of Milton H.Erickson: Volume 1," Bandler and Grinder wrote that the brain's capacity to change and adapt(neuroplasticity) was further evidence of unexplored human potential, "[the] equipotentiality or plasticity of the human nervous system is another piece of evidence pointing to great human potential so far largely unexplored." That the brain possesses the faculties for significant adaptation and change are well supported by modern cognitive sciences. Psychiatrist and Psychoanalyst Dr. Norman Doidge, who is on the faculty of the Columbia University Center for Psychoanalytic Training and Research in New York, said that, "What you think and imagine can [indeed] change the structure of your brain."

Other arguments by Bandler and Grinder, however, have not been supported by subsequent empirical research. In the early 1980s, NLP was hailed as an important advance in psychotherapy and counseling, and attracted some interest in counseling research and clinical psychology.

• Changes

1. "pointed to" --> "wrote" per WP:SAY
2. rmv "Today" per WP:RELTIME
3. rmv "generative"(not sure if this is being used correctly)
4. move however to middle of sentence
5. delete extra space before "in the early 1980s"

I believe there are more issues with this paragraph and others, but haven't gotten to those yet.AerobicFox (talk) 17:52, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Hello AerobicFox. Thank you for your efforts. Though the main problem with the information is that it is original research WP:OR. It appears Doidge does not mention neuro-linguistic programming. Neuroscience views tend to understand NLP to be pseudoscientific. Lam Kin Keung (talk) 04:14, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

References to plasticity are far from original research. The subject has been exhaustively considered empirically by many of the top people in neuroscience and psychoanalysis, including the work referenced. Additional references and explanation have been provided on discussion/talk pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.24.22.187 (talk) 06:21, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

LKK's comment about a negative perception of NLP existing in the neuro scientific community is not accurate. There is virtually no attention given to NLP in that community. In my opinion, to the extent a perception exists (positive or negative) about the subject matter in the scientific community, it has been created by this Wikipedia article rather than being reflected in it, which is precisely the reason to include well documented facts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.24.22.187 (talk) 06:40, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Hello IP 78... The edits are not appropriate. They are what some of the majority science viewpoints describe as neuro-babble or neuro-myth. The neuroscientist views require explicit, meaningful and significant mention of neuro-linguistic programming. Otherwise it is just editors creating their own research conclusions: WP:NOR. Lam Kin Keung (talk) 01:05, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

That's simply inaccurate and unsubstantiated. -Encyclotadd — Preceding unsigned comment added by Encyclotadd (talk • contribs) 23:14, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Hello Encyclotadd. It is unclear what you are referring to. If you are writing of the previous address to IP 78...., the neurobabble term in the reference to NLP is actually substantiated (Beyerstein). But the Doige reference does not appear to refer to NLP at all. So it is inappropriate for the article. Lam Kin Keung (talk) 00:46, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

LKK, Let me be more specific. You falsely claim that a negative majority view of NLP exists in neurscience today. You wrote that "Neuroscience views tend to understand NLP to be pseudoscientific" and then provide a quote from Beyerstein. That is simply untruthful and unsubstantiated. The Beyerstein reference is FROM 22 YEARS AGO. Beyerstein is deceased and was well known for expressing skeptical view points. Wikipedia described Beyerstein as a "leading skeptic" about most of the subject matters he covered! To suggest that somehow represents a common view today is terribly misleading. Meanwhile you delete references to leading (ivy league) members of the psychological community today. That's a shame. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Encyclotadd (talk • contribs) 05:48, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Hello Encyclotadd. Could you provide any quotes that show Doige mentioning neuro-linguistic programming at all? Lam Kin Keung (talk) 06:11, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

LKK, The quote about plasticity is so commonly accepted that they filmed television documentaries about it. Meanwhile your position in this discussion hangs on a quote from 20 years ago by a now deceased "skeptic," who you have suggested represented modern main stream scientific views. You are being very misleading. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Encyclotadd (talk • contribs) 07:50, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Hello again Encyclotadd. Sorry but if the neuroscience related sources you show have no direct statements about neuro-linguistic programming then they are not relevant to this article. I suggest you look at the neuroscience or plasticity related articles instead. As regards Bandler and Grinder talking about plasticity, that may be relevant here, but it needs to adhere to due weight recommendations WP:DUE Lam Kin Keung (talk) 09:35, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

LKK, That's like saying a well documented reference to Miami has no place in an article about Florida. It's simply not true. In fact, there is obviously no other way to consider Florida without discussion and referencing places in the state. If you are unaware of the component parts of NLP, I urge you to refer to the sources that I referenced, and others sited in the Wikipedia. The facts are right there in front of you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Encyclotadd (talk • contribs) 17:15, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Encyclotadd please (i) read WP:INDENT it would make your comments easier to follow. (ii) Please also read WP:OR and WP:SYNTH, you are in several sections arguing a case rather than reflecting sources --Snowded ^TALK 20:10, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Hello Encyclotadd. You seem focused on plasticity issue. If you can find a significant number of sources mentioning NLP that also cover plasticity, it could be relevant to this article. Please read the article on original research WP:NOR. Lam Kin Keung (talk) 02:04, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Guys, a Google search reveals a million search results for Plasticity and NLP. There is no way to discuss NLP without discussing it's components, which includes plasticity. This is clear to anyone who reads about the subject, and is clear in the references provided to you. Your deletion of that reference and to a leading psychoanalyst at Columbia University who wrote a book about Plasticity was vandalism and your only argument for otherwise is that the psychoanalyst referred to something that shows up a million times in search results for NLP and not to NLP itself. That argument is at best disingenuous and at worst dishonest. I would be inclined to give you the benefit of the doubt except that you once again forced the edit AFTER the Wikipedia admin locked the page for several days to prevent you from doing so! Shame on you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Encyclotadd (talk • contribs) 05:02, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Hello Encyclotadd. Concerning your edits [19]. Pagelocks do not favour or endorse a particular edit or piece of content. Your edit is OR. You need to provide substantial evidence otherwise including citations from specific reliable sources. You also need to gain some consensus on this talk page. Please work towards satisfying the suggestions and policy pages above. Lam Kin Keung (talk) 06:30, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

LKK, You are forcing edits that were previously marked as vandalism that attracted Wikipedia administrator intervention. In doing so, and without regard for progress on this talk page, you both violated the spirit of cooperation and the rules of this community.

Your comment about WP:OR is very misleading. Your claim is similar to saying that an article about Hong Kong by a leading expert on the city cannot be referenced in an article about China. Do a Google search for the terms we are discussing and you will see there are over a million results online (a million!) showing them in context of NLP. I have provided references both to original work by the founders of the subject matter dating back forty years, and to current faculty of ivy league institutions.

You have offered no comment on the facts, which are entirely supported by the references.

You repeatedly try to include references to books with bias expressed in the titles. Many of your inclusions are references to books like the "Skeptics Guide" and the "Skeptics Perspective" Etc. Do enough studying to instead include comments by noted faculty of leading ivy league educational institutions, as the other members of the Wikipedia community have been trying (apparently for years?) to do. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Encyclotadd (talk • contribs) 15:42, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

You are clearly adding material based on your own conclusions Encyclotadd, that is WP:OR. The fact that something has" Skeptic" does not imply bias per se, if you do not like the material you have to explain why on the talk page. You should also stop making patronising ramparts to other editors as evidenced by the above comment. Combined with edit warring you appear to be walking yourself down a path which will sooner or later result in you being blocked. I suggest you spend some time reading up policy, then use the talk page rather than editing the article direct. --Snowded ^TALK 20:28, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Locked after 'controversial' re-added

Well, I must admit, their tactics are impressive. This is now the second time we're having this debate, and while people attempt to convince Snowded and LKK (who will never be convinced: they are pushing an agenda, not a particular point) 'controversial' has been re-added and the page is now locked. We need someone of a higher authority than either Snowded or LKK to come in and rule on this issue. The arguments have been made for both sides already, so there is little point in us going in circles. Willyfreddy (talk) 20:17, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi Willyfreddy. The good news: FT2 [20] banned them last time. He was the admin on the case and he expertly compiled this [21]. That makes the sockmasterouting site highly credible. It is really just a matter of time. Snowden, LKK (and possibly Aerobicfox) are hardly worth responding to. Just wait till the boot comes again, the pagelock is off and then balance the article. Colemchange (talk) 01:59, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Well the next steps are either WP:DRN or an RfC, no one has any authority to step in here and force a change, all we can do is widen the discussion to achieve a greater consensus. N^oformation ^Talk 03:46, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

I think it may be more than that. We clearly have some strong NLP advocates who are organising their edits here. The South Australian NLP web site was clearly engaged in meat puppetry at one stage and editors such as Willyfreddy are simply repeating arguments and rather silly accusations from that and other sites. It probably needs a proper investigation. --Snowded ^TALK 03:49, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Sorry I'm not totally familiar with the background of this page, I came here earlier today from AN/I. Anything else I should know? N^oformation ^Talk 03:58, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm about to get on a flight from LAX to Sydney, but I started to assemble some of the evidence here if that is any use. --Snowded ^TALK 04:21, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Alright, this was expected. I do believe that Snowded, and LKK, are clearly pushing an agenda here (as I have said for a while), and so it makes sense that they would then suggest the same of me. I'll let our previous arguments/edits speak for themselves. As for the suggestion that I'm stealing my arguments from some Australian website... well... uhm... everyone is entitled to their own opinion I guess :) Nevertheless, you might want to watch the non-sequiturs there, Snowded. Just because I disagree with you does not mean that I am a "strong NLP advocate". You have demonstrated this sort of blackwhite thinking before on this page (our first discussion, if I'm not mistaken), and it can make it very difficult to have fruitful discussions. Willyfreddy (talk) 07:26, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Noformation, I think it would be great if we could start a dispute resolution for the matter. Willyfreddy (talk) 07:41, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Controversy

It looks as though at least one NLP organization lables NLP as controversial, along with the skeptical sources already used.

Here is a news source refers to NLP as controversial and quotes the head of the department of linguistics of UAE University as saying "NLP has been heavily criticised by serious psychological scientists because the creators and practitioners … have provided no evidence for the effectiveness of it."

The Lance Armstrong Foundation also refers to a controversy surrounding NLP.

That makes 5 (4 if you don't want to count LAF, I'm not sure on their status as an RS) sources that call NLP controversial, and I'm sure there are many many more. WP:WEIGHT dictates that we should publish any and all significant views and unless we can find some equivalent sources that say it's not controversial then it should probably be included. N^oformation ^Talk 03:44, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

As mentioned, this was discussed above. I will simply repeat my arguments here, as your point was already covered by LKK. Initially, LKK stated that the Wikipedia guidelines supported the inclusion of the word 'controversial' in the opening sentence. My response was: I do not believe the guidelines offer any support for labeling NLP as a controversial therapy. It states that "The lead should establish significance, include mention of notable criticism or controversies". Establishing the controversies within a topic does not equal labeling the topic itself as controversial. That is a judgement call. If one follows the logic that you are using here, the opening sentence of psychiatry, psychoanalysis, astrology, dianetics, etc. would all require the term 'controversial' [ed note: global warming as well, for that matter]. If anything, I believe that those guidelines support removal of several of the criticisms currently present in the lede, as it is questionable how many of them would be considered 'notable'. Are any of the criticisms from Tier 1 journals? If the referenced books contain original research, has it been peer reviewed? If the books reference published results, then those results should be linked to directly. Of course, whether or not these references are 'notable' is also a judgement call. LKK then dropped that point and instead suggested that the case can made based upon the number of references found that stated it was controversial. To this I responded: Establishing a controversy within a topic does not equal labeling the topic itself controversial. And whether or not an individual author believes a subject to be controversial is of itself not notable, as it is a judgement call. Similarly, an individual author stating that he believes a topic is NOT controversial would be no more notable. There is no standard way to quantify such judgements empirically across a range of subjects. Even if, for example, 75% of all the registered Psychoanalysts in the world expressed a belief that Psychoanalysis was controversial, that would not support an introductory sentence of "Psychoanalysis is a controversial psychological theory...". It would merely support a separate statement of "75% of all registered Psychoanalysts in the world believe the topic to be controversial". Willyfreddy (talk) 07:18, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Hello Willyfreddy. You failed to respond to this: [22]. Could you offer a suggestion now? Which is subjective judgement call, and which objective? Lam Kin Keung (talk) 08:22, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Hello LKK. Indeed, I did not respond to that question. I believe it sidetracks, rather than focuses, the discussion. You may judge my argument as it stands, and respond to it accordingly. Willyfreddy (talk) 09:04, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the prompt response. In that case, your the first point “Establishing the controversies within a topic does not equal labeling the topic itself as controversial.”: The first line is not a label. Clearly according to lede guidelines it CAN include the term controversial. Controversies SHOULD be represented in the lede, and the term CAN be placed in the opening line.

In subsequent points you mention notability of certain other elements in the lede. That is not relevant to this discussion.

You then state “And whether or not an individual author believes a subject to be controversial is of itself not notable, as it is a judgement call. Similarly, an individual author stating that he believes a topic is NOT controversial would be no more notable”

This is not a notability issue WP:NOTE. It is related more to due weight and how to sift facts from opinion:[23]. There is no controversy over the fact that NLP is controversial. People from a variety of sources state that it is controversial, and none take the opposing position. This is where it is differing from some other subjects where there is the view that the theory is uncontroversial (significantly well accepted).

There are good sources from multiple views stating that NLP is controversial, none opposing. So it is appropriate for the sentence. Lam Kin Keung (talk) 09:43, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your opinions. Yes, I should have removed the bit about whether or not the specific criticisms in the lede were notable (Tier-1 journals, peer-reviewed, etc), as that is not pertinent to the present discussion. Nevertheless, as mentioned, we clearly disagree on everything else. Now that our arguments have been presented, we can wait for other authors to weigh in or (fingers crossed) for a dispute resolution to commence. Willyfreddy (talk) 16:35, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

I've given my uninvolved assessment above[24].·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:48, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

• But to comment on the sources: "Some experts are sceptical. Dr Steven Bird, chairman of the department of linguistics at UAE University, said 'NLP has been heavily criticised by serious psychological scientists because the creators and practitioners … have provided no evidence for the effectiveness of it.'" I find this rather a weak source: 1. Notice he does not say HE considers it controversial, he says others (un-named) do; 2. This is not stated in a careful academic journal, where scientists communicate, it is quoted in a newspaper article as balance to the enthusiasm expressed by proponents; 3. I cannot find much info on Dr. Bird - is he an expert in the field? UAE University does not have a long history of academic excellence; 4. Overall, I would say that a couple obscure references from non-notable individuals, even if they technically meet Wikipedia RS requirements, does not make a strong case for giving prominence to the label "Controversial". I realize finding good scientific sources is difficult as it is advanced as a "process" rather than as a "science". Ratagonia (talk) 18:14, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

"Controversial" comments from other editors

• My take is that calling it "controversial" as the fifth word in the article is perhaps over-the-top. I think it would serve our readers better to say what NLP IS first (the first two paragraphs), then introduce the controversy in the third paragraph of the lede, perhaps with a sentence that says "NLP is controversial". Consider this as a proposed compromise. Ratagonia (talk) 17:53, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

That is also my general view. I do think that it is more important to note who finds it to be controversial and why.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:58, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Ratagonia: "I think it would serve our readers better to say what NLP IS first (the first two paragraphs), then introduce the controversy in the third paragraph of the lede" I emphatically agree with this, and am very glad to see more objective editors present on the talk page. However, I am iffy about including the sentence "NLP is controversial" in the third paragraph. I tend to side with Maunus, as he states: "The lead should not define the topic as controversial it should describe what NLP is including what is controversial about it and how." As an alternative, for example, one could state something like this to start off the third paragraph: "There are a number of controversies regarding the empirical validity of certain aspects of NLP, as well as claims made by particular practitioners." To be honest, I'm not sure that the term 'controversial' adds anything to such a statement, but I offer it as a compromise to those so intent on seeing it appear. Willyfreddy (talk) 21:22, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

I seem to remember something along these lines being offered and rejected before. Saying "NLP is ..." in 1/2 sentences followed by "It is a controversial ....." is fine by me. --Snowded ^TALK 21:59, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Fine with me too, I have no attachment to the lead saying "NLP is controversial;" so long as it's mentioned that there is controversy in the lead then I'm happy. Someone brought up Astrology before as an example of something that isn't called controversial in the first sentence, and this is true (that's also because it's not controversial scientifically), but it is clearly defined as a pseudoscience later in the lead. The same would work well for NLP except that my understanding is that it's not a pseudoscience, it's just not firmly established yet and hence controversial. N^oformation ^Talk 22:39, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

We seem to be in agreement, so far, that the first one or two paragraphs should describe what NLP IS and then the third paragraph can cover the controversies. However, as for that paragraph, we have two suggestions so far: a) Leading with "NLP is controversial..." (or "It is controversial..."); b) Leading with something like "There are a number of controversies regarding the empirical validity of certain aspects of NLP..." Personally, I support option (b), as it enables us to avoid labeling (which just seems intellectually lazy), and provides the reader with more specific information. Willyfreddy (talk) 23:00, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

There are a body of citations that do describe it as a pseudo-science but I don't think we need that in the lede. Willfreddy I think we are agreed on controversial in the second or third sentence of the first paragraph. --Snowded ^TALK 23:06, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't go as far as to label it intellectually lazy but I think either solution is acceptable and I like the way you've worded (B). N^oformation ^Talk 23:36, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

A suggestion developed from the comments in above section[25]:

NLP is an approach to psychotherapy, self-help and organizational change (cite). Bandler and Grinder state NLP to be "a model of interpersonal communication chiefly concerned with the relationship between successful patterns of behaviour and the subjective experiences (esp. patterns of thought) underlying them" and "a system of alternative therapy based on this which seeks to educate people in self-awareness and effective communication, and to change their patterns of mental and emotional behaviour"(cite). There are a number of controversies concerning NLP in that according to neuroscientists, evidence based psychologists, and linguists (cite), NLP is largely unsupported by scientific evidence, and its concepts, terms and claims are considered to be pseudoscientific and discredited (cite).

I am wondering what are your comments on the first line? NLP seems to be used for many things in a lot of different areas. What would a comprehensive range look like? Lam Kin Keung (talk) 02:26, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I say we do one thing at a time. At the moment we are discussing what to do with the re-added term 'controversial' - which was the cause of the article being locked. Let's resolve that first (and get the article unlocked) and then, in another discussion, deal with the full text of each of the three lede paragraphs. To review, there are two issues being debated currently. The first is mentioned above, choosing between (a) or (b), regarding the language used to introduce the controversies. The second issue is related to which paragraph in the lede the controversy stuff should appear: c) first paragraph; d) third paragraph. As mentioned, I support (b) and (d). Willyfreddy (talk) 02:58, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Willyfreddy, do you wanna do the honors and build a paragraph off of (b)? Also, I'm fine with (b) and (d) as well in theory, though I would like to see what the whole lead is going to look like. N^oformation ^Talk 19:57, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, for now, if we can agree that the term 'controversy' (or one of its derivatives) should only appear in the third paragraph, then I'd suggest that we remove 'controversial' from the opening sentence and simply tack on "There are a number of controversies regarding the empirical validity of certain aspects of NLP, as well as claims made by particular practitioners." to the front of the third paragraph. This achieves two things: 1) It allows us to remove the lock on the article; 2) It solidifies the format for the lede by dividing it into two chunks - what NLP IS and what the controversies are (as Ratagonia suggested) - which enables editors to work on either aspect of the lede independently, allowing discussions to be more focused. New sections can then be created on the talk page in order to discuss changes to any of the three paragraphs. Willyfreddy (talk) 00:00, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

That would avoid solving the main issue here. Neuro-linguistic programming makes pseudo-scientific and misleading claims according to the significant mainstream science view. It helps to show in the first paragraph that there is a controversy, and or what is the controversy. The scientist viewpoints should be shown to clarify the main controversies of the NLP claim in the first paragraph. Then in the second paragraph NLP view can get a full hearing. In the third paragraph the scientific skepticism views can get full hearing. That solves the main issue in a structural balanced and clear way. Lam Kin Keung (talk) 01:10, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

No, it would avoid solving it in the way that you want (an important clarification). LKK: "It helps to show in the first paragraph that there is a controversy, and or what is the controversy. The scientist viewpoints should be shown to clarify the main controversies of the NLP claim in the first paragraph." Okay, that's your opinion, and I comprehensively disagree. I think Ratagonia's suggestion, detailed above, is much cleaner. And again, as a comparison, Dianetics doesn't have a single criticism listed in the lede, while Astrology relegates its criticisms to the final paragraph of the lede. Willyfreddy (talk) 03:44, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree in part with Ratagonia's comment: The first paragraph should state what NLP is. NLP is controversial. That can be kept out of the first line (as suggested). It is appropriate as a scientific clarifying sentence after the main NLP view of what NLP is. Lam Kin Keung (talk) 04:07, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

That is a strange way to look at it. In Spite of being an adjective the word controversial does not describe an inherent quality of anything - it describes what people think about it and that is contingent on historical and social context. Saying it is "controversial" provides no information. Providing information would be writing "scientists have criticized NLP for being ..."·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:52, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Sorry Maunus, I meant to say "NLP is controversial due to....". I have suggested a further compromise though:[26]Lam Kin Keung (talk) 02:04, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't object to some mention of NLP being "controversial" in the first paragraph. But I strongly object to doing this in the very first sentence in the way some editors are insisting on. I consider this completely indefensible. As I've said before - and I'll keep on saying it - just about every subject or person with a WP article has some associated controversy. Unless that controversy is especially notable it should not be mentioned in the first sentence. We don't start the article on psychoanalysis by saying that it's "controversial" - but we could find all sorts of apparently reliable references to say that it is. The NLP article should be no different in this regard. Therefore any reference to it being controversial needs to be moved out of the first sentence. Afterwriting (talk) 02:23, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Hello Afterwriting. Here is one solution to that (shown also above in this section)[27]. The first sentence has been kept to the direct point and clear without adjectives. Lam Kin Keung (talk) 02:38, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Since you mentioned it, it is interesting to note that psychoanalysis does not have any controversies in the lede whatsoever (let alone in the first paragraph). Willyfreddy (talk) 03:46, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

They were recently removed from the psychoanalysis article.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:48, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Could you please clarify Willyfreddy. Are you now suggesting to remove all controversies from the lede altogether? Lam Kin Keung (talk) 04:21, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

No, I am not suggesting that. Willyfreddy (talk) 06:07, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification. Resolution may be helped with closer reference to the suggestions made from the broader community. Users Noformation and Maunus have helped since the ANI notice. Clearly the term controversial still can be added to the first line according to guidelines. But the compromise is to add the specific term controversial to the third line of the second paragraph. Here is the suggestion:

"There are a number of controversies concerning NLP in that according to neuroscientists, evidence based psychologists, and linguists (cite), NLP is largely unsupported by scientific evidence, and its concepts, terms and claims are considered to be pseudoscientific and discredited (cite)".

Would you suggest a candidate alternative clarifying 3rd line from science viewpoints? Lam Kin Keung (talk) 06:30, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

LKK: "Clearly the term controversial still can be added to the first line according to guidelines." I already addressed this point, with reference to the actual guidelines, but rather than respond to my specific arguments you simply continue to stipulate that your opinion should be considered an obvious fact. I, for one, do not agree with your conclusion. Furthermore, as I've already suggested, I think we should just focus on the issue at hand: getting the article unlocked, which occurred because you unilaterally added the word 'controversial' to the opening sentence. Before your edit, there was no appearance of the word 'controversy' (or its derivatives) in the lede at all. Now it is in the first sentence. As a compromise, I and Ratagonia are suggesting that it be moved to the start of the third paragraph, rather than removed from the lede completely. As mentioned, this allows the lede to be separated into two discrete sections, and prevents us from having to agree on an even more complex issue (how to phrase the controversies themselves in the lede) in order to get the article unlocked. If other (visiting) editors could please weigh in on these points, that would be excellent. Willyfreddy (talk) 17:25, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Hello Willyfreddy. Here are the lede guidelines WP:LEAD. Could you provide diffs or clarify to the points you say I not respond to? The term “controversial” existed before and was removed by an SPA User Jeanmb[28].

However, for resolution I would be willing to step the compromise further. The term controversial can be removed from the lede completely, provided the main issue be solved: The first paragraph should balance the NLP view and have the controversy described with the reference to clarifying science viewpoints:

"NLP is an approach to psychotherapy, self-help and organizational change (cite). Bandler and Grinder state NLP to be "a model of interpersonal communication and "a system of alternative therapy based on this which seeks to educate people in self-awareness and effective communication, and to change their patterns of mental and emotional behaviour"(cite). The term "Neuro-Linguistic Programming" refers to a stated connection between the neurological processes ("neuro"), language ("linguistic") and behavioral patterns that have been learned through experience ("programming") and can be organized to achieve specific goals in life(cite). According to certain neuroscientists, evidence based psychologists, and linguists (cite), NLP is largely unsupported by scientific evidence, and its concepts, terms and claims are considered to be pseudoscientific and discredited (cite)."

That improves the paragraph for readability and includes the majority science viewpoints. NLP viewpoints still get more coverage than the science viewpoints. Lam Kin Keung (talk) 02:00, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

I think the paragraph is basically ok, I would suggest to change the phrasing "considered to be pseudoscientific and discredited" to "are considered not to be compatible with the scientific understanding of the relation between language, brain and behavior." or something like that. Whether it is "pseudoscientific and discredited" depends a lot on whether NLP aims to be a science or a form of therapy - and I thionk that is an open question. In my view NLP doesn't necessarily claim to be a science, but to be an effective form of therapy. The therapy can of course work even if it is incompatible with the scientific view - just like some people feel better through psychoanalysis, or visiting an astrologer. We should make sure to show that the scientificness critique impinges primarily on the way that NLP approaches concepts in the scientific realm, not on whether NLP is an effective therapy. If there are studies criticizing its therapeutic qualities those should be kept separately from the critiques of its use of scientific concepts. I think it is best to reserve the term pseudoscientific to those frameworks that claim scientific goals and scientific validity, while flaunting basic scientific principles. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 03:01, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm neither a psychologist nor a psychiatrist (nor do I have any other such training.) It's interesting to read that NLP is "controversial", when those who make that claim seem not to be doing what Blander and Grinder describe as correct practice of their method in Frogs into Princes, and in ReFraming. Whether either method "works" I don't know; experimentation on human subjects is always difficult. htom (talk) 02:51, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Hello Maunus and Htom. Neuro-linguistic programming is criticized for both being pseudo-scientific and ineffective. A concern is its status as a method that promotes many of the pseudo-scientific neuro-myths. Both are part of the controversy. However, I can move compromise further:

“……specific goals in life(cite). According to certain neuroscientists, evidence based psychologists, and linguists (cite), NLP is largely unsupported by scientific evidence and involves the use of discredited concepts and misleading terminology (cite)."

Though it is explicitly stated in scientific views the term pseudo-scientific is often not liked by some editors here and has been very often removed out of the article. But the term "misleading" could be an alternative in this the case. Lam Kin Keung (talk) 03:50, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Surprising to me, it seems like progress is being made. Thank you. I don't like the term pseudo-science for NLP because I have not seen any reliable source that labels it as such. Maybe they showed up and then were vanquished, so I did not see them. So... I am unclear that the statements are supported by Reliable Sources. In addition, I find the language very convoluted - just bad Englishing- Weasely. Assuming the citations hold up, how about:

"...specific goals in life(cite). According to some neuroscientists, (cite), psychologists (cite) and linguists (cite), NLP is unsupported by scientific evidence." To me, this sounds like a lede. More detail below. I don't know what "involves the use of discredited concepts and misleading terminology" means. Ratagonia (talk) 04:42, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Many reliable references in the article state that neuro-linguistic programming is pseudo-scientific: Roderique Davies, Devilly, Drenth, Witkowski and others for eg. Misleading terminology refers to, for example, Roderique Davies’s use of the term pseudo-scientific (saying even the term neuro-linguistic programming is pseudo-scientific). Pseudo-sciences often make misleading use of terminology, for example the comparison of scientology and neuro-linguistic programming: [29][30]. Pseudo-scientific is the specific criticism and can still be applied. “Misleading” is the term I could live with as a substitute for pseudo-scientific in this case.

“……specific goals in life(cite). According to certain neuroscientists, evidence based psychologists, and linguists (cite), NLP is largely unsupported by scientific evidence, involves the use of misleading terminology, and appears on lists of discredited therapies (cite)."

That clarifies the line for “discredited” also with the reference to the quotable sources. Lam Kin Keung (talk) 05:16, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Postscript: There may be acceptable alternatives to the "misleading". Feel free to suggest. Lam Kin Keung (talk) 07:22, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

There seems to me to be a logical fallacy in going from "NLP uses terminology incorrectly or misleadingly" and "pseudo-science uses terminology incorrectly or misleadingly" to "NLP is a pseudo-science". What was presented as a six or seven step (the difference being an additional final test) seems to be being done by the NLP critics (in the little I've read of what they did) as a shortened four step process -- which Blander and Grinder warned against doing, as it would be ineffective -- and the critics then claim NLP doesn't work. It almost seems to me that the critics are confirming the original work in NLP; "if you do it this way, it won't work", the critics did it that way, and it didn't work. htom (talk) 17:43, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Hello Htom. I am not sure how much of the sources you have read. If you have reliable sources saying neuro-linguistic programming critics are using logical fallacy then that could help. The term the critics use to describe neuro-linguistic programming use is “pseudo-scientific”. They do also describe the claims and use of neuroscience terms as misleading. Your suggestion “incorrect” is similar in some way to “misleading”. According to the slides here[31]it could also be “distorted” or “conceptually distorted” terms. With those choices I would choose with either pseudo-scientific or misleading or distorted. They are likely clearer for the readability. Lam Kin Keung (talk) 00:50, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

I've read Frogs into Princes, and ReFraming. In the current Wikipedia article, the statement is made "It assumes that by tracking another's eye movements and language, an NLP trainer can shape the person's thoughts, feelings, and opinions (Dilts, 1983[63]). There is no scientific support for these assumptions."; but that mis-states why Blander and Grinder taught reading body language (not just eyes); by observing body language, you can then mirror it, pace it, lead it, which may induce a more trusting attitude in the client. Then the client is more influenced by what you say. I'd say that Dilts misunderstood the method, or was taught something other than what was in those books. Complaints that those not in your field are misusing the jargon of your field ... that's why it's jargon. Experts separated by a "common" jargon (or language) is something I've dealt with for decades. Make them speak English -- or American -- rather than jargon and they can find solutions rather than name-calling and blaming. In this case, both sides have vested financial interests in preserving their unique understandings; I'm not holding my breath waiting for them to abandon their golden eggs. htom (talk) 04:02, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

OK that could be true but the reliable sources would be needed to present the argument in the main part of the article. The sources you mention are written before the criticisms were made. Especially recent criticisms that NLP has been discredited. The main concern the critics refer to is that neuro-linguistic programming is pseudo-scientific: It is a pseudo-scientific name: It is written in obscure way: The neuro like concepts are applied in a misleading way just for commercial promotion: Neuro-linguistic programming promotes common neuro-mythologies. Those are the key criticisms beyond its lack of results. “Pseudo-scientific”, “incorrect and misleading”, “distorted conceptions” are appropriate according to the sources. Could you suggest any other terms for the line in question? Lam Kin Keung (talk) 05:03, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Recap: Suggestions for the third line of the first paragraph: User Bobrayner (support for Controversial in first sentence) [32]; User Colemchange (against the term Controversial) [33]. User Noformation (use Controversial rather than Pseudoscientific [34]); User Snowded (use controversial in the second or third sentences)[35]; User Afterwriting (Controversial in first paragraph is ok, not in first sentence) [36]; User Maunus (Pseudo-science term can be added to first paragraph if neuro-linguistic programming fakes science) [37]; User Willyfreddy (Don’t allow Controversy or description of controversy in first paragraph at all) [38]User Ratagonia (use Scientifically Unsupported rather than pseudo-scientific in third sentence of first paragraph)[39].

I agree with Ratagonia’s progressive suggestion for "...specific goals in life(cite). According to some neuroscientists, (cite), psychologists (cite) and linguists (cite), NLP is unsupported by scientific evidence.". However, a non-support by science on its own is too close to a non-controversy. The sentence would need more concerning either: Misleading/distorted/incorrect terms, pseudo-scientific, or discredited. I suggest a compromise:

"...specific goals in life(cite). According to some neuroscientists, (cite), psychologists (cite) and linguists (cite), NLP is not supported by scientific evidence, and promotes incorrect and misleading terms and concepts." Lam Kin Keung (talk) 03:00, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

I'd use "unsupported by current scientific" rather than "not supported by scientific", and "uses terms and concepts with different than customary meanings" rather than "promotes incorrect and misleading terms and concepts." Lack of evidence is not evidence of disproof, and projection of intent is unencyclopedic, even if reliably sourced. htom (talk) 03:54, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Sorry I left you off the recap, Htom. Yes the change to the part "unsupported by current scientific" is acceptable. But to address the controversy it would need some form of the final part suggested. The suggestions for Misleading and Incorrect are compromises to the reliably sourced science based views explicitly describing neuro-linguistic programming as Pseudo-scientific. I now suggest resolution to: "...specific goals in life(cite). According to certain neuroscientists, (cite), psychologists (cite) and linguists (cite), NLP is unsupported by current scientific evidence, and promotes incorrect and misleading terms and concepts." Lam Kin Keung (talk) 04:14, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Not a problem. How about "uses" rather than "promotes"? htom (talk) 22:43, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, for purpose of resolution I think that is acceptable. Lam Kin Keung (talk) 00:56, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Ok, then if there are no further suggestions, I suggest we should add this version to the article:

"NLP is an approach to psychotherapy, self-help and organizational change (cite). Bandler and Grinder say that NLP is be a model of interpersonal communication and a system of alternative therapy based on this which seeks to educate people in self-awareness and effective communication, and to change their patterns of mental and emotional behaviour(cite). The term "Neuro-Linguistic Programming" refers to a stated connection between the neurological processes ("neuro"), language ("linguistic") and behavioral patterns that have been learned through experience ("programming") and can be organized to achieve specific goals in life(cite). According to certain neuroscientists, (cite), psychologists (cite) and linguists (cite), NLP is unsupported by current scientific evidence, and uses incorrect and misleading terms and concepts." Lam Kin Keung (talk) 00:51, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

The logical fallacy is between our article and a RS. "There seems to me to be a logical fallacy in going from '"NLP uses terminology incorrectly or misleadingly"' and '"pseudo-science uses terminology incorrectly or misleadingly"' to '"NLP is a pseudo-science"'. I suppose I should call it SYN or OR but what struck me was the structure of the paragraph. Horses have four legs, tables have four legs, horses are tables. htom (talk) 23:46, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Hello Htom. If you can find reliable sources to support your view on logical fallacies of the criticisms then it could be appropriate for the main part of the article. Lam Kin Keung (talk) 00:53, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Quite the contrary, LKK. The article should say ONLY and EXACTLY what the sources say. If the sources say "NLP uses terminology incorrectly or misleadingly" then WE cannot interpret that as "NLP is a pseudo-science" - because that is NOT what the source says. May I suggest you owe Htom an apology for your incivil response to his quite-valid suggestion. Ratagonia (talk) 05:40, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Hello Ratagonia. I am sorry, but I appreciate the suggestions of Htom. However, they will require reliable sources for inclusion WP:RS. Here is the page on civility WP:CIV. Concerning what sources say; they say that neuro-linguistic programming is pseudo-scientific. Incorrect and Misleading have been proposed as alternatives for clarity and resolution. Lam Kin Keung (talk) 06:10, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Making LKK's "compromise" explicit

I think it's important to be explicit about what's occurring here. Several months ago, there was a very involved discussion (much like this one) regarding the word 'controversial' appearing in the opening sentence. Following that discussion, that term was removed. Authors who had argued in favour of the term being included let the issue go. Then, a few weeks ago, LKK unilaterally added the term back into the first sentence, with no discussion whatsoever. When objections were raised, the article was eventually locked with the change still present. Rather than following BRD [40], he followed BLD (bold,lock,discuss) - which, not surprisingly, does not have a corresponding policy page on Wikipedia. And now he is claiming that he is willing to "compromise" by removing the term 'controversial', and thus the lock (which should never have been there in the first place), as long as further criticisms of NLP are added to the first paragraph of the lede.

My opinion is that all criticisms should remain in the third paragraph (for the reasons stated). As for the new language currently being considered, I think it would be beneficial to use it as a replacement for the third paragraph (which does not read like an overview at all). Willyfreddy (talk) 06:32, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Willyfreddy. Here was the discussion last week [41]. I made the suggestion to re-add several weeks after you failed to make the respond to my previous question. I gave you space to respond. I did not directly subsequently add the term [42]. Once again if anyone has reason to suggest I am a sockpuppet of User Snowded, then make a proper investigation WP:SPI. If you could provide diffs of the “months ago” discussion then we can know specifically what to respond to. Lam Kin Keung (talk) 06:57, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

There was no discussion prior to be it being added, as I mentioned when I first raised the issue [43]. And you did in fact directly re-add the term subsequently [44]. Willyfreddy (talk) 09:15, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Willyfreddy. Your account of what happened before the constructive pagelock is inaccurate. Here are the diffs just prior to lock: User Snowded (restored claiming consensus[45]), User Afterwriting (removed claiming non-consensus) [46], User Snowded (restored claiming consensus) [47], User Afterwriting (removed claiming non-consensus) [48], User Lam Kin Keung (restored with additional citations claiming multiple reasons) [49], User IP (claiming consensus too short) [50], User William M. Connolly (claiming citations good) [51]. Lam Kin Keung (talk) 10:15, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, those are the diffs just prior to lock. Willyfreddy (talk) 16:53, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Would you provide a link to the discussion you claim took place some months ago? --Snowded ^TALK 09:35, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

View History -> 500 -> older 500 -> Ctrl-F -> "controversial". It starts here: [52]. Snowded was the first to respond: [53]. It was, in fact, 11 months ago now. Willyfreddy (talk) 18:02, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

I remember that (but I did look it up to check), I thought you meant there had been an agreement during my wikibreak. No consensus to change was reached in that debate, we do however have yet another small group of SPA accounts that briefly flamed before dying away, a pattern there. --Snowded ^TALK 18:33, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

I never used the words "agreement" or "consensus". Willyfreddy (talk) 23:38, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/HeadleyDown

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/HeadleyDown William M. Connolley (talk) 09:48, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Mesh infobox

I added the mesh info box with the unique id for NLP. --122.108.140.210 (talk) 02:23, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Concerns about some recent edits

Alas, one of my recent edits was undone by encyclotadd (talk · contribs), with the summary "You removed the most relaible sources from the article. Please don't force edits being discussed". Which is baffling as it's encyclotadd "forcing" edits [54], and the sources removed by encyclotadd are by far the most reliable - for instance the sentence in the lede which is backed by Witkowski, Lum, Corballis, Stollznow, and Drenth. Perhaps there has been some mistake? It would be better to discuss instead of editwarring, especially if there has been any confusion over what a reliable source is. (Hint: A magazine article which doesn't even mention NLP does not count as a reliable source).
I would also point out that good-faith attempts by other users to restore sourced content are not vandalism. Calling other editors vandals does not help your cause. bobrayner (talk) 20:12, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Enclylotadd seems unwilling to learn about WP:OR and the reinsertion of material based on their own conclusions about "evidence" has reached the point where it is edit warring. I have placed a warning on their user page. --Snowded ^TALK 20:22, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

So far the entire discussion by the three of you on this page has been about Wikipedia rules. I'm the only one steering our conversation towards discussing the facts, such as providing additional references and informational links to research on plasticity, which you can see from the references already provided and a simple Google search is an integral part of NLP. Please discuss plasticity. Or please discuss mirroring. Or please discuss any other component part of NLP. Please spare me your references to the "skeptics" bible etc, which have their bias expressed in theri title. Stick with references to ivy league faculty for a change. It would be truly appreciated.--Encyclotadd (talk) 20:33, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

WIkipedia is not a place where we discuss those issues, its one where we reflect reliable sources. You need to understand that. --Snowded ^TALK 20:35, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

That's the most absurd thing anyone has ever said! How can a group of people decide what to include and exclude from an article without discussing the importance of the inclusion / exclusion? That's the whole purpose of the talk page. --Encyclotadd (talk) 20:42, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

It would be uncivil of me to call you a liar, but it's impossible to reconcile your latest comment with the actual discussion on this page - there's plenty of discussion about the merits of different sources and different words, as I'm sure any other reader can see above. Perhaps there has been some more confusion?

There is one principle, and one principle only, which determines your addition & removal of sources from the article: Sources which are negative about NLP are removed, and those which can somehow be spun into something positive are added (even those which don't mention NLP), regardless of quality. Please stop this pov-pushing. En.wikipedia is supposed an encyclopædia, not an advert for fringe theories. bobrayner (talk) 21:01, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Bobrayner, It would indeed be uncivil of you to call me that. It's a shame you are suggesting ad hominem attacks. Please reread my comment above because it was directed to Snowded, who appears to own a conference business that very directly competes with the people being discussed in the NLP article. Because he is a competitor, naturally he will push the most negative POV. Please support a balanced approach to this article. Now that we have covered the POV issue, I'd like to turn both of your attentions back to the subject matters I have been trying to discuss with everyone, such as neuroscience, plasticity, mirroring and how language impacts us unconsciously, and away from the name calling. So far nobody has commented on the actual references that I introduced. Is that because you have not read them???? For heavens sakes. Please focus on some kind of contribution. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Encyclotadd (talk • contribs) 21:17, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Your discussion of those subjects represents your own conclusions about the links between your sources and NLP. Have you got any third party source which draws the same conclusions? Wikipedia reflects sources, it is not a place to debate the subject. Oh and I don't compete with NLP by the way --Snowded ^TALK 21:22, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Snowded, Any discussion of any subject is going to represent the speaker's own conclusion. The changes to the wikipedia article did not reflect my own conclusions, however. They were the conclusions of the sources properly referenced including the leading people in the field such as ivy league faculty members. You have forced edits reflecting your own point of view, and you refuse to discuss the merits of my inclusion (except to yet again reference wikipedia rules) because you probably know that the facts support including them.

If you previously were not aware that your conference business advising business people competes with Bandler's conferences counseling the same people on the same issues was directly competing, now you know. That reflects an obvious bias and is clearly the reason you are POV'ing. It's academically dishonest. Shame on you.--Encyclotadd (talk) 21:42, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Again, what Encyclotadd says - "nobody has commented on the actual references that I introduced" - is impossible to reconcile with what people have actually done - and there's no mention of why Encyclotadd keeps on hammering the revert button to get rid of sourced content which is critical of NLP. It's difficult to take such a mendacious argument seriously. Please, can't we get back on track? I fear the article is likely to get protected again if we can't have a productive discussion. bobrayner (talk) 21:28, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Bobrayner, I would like to see the article protected again to prevent you from forcing edits and POV'ing. Snwoded claims his Practitioner training does not compete with Bandler's Practitioner training. Obviously he directly competes. Your support of him is totally unfounded, which is obvious from your deletion of ivy league university faculty references and your unwillingness to discuss the merits of inclusions/exclusions. --Encyclotadd (talk) 21:42, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Encyclotadd, your references from "Ivy League sources" need to link their findings to NLP. In fact you are making that link, which is why its WP:OR, you are also reverting against a stable position rather than seeking changes here first, that fails WP:BRD. Sorry to keep mentioning the rules, but if you keep breaking them there is little alternative. --Snowded ^TALK 21:52, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Snowded, Your comment that my inclusion was WP:OR is very misleading. It's similar to suggesting an article about Hong Kong by a leading expert on the city should not be referenced in an article about China. Not only should references to Hong Kong be mentioned but it would be incorrect not to include them. Do a Google search for the terms we are discussing such as "mirroring" and you will see there are over a million results online (a million!) of that term appearing in articles about NLP. The words we have been using are obviously part of the subject matter.

I don't know if you perceive yourself to be competing with the founders of NLP-- only you would know that. But your marketing materials suggest that you do. You describe yourself as a computer programmer. Bandler does too. Your conference business provides "cognitive practitioner training" (your words) and Bandler's provides "neuro-linguistic practitioner training" (his words). By your own admission, you present in some of the same locations. Enough already.--Encyclotadd (talk) 04:50, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Recent Edits

If we look at the recent changes (for which the editor concerned is now under voluntary restriction - a good solution there I thought as it allows for time to learn about OR) we have the following. If you view the diff on Off2riorob's self revert (high respect for that by the way) then I am following that sequence in reference to paragraphs Para one

1. First line replacement of "if" with "comprises a communication model and psychological model that provide"
2. Variously replace UK English with US English; behavior for behaviour
3. Remove final paragraph of opening beginning "According to certain neuroscientists ...."

Para two

1. Replace "addressing problems" with "helping to address psychosomatic problems"
2. Replace "methods" with "persuasive techniques"
3. Qualify the claim the cure the common code with the qualification of "in some cases" and also "what appears to be"
4. Qualify amnesic with "be convinced to be" instead of "rendered"

Para three

1. Qualify "reviews" by "some" and remove "numerous"
2. Add a section linking NLP to various aspects of Neuroscience

Looking the two large changes: the removal of material in para one which is properly referenced has not been explained and the additional linking material in para three is clearly original research per various editors. So without some justification for the first and references that directly link the neuroscience to NLP those changes both fail.

The spelling change should be accepted in para one, and I am inclined to accept the addition of "communication" as that more accurately reflects the use in consulting which dominates current use and is not fully represented in the article.

I am also inclined to accept the switch from "methods" to "persuasive techniques", all other changes seem to attempts to reduce the impact of the criticism and from memory are not supported by the text.

Comments? --Snowded ^TALK 06:59, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't know how to achieve this because most of the great work on plasticity has been done without reference to NLP, and I understand that we cannot include it unless the author was talking about plasticity explicitly in context of NLP. But I hope everyone reading this understands the following basic point:

A fundamental claim of NLP since the earliest writings has been that we are physically impacted by our thinking. You may correctly point out that's obvious because of the way our sexual organs work. The change in length and girth that a man experiences when aroused has not other explanation, right? But we have more recently learned empirically that the brain changes shape as well. This was the point that Droidge (from Columbia University made) that I attempted to include. It's a main stream view point, and earlier on this discussion page I included a reference to a Discover Channel video with 1 hour of interviews with leading scientists about this point.

From my lips to God's ears, I wish this was original research, because it would reflect a brilliant connection. I am humbled to readily admit that this is plain as daylight in the references provided, and will be obvious to anyone who reads them. --Encyclotadd (talk) 16:02, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Hello Snowded. Yes, I think Communication would be an appropriate change. Hello Encyclotadd. One inclusion of plasticity could be if Bandler and Grinder had made a significant contribution to plasticity research. Here is another video of an NLP practitioner claiming the penis size change: [55] (at around 10 minutes). Lam Kin Keung (talk) 01:52, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

LKK, the link you posted took a very different position than what I intended to suggest. My point was simply that imagination can lead to an erection. Penn, Teller and you are right to call b.s. on something magically additional happening in a short period of time. My original point stands. --Encyclotadd (talk) 08:28, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Pleased to see you indenting makes life easier for the rest of us. Otherwise as you say the work on plasticity has been done without reference to NLP, in part at least because NLP gets little respect in scientific circles. I have read a fair amount on this and my opinion is that any link with NLP is a tenuous example of retrospective coherence at best. However my opinion, and yours are not relevant. If you want to persue this you need to find a linked reference, or as LKK suggests some acknowledgement of B&G's contribution in the literature, if that exists (I've never seen any but you might find something). --Snowded ^TALK 08:52, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Any more thoughts? If not I will implement the changes proposed above (spelling change, use of "Communication" and "methods" to "persuasive techniques") --Snowded ^TALK 04:31, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Sounds fine to me. Lam Kin Keung (talk) 09:12, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Misuse of sources

"According to certain neuroscientists, psychologists and linguists, NLP is unsupported by current scientific evidence, and uses incorrect and misleading terms and concepts.[4][5][6][7][8]" The cited sources does not support the statement. Did anyone actually check these sources? --122.108.140.210 (talk) 11:40, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

See the discussion above regarding representation of controversy. Lam Kin Keung (talk) 15:32, 23 November 2011 (UTC)