Talk:Neuro-linguistic programming: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 04:45, 9 February 2006

This article is a former featured article candidate. Please view its sub-page to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates (where the individual nomination does not exist) please check the archive. Once the objections have been addressed, you may resubmit the article for featured article status.

This article has had a peer review which has now been [[Wikipedia:Peer review/Template:Namespace prefix of associated pageNeuro-linguistic programming|archived]]. It may contain ideas that you can use to improve this article.

[[Category:Old requests for peer review|Template:Namespace prefix of associated pageNeuro-linguistic programming]]

This is a controversial topic, which may be disputed. Please read this talk page discussion before making substantial changes. (This message should only be placed on talk pages.)

Please follow talk page guideline while posting on this page. No ad-hominem attack on this page please. All messages that deviate from the guideline will be deleted.

General Neuro-linguistic programming chat page

For general chat not related to improving the NLP article, see

NLP Chat Page

(archived)16:12, 7 February 2006 (UTC) by Swatjester

Summary of recent findings to bring the article forward

Hi Voiceofall. Sure we need to be constructive.

Through discussion, we have some more facts to add. Firstly, the Devilly paper will help clarify things. I will see what we can add there. Sounds like Flavius has his finger on the pulse there. Great stuff!

It is clear that Comaze and co are still bent on removing scientific facts. Therefore, although those facts were well supported throughout mediation, they will require further clarification in the article. Then the fanatics may "get it" (I'm an optimist).

It is clear that certain refs are way down on the hierarchy of researchers out there. Namely, Mathison, Tosey and Malloy, amongst others, which are way down on the list. There are many other far more relevant researchers who could be added. Of course, they tend to stick to science, and will be largely very critical of NLP. Tough! Comaze and co insist on trying to tear the most eminent scientists from the article, so that attitude can be better applied to Mathison, Tosey and Malloy.

I'm sure the article will advance nicely this way. HeadleyDown 14:13, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Correct, Headley. I might add Comaze has yet to finish his ref format change also. Certainly the Devilly paper is extremely notable. The Comaze problem is not much of a problem for me. I think he's hillarious and I don't spend much time on the miscreant nowadays. But I notice he is still into wasting everybody's time. I think the solution there is simply to disallow any of his warped interests. Namely, remove the said Malloy etc refs. Cheers DaveRight 03:50, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes these are good recommendations. But I know Comaze only too well. I'm afraid he's not interested at all in correcting his crimes. We are going to have to revert all his disgusting nonsense ourselves, and of course don't be too concerned about whether Comaze has something valid or not. Just delete anything that looks like whitewash or unqualified promotion. AliceDeGrey 05:31, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Change

Comaze : I dont know how all this arbitration or whatever is going on really works or is processing or the process or whatever, but it just might be a good idea if you did not make changes other than grammar without consulting the whole. Ask, talk, convince, and hopefully others will do the same. If they do it without the consent of the whole then they will be the one that everyone will get annoyed with. You are a great editor and I would hate to see you banned or whatever they do to people that are attracting similar flack. jVirus 08:46, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

jVirus. You are pulling my leg. Take a look at Comaze's history, then take a look at the most unrealistically fanatical Hubbardarian zealot on the Scientology article. SNAP! Camridge 08:50, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I call up on all of the irrisponsible of the world, No whining! jVirus 10:00, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yo, I'm not involved in this article, I'm an outside view. You ALL look like you need to back off and stop revert warring. Camridge in particular, I've seen your contribs page and you've clearly violated the 3rr. I'm assuming that Comaze probably did to since your revert war appears to be with him. Maybe it's time you guys all stepped back and let some other editors do it without revert warring hmm? And while at it, review both WP:3RR and WP:AGF. Swatjester 09:46, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yup I checked into it. Comaze and Camridge both violate WP:3RR. Furthermore, Camridge, you have violated WP:NPA and WP:AGF probably at least a dozen times today alone. Swatjester 09:59, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Quite true. What will happen will happen I suppose. jVirus 10:02, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

lol, please, I've lost faith in the admins on this wiki actually blocking anyone with 3RR rule, and even if they do for more than 3 or 4 hours. I've got 2 3RR reports, an RfC, and an RfMediation up, and neither 3RR has gotten an admin response (both on the same person), the RfC isn't getting crap done by any admins even though there's consensus, the RfM was never responded to, and one of my AfD's is constantly being vandalized even thoguh there is clear consensus to delete, and the admins won't go ahead and do anything. Yet, you essentially have to be an editor for 6 months to a year to be an admin or you'll get shot down. Horsepucky I say. Swatjester 10:15, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't agree more, Swatjester. But I don't think we need AfD, RfC, ArB in this case. We just need proactive and consistent mediation. If VoA feels up to it, then thats great. If VoA is getting sick of this page, perhaps he should ask another admin to take over the mediation process.--Dejakitty 11:50, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My whole point in coming here WAS to act as a mediator. See below.

Swatjester! The reason the admins don't block Camridge is due to their being reasonable. Comaze has caused a huge amount of unnecessary work for editors on this article, has acted in bad faith by repeatedly nagging for the same changes to be made when they were resolved through mediation, excess evidence, and consensus, and continues to display the cultlike nature of NLP. Dejakitty is just another of his meatpuppets and has also advocated for removal of eminently supported scientific facts that come to the conclusion that NLP is ineffective and cultlike. I notice you also seem to be siding with Comaze. More fool you! If you wish to support Comaze some more, you will be causing more antagonism for editors who consistently provide accurate facts in good faith, and you will be called names far worse than fool. HeadleyDown 13:35, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh really will I? a) I'm not siding with Comaze. Notice that I point out that he violated 3RR too. Second of all, you're now violating WP:NPA, and threatening me. I'm going to have to ask you to stop.

May we remind you to be civil and to not form personal attacks or edit wars through your or others' comments; doing so will only cause tension and annoyance. (CJ) Swatjester 14:04, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

declaration of purpose: mediation

Let me be blunt here: I'm here to help mediate this topic. I don't give two rats asses about NLP, hell I'd never heard about it until now. I'm here to help mediate your dispute. If we can act civilly, we'll get through this and move on, everybody should be happy, and you continue editing. If both sides choose to continue to personally attack me, or each other, I'm warning you right now, I'll take every action available to me: RfC against each of you, Arbcom, WP:AIV, +protection request, 3RR reports, etc. I don't side with anybody. So far I've seen 3 violators with only minor checking: Comaze, Camridge, and HeadleyDown. I'm more than happy to dig through history here and find every little nugget that ever violated a policy, but that wouldn't be WP:AGF. Show me WHY I should be assuming good faith, and work your problems out here. Swatjester 14:11, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, I advise you all to read the top of this page, where it states "Please follow talk page guideline while posting on this page. No ad-hominem attack on this page please. All messages that deviate from the guideline will be deleted." Swatjester 14:19, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Swatjester, there was no announcement of your being an official mediator here. How am I to know you are not just an ignorant dickhead NLP zealot who is bent on deleting knowledge from wikipedia! Show your credentials or be ignored. HeadleyDown 17:03, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Show my credentials? There are no credentials. This is wikipedia, the encyclopedia ANYONE can edit. Anyone is allowed to come in and mediate any dispute. If you choose to accept it, then it's a sign that you're working to improve the article. If you choose to refuse the mediation, it's a further sign that you have no interest in improving the article, only pushing your viewpoint. How do you know I'm not an NLP zealot? look at my contribs on this article: all I've done is grammatical clean up. Am I involved in any other NLP articles? No. See me user page, I tend to only edit for content military and law enforcement pages. I came here after seeing it on the 3rr page. You need to Assume Good Faith, a fundamental policy of wikipedia. Swatjester 17:31, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK Swatjester, your cred just about checks out. But I doubt you have the knowledge level of VoiceOfAll. "IF" you are interested in mediating here, you should realise that people come here regularly professing to be wikipedia savvy and uninterested parties, then they turn out to be utter wankers with several NLP certificates and vested interests in promoting their own businesses, cults and religions. They then go on to conduct the most desperately delusional set of NLP "persuasion techniques" in order to somehow magically transform a pseudoscience into a science and trying to fool mediators and arbitrators into believing that piss is wine. Comaze is a long term censor, and as you can see, has just been irritating people for the past few days by repeatedly badgering for deletions that were denied many multiple times during mediation, and by posting harrasment on personal pages. There are some editors here who understand NLP. Not just from reading promotional cult manuals, but also from studying the actual research of the most independent researchers (scientists). So if you really like fluffy and pleasantly sounding ideas, I suggest you disappear. IF you are into hard facts then stick around. The article is just about to get more realistic. HeadleyDown 17:28, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I could care less about the content of the article. I cuold care less about pseudo science, or facts or anything else. I'm only interested in mediating the dispute. And I'm sticking around. Swatjester 17:32, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First step

Ok so here's the first step of this. Using the following template, which will show up when you click on edit this section, please state what you feel is the nature of this dispute. Do NOT attack other editors in this... by that I mean say "I feel XXX is pushing POV and deleting stuff he doesn't agree with", not "I feel XXX is an asshole, pushing his retarded POV and deleting whatever truth he doesn't believe in". Each person involved here is welcome to submit a different view of their version of events. If you see one that you already believe in, there will be a section where you can endorse it by signing with ~~~~.

Good start HeadleyDown. I edited your statement, but only to remove the (Stop copying here) and "No wiki" tags, as well as take the date out of the header. Anyone endorsing this view, should sign beneath his statement. Anyone with a different view should come up with their own statement by using the template. Swatjester 20:03, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do note that if Swatjester is willing to be a good, impartial, mediator, then we can do this together, I dont mind. I was not blocking due to my role as a mediator. If I was not mediating, people would have been blocked a long time ago. This article may need several mediators.Voice of All^T|@|ESP 20:27, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

yep, only recently found out you were involved. I'm more than happy to work with other mediators on this, in fact I'm sure I'm going to need to. Swatjester 20:50, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like we're having some trouble reading here. Lets keep the statements of dispute short please, and limit them only to naming the NATURE of the dispute, not evidence supporting it. What do you think is the problem here? Is it that this user does not show good faith? is it that this other user continuously reverts? what is the actual physical problem, at the lowest level possible? I ask that Comaze, you rewrite your statement to better fit the template's request please? And try to keep it around 4-5 sentences?Swatjester 00:25, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

HeadleyDown's statement of the dispute

(state the dispute here as you see it. Remember, no personal attacks. This section is not for evidence, nor should it need to be more than 4 sentences long. Just state what you think the dispute is over.)

The dispute is the same as always, but the action of the dispute is being used to highlight Comaze's months of fact censorship, slur campaigning on talk pages, and general antagonism. Comaze is not acting in good faith, and any chance he gets he tries to delete (whitewash) sections written by me or others on this discussion page. He also tries to accuse others of personally attacking him. He has been warned by mediators not to post warning or sockpuppet stickers or threats to block on other editors talk pages, yet he continues. Some comments do contain personal attack, but considering the circumstances they are totally understandable, the comments have consistently been directed towards Comze's persistent and daily antiNPOV misdeeds. He has used every surreptitious method possible, including creating extra promotional articles, and altering images irrecoverably. His actions and statements have encouraged many other NLP fans to behave with similar antiNPOV activities. Comaze has caused a huge amount of extra work for editors and mediators here, and he advocated for a ref format change, but expected others to do it for him. We are all waiting for him to finish the job. He decided to antagonize people, make deletions of fact, and continue with his slur campaigning on personal talk pages instead. HeadleyDown 18:06, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Users endorsing this view, please sign below with ~~~~

flavius's statement of the dispute

Further to Headley's view, the secondary impediment to improving the quality of the article is the regularly rotated gaggle of scientifically illiterate, brainwashed, ignorant cretin wankers (that believe they are super-persuasive) that don't have any familiariry with the cited literature nor an appreciation of its significance that insist on injecting their marginally illiterate, shitful, inspid "pearls" into the article. These are typically one-liners such as, "Bandler says he doesn't do theory", "NLP is a model" etc. The current cast of dead weights includes DejaKitty, Metabubble, 7even, Akulkis and some other tosser that edits anonymously. Although Comaze's behaviour is objectionable I would not include him in this League of (Nihlistic) Morons". I have stated months ago that the disputes regarding this article are non-justiciable, i.e. they cannot be adjudicated upon, and I am being proven correct. I have attempted to elicit reasons from Comaze -- publicly and privately -- in an attempt to yield a justiciable issue. I have found none. Comaze's position is essentially faith-based, he has no substantive resaons for his positions. Comaze's ultimate recourse is simply, "I have found it to be useful" and he appears to believe that this has equal evidentiary value as several dozen (peer-reviewed) research papers and literature reviews. Comaze's position contains an implicit rejection of all of the critical NLP research (and a hypocritical acceptance of favorable research reports). Furthermore, his rejection is justified with (NLP) platitudes and cliches (eg. "NLP has a different epistemology to science", "NLP has it's own criteria of evidence and argumentation") or in a circular question-begging manner ("the research is bad because it is critical of NLP"). There is no way forward with Comaze or with the League of (Nihilistic) Morons. flavius 16:55, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Users endorsing this view, please sign below with ~~~~

HeadleyDown 17:32, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
BrianH123 19:20, 5 February 2006 (UTC) (I agree with Flavius's standard of evidence for this article as stated above. In particular, "personally found it to be useful" is not good evidence, and "NLP has a different epistemology to science" is nonsensical (or at best a subtle form of circular reasoning). I have no opinion on the rest of Flavius's statement.)[reply]
DaveRight 05:13, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Camridge 03:28, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comaze's statement of the dispute

There is motion to close at arbom so I'll wait until their decision is finalised. Currently I do not have the confidence to contribute to this article. --Comaze 14:19, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Users endorsing this view, please sign below with ~~~~

minor comment

The following sentence appears to make no sense to me: "Some authors [107][108] use internal Verbal/Auditory/Kinesthetic strategies in order to categorize people within a thinking strategies or learning styles framework for instance, that there exist visual, kinesthetic or auditory types of manager." --Xyzzyplugh 19:48, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah it is jacked. jVirus 21:37, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Read the literature. Hardly any of it makes sense. Bad writing was introduced here at the insistance of NLP zealots and mediators who pushed for that format: Such and such states that: -----------. Normal clear writing usually makes a statement and then has a ref to support it. If you want your ridiculously obscure and lengthy attribution format, then don't fucking complain about how it reads. HeadleyDown 02:33, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please, just do something about it Headley jVirus 05:15, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I advocate the use of clear writing of statements, with references at the end of the line. I also advocate ignoring unreasonable demands of NLP fanatics and mediators. HeadleyDown 06:26, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

VAK strategies are based upon the central tennet (BAGEL) model of NLP. This is not in dispute in the literature, though long term censors have attempted to remove it from the article at regular times. Those senses based assumptions, are intrinsically, implicitly, and explicitly connected to the engram concept. Engrams ARE theoretical brain circuits, although the pseudoscience of NLP has them confoundingly confused with the Hubbardian notion of engrams in the subconscious. In addition to that piece of pseudoscience, many authors explicitly make universal categories of visual people, auditory people, and kinesthetic people. The others simply make implicit reference to such categories. Research into the invalidity of these concepts has obviously concluded that its all easy to swallow hogwash that will leave the imbiber with nothing to do but spit nonsense. These have become common mind myths due in part to the lack of clarity within the salesbabble and the unqualified overpromotional nature of NLP literature and seminars. It will be clarified more in this article and related articles. Camridge 03:39, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The history of this article

Hi new zealots and mediators. If you want to edit/mediate here I suggest you spend about 3 weeks reading the archives first. Basically it goes: NLP idiots don't like the bare facts, so they delete them, and neutrally minded editors restore them. Fanatics demand extra refs, those refs are found, and supplied through library searches, and the fanatics delete regardless. Reversion wars ensue. Mediation takes place at the insistence of NLP fanatics, NLP fanatics do not like mediator's sense of balance, and they beg for a new mediator or for arbitration. NLP fanatics (especially Comaze) become desperate, and try any subterfuge, officious pretence, surreptitious edit, accusation, vexatious litigation, threat in order to try to ban neutrally minded editors, to include whitewash, to censor well supported facts etc. Sometimes it quitens down. So much fact and extra evidence was provided (due to the nagging of NLP fanatics) that the file size was over limits. The article became brevified, and some of that evidence cut.

Now, we seem to have a new mediator, and I guess the process of NLP fanatics demanding extra evidence will rise again (I noticed Comaze's mediation template). So much work has been done here to satisfy mediators and NLP fanatics. Looks like its going round again. No wonder Headley and other neutrally minded editors are so pissed. To put it bluntly: READ THE DAMN ARCHIVES! COMAZE AND OTHER NLP FANATICS CONSISTENTLY (DAILY) ACT AGAINST WIKIPEDIA POLICY. JPLogan 03:04, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes JP. It all is too predictable. I suggest ignoring most of it. It is just a pain. Reduce the overwork by restoring all the extra damning evidence that the moneygrabbing bookburning NLPpromoters asked for. They asked for it. They should get it now. HansAntel 03:49, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, history repeating. Well, I think your suggestions need acting upon. I kept a lot of those facts, and will restore them in good time. In the meantime, lets remind the mediator what a bunch of weasly cultsucking bullshit merchants the NLP fanatics have been. Mediator! READ THE ARCHIVES! DaveRight 04:19, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep calling names and antagonizing, using vulgarities and pointing fingers. You have learned from history that the squeeky wheel gets the grease so if you squeek loud enough you will finally get what you need! jVirus 05:21, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jvirus. Keep making demands, and you will get flack. Either take the time to go to the libraries, look up the facts and make your own adjustments according to fact and NPOV policy, or go away. YOU are causing trouble. I suggest that from now on editors should simply ignore your pointless whinging. Consider yourself flushed down the toilet of poisonous babble. HeadleyDown 06:34, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Demands? Please help me understand what my demands are. heh. And I try not to "whinge"[1] jVirus 10:54, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have just restored some of those uncontroverted facts. The article contains more facts that help to better explain to readers and fanatics the nature of NLP.

Progress

OK now all the newcomers have become more acquainted with what their chores are (so far its mostly been about antagonizing editors and being ignored), I think they can simply get on with mediating instead. In a few weeks, after they have read the archives, they may have something to offer.

In the meantime, there are more facts to restore to the article. We will place them back in as they were, and then start to condense them down a little over time, whilst keeping all the meaningful content and refs.

If Comaze or any other censor wishes to delete any of it, those facts will be enlarged again to their original quote size. If Comaze and co wish to demand answers to questions that have been covered multiple times in the archives then those facts will be enlarged upon and added into the article in order to clarify those facts to the fanatics. Now won't that be fun! HeadleyDown 11:12, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

agreed jVirus 11:19, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've read the archives. And I watched as it all unfolded in the first place.

To try to restore information on the basis that there was once consensus is to misrepresent the talk page archives. The edits being restored lately were not agreed to nor was consensus reached. A small clique of editors have been found liberally distributing NLP criticisms throughout the article over the last 6 months (see Arbcom NLP findings of fact #Obsessive and POV editing).

Throughout the NLP archives, there are many editors who have opposed these edits saying they do not meet the minimum standards for reliable sources (again see Arbcom NLP findings of fact #Inadequate sourcing). Consensus has never been reached on these issues. What the NLP archives reveal is that many non-regular editors stated their objection to the tone and content of the article. You'll often find these objections were followed by a pile-on of personal attacks. Most editors simply moved on. The archives are rife with this pattern. Peace. Metta Bubble 12:34, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Page protection

The page has been protected per mediator request. Place all comments, responses, etc here not on my talk page. KillerChihuahua^?!? 12:11, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps we can start a practice sub-page (e.g. Neuro-linguistic programming/draft ) to get practice on collaborative writing. When the collaborative process returns normal without edit wars, we can unlock the main page. --Dejakitty 16:04, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please cease your general complaints about the behaviors of other editors on this page, and confine your comments in this section to the page protection. Off-topic personal attacks directed at no specific editor are not productive. Off topic personal attacks against specific editors will result in warnings and blockings. Stop the cycle and limit yourself to article-specific productive posts - thanks. KillerChihuahua^?!? 13:10, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How can we open up the page to editing without returning to an edit war? Is there some way to propose edits and have them approved by the mediators or administrator prior to implementation? Maybe this could be done in a structured way that allows other people time to comment? Also, how can we get experience wikipedians involved in this process? --Comaze 14:33, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That has been done before - mediation in tiny chunks, followed by the edit being placed on the (still protected) page by an Admin. I suggest you work with the current mediator to achieve consensus. The way to avoid edit warring is always the same - talk until consensus is reached before making edits. KillerChihuahua^?!? 14:36, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fanaticism and the form of discussion here

Please excuse that I use the right to participate in the free encyclopedia, as I saw this might not be welcomed here. As a Wikipedian from a non-English speaking country, one of the things I can say is that the form of discussion here resembles many of the discussions in my country and throughout the world. It is always the same story: people try to divide each other into two groups—allies and enemies. The main rule of the discussion is to state in every message that enemies are bloody fanatics, devil worshippers and completely messed up stupid dickheads. About "ourselves" in such discussions it is good to say "oh we've been trying everything, but these fanatics didn't want to listen." Curious thing that usually both sides are working in the same model of dialogue—the model we may call "Put as much trash on your opponent as you can." The most interesting thing, as I see it, happens when an outsider (who's alien to the discussion and is able to look at it without many a bias) comes: for him or her, those who yell about the fanaticism of the other side seem fanatics themselves. The same thing has happened so many times in the history, that it became not interesting to discuss.

Another interesting thing's that when sometimes one side declines to choose the model of "I am the only smartest here" behavior, and works in a civil manner, keeping to the neutrality tone, the other side would claim his actions are fanatical anyway, no matter what real reasons the former had. They just will to interpret his actions this way because according to their tunnel of reality they are doing the best in their interests (that's why in the first comment of mine I asked, Cui bono?). In most cases they believe they are pursuing the truth. You see that's how Lysenkoism happens: when one side keeps only to rational arguments and other side keeps to emotional arguments, for a common third-side person, who's not experienced and not prepared to keep emotions off when it's necessary, the emotional arguments might feel more right, perhaps because emotions compared to reason are philogenetically far more ancient and influence more structures in the organism system. A more experienced person would be able to divide the arguments driven by emotions and the reasonable arguments.

The point I want to make is: please keep your emotions to minimum in your comments. This would happen if you try to avoid

proclamations that your opponent is a fanatic (he may seem fanatic to you and your supporters, of course, but only from your and your supporters' viewpoint)
mind reading, telepathy (i. e. don't interpret the reasons of other's actions because it is the Net, and most things you are able to watch is only RESULTS of actions; e. g. don't say such things as "This guy became desperate", "He wants to avoid evidence" etc)
assumptions on what and who a person is, which cover a personal attack (such as "I honestly don't think you'd recognise a scientific journal if one was being stuffed into your flapping mouthing" or "I suspect that you are a sock-puppet of that half-wit John Smith")
&c

I understand it's probably impossible here, where everybody—no matter what the level of his or her maturity and self-development is—can insert his own word, but I consider it necessary for making a good article or at least a goodwill discussion. In real life, too, if you feel you are right, and you have many friends who feel the same, the little socium you can be considered a part of will massively support your viewpoint, and this will construct a visibility of your own righteousness and unrighteousness of others—that's how it works in real religious cults and with real religious fanatics.

Excuse me for such a long comment, but it could've been much longer. I am not trying to say that one side's right and other is not. However I would like to believe that every one of you does not just push one's own point of view (supporting it with dozens of refs—"we have something for everybody"—or not), but wants to find a compromise because there can be no way to prove that absolute truth is hidden only in your opinion or an opinion of the scientists who support you. I think people have the right to get acquainted with the theory of NLP; and there are many great minds, scientists, and psychologists who use NLP in their practice, and you can't just call all of them freakin fanatics and scientologists only because NLP works well for them. Also I think people have the right to know that other great minds, scientists, and psychologists are opposed to NLP because of research and experimental data (I myself would like to read and consider that kind of information). Thus both sides should be represented in the article, because I think that in the modern world no one should call any one as the Absolute Authority.

Thank you, 7even 13:27, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What a load of self-important, lumpen blather! "[T]unnel of reality" -- Robert Anton Wilson is a genius isn't he? Do you have a newsletter that we can subscribe to so that we can become as wise and all-knowing as you. I'll burn all of my copies of the Cultic Studies Journal and all of the books I have by acknowledged cult experts like Singer and Lifton. You clearly have all the answers and you're most confident (even though you asserted earlier that there is no absolure truth). You write,"I think people have the right to get acquainted with the theory of NLP; and there are many great minds, scientists, and psychologists who use NLP in their practice, and you can't just call all of them freakin fanatics and scientologists only because NLP works well for them." Who then is interfering with people's right to learn about NLP? The article provides an exposition of NLP drawn from authoritative NLP sources. Can you name some of the "many great minds" and scientists that use NLP? Who cares if "NLP works well for them"?! Treppaning once worked well for the surgeon and patient, blood-letting worked well for George Washington, powdered mummy worked well for its users. Unfortunately human knowledge isn't advanced by treating subjective reports as descriptive of the universe. You understand neither science (its hisory, philosophy, method or results) nor the status of NLP. "Works for me" but can't be demonstrated under controlled conditions to work isn't special, mysterious or outside the scope of science, it's simply placebo, non-specific factors, misattribution and/or post hoc fallacy. Your're profoundly ignorant of basic scientific method and protocol and my implication also of the concept of evidence. There is a consensus of opinion that is becoming consolidated that NLP doesn't work and there is no eveidence that it does work. Further, the progress of linguistics, psychology, neurology, and psychiatry since NLP was formulated has corroded its theoretical basis. NLP has been discredited directly -- through the balance of NLP-specific research data that doesn't support NLPs hypotheses -- and indirectly through the accretion of knowledge in fields that it purports to be based upon. That some people find that NLP "works for them" has been explained many times, most recently by Devilly (2005). This isn't about "feeling right". Remarks like this demonstrate that you don't understand the debate. No-one here -- other than the League -- is going to buy into your (crude) epistemological relativism. If you genuinely believe what you write here then go to the Earth article and edit it to give equal coverage to the "flat earth" and "hollow earth" theories. Surely, people have the right to become acquainted with theories other than the dominant one that the earth is spherical and has a molten rock core. Also go to the Elizabeth_II_of_the_United_Kingdom article and edit it to include David Icke's theory that the Queen of the UK is a reptilean shapeshifter and descends from a reptilian blood-line. Why privilge the notion that she's human, we don't know for certain that she is human and people have the right to become acquainted with all theories about the Queen. We should also give equal weight to L. Ron Hubbard's cosmology -- complete with Crocodiles on Unicycles -- as we do that provided by the likes of Einstein, Hubble, Newton and Hawking. Why not? flavius 18:32, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I like to read your comments, no jokes. I agree with great many of your theses, with many I disagree; and I appreciate your irony and sarcasm (I like your sense of humor). However I've said what I wanted; and, of course, you are free to interpret my words any way you want. Please pay attention to my message about emotional comments and personal attacks. [P. S. I do not support either flat earth or creationism theory ;-)] 7even 19:05, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you 7even for your input. I agree that there is a lot of room for improvement with regards to our listening skills. I would be grateful if you can make your posting a bit shorter as lots of people feels like they have a lot to say. Thanks --Dejakitty 16:14, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To Killerchihuahua, I am sorry that you take my message as a form of personal attack. I was just trying to point out behaviour that may disrupt the process rather than attacking any particular editor per se. I think it is important to separate behaviour from people when dealing with these kinds of situation. I hope that you will be able to concentrate on the process rather than get sucked into disputed content. If you think this is still personal attack, please feel free to delete all my posting here. --Dejakitty 15:56, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not contributing here. I am here as informal mediator adjunct, to monitor, warn, and explain WP:CIVIL, WP:CON, WP:NPA, and any other policy being violated, and to block users if necessary. I did not consider your post a violation of NPA. I did consider it unhelpful commentary on behavior patterns of an unnamed body of editors. KillerChihuahua^?!? 18:15, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

you guys are such a tickle ! I thought we were being emotional over in the Dianetics articles ! lol. Terryeo 17:27, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, where have we come to: a guy that believes in Xenu is amused at our expense. Terry, It's all those body thetans (Damn you Xenu! Damn you! (I'm shaking my fist)). Given that you're a Scientologist and I was taught not to mock the mentally retarded I'll try and leave you alone. I suppose you could hang around to make Comaze look good. The paradox of Dianetics is that all those people that think their parents attempted to abort them with a coat hanger and are attempting to rid themselves of the associated engrams should have been aborted. I propose that there should be no restrictions regarding the termination of Scientologists. In the case of Scientologists their abortion should be permitted ex utero. Have you apologised to Lisa McPherson's family [2] on behalf of your "church"? Has that runt Miscavige apologised to the US public for "Operation Snow White"[3] (and for being a runt). Have you donated to LMT International [4]? flavius 05:51, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Flavius, please review WP:NPA. Swatjester 19:12, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Terryeo. I understand that Hubbard would probably be mighty annoyed at NLP taking the more subversive aspects of Dianetics and turning them into a new age extraveganza. Lucky for NLP developers that he's not around to sue them. Camridge 03:48, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We can edit the NLP (draft) Page

I have retracted my idea of having draft page, given that VoA or other admin will volunteer to do the actual editing while the page is protected.--Dejakitty 01:03, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you should go away. To save yourself the frustration you should exorcise from your mind the hope that the article will be turned into some Kafkaesque puff-piece for the promotion of NLP. flavius 18:46, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you should confine your posts to constructive ones which do no violate WP:CIVIL, flavius. KillerChihuahua^?!? 18:50, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Flavius you know your comment was attacking Dejakitty. You want the article a certain way, she has her own opinions. It is one thing to attack the information, asking for concensus, but attacking a person themselves is often out of desperation and last resort feelings of helplessness. Don't do it, you have a lot of options to get the article to reflect your position/view. jVirus 19:28, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It would be better not to acknowledge or respond to any unconstructive postings (I am talking in general, I am not attacking anyone here.) either positively or negatively, else you will find yourself sucked into endless futile debate. On the other hand please give more positive support to constructive postings. Thank you. --Dejakitty 20:20, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've deleted the above "draft" page because it was created by User:Flavius vanillus to mock other editors and contributed nothing to this debate. Please refrain from making contributions that do nothing to improve the article. I'd also recommend against making any sort of "draft" page at all, even one in good faith. Instead, discuss changes here on the talk page. —Cleared as filed. 20:52, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, my suggestion is to discuss all changes here on the talk page and then, with the help of a mediator, add those changes to the real article. Writing a draft page together won't provide any "concrete proof" of anything, in my opinion, and will just move the edit war someplace else. As far as I know, there's nothing in Wikipedia rules to prevent a draft page, but I don't think it will help solve any problems. —Cleared as filed. 21:14, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus and some Guidelines

Socks/meatpuppets are a problem here, when it comes to consensus, as it distorts the true consensus. That has been making things difficult. Many editors have edited only NLP articles, and have very similar user pages. We may need more outside opinions.

As I have done recently, personal attacks will be removed. Vague commentary will be removed as well. Edits should be made through admins only, since all else has failed. Vague accuations of POV or simplistic characterizing of everything as a "fact" will not be tolerated either. Accesive associations and other clear NPOV violations should not even be proposed.

Whether NLP is "total fraud" or not, its models, propositions, and criticism must be represented per NPOV. There is enough criticism in this article that we cleary do not need associations with pseudosciences such as Scientology in every paragraph, just because some unheard of practioner also uses them. Intelligent Design is a good article example of a topic that is far more widely rejected by scientists (albeit perhaps as it is more popular and gets more attention), but it does not have things like "ID is quakery nonsense just to endorse christianity (A 19YY)(B 19YY)(C 19YY)(D 19YY)(E 19YY)(F 19YY)(G 19YY)(H 19YY)", as clearly, wording like that has an agenda. The article gets across the point that it is rejected by the mainstream scientific community without having "ID sucks" quotes flooded into the article all over the place. NLP is even less centralized than ID. Due to its high variance, and usage in some reasonable circles (police force, ect...), parts of it likely have some value, and not all of them where studied. Not to mention that it has evolved. Having such a varying disorganized, mainly totally unsupported, models floating all around alots for much confusion about its effectiveness. Overal, one might reasonably say that it is not effective per 1970s/1980s studies, but that does not rule out every aspect. Some people use more classical conditioning like techniques for clients, while ignoring other NLP ideas or "positive/negative energy" Scientology ideas. Others use it in cults in certain European circles.

To concude, we must avoid the use of blanket statements where they can not be used. We must avoid spreading criticism all over every section. We must avoid the excessive use of "NLP sucks" quotes. If a reference is out of context, it should be corrected (and I don't believe that many are). Solid refs that have been unchallenged for months should not be suddenly challenged though. Rebuttals to critics by very minor practioners should not be included, as we don't put in our British Literature profesor's criticism of a novel just because he has a PhD. Notice that Intelligent design avoids such minor critics, as it should, as anyone can dig up some guy that supports them, and through it in as criticism. And remember to avoid origional research, such as "he saw EST lectures, therefore NLP=EST and Scientology". Remember that we have plenty of solid criticism, so personal (WP:OR) critical commentary, beyond being innapproprate per WP:NPOV, is not even needed. That goes for origional research criticism of critism too.Voice of All^T|@|ESP 21:29, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Scalpels at the ready

Consensus is not important here, mostly due to the presence of editors who's religion overcomes judgment or recognition of science. Ditching one's religion is necessary to edit in this case. The cold steel of science will be the order of the year on this article. HeadleyDown 17:19, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

resuming mediation

Damn! I go away for 12 hours and everything goes nuts! Ok so just to let everyone know what's up, I've got military training obligations keeping me away today and tomorrow during the day, but I'm here for the evenings. When I return from dinner tonight, we'll begin the first step of the mediation process on the article, which is going to start from the top. So, start thinking in your heads about how you want to present the very first introduction paragraphs on the article. Currently they say this

Neuro-Linguistic Programming (NLP) is a collection of pseudoscientific self-help rituals proposed for programming the mind (Lilienfeld et al 2003;Raso 1994).

NLP was proposed in 1973 by Richard Bandler and John Grinder as a set of models and principles to describe the relationship between mind (neuro) and language (linguistic, both verbal and non-verbal) and how their interaction might be organized (programming) to affect an individual's mind, body and behavior. It is described by the original developers as "therapeutic magic" and "the study of the structure of subjective experience" [1][2]. It is predicated upon the assumption that all behaviors have a practically determinable structure [3] [4].

NLP is based on New Age principles [5] such as the belief in unlimited potential through access to subconscious engrams [6], and body language cues derived from the observation of “therapeutic wizards” [7]. Some techniques include behavior change, transforming beliefs, and treatment of traumas through techniques such as reframing [8][9] and the "meta-modeling" [10] proposed for exploring the personal limits of belief as expressed in language.

The practice initially attracted mostly therapists, although it eventually attracted business and sales people, and New Age believers [11]. NLP has been applied to a number of fields such as sales, psychotherapy, communication, education, coaching, sport, business management, interpersonal relationships, seduction, occult and spirituality.

NLP has been criticized in scientific research reviews which conclude that it is scientifically unsupported and largely ineffective [12][13][14][15]. Several reviews have concluded that NLP is merely pseudoscientific mass-marketed psychobabble[16][17][18][19][20]. NLP is identified as a dubious therapy [21][22][23] and described by experts such as Winkin[24], and the US-based NGO National Council Against Health Fraud as charlatanry and fraudulent [25][26][27] and is promoted in the same mold as Dianetics and Scientology[28][29][30].

So, start looking at how you want to revise that if at all. I'm coming back in about 3 hours, and will remain here tonight to listen to the rest of your responses. Swatjester 23:44, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I want to see the current intro shortened, the removal of the "Dianetics and Scientology references", the removal of false claim like belief in "unlimited potential":

Neuro-Linguistic Programming (NLP) was originally developed between in 1973-1979 by Richard Bandler and John Grinder as an approach to modeling the behavioral patterns of successful psychotherapists, Virginia Satir, Milton H. Erickson and Fritz Perls. Advocates claim that this approach to the study of human patterning can be applied to any field, and that derivatives have been applied to psychotherapy, business management, sales training, interpersonal, and spiritual contexts.

The methodology and application has been been criticized for lacking substantiative evidence, exaggerated claims, etc.

(can someone else finish this for me -- I'm out of time)... --Comaze 00:37, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Consider your throat cut. Your request is badgering. Nothing more. Refer to the archives. Dianetics and Scientology will become more than a cursory mention. You obviously don't get it, therefore, it will be enlarged upon with explanation. HeadleyDown 17:26, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Swatjester, Comaze thanks for volunteering. This talk page is full. Would it be helpful to make a page with a list of proposed changes (Neuro-linguistic programming(RequestforEdits)) for people to comment on and vote for. I think that we will have to rely on admin's good will to make update edits of approved changes, something like once every 1-2 month? Looks like VoA is getting on the right track. So I don't think you need my further unsolicited intrusion. Goodbye --Dejakitty 00:51, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I like the way this is going, it leaves plenty of room for criticism and makes a great intro flow. Starting with explicit background. I think we should extend it. As an edit, I am wondering, as in the first sentence NLP being was not so much developed as an approach to modeling but was the result of modeling. They modeled VS, ME,and FP and as a result formed explicit patterns for which the term NLP was applied to represent. I wish I was more versed and fluent with this. I might state it closer to:

Neuro-Linguistic Programming or NLP was originally developed between 1973-1979 by Richard Bandler and John Grinder. Modeling the behavioral patterns of successful psychotherapists such as, Virginia Satir, Milton H. Erickson and Fritz Perls, Bandler and Grinder developed a series of explicit patterns...<someone maybe could continue this>

I wish I had more to add, I am just not fluent enough. jVirus 03:47, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If I could make a stylistic point jVirus...once you've referred to a person by their full name, you need not use it again unless there is someone with the same name. So since you've already fully identified Richard Bandler and John Grinder, the second time you mention them you need only say "Bandler and Grinder"... Swatjester 03:49, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. It looked dumb, I just didn't know how to fix it heh. jVirus 03:53, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Dejakitty's suggestion up above, no new page is needed for this discussion. The talk page is where people expect to find it, and it will do just fine. Perhaps if one of the mediators thinks it is worthwhile, some of the above discussion can be archived so this talk page isn't quite as long. —Cleared as filed. 05:20, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to see references to New Age removed from the intro. New Age is an obscure term that post-dates the creation of NLP (according to the New Age article). Unlimited Potential is also an obscure term. It is unsure what exactly the sentence about unlimited potential, new age and engrams is meant to be trying to say. If the comment is meant to be critical of NLP, save it for a specific criticism context or be more open about what exactly the criticism is. Engram is an obscurely used NLP concept, if at all. It should be on thin ice for the entire article, let alone the intro. New Age belongs in the body of the article when refering to the history of the founders and their friends. Peace. Metta Bubble 06:25, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New Age is not an obscure term and as a movement it emerged at the time NLP was created, i.e. the early 1970s. The phrase 'unlimited potential' derives from the Human Potential movement which is another trend that was coincident with the emergence of NLP. NLP is an off-shoot of these two social trends, i.e. New Age and Human Potential. I'm not the originator of the remark in the article but I take it that its neither supposed be critical or laudatory but just descrirptive. Something should be said about the zeitgeist from which NLP emerged, that is consistent with encyclopedic standards. I don't have a string opinion on the ngram issue. In the English-speaking world the word is rarely used in NLP seminars and literature but it is used in Europe and Asia. In the interests of avoiding being parochial this should be taken into consideration before removing all references to engram. flavius 10:36, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Flavius. I stand by my request. New Age is defined as obscure on the New Age page here at wikipedia. It also says the term gained popular use in the 80's. The term unlimited potential doesn't even appear on the page. I have no huge problem with your following statements except that the things we are discussing are so obscure they don't belong in the intro. Peace. Metta Bubble 08:47, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, New Age needs expanding in the article in relation to NLP. Metabubble has asked for its removal before. Nothing new was added to arguments that have been presented in the archives multiple times. That is badgering and antagonistic. For the sake of keeping a steely peace, request is ignored. HeadleyDown 17:26, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Metabubble, reading the Wikipedia article on New Age hardly counts as research for editing another article. If all editors did what you just did Wikipedia would slowly degrade as falsehoods are spread to other articles. For a start consider

"The New Age movement--a lush jungle of exotic spirituality, lifestyle preferences, metaphysical preoccupations, and voguish superstitions--is in many respects a codifying of what in the late 1960s and up through most of the 1970s was called "alternative" culture. When the radicalism and bohemianism of the 1960s decanted into the pop psychotherapies and religious cultism of the 1970s, the result came to be called the Human Potential movement. When the human potential gurus stirred into the mixture a fragrant broth of traditional occultism, old-fashioned American transcendentalism, parapsychology, and utopian one-worldism, it was termed New Age." (Carl A. Raschke, "8 New Age Spirituality," Spirituality and the Secular Quest, ed. Peter H. Van Ness (New York: Crossroad Publishing, 1996) p. 207).

I'll provide more shortly. I'm beginning to doubt your sincerity you've yet to demonstrate that you are acting in good faith by actually researching anything that you wish to force upon us. flavius 18:43, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, discussing Margaret Mead, Gardner writes:

"In 1978, knowing she was dying of cancer, Mead began seeing daily a Chilean psychic healer in New York who called herself the "Reverend Carmen diBarazza." The Star, a sleazy competitor of the National Enquirer, headlined an October 31, 1978, story: "Famed Scientist Calls Faith Healer to Bedside in Bid to Beat Cancer." Mead had been introduced to Carmen by her good friends Robert L. Schwartz and Jean Houston. Schwartz heads the Tarrytown Group, in Tarrytown, New York, a forum that sponsors workshops and a newsletter stressing all aspects of the "New Age" movement--holistic medicine, parapsychology, psychic phenomena, and so on. Schwartz and Mead cofounded the group. A promotional leaflet sent to me a few years ago begins: "This is your invitation to join a worldwide bunch of cranks and crazies. . . . It is your opportunity to network with some of the most irreverent thinkers on earth. . . ." (Martin Gardner, The New Age: Notes of a Fringe Watcher (Buffalo, NY: Prometheus Books, 1991)) Incidentally, Gregory Bateson -- the intellectual father of NLP -- was Margaret Meads husband. flavius 18:57, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also,

"In comparison to New Thought, the New Age movement is a relatively new phenomenon. It developed in the late 1960s and emerged as a selfconscious movement in the early 1970s. As a movement, it both absorbed New Thought themes and reached out to New Thought groups with its message, but drew most of its inspiration from Theosophy and Spiritualism, and, to a lesser extent, the Eastern religions. It arose, not so much as a new religion, but as a new revivalist religious impulse directed toward the esoteric/metaphysical/Eastern groups and to the mystical strain in all religions." (James R. Lewis, and J. Gordon Melton, eds., Perspectives on the New Age / (Albany, NY: State University of New York Press, 1992) 18) flavius 19:05, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, see Chapter 5 of Steven J. Sutcliffe, Children of the New Age: A History of Alternative Spirituality (London: Routledge, 2002). The early 80s were the culmination of the New Age social trend which commenced in the early 1970. Regarding the phrase "New Age" Sutcliffe writes, "How prominent is the expression 'New Age'? Briefly, not very. Usage is comparatively rare. Certainly Muz Murray, in his seminal alternative magazine Gandalf's Garden, based in London, had proclaimed in 1968 that a 'long awaited Dawn of Consciousness' was finally 'glimmering in the minds of New Age Man-to-Come'. 7 And the cognate form 'Aquarian' turns up in the chorus of Hair-'This is the dawning of the Age of Aquarius!'-and in advertisements for the 1969 Woodstock music festival in New York state. But evidence elsewhere is pretty thin. The Aquarian Guide to Occult, Mystical, Religious, Magical London and around lists just two explicitly 'New Age' bodies (Strachan 1970:120-1)". (Sutcliffe 109). The phrase did not come into popular usage until the 1980s but it was used as early as 1968. You are definitely wrong. flavius 19:24, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

flavius 19:24, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mettabubble. I repeat my request for you to be blocked. You are badgering and attempting to cause conflict. If you came to this article 12 months ago you would come to the conclusion that NLP is "the difference that makes the difference". Go and do some proper research on the new age, and fix the new age article. Refrain from your badgering on this article and do not come back until you have written in detail about the actual nature of the new age on the wikipedia new age article. Alternatively do not edit at all on wikipedia until you develop a respect for facts. HeadleyDown 12:12, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NCAHF Removal

I'd like references to the National Council Against Health Fraud removed from the article entirely (see [Appeals Court BLUDGEONS Quackbusters]; [is a controversial organization]). This group -- along with Quackwatch -- is widely known to knock ALL CAM therapies, including Chiropractic, Herbal Remedies, Organice Food, Vitamin pills, Yoga, and Meditation. That they also knock NLP is no surprise. To have the NCAHF prominent in this article is tantamount to suggesting it should be prominent in every single CAM article on wikipedia -- when in fact, it isn't even mentioned on other CAM pages. If we can find a better consumer advocate than the NCAHF I'm open to discussion on it, but considering the World Health Organisation and various articles on Medline condone NLP, it would be hard to find a source that takes precedent. Peace. Metta Bubble 06:25, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This matter has already been dealt with please, consult the archives. It was decided that there is sufficient reason to preserve the NCAHF (see the archives for the reasons). In the interests of progressing the article (and not presenting as an obstructive miscreant) can you consult the archived discussions before making recommendations? flavius 10:54, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Flavius. I stand by my request and I don't concur with your summary of archived discussion. I'd like you to state a countercase in summary form, if there is one. Peace. Metta Bubble 08:44, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your link to WHO doesn't show that WHO "condones" NLP; it just shows that someone who wrote an article for one of their newsletters is an NLPer. Your link to Medline doesn't show anything at all; it just pulls up a search page. (Please cite specific studies if you think they're relevant.) The fact that an organization criticizes multiple CAM therapies doesn't prove that that organization is unscientific, and the fact that NCAHF is not mentioned in other Wikipedia articles is irrelevant. Some information that is of value in your post is the link to the court decision that NCAHF lost (about homeopathy), but from reading the decision, the reasons seems to be that: (a) NCAHF tried to shift the burden of proof to the defendants, and the court rejected that strategy; and (b) Congress had explicitly allowed homeopathic claims. In short NCAHF's lawyers lost a case against homoeopathy for legalistic reasons, not based on the merit of homeopathy itself. That's interesting information, but irrelevant to whether they're biased against NLP.
But if you want another health organization to cite, how about the American Cancer Society?

— BrianH123 22:48, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Again I request for Metabbubble to be blocked from this discussion. Mettabubble, you are saying all the right stuff for irritating the editors here. It is not Flavius' fault that there is no magic search function for the archives. There is an overwhelmingly compelling reason for the NCAHF to be included, and it relates in part to the zealously litigous nature of cults and pseudoscience promoters. This has been covered in depth, and Metabbubble is indeed trying to pull the wool, repeat nag, and screw as much out of the new mediator/s as possible. I repeat my request for the blocking of Mettabubble. HeadleyDown 12:22, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, Metabubble is badgering in the same way that other "editors with vested interests in NLP" have persistently done. Request for metabubble to be blocked. HeadleyDown 17:27, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Scientology & Dianetics Removal

I'd like to see references to Dianetics and Scientology removed from the article entirely. This all covered by New Age. Connections to dianetics and scientology are no more and no less relevant than Bandlers connection with computing mathematics and Grinders connection with Rock-climbing -- two topics which are never mentioned in the article. This seems like selective inclusion of the founders connections in an attempt at guilt by association. There's plenty of ammo to knock the founders without resorting to GBA. Peace. Metta Bubble 06:35, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bandler has absolutely no connection with "computing mathematics". I tire of repeating this but he's spread so much disinformation about himself that his lies have gained the status of the truth. I have gone to much trouble to confirm Bandler's educational background and crednetials. Bandler has a BA in psychology and philosophy and an MA in theoretical psychology. The college that he studied at (Kresge) never taught mathematics or computing and still doesn't. Bandler has no work experience or credentials in mathematics or computing. He in fact has no work experince outside of NLP training, authoring and psychotherapy. Please, I don't want to hear anything about Bandler and maths and computing again. Please. Grinder knows more math than Bandler. Grinder once taught a unit in formal languages at Kresge. But anyway that's besides the point, I understand what you are contending regarding Scientology and Dianetics but I don't agree with you that its all incidental or an attempt at GBA. From a history of ideas stance or social trends stance the NLP/Dianetics connections are relevant. NLP was one of many regressive, imprint (or engram) based therapies (eg. Primal Scream) that emerged at the time. This category of psychotherapies were influenced by Dianetics, commercially they were influenced by the success of the CoS and EST. It is interesting from merely a sociological and historical perspective and should be included on that basis. flavius 10:54, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have to say I really appreciate your position Flavius. I think if you feel that refrences to New Age, Scientology, Dianetics, Zeitgeist and others are extremely important. There are several users here that have much interrest in having a "best as possible" representation of Neural-Linguistic Programming, I think yourself included. One thing that is very important to you, so I seem to understand, is that this article does not slip one bit in its communication reguarding the critical opinions and facts reguarding this topic. This is where you are really going to be able to add to the article in a very sharp way that others may not. I am even thinking there just might need to be a seperate article, well written by someone with interrest "Super Greatly" expounding the critisisms of NLP. Maybe a "Neuro-Linguistic Programming Criticism" Page. I sure know there is so, so much criticism to be accounted for, it might be important to have such a refrence on Wikipedia. One main import of the NLP article being readability, to not detract from the fluidity of the article, the great abundance of criticism just might have to be expanded yet to this and another article. Does this make sense? What do you think? I dunno. heh. jVirus 11:27, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No it does not make sense. Stop wasting editor's time. Read the archives and aquaint your self with science. HeadleyDown 17:31, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to see some quotes from the founders in the intro so that readers get a feel for where these two were coming from. Perhaps something like:

"Physics changes, but reality stays the same"
"Remember, there’s only two things in the universe. You either put things together or you take things apart."

I think these convey the founders attitude to science in a fairly neutral way and also capture something of the personality of NLP. This would be useful for setting the tone of the article. I am sure someone could suggest more appropriate quotes. Peace. Metta Bubble 06:42, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neither Bandler or Grinder are scientists (Grinder stopped doing linguistics 30 years ago) so what is the relevance of their view of science? In any event neither has a cogent position on science. A banal quote doesn't constitute a statement of their position on science. The aim of an encyclopedia is to educate not to indulge the ignorance of some of its readers. A trite quote doesn't magically negate the relevance of science and the article should not contain any innuendo that such is the case. Neither Bandler or Grinder have ever said anything significant (and hence quotable) about science. The personality of NLP is anachronistic -- it emerged from a zeitgeist which has long since ceased to exist. Bandler is wrestling with phantoms -- he still seems to think that Freudian psychoanalysis is the dominant paradigmm in psychology and psychiatry. Grinder is stuck on TG even though liguistics has long since abandoned it. The "personality" of NLP is like that of a an old, superstitious, insular and narcissistic used-car salesman. flavius 11:13, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good grief! Mettabubble has badgered for Dianetics etc to be removed before, and other NLP promoters have done the same throughout the archives. I shall repeat some for the sake of the present newbie mediators. NLP has been clearly compared to Scientology/Dianetics in the research for many reasons. Dianetics and NLP are:

Ineffective,
pseudoscientific in theory, results and excuses.
They both use the same occult based principles (eg reality is not real Korzybsky etc), they have proponents in common (eg Perls),
they are based heavily on hypnotism or command suggestion, they are thought to be religions or quasi-religions, they encourage dissociative delusions for “treatment”,
they derive their beliefs from new age notions of superhuman potential and beliefs such as reincarnation, they often use hypnotic regression and past life regression,
they refer to pseudoscientific principles (long since debunked by science),
they actively encourage occult notions of magic,
they both make liberal use of outlandish stories for indoctrination and retention of recruits,
and they suggest that people require re-programming through some kind of mental clearing process, *they both use the 90% or 99% mind potential myth,
and they both pay homage to misleading left/right brain myths.
They also both have the same marketing strategies.

In the interests of punishing those who conflictingly nag for the simple reason that they think they can get away with conning the new mediators, I request that Mettabubble be blocked from editing or commenting on this discusion page. Camridge 06:29, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"New Age" Intro Removal

Metta Bubble : I really like your suggestion to remove the Term "New Age" from the Intro. I think it might be more clear if we set up a structure for the article. If we chose to make the Intro closer to very basic simple purpose and things as described by the original co-founders, I think the intro itself will be quite hammered down solid? Perhaps we could then have a body describing some of the things in the intro, followed by a conclusion. And whatever. This being the basic form of our article. What do you think? This also means Flavius that in the intro, however long the intro may be, toward the end of the intro we would have a nice criticism paragraph about the same size as one of the intro paragraphs, or whatever is rationally needed. Those criticisms could then be expounded in the body in a order, similar to the other expoundings from the intro. Is this favorable or what might be your concerns if any? This means actually that in the intro critisim part you could if it is agreeable to everyone say something like "NLP is criticised as being of the New Age, Pseudoscientific, having little or no effect as to it's claims" or whatever is needed. Then we could expound on the intro criticism area in similar order in the body. The body being a reflection of the Intro if it might be. What do you think ppl? jVirus 11:00, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article shouldn't be an advertisement for NLP -- either in its parts or as a whole. You can't arbitarily ignore all of the science regarding NLP. NLP isn't some new and as yet untested type of psychology and it shouldn't be presented as if it is. NLP has been tested many times in its many aspects during these 30 years. To pre-empt the predictable responses, all scientific knowledge is tentative, it is always open to revision. However, that scientific theory or law which has a consensus amongst scientists (after the application of all the usual protocols and standards) is the best description and/or explanation that we have of a natural phenomenon -- for all practical purposes it is the Truth (or more precisely our best approximation of it). The history and results of science demonstrate -- just as Korzybski contended -- that the scientific method is the very best method for discovering things about the universe and scientific knowledge is the most accurate knowledge (we have) regarding the universe. Thus, if there is a consensus amongst scientists regarding the invalidity and ineffectiveness of NLP and there is a scientific explanation for its apparent efficacy then that is our knowledge regarding the matter. NLP has not advanced some devastating critique of scientific method such that 400 years of inductive proof of the efficacy and efficiency of scientific method is negated. NLP has been tested according to the same standards and protocols that we test drugs, surgical procedures, conventional psychotherapies, construction materials, paints, adhesives, pesticides etc. and it has failed, miserably. The tests have been repeated sufficient number of times such that we can be confident of them. There is nothing peculiar about NLP such that it can't be tested using the scientific method: either NLP works better than placebo in treating anxiety/depression/phobia or it doesn't; either NLP language patterns make one more persuasive than no technique or they don't; either your eyes move upwards when you make pictures in your head or they don't. The point is that what science says about NLP is the highest quality information we have about NLP. This isn't a matter of aesthetics or of faith thus science and the scientific method are entirely relevant. The article should state in the article intro what the scientific position is. Until a better method of learning about the universe than science comes along this is how it will have to be. jVirus, 7even, Metta bubble, Comaze, and DejaKitty you all need to learn something of the methods and history of science and of the concept of evidence. This will go a long way towards reducing the conflicts regarding this article. flavius 11:58, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Flavius I am sorry. My intention has not been to "advertise Neuro-Linguistic Programming". Thanks for pointing that out. If you ever see me making an advertisement please point out the exact string of words for me. This I do not want to be accused of. Aparently you also feel I communicated my desire "ignore all of the science reguarding NLP". Once again I am very sorry I have communicated this to you. If I ever do give you the impression that I want to ignore all science reguarding anything, I really need you to point that string out, describing to me. Not my intention again. Sorry if I gave you either impression. I misscommunicated. jVirus 20:37, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

JVirus. Read the archives. Your request is actually antagonistic. This has been dealt with in depth. I will repeat some of it for the sake of those who cannot be bothered to do a bit of reading. New age is stated in the scientific literature as a category for NLP. New age is one category that NLP promoters use to promote their "product". NLP is advertised within and among the new age sections of magazines, catalogues, and bookshops. New age is technically correct, and placing the term new age in the opening line of the article will give the reader a very useful set of concepts to understand NLP as professional researchers understand NLP. The new age term is useful and should get more of a mention in the article for the sake of clarity and brevity. The same goes for the useful clarifying comparisons Dianetics, Scientology (because those are closely similar and have been around longer), and terms such as ritual, and occult. DaveRight 04:58, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since you placed your comment in order as responding to the comment directly above it, ie. "Flavius I am sorry." I am assuming you mean that my request for Flavius to point out my exact string of words when he sees me advertising, or other, is antagonistic? Or are you not really replying to my statement just above yours? jVirus 08:48, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jvirus. You are saying you really like Mettabubble's idea to remove representitive fact from the opening. New Age will need to be better explained in the article as a whole, and will need a mention in the opening. That will most likely involve the use of other terms such as occult, postmodernism, and antirealism. I know you don't want those mentioned at all in the article, but you are just going to have to put up with reality.Camridge 04:01, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of information

The following was removed:

"Neuro-Linguistic Programming (NLP) is a collection of self-help recommendations, promoted through the popular psychology, self development, and New Age sections of bookshops, and advertised in various media including the Internet and infomercials."

This is possibly the only factual statement that is known about NLP. I am not here to argue for its inclusion, I just want to know the reason for its removal. Bensaccount 16:11, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NLP is not just self-help, altough that is what it mainly is. I would reword to:

"Neuro-Linguistic Programming (NLP) is a collection of recommendations and models, often promoted in the form of self-help literature through the popular psychology and self development sections of bookshops, and advertised in various media including the Internet and infomercials."

That would be more accurate. We should try to reword as opposed to just deleting. I will add that in if no one objects.Voice of All^T|@|ESP 16:32, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The procedure we are finding useful in resolving a somewhat similar difficulty in another subject is to specifiy how the editors wish to treat the information which makes up the subject. Pseudoscience WP:NPOV#Pseudoscience, Single source original research, multiple sources publishing original research, contradictory, theory WP:NOR#How_to_deal_with_Wikipedia_entries_about_theories, or otherwise. These are catagories of how the public views the subject, the body of information which composes the subject. We've found this approach of getting editor agreement in this area to be useful at Talk:Dianetics. Terryeo 17:37, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is definatly accurate. No facts biased. The description of NLP being so varied, this is quite possibly among the few descriptions common to the experience of the present masses. If the masses want a basic factual description to hit upon first when reading this is a great start. Objections : Me, I am in more favorable response to a more historical description intro from the first NLP literature similar to the one I inserted, modified from Comaze, followed by such a common experience description as we are considering. A historical type description from it's co-founders being virtually a neutral opening, having no judgements. You definatly have more exp. editing wiki's VOA, what do you think about what I have said? jVirus 20:28, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can you post your intro idea up here so I can see it? Thanks.Voice of All^T|@|ESP 20:39, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

intro thought

Neuro-Linguistic Programming or NLP, originally created by Richard Bandler and John Grinder (19XX-19XX), modeled the behavior of successful therapists, Virginia Satir, Milton H. Erickson and Fritz Perls, developing a series of explicit patterns designed to produce rapid change for the client in therapy.

The last 5 words are very weak. They need to gel in my brain for a bit. jVirus 21:10, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stating it as their intention to model would be more NPOV. Then to cut it into two sentences so the second one can be more open to clarification. My understanding of current wikipedia mediation guidelines is that mediators shouldn't be making edit recommendations. I think the process here would be beautifully improved if we followed mediation guidelines. What section of a bookshop promotes what topic doesn't appear at all relevent to an encyclopedia to me. Should we scour the bookshop sections and update all our articles at wikipedia? Peace. Metta Bubble 11:44, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. Stating it as their "intention" is POV. All we know is that is what their CLAIM is. Most of the scientific literature deals with the CLAIMS of NLP proponents and the term CLAIM is stated in the literature. These are tested and have found to be false. The statement will only be encyclopedic from this scientific perspective. We have dealt with this many times, and the evidence is clearly presented in the article. No excuses. Block MettaBubble from making such antagonistic and useless suggestions that misleadingly portray all NLP promoters as having perfect intentions. HeadleyDown 12:31, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Headley. How would you know what their intention was? Even if B&G told you personally told you what their intention was it would still be no reason to accept it as their true intention without some sort of evidence. In any event, their intent is relevant. All that matters is what they claimed to be doing. flavius 18:09, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think I am going to continue on with first my understanding of the positions of all the users herebefore I continue thinking about the intro,however I am curious, HeadleyDown & Flavius, do your reflected positions above about the intention stuff, mean that as I stated intro relative to Metta Bubble's words my statement is better than his suggestion to change it?

What the intro should contain

I'm withdrawing the part of my earlier proposal where we have separate Pro and Con sub-sections, because it's not supported by some of the principal editors on this article, and I'm having seconds thoughts about that myself.

What remains of my proposal is what the Intro should contain. Here are my thoughts, and then I'm preserving only those comments that have to do with the Intro part. (If deleted anything you want to keep, I apologize -- please add it back, in a separate section if it dosn't have to do with the Intro per se.)

Guidelines for the Intro:

It should be relatively short and completely neutral with regard to Pro or Con characterizations.

It should avoid vague words that don't really say what NLP is but make it sound sexy.

It should avoid criticisms such as "New Age," "pseudoscience", etc. These claims can be made later (where they will be more effective anyway once elaborated upon. For example, explain what pseudoscience is, and explain in detail why NLP is pseudoscience, if you believe it is. This kind of detail cannot be done in the intro, but without it, "pseudoscience" is just a missile word.).

Avoid descriptions of NLP as "techniques practiced by successful psychotherapists". "Successful" is vague and subjective, and this doesn't tell what NLP is anyway. It just states the writer's opinion of some who have practiced it.

We might start off with something like this, which I believe is neutral:

NLP, which stands for "Neuro-Linguistic Programming", is a self-improvement training program which purports to teach people how to speak directly to ("program") the unconscious mind, both of themselves and others, using particular "linquistic patterns". It was founded in 1973 by Richard Bandler and John Grinder.

Leave your comments below.

-- BrianH123 21:12, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I support the broad thrust of your approach. I don't want to see any of the NLP cliches in the introduction. Whether Fritz Perls, Virginia Satir and Milton Erikson were "successful" or "excellent" therapists is neither generally agreed upon nor self-evident. flavius 03:47, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I also support this broad approach. My apologies when using the term "successful" and the like. I was hoping to give the historical description by B&G rather than my opinion. This I could see how it would be taken by the casual reader as described by the article not a subjective description by its originators. jVirus 23:05, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support with conditions. I agree in principle. And the actual example is better than what is currently online. I agree we should avoid evaluative terms such as 'successful' or 'excellent' to describe Milton H. Erickson, Virginia Satir and Fritz Perls (the early models in NLP). However, BrianH123's intro above includes some inaccuracies such as, "speak directly to ('program') the unconscious mind"... this desribes a "command hypnosis" or authoritative approach taken by stage hypnotists and other hypnotherapists; this is not the typical NLP approach. In NLP, the way people communicate with the unconscious mind is a co-operative, primarily indirect approach derived from the work of Milton H. Erickson. 'Speak directly' implies NLP is only linguistic patterns -- this excludes non-verbal patterns such as rapport and cross pacing. The view that NLP is a modeling methodology should also be included. --Comaze 10:58, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

By "directly" I meant in a way that bypasses conscious recognition, not an authoritative approach. I'm open to alternative language to clear up that ambiguity. Regarding "modeling methodology", I think we need to avoid NLP-specific terminology in the introduction, since we don't have room to explain it (unless you want to offer a terse, clear-to-the-layman explanation we can include parenthetically). Feel free to propose specific language for the intro in your response. Thanks for your comments. --BrianH123 15:30, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We do need to nut out the most accurate language to use here. Most of the technical language in NLP is borrowed from other fields such as linguistics, epistemology, cybernetics, finite state automata and turing machine. Modeling in my opinion is an accurate technical description. We need to balance this so that a naive person can understand it. Some skeptics might say that the technical language borrowed from other disciplines is used out of context. To start you could replace speak with communicate to include the non-verbal patterns. I'd prefer directly to be removed or framed in a way that includes indirect suggestion. The actual definition in NLP of unconscious mind is unique and would probably need to be defined later in the article. --Comaze 06:24, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stabilize the discussion page

The only stabilization required is on the discussion page, because that is where the problems are. Repeat (daily) badgering questions, and requests for censorship and pseudoscience to gain priority over science have destabilized the discussion and caused a lot of conflict and extra work. With a mentor for Comaze and others with a similar agenda, the discussion will likely improve. HeadleyDown 03:30, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, Headley. The only reason for mediation is to keep the miscreants in order on the discussion page and on personal talk pages. Mediators have already made statements that they don't care about the difference between science and pseudoscience, so they should be kept out of it. DaveRight 05:07, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Progress

Good, looks like we're making good progress here. I'm going to step back for a little bit and watch as you guys decide on the information. I'll still be here watching. Swatjester

Yeah I am excited. jVirus 08:41, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Headly

Headly, please stop trying to dominate this talk page. Your last several edits have been demanding and confrontational, and ignoring users with differing opinions does nothing to help the further development of this page. Please try to edit constructively and join this mediation, for the good of the article. Swatjester 01:44, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I will not dominate. Science WILL. HeadleyDown 02:47, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Swatjester, this isn't a matter of aesthetics, we're not arguing about the "greatest band in the world". NLP makes specific claims about learning, memory, cognition, mental illness and neurology. These aren't unclaimed subject domains that are up for grabs. Scientific method is the best method that we have for learning about the universe and its inhabitants and scientific knowledge is the most accurate knowledge we have about the universe and its inhabitants (with regards to non-religious and non-ethical concerns). Until science is displaced by NLP as the means for investigating reality then the scientific view should prevail. This is non-negotiable. NLP is not peer of science and whereas science has a well-established method of inquiry, NLPs is entirely conjectural and because of the invalidity of the techniques it has generated most likely flawed. We're not going to be served a plate of shit and told its a delicious chicken dinner. flavius 04:13, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not getting into the specifics of NLP, because I don't know, and I don't care. But we have to conform with NPOV, and right now it's not happening. Domination of this article will lead only to revert wars like the one that got this page locked. This is what we're trying to avoid here. Instead of being defensive, we need to be constructive and reach a compromise here. Swatjester 04:31, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oi mate! Swatjester I don't believe you have been here long enough to know. Headley is not dictating. He has consistently been the most cooperative, constructive, anti-propaganda editor on this article. He seems to be enforcing the "spirit" of NPOV policy better than you. The nonpromotional editors are constructive and cooperative. Now we have gained your attention, I think it is time to continue improving the article from its already advanced form - With NLP fanatics under a tighter state of apprehension. DaveRight 04:42, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He's alreay been blocked once for personal attacks on this article. That's hardly cooperation and constructive approach.Swatjester 15:17, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok Swatjester, what is this? You against me? Who should mediate now? HeadleyDown 16:33, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all. I'm just trying to facilitate the article. Swatjester 16:39, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Swatjester, NPOV conformity doesn't entail passing bullshit off as fact and privileging pseudocience such that it speaks as loud as science in the article. If it did then the half of the Earth article would be devoted to flat-earth theory. flavius 05:21, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The problem here is that two different sides believe two different things. You believe from your POV that NLP is bullshit. The other side believes that it's an actual science. NPOV would show that you need to submit both sides' POV's. You, DaveRight, Headly, and Flavius apparently seem to be only wanting to show your POV of the article. It may be correct, I don't know, and it doesn't matter. The article needs to show ALL SIGNIFICANT POINTS OF VIEW. Thus far I've identified two: Your side's (it's not science) and the other side's (it is science). Therefore both need to be included. What we are supposed to be doing here is trying to find a way to balance it out so that each side is satisfied with the result. Swatjester 15:17, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No Swatjester. The terms some of the the eminent scientists use regarding NLP are eg - pseudoscience, psychobabble, psychopablum, banal, trite, infantile, highly dubious, extremely questionable, devious, and the kind of language that the scientists use are eg - "NLP proponents such as Robert Dilts are now seriously modeling the strategies of Jesus Christ and Sherlock Holmes and selling books about it; God help us! (Singer 1999)". Notice the term BULLSHIT is not used in the article. However, for explanatory purposes, although the term BULLSHIT may be quite inappropriate for encyclopedias, it will one of the words in the mental model of experts, and therefore should be conveyed somehow to the reader. HeadleyDown 16:29, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Swatjester, you appear to be well-meaning so I'll strive to be patient with you. You write, "The problem here is that two different sides believe two different things". That isn't the problem. Some people believe the most unexpected of things: the second Gulf War never occurred, 911 was the work of the US government, 911 was the work of Israeli Intelligence, there have been no lunar landings, the earth is flat, the UK Royal Family are reptilean shapeshifters, we have been inflitrated by space aliens etc. If you search you will find at least one person that contests some widely held view. Simply because a person can adopt a psoition on a matter doesn't magically legitimise that position. The critical notion that is missing from your understanding of the dispute is evidence. In the absence of evidence a belief -- on non-religious and non-aesthetic matters -- is conjecture and speculation. It is possible to generate an infinite number of conjectures and speculations because we have imaginations. We determine fact and truth by reference to evidence. In this conext what we believe is entirely irrelevant. What matters is what we can prove. Given that we have imaginations and we are fallible we can believe anything. However, we can't prove anything. Proof requires evidence and/or argumentation. Regardless of what NLP proponents or critics believe -- it's irrelevant anyway -- there is no evidence that NLP works and it is inconsistent with established theory. You write, "You believe from your POV that NLP is bullshit. The other side believes that it's an actual science." Beliefs regarding NLP are -- in this instance -- irrelevant. What matters is what can be demonstrated to be true, i.e. what can be proved. You are making a "category mistake". You are reasoning about matters that are resolvable with reference to evidence as if they were religious or aesthetic concerns. There is no evidence based method for determining the "One True Faith" nor is there a an evidence-based method for determing "The Best" ice cream flavour. Whether NLP works or not or whether it is theoretically sound is not a faith issue nor is it a subjective preference. It is an empirical matter. NLP has been rigourously tested and its theoretical basis has been reviewed and the conclusions are not supportive. At this point the only available means of resisting the scientific evidence and evaluation are metaphysical and epistemological. A number of options are available in this regard but I'll describe only the polar extremes. The NLPer can appeal to a form of radical epistemological relativism, i.e. there is no such thing as objective knowledge and optionally the universe does not exist -- that is one side of the polar extreme. The other polar extreme is that the scientific method is flawed or somehow inapplicable and the body of scietific knowledge that contradicts NLP is incorrect. However, these forms of metaphysical and epistemological scpeticism canot simply be asserted they must be argued for and that justification must include an explanation of the apparent explanatory and predictive power of science. In the absence of philosophical treatise that successfully invalidates the scientific evidence against NLP the matter is settled with reference to scientific method and scientific knowledge. flavius 17:06, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Which scientists? Please cite the full MLA style documentation? Furthermore, the ArbCom decided that in the article, things like "pseudoscience, psychobabble" etc. need to be attributed as a quote to the scientists that said them, not to the editor of the article. Then, to show the other significant viewpoint, the other side will need to find scientists that say it's a valid science, attribute a full MLA style citation, and then in the article, attribute their viewpoint to the scientists that said that, not to the editor. (note, when I say MLA style, it could be any other accepted citation format such as APA, AMA, MLA, Chicago style, etc.) Swatjester 16:39, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article contains the references you seek the only thing lacking from some of them is page numbers. There are no scientists that say that NLP is a science. In any event that is not how science works. If you search the scientific abstracts you'll find at least one paper that contradicts what is generally regarded as proven (eg. that smoking doesn't cause respiratory disease). Scientific evidence is assessed with reference to the methodology of the research, its reproducibility and whether it was published in a well-regarded peer-reviewed journal. Only if there are a substantial number of methodologically sound research papers that have been published in peer-reviewed journals that reject the null hypotheis does the scientific community collectively reject the null hypothesis and thus promote a hypothesis to knowledge. flavius 17:06, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Swatjester says, "Your side's (it's not science) and the other side's (it is science)." -- I do not think that anyone is claiming that NLP is a science. However, Gregory Bateson does say in the introduction to Structure of Magic Volume 1, "[Grinder & Bandler] have succeeded in making linguistics into a base for theory and simultaneously into a tool for therapy."(p.x 1975a). Grinder & Bostic (2001) do make the claim that NLP based primarily on Gregory Bateson's epistemology (1972, 1979) and Chomsky's Transformational Grammar. When we refer to "NLP" we need to identify who specifically or what aspects of NLP we are referring to. --Comaze 00:48, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As you very well know, Comaze, NLP proponents have been criticised for claiming that NLP is science, and criticised for misleading the public that NLP is science. And as you know already, theory is a core building block of science, and even Bateson is dressing NLP up as science. The theories of NLP have been measured and found to be false. They continue to be promoted as being true, and therefore NLP is a pseudoscience. WE do not refer to NLP, the NLP proponents, and the scientists who research NLP refer to NLP. I request for Comaze to be blocked for badgering and wasting my and everybody's time yet again. HeadleyDown 03:22, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's not badgering, and not blockable by any standard. Please assume good faith from Comaze. We're doing well in the mediation so far. Swatjester 16:18, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Swatjester, let me tell you something about Comaze. He'll repeat badger for the same old stuff whenever he gets a chance. He has presented the same material many many times already. And he has recieved satisfactory answers many many times already. I already understand that you will neither recognize that, nor do anything about it. As has been suggested below.... non promotional editors WILL severely punish Comaze for making such repeat remarks simply by presenting the facts more clearly within the article ALL within the limits of NPOV policy. It's not my fault that he feels such intense trauma at the presentation of plain facts. So he will feel even more agony at those facts being clarified in the article. NPOV policy is traumatic to Comaze when applied to NLP. Lets just accept that and get on with accepting each other's lot in life. HeadleyDown 17:55, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What does this Article need?

Maybe what would help is, if we got one (specific) sentence statement from each user, ie refrences, honesty, clarity, punctuation, structure, whatever that might help. I am just not sure any longer. We maybe need clarity from people on what they feel the article needs to be finished. If it needs anything at all. Just one clear sentence would be good. The most important thing in your opinions maybe. (feel free everyone to edit your own opinions to make them more clear)

jVirus

I am not so sure what the article needs any longer. I need some precise input from other users to make a more clear determination jVirus 03:48, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My Priority basics as of 7 February 2006

Find out what everyone else wants.
Of that list, find out what everyone else considers to be thier top priority for the article to be finished.
Probably get specific with each user about their top priority.

jVirus 00:12, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2006.02.08 Deferring to the new mentors

New plan

Deferring to the new mentors to find out what their collective plan is. jVirus File:Confederate Battle Flag.svg 04:44, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Flavius

Please, enough already of this "lets hold hands and form a giant chain" bullshit! What this article needs is a commitment and re-orientation towards scientific and factual evidence. Even if this article were left like a baby to the vultures of NLP commercial interests and pseudoscience what do you think would happen? The NLP proponents would bicker amongst themselves about whose "kung-fu" is the best -- go visit alt.psychology.nlp if you doubt me. Pseudoscientists arguments are never resolved because they have no basis for settling disputes -- you can't determine whether the "Swish pattern" works by trading anecdotes. When pseudoscientists disagree they form their own "denomination" -- what else can they do -- that's why we have so many competing types of "Power Therapies", witchcraft, graphology, palmistry, "body psychotherapy" etc. If you've dispensed with rigorous experimentaion as a means of moving closer to the truth then you're left with mental masturbation. You can see the consequences of this mental masturbation if you visit any New Age bookstore. Rational discourse is the only (civilised) means of settling disputes regarding matters that are neither aesthetic or religious. Rational discourse concerning empirical matters requires evidence. Scientific evidence is high-quality evidence -- it is the highest quality evidence and the accomplishments of Western civilisation testify to this. Anecdote and testimony are not suitable evidence for empirical matters. If the NLP proponents could re-orient themselves towards the notion of evidence that would eliminate much of the conflict. Comaze and DejaKitty want to pass off unsubstantiated claims and falsified claims as fact. Comaze seems to think that claiming that "NLP has a different epistemology" somehow absolves him of the responsibility for substantiation. The inclusion of unsubstantiated claims based on anecdotal evidence is unacceptable. This is non-negotiable. Anecdotal evidence is often unacceptable in day-to-day life a fortiori it is unacceptable for an encyclopedic article. flavius 04:49, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sweet, precisely what I wanted to know. Now we have a record of it. Course you could have said, you felt that it needed more scientificly backed data. Your paragraph is good. (feel free to edit your desires for the article if you need to) jVirus 08:24, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BrianH123

The article needs some editing so it presents its evidence in a less redundant and more well organized way.
Specific quotes from references should be used more, and paraphrase-followed-by-stream-of-footnotes used less.
Terms such as "pseudoscience" and "New Age" should be put in the mouth of a source, not left unattributed. The reasons why the source believes NLP to be pseudoscience, etc., should be stated.
The intro should be as neutral and dispassionate as possible, if only because the reader needs to know what NLP is before you hit him over the head with opinions about it.
In the article, the bulk of the text and the emphasis should be what is sourced in scientific studies. See the NPOV policy for more on representing "majority" and "minority" opinions. For the purpose of an encyclopedia article on an empirical subject, scientific consensus is the majority view, not anecdotes. Claims that NLP "has an alternative epistemology," which excuses it from the standards of evidence to which we hold every other field of inquiry, is begging the question.

-- BrianH123 18:14, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Would you be willing to list your desires of the above stated Hierarchically. But make them into just 3. Your top 3 wants for the article Hierarchically. jVirus 00:04, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Before I reduce my list, let's see what common ground we can find. I'd hate to throw away an item and then wonder if it might have been the only one that someone else could agree on. :-) Also, I don't care which is acted upon first. --BrianH123 04:27, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That is cool. I think a lot of my thoughts will be on what both flavius and Headleydown want. jVirus 09:33, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SWATJester

This article needs all of the editors to step back a second and realize that editing this article is not a life or death thing. This is only the internet, after all.
This article needs complete and accurate citations. Whatever the format, AMA/APA/MLA etc, it needs to be cited 100% all the way down to the page number, for verification purposes.
This article needs to have attribution of terms to users, as per Brian above.
This article needs to be as dispassionate and neutral as possible, as per brian above.
This article should be structured with a format like this: Section 1: introduction. Section 2: History. Section 3:Current Teachings, or Current Practices, or whatever it should be called. Basically how NLP is practiced today Section 4: Famous NLP-ers. Section 5: Controversies and criticisms. Section 5: External links, see alsos, etc. Section 6: Citations.

Swatjester 20:20, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know that I agree with putting all the scientific criticisms at the end. I think if X is presented as a "current teaching", then scientific evidence critical of X should be nearby. Also, I don't want my use of the word "neutral" to be taken as not wanting (well-documented) criticism of NLP. I do want that, just not in the introduction before the reader even knows what NLP is. Also, info about famous NLPers is, in my view, almost valueless. If it's included, it certainly shouldn't be at the expense of pushing criticisms of NLP further down the page. —BrianH123 21:10, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, easily solved by moving the "criticisms" section to immediately follow the "current practices" section. My new proposed order would be Intro, History, Current practice, Criticism and controversy, Famous NLPers, External links and see alsos, Citations. I also have to disagree with you that famous NLPers is valueless. In my wikipedia experiences, most good articles about a science, religion, school, etc. have a section for "famous practicioners/alumni". It's interesting for a student doing research to look up a subject and then be able to see wikilinks for who are the experts in the field, and also who are the critical detractors or skeptics. Note also, maybe Famous NLP'ers is a bad title, because I'd also want to include "Famous NLP Critics and Detractors" in that subsection. Swatjester 21:43, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not trying to be snide here (just a perspective jolt). How about a section for "experts in the practice of charlatanry". You can make what you like of that. I understand you said something about not being bothered about the content, and being more interested in resolving the dispute. HeadleyDown 15:04, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not interested in the content. I feel we can solve this dispute through structure. Your statement is sort of ambiguous, but if you were trying to insult me with it, it didn't work. If not, nevermind. Swatjester 16:19, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Swatjester would you maybe your wants of the above stated for the article hierarchically. But make them just your top 3. Your top 3 wants for the article hierarchically. jVirus 00:06, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand what you're asking me Jvirus. Swatjester 00:34, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, sorry. I mean: I am getting lots of things from people that they want to see changed or adhered to or to improve etc.. You have yourself a list of things you want to see done with the articleIf you would be so kind as to make a list of of your top 3 things you want done, priorities for the article. Then we can see what everyone feels is their top priority for the article. IE. - John Doe feels that we 1st. need to correct all the grammar. 2. we need to get rid of slander 3. we need to make refrences more specific. I am just thinking by knowing what yours and others #1 thing they want to change is, we might be able to progress a bit further in negotiations. kinda make sense? jVirus 03:54, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that's necessary, nor is it my place to do so. If others want to do it, that's fine, but I'd recuse myself from that.

Firstly, I agree that dispassionate discussion is important and that pressure should be taken off the mediators concerning requests to block NLP fan(atics)/promoters. But mediators would do well to understand that neutrally oriented editors here have already stated that detailed citations will be provided. It would help if mediators started to RECOGNIZE AND ACCEPT the cooperation of nonNLPpromotional editors. Camridge 07:58, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, one way we can take the pressure off the mediators is to not expect them to formulate a vision of the future article. That way they can get on with the more pressing issues.......agreeing with ways to reduce (or cope with) the inevitable harrassment of nonNLP promotional editors. HeadleyDown 15:09, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that detailed citations will be provided Camridge. This mediation, at this point, has calmed down quite a bit since when I first got here, and I think both sides are doing well towards making some good progress. So long as the citations, do in fact stay sufficiently detailed, everybody's happy. As for Headly, let me make my position on this article clear. The only non-mediation advice I will be giving as towards editing the article itself, will be grammatical and structure based: i.e. I take no stance on pro-nlp or anti-nlp, I just will make suggestions as to fixing typos, grammatical errors, and the like. Furthermore, except in the case of very minor typos, I will not make these edits myself until mediation has ended, to maintain impartiality. Does this satisfy everyone? Swatjester 16:24, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DaveRight

Is your position the same as Flavius,that what this article needs is more Scientific Backed Evidence? If you had to pick your top priority. jVirus 08:33, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Took this from your input entry: jVirus File:Confederate Battle Flag.svg 05:44, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

NLP promoters should be identified and their misdeeds be clearly shown here as soon as possible
After discussion becomes even more reasonable the mediators should understand the origins of NLP a bit at least
NLP was developed as a commercial enterprise in the same mold as Scientology and Dianetics
The occult aspects of NLP were always there in the "structure of magic" and the seminars
The occult aspects of NLP need far more mention in the article because they have grown wild on the web lately
Mediators need to check their bias. They seem to be very postmodernist, new age inclined, and biased towards such but unwilling to show the terms "new age", "quasispiritual" and "occult" on the article.
The sociological and cult studies research needs far more mention in the article.

Camridge 10:11, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

My priority is the clearer explanation of facts in the article. These can later be made more brief in good times, or expanded more clearly whenever miscreant editors have "misunderstood" to the point of requesting the removal or whitewashing of such facts.
I make no demands on the mediators, because they are having a hard time already. I urge the nonPromotional editors to take the pressure off the mediators, and simply provide evidence and clarity in order to deal with NLPpromoter's demands to censor factual scientific information.

Thanks. Swatjester 16:29, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I also think it would be useful if it is made clear in a section here, and on NLP promoter's articles which editors have vested interests in promoting NLP. Current NLP trainers, and NLP practitioners have a vested interest in promotion of NLP. NLP authors and book sellers also have a vested interest. We have had a lot of them here in the discussion page trying to pull the wool, removing the facts, and vandalizing nonNLPpromotional editor's talkpages etc.Camridge 10:11, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure I understand you here. From what I can tell, you're saying that it would be useful to make a section here (on this talk page or in the article), and on the entries for NLP promoters, stating they have a vested interest in the promotion of NLP? Or did I read that wrong? What sort of message do you propose to add? Swatjester 16:29, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

HeadleyDown

Sorry guys, I've made a priority change. I now believe the most important thing is to keep a refridgerator on discussion. Especially when NLP fans make unreasonable repeat demands. I make no demands on mediators or mentors to keep NLP promoters with vested interests, or NLP fans in order. Let them make whatever demands they like without the threat of blocking, and they will be dealt with coolly, and if necessary, scientific explanations should be increased in the article. When NLP fans/promoters delete facts in the article, or delete inappropriately on the discussion page, those deletes will be coolly reverted, and any reminders of agenda promotion should be dispassionate. HeadleyDown 12:18, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

JVirus, you seem to me to have misunderstood (perhaps deliberately) the requirements. We don't necessarily need MORE scientific evidence (though plenty more exists), but we do need more scientific explanation for the sake of clarity (a commitment to explanation of views from the point of view of science).

What is also very important is the recognition that some "editors with promotional agendas" have repeatedly asked and acted for the deletion of certain facts so that they cannot have explanations. Those views and explanations of experts work against commercial promotion of pseudoscience. The constant requests for certain authors to be disallowed, is an example of this. Eg, the repeat pleading and actions by Comaze, Akulkis, and Dejakitty for the emminently qualified authors, Singer, Lilienfeld, Carroll, and Eisner to be ejected from the article.

Correct me where I am off target Flavius, I believe CLEAR EXPLANATION with the benefit of rigorous research and science is your recommendation. I cannot speak for Dave, but I believe that is where one strong area of agreement is. HeadleyDown 12:02, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Headley, yes that is my position. The article includes ample scientific evidence, the problem isn't one of quantity. Some form of explanation and elaboration with reference to the research and science is needed though I'm uncertain as to precisely what form that should take. Would it be useful to turn some of the keywords pertaining to scientific method and research design (eg. "placebo", "controlled", "randomised", "clinical trial" etc.) into "Wiki links"? This would enrich the article and help non-scientists better appreciate the cited studies without inflating the article size. I suspect that scientific illiteracy amongst the NLP advocates (and the general public) is a large part of the problem. Producing clear explanations that an intelligent lay audience can understand that don't involve OR is a fine line to walk. I'll give this some more thought. flavius 16:04, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I've often envisaged a wikiproject or set of articles that helps the readers to sift the dross and collect the gold on matters of science and pseudoscience in some small way. The web can be so troublesome for some learners (including wikipedia). I believe diagrams, clear illustrations, or concept maps may be a useful addition. If there's time, and if constant edit wars etc are prevented, then that may yet happen. HeadleyDown 16:12, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

HeadleyDown : Sorry with my words to DaveRight that you and Flavius responded to, I was not meaning along the lines that there was not enough evidence in the world to support, but rather questioning if he felt there were not sufficient scientificly backed passages as in, he Does he want more of the claims to be well scienficially refrenced. blah blah. foot in mouth on my part. Anyway. jVirus 00:00, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What I am understanding, you and Flavius feel that this article itself, the content and structure of it, needs a recommittment to scientificly backing up all of its statements? I am restating this as accurately as I can with letters and phrases. When you read the article you see lots of information that is not scientifically supported. Is that correct? And you both want to see more scientific backing up for each statement. If it is going to be claimed, back it scientifically, Right? jVirus 00:00, 7 February 2006 (UTC) ----Another thing you want is for Metta Bubble and Comaze to be blocked. Am I understanding everything correctly? jVirus 04:09, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You can block if you like Jvirus. I do advocate the correct prosecution of the said editors for their antiNPOV activities, and I wish to maintain a permanent section clarifying their dubious history on their talkpages. DaveRight 09:08, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Metta Bubble

The article to more closely follow WP:NPOV policy in regards to scientific viewpoint being a subset of NPOV.

"The task before us is not to describe disputes as though, for example, pseudoscience were on a par with science; rather, the task is to represent the majority (scientific) view as the majority view and the minority (sometimes pseudoscientific) view as the minority view; and, moreover, to explain how scientists have received pseudoscientific theories. This is all in the purview of the task of describing a dispute fairly."(WP:NPOV "Pseudoscience")

The article to represent all scientific opinions of NLP and not just those that find it distasteful.

There are no positive scientific views of NLP appearing in peer-reviews, credible scientific journals. If you can find any then present them.flavius 04:27, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Opinions beyond the realms of science to have a fair hearing as per WP:NPOV (Government bodies, Management, Social Support Groups).

"Articles that compare views need not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and may not include tiny-minority views at all (by example, the article on the Earth only very briefly refers to the Flat Earth theory, a view of a distinct minority). We should not attempt to represent a dispute as if a view held by only a small minority of people deserved as much attention as a majority view, and views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views. To give undue weight to a significant-minority view, or to include a tiny-minority view, might be misleading as to the shape of the dispute."(WP:NPOV "Undue weight")

The article to more closely follow WP:NPOV by removing wording intended to imply guilt by association (ala Scientology, Dianetics, Chomsky, etc)

You are begging the question. First demonstrate that wording isn't intended to imply guilt by association, establish the source of the statement and if it doesn't come from a scientist then campaign for its removal. flavius 04:27, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article to more closely follow WP:NPOV in regards to terms that are veiled attacks (ala New Age, Cult-like, Rituals, Quasispiritual, etc)

As above. flavius

The article to more closely follow WP:NOR in regards to emphasis on non-core NLP ideas (like bagel, engrams, and others).

BAGEL is from Dilts and he presents it in his NLP Encyclopedia. flavius 04:27, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Some quotes in the article from the founders of NLP about their work. It would give a feel for what these people were like and is obviously relevant to the article.

That properly belongs in the John Grinder and Richard Bandler articles. flavius 04:27, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikilinks to sub-articles, including criticisms of NLP, principles of NLP, Rapport, Modelling and other topics.

Sub-articles are POV forks in drag. flavius 04:27, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A section briefly summarising each important contributor to the field of NLP, Bandler, Grinder, Dilts, Delozier, Leslie Cameron-Bandler, etc.

Biographical information belongs in biographical articles. flavius 04:27, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BrianH123's suggestion to be given a go. It seems amenable and is at least a start for workshopping a better process.
Comaze's intro a couple of sections above to be the starting point for a better intro.
This talk page to more closely follow WP:CIVIL and enforcement for those who don't.

It would indicate good faith on your part if you actually researched even some of things you take issue with. flavius 04:27, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This talk page's specific discussion outcomes to be cited as diffs if relevant (as opposed to people pretending it might be in the archives).
Mediators to mediate, not suggest edits.
The group of editors from the yahoo skeptics group to identify themselves openly and refrain from tag-team "here here" style comments in this discussion. It gives a false impression of consensus to new-comers.

I am not affiliated with any SIG. Comaze and GregA are NLP practitioners and associate trainers with a large NLP seminar provider. Comaze and GregA draw an income from NLP practice and teaching. Why is it that you're not concerned with the biases and pecuniary interests of the NLP proponents contributing to the article? This is very cynical of you. flavius 04:27, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting! Yes I would also like to know who are the members of the skeptics group, or if there are any. So far we know Comaze, and a few other NLP promoters have vested interests at stake. You should also know that Flavius and myself are qualified. I encourage the other NLP qualified to prove they are not biased towards NLP promotion. HeadleyDown 14:44, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Peace. Metta Bubble 23:23, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Metta Bubble will make your wants of the above stated for the article hierarchically. But make them just your top 3. Your top 3 wants for the article hierarchically. jVirus 00:08, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Terms such as Dianetics, Scientology and Chomsky are not guilt by association. They are the qualified views of scientists, and with citations they are facts. They require more explanation. The views of scientists are the most dispassionate and credible. New age, cult-like, rituals, quasispiritual are all technically correct terms, and they all come from scientific research. I request Mettabubble to be blocked for deliberately attempting to irritate editors by repeat badgering for the censorship of facts. NLP is a fringe practice and requires no sub-pages. The only people setting up sub pages here are the NLP fans/promoters with vested interests. No neutrally inclined editor has ever set up subpages. Those subpages were all criticised by non promotional editors for being "how tos" and were criticised for being biased and promotional. NLP literature is designed to be intrinsically promotional. Any subpage should be written largely from the perspectives of researchers who research NLP, rather than NLP promoters who only wish to feather their own nests. Comaze and his intro should be deleted from this discussion for the sake of keeping the peace. The ONLY problem with this article is the presence of editors such as Mettabubble and Comaze who are using the new situation as a further opportunity to remove factual information from wikipedia. I request that they both be blocked. HeadleyDown 03:08, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Correct explanation, but I encourage neutrally oriented editors to refrain from requesting blocks on NLP fan(atics) and NLP salespeople. Continue to make brief statements towards NLP misconceptions and simply provide more clarity in the article. Camridge 07:43, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed! I also encourage that. Mettabubble, I will start writing a permanently maintained section for your own talkpage pointing out your misdeeds and your obsession with deleting facts on wikipedia. I am duty bound! DaveRight 09:05, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dejakitty

1) Contract - We need a contract of rules of acceptable behaviour (e.g. wikipedia guidelines), for all the editors to sign and abide to.
2) Enforcement of Contract - Admins should work closely to enforce (e.g. removal of inappropriate postings) ground rules consistently in a transparent manner based on the agreed contract. Transgressions should be dealt with promptly and maintain a high "Signal to Noise Ratio" in the talk page.
3) Banning of Ideological Apartheit - Promotion or reenforcement of separation of editors into camps based on pressumed ideological differences should be banned.
4) Ignore All Inappropriate Behaviour - no arguing, no answer back, no whining, no joining in. Avoid getting into the game of "who has the last words" debate or "who is going to write the longest paragraph".
5) Working Together - Everyone should respond warmly and positively to constructive postings even though you may not agree entirely what the other person say. If you disagree with what the other person is saying, acknowledge the value of their contribution before stating your own point of view. Give reasons why you disagree rather than discounting what the other person has to say. Always communicate your opennes to search for ways to accomodate each others rather than just sticking to your own point of view.
--Dejakitty 00:25, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jejakitty, removing discussion completely, is not constructive, and it shows that you are prone to censoring text. I leave it up to you to remedy that. HeadleyDown 14:14, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Flavius

Says who? Some views are without substance, sense or logic. Why should I "acknowledge the value of their contribution" when it has no instrinsic value. If you don't value facts thenn your disposition is fine otherwise it is intellectual poison. flavius 04:36, 7 February 2006 (UTC) Only you can answer that. --Dejakitty 14:11, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How about visiting a library and researching before pontificating about a topic? Would that be a useful ground rule? flavius 04:36, 7 February 2006 (UTC) No opinion on this. --Dejakitty 14:11, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So you don't want argument and you don't want dialogue? flavius 04:36, 7 February 2006 (UTC) No. --Dejakitty 14:11, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Have you tried reading, reading, reading of those paper things that you find in libraries? flavius 04:36, 7 February 2006 (UTC) No. --Dejakitty 14:11, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the suggestion to work on stabilizing this discussion, rather than the suggestion to censor facts from the article. The terms "pseudoscience" "New Age" and so on are actual facts according to NPOV policy. They are also facts attributed to eminent scientists. This article is concerned with pseudoscience, and science is most important for clarifying the facts. Removal of the terms "pseudoscience" and "new age" from the article is censorship. This has been dealt with in detail already in the archives. HeadleyDown 02:53, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DejaKitty : will make your wants of the above stated for the article hierarchically. But make them just your top 3. Your top 3 wants for the article hierarchically. jVirus 03:47, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comaze

My most wanted list :)

write an accurate overview of "mainstream NLP thought" based most widely cited sources on the primary sources (use google scholar is a rule of thumb test)
Give more weight to highly cited works and publications in academic journals
Review all references to Scientology, and Dianetics --- confine to one sentence.
Remove all references to engrams, or make it clear that this is the view of a unknown practitioner/author (Sinclair/Bray)
Resolve ambiguity over engram (Dianetics) and engram (neuropsychology) and remove Neuro-linguistic programming from the engram page
Replace BAGEL with Represenational systems (Eye Accessing cues, VAKOG, 4-tuple, first access, F1/F2 transforms, ...)
Include Grinder's (an other authoratitive sources) criticism of other members of the field (eg. Criticism of Dilts' neurological levels)
Group similar critics, and separate proper scientific review from internal criticism (eg. Whisper 2001) and views of orthodoxy cult skeptics or alternative therapy skeptics (Harry Edwards, Stephen Barrett, Jack Raso, etc.)
Include a replies to the criticism from authoratitive sources (eg. Grinder & Bostic 2001).
Remove all guilt by association arguments -- criticism is more acceptable if it is attributed to a specific skeptic group or source.
Confine criticism to subsections
Connect criticism to specific versions or aspects of NLP
Review all sources against wikipedia standards
Overview of NLP's theoretical identity link to epistemology (Gregory Bateson) if it is accepted on Talk:Epistemology

Please include your comments here, I will make adjustments based on the comments: --Comaze 02:04, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My thoughts:

I agree that we should not have guilt-by-association. It is not OK just to throw out the term New Age, or pseudoscience, and attach it to NLP. If those terms are used, they must be put in the mouth of an authoritative source and an explanation given.
Before we commit to covering all the various NLP schools in detail, I think we need to prove to ourselves that we can write an overview article that covers the mainstream NLP thought. We seem to have problems even doing that.
Swatjester wants to confine criticisms to their own section as well. I'm not sure I agree, but am open to it.
If you want to cover the epistemology of Gregory Bateson, I suggest proposing it on the Epistemology talk page. I'm sure they'd be receptive. Once you've got your writeup on him in the Epistemology article, we can link to it from here.

--BrianH123 03:42, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've made some adjustments based on your thoughts. --Comaze 04:10, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comaze, you need to argue each point, rather than simply weasel in your objections to the article. Your extreme and obsessive bias towards censorship has been noted and you will have your nose rubbed in it for as long as you extrete it. HeadleyDown 03:07, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comaze Google scholar is not appropriate as it will only help you blinker the evidence towards your own promotional agenda. Constructive suggestion- Ignore Comaze's suggestion and use good evidence.
There is no precise mainstream NLP thought. The NLP mentioned in this article should be the NLP mentioned in the most rigorous and independent literature available (empirical science).
Confining Dianetics and Scientology to one sentence is called censorship. The article should have reference to Dianetics and Scientology presented where they are appropriate (in this case, many places, due to the fact that both of those subjects are the closest precursors to NLP).
Removing NLP from the engram page is censorship and will lead to a less clear article. As the pseudoscientific use of the engram concept is used throughout all NLP literature either implicitly or explicitly, then NLP is a great example for readers to refer to when learning about the pseudoscientific use of the engram concept. This will be superb for giving readers a chance to understand the legitimate or correct use of the engram concept (contrast).
BAGEL issue, refer to my above comments - BAGEL is a core tennet and holds most of the concepts that the research has examined.
Replies to criticisms by Grinder et al should be satisfactory answers. So far, they have not given anything more than the preemptive excuses that are mentioned in the article already.
Criticism should not be confined. In addition, you are not going to be convincing if you delete explanation claiming that it is critical. It never worked before, and though you will probably do it again, it will never work in your favour.
There is no guilt by association in the article. You should not whitewash the bad and unethical behaviour of NLP developers/promoters.
Concerning epistemology. The article should show clearly what NLP developers PRETEND NLP is based upon.

Camridge 04:22, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

GregA

Hello all, how's it going?

We should be attempting to portray common NLP teachings, plus any significant differences. For example - BAGEL is taught by a couple of trainers but it's just an acronym to help remember the underlying teachings. Stick to what is taught in common (in this case the underlying teaching, not the acronym).
There is a confusion between NLP as an umbrella term, and the many patterns commonly taught (or researched). This must be made clear. An example is Druckman and Swets who did an EXCELLENT review of studies into Preferred Rep Systems/PRS but in their summaries referred to this as NLP (Note they are clear in their details). This is commonly very commonly referred to as proof against NLP, when in reality it makes no comment beyond PRS.
The role of science is not to tell us what NLP claims, but rather to test what NLP claims. What NLP is and what NLP claims must be sourced from NLP trainers and writers. Naturally, the scientific principle of objectivity is the key here. Peer-reviewed research comes 2nd, published scientific research 3rd, well regarded institutions 4th (or perhaps tying 3rd?), Scientists personal opinions 5th, popular opinion and pseudoscience last (or not at all).
We need to clearly identify both supportive and unsupportive scientific research, and respected institutions which use NLP. Flavius and I previously identified 7 outcome-based studies that were positive, in accepted peer-reviewed journals.
There is a bias in many phrases which reflects negatively on NLP but are the writer's opinion, and (no doubt) some phrases do the same positively. Subtle 'guidance' should be removed.
I like the idea of identifying clearly in the opening of this discussion are the skeptics and anyone with vested interest (including myself of course - I'm a counsellor and I use some NLP patterns in counselling). I doubt we would come to an agreement in how to say that but it's worth a try, perhaps the mediators will help.
Mediators will have to be involved to some extent to control the page, with both sides giving good reason for any disputed changes - it's unfortunate, but the history here says there's no other way.

I look forward to it.

Comments? GregA 04:12, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

GregA.

PRS is a large and currently taught part of NLP in every NLP book on the shelf. It is also a large part of the BAGEL model. It is based upon the pseudoscientific and unsupported notions of NLP's sensory model of behaviour.
The reviews and research conducted on NLP has also repeatedly stated that NLP is based on outdated and pseudoscientific notions of the workings of the mind and brain. It is not just the stuff that was tested, but the pathetic pseudoscientific fluff promoted to support the theories.
The reliable research reviews of NLP ALL corroborate regarding the FACTS that NLP is ineffective, scientifically unsupported, theoretically pseudoscientific, and pseudoscientific due to having many many pseudoscientific characteristics (Claiming neurology, claiming science, pretending to be science, claiming the developers are scientists even though they havn't done any science on NLP, being ineffective and claiming supereffectiveness, supporting NLP with occult notions etc)

Invite some more of your mates from the NLP newsgroups GregA. I'd love to point out some more of their vandalism, blundering illogic, and obsessive fanaticism. Camridge 04:34, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

protected edit

In regards to this edit [5], actually I think that page ix is correct. Normally in an introduction, the foreword is listed in lowercase roman numerals, such as ix, which would actually be page 9. This makes sense also because stylistically when citing a page, one cites the numerical number (in this case 6) not the written number (six). If the user really meant six there, he'd have put "6" instead, so I believe it really did mean to be "ix". Can we get clarification? Swatjester 04:35, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes this is correct. But it needs more clarity from science. Some readers may miss the banal stupidity of Bateson's remark. To state that any science avoids theory is utter nonsense. If he said that "behavioral occult technology has often avoided theory" he would be right. We have views of scientists that state "NLP has contributed nothing to behavioural science". This will make a smart comparison for clarifying the issue. DaveRight 04:49, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dave, I agree. We have to make due allowance for the naive reader that may know nothing about NLP, psychiatry or psychology (eg. a school student doing a project) that they could be forgiven for imbibing that piece of misinformation. Disseminating misinformation is antithetical to purpose of encyclopedias in general and Wikipedia specifically. Bateson's remark is unadulterated bullshit. It is plainly wrong and reveals how little he know about the subjects he pontificated upon. IIRC he states that psychiatry has traditionally avoided theory. This is utter shite. Freud is generally credited as being the father of modern psychiatry and Freudian psychodynamic theory is thoroughly theoretical -- it isn't merely a set of techniques and "laws". The work of his successors was perhaps more theoretical (eg. Jacques Lacan). Now that Freud is pretty much dead in psychology and psychiatry the pursuit of theory (ie. explanation) is no less strong. Cognitive-Behavioural oriented reserach psychiatrists and psychologists and biologically oriented research psychiatrists remain concerned with not only the discovery of laws and models but also with their explanations (ie. theory). Either expurgate Bateson's bullshit or qualify it with a statement regarding the actual orientation of scientific enterprise. flavius 05:04, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't what matters. The only thing we were discussing is whether it was "six" or "ix". Swatjester 15:10, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No Swatjester. What matters is we gain something constructive out of this situation. Stand corrected! HeadleyDown 16:06, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do not. If you want to discuss the topic above, then make a new section for it. This section was only for clarification on "six" vs. "ix" Swatjester 19:09, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The quote is definitely p.ix and is on the first page of Gregory Bateson's introduction to Structure of Magic Vol.1. --Comaze 22:42, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New section - Clear explanation of banal NLP statements

In regards to this edit [6], actually I think that page ix is correct. Normally in an introduction, the foreword is listed in lowercase roman numerals, such as ix, which would actually be page 9. This makes sense also because stylistically when citing a page, one cites the numerical number (in this case 6) not the written number (six). If the user really meant six there, he'd have put "6" instead, so I believe it really did mean to be "ix". Can we get clarification? Swatjester 04:35, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes this is correct. But it needs more clarity from science. Some readers may miss the banal stupidity of Bateson's remark. To state that any science avoids theory is utter nonsense. If he said that "behavioral occult technology has often avoided theory" he would be right. We have views of scientists that state "NLP has contributed nothing to behavioural science". This will make a smart comparison for clarifying the issue. DaveRight 04:49, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dave, I agree. We have to make due allowance for the naive reader that may know nothing about NLP, psychiatry or psychology (eg. a school student doing a project) that they could be forgiven for imbibing that piece of misinformation. Disseminating misinformation is antithetical to purpose of encyclopedias in general and Wikipedia specifically. Bateson's remark is unadulterated bullshit. It is plainly wrong and reveals how little he know about the subjects he pontificated upon. IIRC he states that psychiatry has traditionally avoided theory. This is utter shite. Freud is generally credited as being the father of modern psychiatry and Freudian psychodynamic theory is thoroughly theoretical -- it isn't merely a set of techniques and "laws". The work of his successors was perhaps more theoretical (eg. Jacques Lacan). Now that Freud is pretty much dead in psychology and psychiatry the pursuit of theory (ie. explanation) is no less strong. Cognitive-Behavioural oriented reserach psychiatrists and psychologists and biologically oriented research psychiatrists remain concerned with not only the discovery of laws and models but also with their explanations (ie. theory). Either expurgate Bateson's bullshit or qualify it with a statement regarding the actual orientation of scientific enterprise. flavius 05:04, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't what matters. The only thing we were discussing is whether it was "six" or "ix". Swatjester 15:10, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No Swatjester. What matters is we gain something constructive out of this situation. Stand corrected! HeadleyDown 16:06, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do not. If you want to discuss the topic above, then make a new section for it. This section was only for clarification on "six" vs. "ix" Swatjester 19:09, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The quote is definitely p.ix (page 9) and is on the first page of Gregory Bateson's introduction to Structure of Magic Vol.1. --Comaze 22:42, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I'll do my best to clarify such silly statements with the light of science and solid research. DaveRight 09:03, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SWATjester : I have a feeling that hitting on the little bits and pieces that are wrong with the article first is just going to get us more of the same. I am somewhat under the impression that if we do not make concensus starting on the basics heading for the specifics is just going to take use more pages and more pages of talk. jVirus 09:47, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What the article needs more than anything is exactly this kind of effective clarification of misconception. What the discussion page needs is for repeat NLPpromoters to be tortured by presenting more facts and logic. When they repeat badger, just ignore them, and get on with formulating the text for the article. Camridge 04:42, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Ruling Complete

ArbCom Ruling complete. You can read it here but let me summarize it for you.

Rules: 1) Users who edit in a point of view or obsessive way may be banned partially or completely 2) It is not sufficient to simply refer to "Jones (1984)" as the source of information. There are a number of acceptable formats but a sufficient reference includes sufficient information to enable others to easily find the text relied on. 3) Wikipedia:Neutral point of view contemplates inclusion of all significant points of view regarding the subject of an article.

Situation: 1) A number of users have been engaging in aggressive point of view editing of Neuro-linguistic programming and related articles as well as personal attacks, examples may include but are not limited to: Comaze, HeadleyDown, JPLogan, Camridge, DaveRight, AliceDeGrey, and Flavius vanillus. 2) Most of the cited sources in the article do not meet minimum standards for reliable sources, lacking information regarding page number and identification of edition. 3) The article could more closely conform to neutral point of view by ascribing controversial viewpoints such as "NLP is pseudoscience" to those who have expressed such opinions, rather then presenting them as bald statements of fact.

Punishment: 1) Any administrator, upon good cause shown, may ban any user, from editing Neuro-linguistic programming or a related page. All bans shall be posted on the affected user's talk page and at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Neuro-linguistic_programming#Documentation_of_bans 2) Comaze, HeadleyDown, JPLogan, Camridge, DaveRight, and AliceDeGrey are reminded to provide an adequate description of the source of information included in the article, in the case of publications to page and edition 3) Comaze, HeadleyDown, JPLogan, Camridge, DaveRight, and AliceDeGrey are reminded to ascribe point of view statements to those making them. 4) Comaze, HeadleyDown, JPLogan, Camridge, DaveRight, and AliceDeGrey are required to discuss any content reversions on Neuro-linguistic programming on its talk page.

Mentorship: 5) The article Neuro-linguistic programming is placed under the mentorship of three to five administrators to be named later. All content reversions on this page must be discussed on the article talk page. The mentors are to have a free hand, do not have veto over each other's actions, will be communicating closely and will generally trust each other's judgement. Any mentor, upon good cause shown, may ban any user from editing Neuro-linguistic programming or a related page. All bans shall be posted on the affected user's talk page and at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Neuro-linguistic_programming#Documentation_of_bans. The mentorship arrangement will be reviewed in three months. If, at that time, the mentors agree that the article has demonstrated the ability to grow without strife, the mentorship may be ended and this remedy declared void.

Blocking: 1) If a user banned from editing under this decision does so, they may be briefly blocked, up to a week in the event of repeat offenses. After 5 blocks the maximum block shall increase to one year.

Now, with that out of the way, lets get back to editing constructively. Swatjester 15:21, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Swatjester. Just so you understand. Proper detailed and sufficiently fussy attribution will be attained as long as mentors do their duty and get the fanatics off the back of the neutrally inclined editors. If mentors allow NLP fanatics to remove facts that have been established through the supported (with citations) views of scientists and proper researchers, then those page numbers, ISBNs and all the other infernal beurocracy can be dealt with, regardless of whether the views and facts are as common sense and blatantly obvious as they are already. Better still, if mentors can somehow encourage the NLP fanatics into looking up the refs and supplying the appropriate page numbers etc, then the editors who work in good faith can simply get on with clear explanations. Here is a constructive suggestion: Comaze and other similar "editors" have yet to make the changes to the ref format that they advocated. I'm sure they can kill two birds with one stone, and supply a lot of the details that have been so requested at the same time. After all the requests were supplied by arbitration that NLP fans demanded. It would be very sensible and constructive to divert the NLP fans to "pay" for the excessive amount of strife THEY have caused. HeadleyDown 16:01, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt if mentors will even try to restrain NLP fan(atics) from attempting the unreasonable. We are going to do it ourselves no matter what. Camridge 07:32, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're missing the point. Everyone now has to provide that kind of citation, both the pro-NLP and anti-NLP camps. Furthermore, nobody is being allowed to remove any facts for two reasons. 1) the page is protected, and will be until this is resolved. 2) any edits by the named parties in the arbcom must be discussed and agreed upon on the talk page. Swatjester 16:42, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No Swatjester, you were talking about bullshit. Nobody has refused to provide citations. You are antagonizing and finding fault where none exists. HeadleyDown 02:48, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please, no personal attacks. The Arbitration Commitee unanimously found that the citations were inadequate. Swatjester 03:02, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Swatjester, editors have already stated that such details will be provided. Do you have something constructive to add? Camridge 07:32, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Headley. I find words like fanatic uncivil. I feel I am a neutrally inclined editor so I'd like to ask you to please respect we all have different views on what is neutral. Peace. Metta Bubble 23:27, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Go to a dictionary, and look up the term fanatic. Compare the definition with your activities on this discussion/article. The term fanatic is correct in your case. HeadleyDown 03:10, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Headley. If there is something specific I could do to appear less fanatical in your eyes please let me know what it is. I can't really help you if you just vent at me with words I have already told you I find offensive. I have no idea which of my edits you are refering to. Was it when I added the "NPOV" tags to the article? Or was it when I added wikilinks to pre-existing sub-articles? Peace. Metta Bubble 12:13, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sure Mettabubble. Change your history (stop repeatedly asking for the removal of well researched facts). HeadleyDown 12:25, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Metabubble. It's not a matter of merely appearing less fanatical, that would be deception. The issue is actually being less fanatical. You are a fanatic, prig and an ignorant zealot that uses the pretence of Buddhist sensitivities as a "fig leaf" to cover your shameful behaviour. Signing your putrid positions "Peace" doesn't somehow promote that cause or demonstrate your good will or earnestness. You wanted to argue with me about the history of New Age and Human Potential after merely reading the (incorrect) Wikipedia article on the topic. I provided you four references (three USA, one UK) that demonstrate that the "New Age" originated in the late 1960s and its earliest recorded usage was the early 1970s. I also provided a reference that describes the Human Potential movement. What then is your response? Do you concede that you are wrong? Do you concede that you were being lazy, presumptuous and nasty by merely reading the Wikipedia article, not verifying any of its content and then accusing me and Headley about fabricating content in order to effect an imaginary "guilt by association"? I've actually read the primary NLP literature and I've attended NLP trainings, I've read much (but not all I'm slowly working throught it) of the research into NLP, I've read about the history of the New Age and Human Potential trends and I've read Dianetics. What have you done towards being properly placed to contribute to the article and making accusations of bias? You haven't been correct about any factual matter that you've taken issue with. BAGEL for example is mainstream NLP, it is taught only in Systemic NLP (Dilts' particular flavour of NLP) but the content of the mnemonic is present in all Prac/Master Prac training. Dilts and De Loziers NLP Encyclopedia is considered canonical in NLP circles (both Dilts and DeLozier are highly regarded by NLPers). Regarding the NCAHF I dealt with that issue in detail and my response was the last word on the matter. No-one reubutted by position and Brian has re-iterated what I wrote. Merely asserting "I disagree" doesn't cut it. If you do disagree you are obliged to provide counter-argument and counter-evidence. The neutral editors contributions are all characterised by copious evidence and cogent argument. Unsupported assertions, gibberish (eg. "NLP has its own epistemology"), and ad hominem -- which doesn't mean insulting -- (eg. would the Sceptics/Communists/Jews/Reactionaries please identify themselves?) are coming exclusively from you, Comaze and DejaKitty. If you are genuinely interested in not being a fanatic, ignorant zealot -- as opposed to not merely appearing as one -- then perform due dilligence and educate yourself before editing the article, proposing the removal of evidence, or making accusations of bias. flavius 00:18, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

==Archival== I'm preparing to archive everything from "Summary of findings" above. Swatjester 20:21, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for volunteering, Swatjester. It may be better to request an admin to do the archiving to avoid (I am not accusing anyone here, just talking in general.) accusation of censorship for the time being. Remember, do not respond to, acknowledge or give your attention to any personal attacks or inappropriate postings. Though in general it is permissible to remove any hypothetical abusive posting, in this particular case, it is better to leave this to admins to do it for the time being. --Dejakitty 22:24, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah. But we won't need an admin to do it, and I think everyone involved on this page knows that we have at least 4 admins watching (KillerChihuahua, VoA, Bagdhani, and Cleared-as-filed, possibly more). In order to avoid any censorship accusations I'm cutting the archive short of where I wanted to, but I think starting from the "summary of findings" gives a good enough impression. If I don't hear anything by midnight tonight, I'll go ahead with the archive. BTW, you can preview the archived version by clicking the "archive 10" link at the top of this page. Swatjester 23:33, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I say do it, maybe give it an extra day if you or Dejakitty is really concerned. Im in. jVirus 00:10, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Swatjester, JVirus, I have no fundamental objection to doing archiving. The talk page needs one badly. I was just considering potential porblems with archiving in tense situations. I trust you to make the right decision using your judgement. --Dejakitty 00:38, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, if there are no objections, go ahead and archive. --Comaze 00:53, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Archive. --BrianH123 04:33, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just an observation - have you noticed that the NLPpromotional editors really like removing stuff from the discussion page? Either strategically rearanging, archiving, or removing to other's talk pages so the evidence is out of the way. Just a pointer:) Camridge 09:36, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've noticed some funny stuff. (And I think the whole Wiki model is flawed when it comes to discussions.) Regarding the archiving that Swatjester proposes, if you object, please say so. --BrianH123 16:03, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Further, if/when this is archived I put that this section named "Archival" to be deleted. --Comaze 10:32, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Archival is complete. I won't delete this section, instead it will be moved into the next archive. Swatjester 16:16, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Criticisms and scientific explanations

Further to the suggestions to placing criticisms throughout the article. It would not be sensible to restrict all criticisms to the criticisms section. However, clear scientific explanation can be given throughout the article. To deal with the deliberately confusing NLP concepts, a clear scientifically or research based clarification should be presented. This will be a great help to the less knowledgeable readers. If ends up sounding critical, that is only due to the deliberately misleading nature of lot of NLP concepts (the obvious contrast you gain when you juxtapose nonsense and common sense). The criticism section seems necessary because a good deal of the literature is referred to as "critical view or review" and those criticisms could do with more explanation also. Camridge 08:26, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I agree, a critical section is 100% necessary. Can we agree though, that the majority (perhaps 90%) of the criticism be kept to that section, and that criticisms in the rest of the article be kept short?

For instance in a section involving NLP Claims, criticism be kept to a minimum, and even then short, 1 or two sentences at most. This section would be immediately followed up with a section called "NLP Criticisms and Controversies" where you could go as in depth as you want with that criticism. This keeps everything clean and readable. What say you? Swatjester 16:15, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that was the general idea (though assigning numbers to sentences is jumping the gun a little). For sure though, we can only ignore the NLP promoters claiming scientific explanation is too critical. Thats especially important for keeping the peace after it is expanded due to their unreasonable objections. HeadleyDown 18:04, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, reason I'd say assign a limit to criticisms outside the criticism section, is to limit the length. You know as well as everyone else here, this is going to be a BIG article, even with subpages. ⇒ SWATJester 19:21, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NLP fanaticism

Another pointer! I would like to point out the "beliefs" of some of the editors here. I am sure VOA would agree that some of the claims that NLPers make even on this article are quite wild - eg, it really works, it is powerful, you can give people orgasms just by speaking using NLP, you can get laid using NLP, NLP is far advanced of psychology and science etc. Here is just a hint of that in the dialogue between Comaze and Jvirus - [7]. I am not implying that they are deluded. But you will notice how "belief" sustaining their language and dialogue is. Camridge 10:32, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

lol, my beliefs? Camridge, What are my beliefs? This will be good. jVirus

On a light note, this discussion here is not always so chilly. I invite the mediators to stick around. The claims and absurdity regarding NLP claims are often hillarious, and the flailing attempts by the more desperate editors, to pull the other one, are generally ball-bouncingly funny. Probably one reason why editors remain. HeadleyDown 14:53, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What! You mean you havn't been laughing your nuts off at this mediation/NLPpromotion attempt for the past few days? Is there something wrong with you? Cheers DaveRight 04:24, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please disassociate the mediation attempt from the NLP Promoters. Mediators are impartial. If you would like to help the mediation effort, you're more then welcome to help constructively. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 05:40, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Time to make the most of the archives

Just a suggestion to take the pressure off everyone. It may be a good idea to keep the page locked for a few days longer. This can enable a search of the archives to come up with a set of standard replies (or links) to deal with nagging unreasonable requests for the wholesale dismissal of science etc. A lot has been written already, and a great deal has been done to properly answer the questions of the NLPpromotional editors. The constructive part of this suggestion will involve the search for concise replies that will solve the problem of "oh its in the archives somewhere" objection. This will take time, and if the mediators push for more thorough use of the archives, then amicable pagelocks could be used while nonpromotional NLP editors take their time searching for re-usable evidence and logic without having to deal with the inevitable sneaky edits of the NLP promoters. HeadleyDown 15:23, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

100% agreed. Swatjester 16:09, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Was someone considering unlocking it, the main page are we talkng about?!??? jVirus 23:51, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not that I know of. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 02:50, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, requesting pagelocks for a few days occasionally will be a good idea. It will obviously be a very good way to stop surreptitious censorship while editors search for appropriate replies in the archives. There's a lot of really sharp stuff in the deep pit-trap of the archives, and any antiNPOV editor or censor such as Comaze will end up thoroughly skewered on its steely points of fact when we have an opportunity to drop them in it. Camridge 05:09, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

heh. I am not interreseted in having it unlocked at all until we come to a concensus. jVirus File:Confederate Battle Flag.svg 05:34, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

REALISM

There's a lot to read today, so I will be brief. I am not dictating, but here is how the article will be, nomatter what ANYBODY says.

The article will continue to be presented by neutrally minded editors within the bounds of NPOV policy. We have some excellent researchers here and their ability to find facts and present them within NPOV policy has been admirable.
The request by arbitrators for all the "bits and pieces" to be added to citations will move forward slowly. NLP promoters have thus far acted in bad faith on the whole, and that is unlikely to change. It will therefore, fall upon the more neutrally inclined editors to provide such details.
NLP promoters will continue their attempts to harass, slur, cause conflict, and generally do their best to remove the facts they find objectionable. Mediators and arbitrators have thus far done little to remedy this, and it will be up to the more neutrally minded editors to somehow cope with this problem. That is a problem, but neutrally minded editors seem to be well equipped to cope.

Nothing done thusfar? We've protected the page to keep further edits like this from happening. Swatjester 16:33, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll go to the optitions if I am wrong, but I believe JP wrote "little to remedy this". Its interesting that no NLPfan(atics) have removed your "vandalism" from JP's list, Swatjester. Camridge 05:15, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please review what vandalism is and isn't. This is not vandalism. Further, the mediators and arbitrators have done much to remedy this, including putting the more extremist editors on notice, yourself included. That qualifies as more than "little". ⇒ SWATJester

^Ready Aim _Fire! 05:47, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Come on Swatjester, keep up. I know exactly what vandalism is. Its the "editors who have spent months behaving like scientologists" who should refrain from misusing the term. Camridge 10:14, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NLP promoters will also continue to suffer the facts being presented on the article. The facts are presented according to NPOV policy. The facts that they most want removed will be enlarged upon and clarified by neutrally minded editors. They are facts, and therefore, deserve explanation in the article. The more "misunderstanding" NLP promoters exhibit, the more they will suffer the facts being clarified in the article within the bounds of NPOV policy.

JPLogan 05:01, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thats pretty clear. I commit to coping with the everpresence of NLP fan(atics) and NLP promoters with vested interests. I encourage other editors to do the same. It seems we have no other option but to "correct" the misbehaviour and misconceptions of NLP sharks and sheep ourselves. Wikipedia arbitrators and mediators! I thank you for allowing me to recognize and accept this reality, and I will act accordingly. Camridge 07:22, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good suggestion. Best to take the perspective of reality! I believe nonNLPpromotional editors have shirked their duty to some extent though. Only with regard to throwing the book at Comaze and other miscreants. Yes Headley, I disagree with you on that, and I believe you should not be so proud about due process. Comaze and the other promotional editors have a rotten history and we should take the time to do RFCs and whatever other paperwork is required in order to post permanent blemishes on the censors/whitewashers/wikispammer's talk pages and to warn other unwitting editors on other articles of their agendas. Mediators have a hard time already, and I will do my best to make it easy for them. I will provide brief explanation wherever necessary even though I've typed a thousand miles of the stuff already. We could even make this fun. You know I like making fun! Here's to progress and clarity! Cheers DaveRight 09:02, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed Dave, if you have a problem with the users, by all means bring it up at RfC. It's one of the few things that DOES work well in dispute resolution on wikipedia. Swatjester 16:33, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers indeed Dave. I have already started with Comaze's. Please feel free to fill out the template I have provided on his talkpage. Camridge 09:16, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lets put lots of personal comments on Comaze's discussion page. HeadleyDown 12:10, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just as long as you do not harass and personally attack him on the page. Swatjester 16:33, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, JP, Dave, and all. If there are any long lists of accusations to make, please leave me out though. I just can't abide it. I do see the need for realism and practicality though. And I have come round to the view that the only people here qualifed to keep things in order are the nonpromoters. Cool discussion will therefore should be thoroughly encouraged on a regular basis. Notices and stickers should be posted to prevent the use of "irritated" language. HeadleyDown 12:10, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus guidelines for editing the article

I propose the following as consensus guidelines for editing the article. The source of each of these is in {braces} after the statement. If people agree with these, perhaps they could be posted to the top of the talk page.

All references must include sufficient information to enable others to easily find the text relied on, such as page number and edition. {ArbCom}
Do not edit the article in a POV- or obsessive-way, or you may be banned, partially or completely. {ArbCom}
The Wikipedia "Neutral Point of View" contemplates inclusion of all significant points of view regarding the subject of an article. {ArbCom}
If there is scientific consensus regarding NLP, then:
1. "Represent the majority (scientific) view as the majority view and the minority (sometimes pseudoscientific) view as the minority view." {NPOV policy}
2. "Articles that compare views need not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views." {NPOV policy}
Regarding the article's introduction:
1. It should be relatively short and completely neutral with regard to Pro or Con characterizations.
2. It should avoid vague words that don't really say what NLP is but make it sound sexy.
3. It should avoid terms such as "New Age," "pseudoscience", etc.
4. It should avoid describing its practitioners as "successful", or using other subjective words to describe them.
  {consensus between Comaze, Flavius, jVirus, and BrianH123 on the talk page}
After the introduction, if you do use a term such as "New Age" or "pseudoscience", ascribe it to a reference. Do not present it as a bald statement of fact. {ArbCom}

Please state whether you agree with the above. And if you want to propose additional guidelines, feel free to do that as well.

—BrianH123 21:47, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm...I agree with everything the ArbCom presents...as for the stuff you've added on your own, I'm going to withhold judgement for a bit while I ponder it. I do want to propose my own guideline: that all criticisms be confined to the Criticism section. Proper structure will be the key to keeping the NPOV in this article.⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 22:27, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Editors, please indicate whether you support or oppose confining all criticism to a single section. --BrianH123 00:35, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support This may include a subsection under each concept, method or application. Criticism should be connected to specific aspects and version/schools since some methods have been updated, while not all schools have accepted the updates. --Comaze 02:15, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So the pro-NLP point of view will get both the first and the last word? --BrianH123 01:39, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I see your point and modified my post. What is the best way to include a reply without giving the pro side the first and last word? --Comaze 02:15, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If we're going to have Pro and Con arguments in separate sections, the only fair thing to do is have the same number of each. So if Pro goes first with its characterization of NLP, and Con has a Criticism section after that, then either we stop right there, or if you want Pro to have a reply to the criticism, then Con deserves a reply to the reply to the criticism. (Sort of like a presidential debate... :-) In the table of contents Swatjester originally proposed, he has a single criticism section and then nothing after it. Criticism has the last word. Is this OK with you? --BrianH123 02:32, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If Pro and Con have separate sections, I'd prefer a neutral conclusion in the same way that the introduction is to be neutral. --Comaze 03:35, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I suppose I agree basically. Not sure what this gets us as far as progress right this second but yeah these rules would be good. jVirus 23:36, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well the terms such as pseudoscience, engram, and new age need MORE explanation as the relate strongly to NLP in many ways. That is extremely important because so many people here simply don't get it, or simply don't want it. There is a lot to read on such subjects, and I can understand people not wanting to have to delve the bookshelves, so far more explanation should be done within the article.HeadleyDown 02:59, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My proposal is that just the introduction itself would avoid those terms, precisely for the reason you mention: they need elaboration upon, and there's not room to do that in the introduction. I am not in any way opposed to elaborating upon them in the article itself. What about the rest of the guidelines? Support or oppose? --BrianH123 03:16, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see Brian. The whole article needs proper representation in the opening. It will help readers if such clarifying facts are briefly presented in the opening. I know its objectionable to NLPpromoters, but they will just have to live with it. DaveRight 04:21, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Brian. It seems to me that keeping the terms you suggest out of the opening is only to appease the permanently posted censors of fact. That's a pretty bad reason. Certainly, the NLP fan(antics) and pseudoscience promoters will remove those terms from the opening just as they always have done. I fully accept the task of reverting their censorship. Camridge 04:56, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that would be an awful reason if it were the reason. Fortunately, it's not. Please read what I wrote in "What the Intro Should Contain" and note that it's endorsed by Flavius. I think I'm closer to you and DaveRight's position than you think, if you read my other remarks. And I'm not opposed to mentioning criticism of NLP in the intro. But let's at least introduce the stranger to the audience before you take a baseball bat to him, not push him out onto the stage already bloody and unrecognizable. A previous version of the article started out with "NLP is a pseudoscientific psychocult", or something similar. That's just over the top. --BrianH123 05:42, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No worries Brian. Facts will only be a "haircut with a baseball bat" to those who cannot countenance facts. Any NPOV inclined editor will naturally bat the eyebrows off NLP promoters through the presentation of facts, whether they realize their "crushing" swing at dogma or not. Camridge 08:28, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Fair and unbiased does not mean equal. Please see WP:NPOV#Undue weight. KillerChihuahua^?!? 09:14, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me again Killerchihuahua. Your comment seems to be unconnected to any one else's. I take it that you mean that fancy sounding pseudoscientific salespitch is not equal to science, good research and logic. Camridge 10:07, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Brian. I will be as clear as possible as you are a newbie to the subject. Pseudoscientific psychocult is a neutral term used in science, anthropology, and sociology amongst other research areas. Notice pseudoscience is also a category used liberally by wikipedia. Psychocults are groups of devotees who adhere to a particular area of psychology as a support for their beliefs. A pseudoscientific psychocult adheres to the earlier and more pseudoscientific notions of psychology such as the belief in superhuman potential, and the overwhelming power of the subconscious etc. I understand you wish to promote harmony here, but harmony does not entail farting in tune with fact censoring NLP salespeople. Regards HeadleyDown 11:38, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Misc. comments from HeadleyDown

By the way, as Comaze saw fit to try to censor the engram article for the past few months, he should now be extremely wary of misbehaving again there in future. He will sorely regret it. If he cannot help himself, then he will simply suffer more of the facts. NPOV policy will be there to "correct" his misdeeds. I realize NLPpromoters will continue to write extra promotional pages to link to this one. It will most likely remain the nonNLPpromotional editors job to remove such spam from the main article. HeadleyDown 02:59, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

More reality

Please feel free to add stuff.

NLP promoters should be identified and their misdeeds be clearly shown here as soon as possible
After discussion becomes even more reasonable the mediators should understand the origins of NLP a bit at least
NLP was developed as a commercial enterprise in the same mold as Scientology and Dianetics
The occult aspects of NLP were always there in the "structure of magic" and the seminars
The occult aspects of NLP need far more mention in the article because they have grown wild on the web lately
Mediators need to check their bias. They seem to be very postmodernist, new age inclined, and biased towards such but unwilling to show the terms "new age", "quasispiritual" and "occult" on the article.
The sociological and cult studies research needs far more mention in the article.

Cheers DaveRight 04:35, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Warning:

Item one on your list is completely against AGF and NPA. It is you who are showing bias. An editors' personal beliefs are none of your business, only their editing and the content of the article is. Cease this hostility and planned personal attack strategy at once.
Item 2 and 3 are content related. They may be true, but that does not matter one tiny bit if they are not verifiable. If they are verifiable, they belong in the article.
Item 46 is NPA.
The last item on the list is article related, for which I applaud you.

All posts on this page should be article related. End of story. Cease personal attacks, "us vs. them" mentality and verbiage. AGF and focus on the article. Be civil. KillerChihuahua^?!? 09:21, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me KillerChihuahua, but it would help if you communicated in English, at least if you want to make effective threats. Not all of use are fully acquainted with the acronyms AGF, and NPA. For all we know you could be talking BS. For example, would you explain your comment about NPA and point 4. As far as I know, point 4 is verifiably correct as are 3,5,6, and 7. Camridge 09:58, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

all linked above in my post in the section Fanaticism and the form of discussion here. I will link again: WP:NPA, WP:AGF.

Item 4: apologies, I meant item 6. KillerChihuahua^?!? 10:09, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The mediators do not bring their biases into this. Your description is especially off, as I'm a republican conservative, far from those things you mentioned. Please stop insulting the mediators at every step, it's not constructive to this. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 05:45, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

USA politics is like politics for kids. The complexity of public and economic policy is reduced to two simple binary oppositions: liberal democrat and republican conservative. Is the range of policy options reducible to two categories? Your're not suggesting that the Republican Party has a position on epistemology and the philosophy of science are you? Is there a website I can go to read the Republican Party's psoition on epistemological relatvism and antirealism? flavius 08:50, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DaveRight: If you're referring to me, you're sorely mistaken. Read my posts throughout this talk page. I have consistently argued for a scientific point of view on this article, that it should be the majority viewpoint in the article (take up the most space), that NLP's claims to have an "alternative epistemology" are crap, etc. I'm not in the least bit post-modernist: I'm very anti-epistemological-relativism, and I don't have a New Age bone in my body. And you can use any word you want to in the article: just source it, and explain it, and at least introduce the NLP topic before you tar and feather it. --BrianH123 06:09, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Brian and Swatjester. Dave's suggestions are very constructive. YOU are being overdefensive. You have given me strong impressions of your biases. This is a salient point partly due to the fact that the postmodern attitudes are quite widespread especially on the web. This is also important as you both have stated that you don't know much about NLP. I urge YOU to assume good faith. Camridge 07:02, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are giving me the strong impression of someone who knows how to attack but cannot persuade. That, in a nutshell, is the problem with this article.--BrianH123 14:23, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To be frank, Brian, I reckon people are sick and tired of persuasion here. We have provided a network of corroborated triangulated scientific views already and that should not require any good editors here to be persuasive at all. We have had provided abundant answers to repeat day after day after day after day nagging questions from the deliberately irritating NLP promoters. Most of your questions can be answered by common sense, and some will require your own efforts to look the bloody stuff up. Its time to be straight. Just look through the article and related refs. The details will be added, and the extra extra explanations will be added into the article according to the amount of nagging from the desperately censoring NLP salesfolk. HeadleyDown 15:33, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stop seeing me as someone who has "questions" about NLP and needs to be convinced to your position. I'm already at your position. What this is about is making the scientific point of view on NLP more pedagogical and polishing it up a bit. If your attitude is that the reader should just click the references and "look the bloody stuff up", you need to rethink that. If you're not looking to make it easy on the reader, then you will lose, because the other side, whom you repeatedly describe as "promoters" and "salesfolk", obviously are.--BrianH123 17:53, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Brian, we are here to make it easy on the reader to read well researched facts. Not flounder in a pit of salespitch. HeadleyDown 00:36, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Harmonizing with fact - Actually, the simple solution here will be to CLEARLY LABEL confounding salespitch as such on the article. Then to explain why it is confounding salespitch. Camridge 02:55, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am indeed assuming good faith. Dave's suggestions thus far mostly have not been constructive. The ArbCom agrees with me. I don't even know what a postmodern attitude is, so I doubt I have one, and based on your description above I'm pretty sure I definately don't have one. ⇒ SWATJester

^Ready Aim _Fire! 07:41, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I say Dave, that was a rotten thing to infer! The mediators may have little knowledge about NLPee but they ARE keepers of the faith. NPOV may create dickheads, but the presence of NPOV induced dickheads can be a positive thing. HeadleyDown 13:28, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nice to know, Swatjester. So you won't be exhibiting a bias in that direction then! Fine! Camridge 08:18, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

yeah but whose reality

Does any mediator here agree with this point?

With which point? ⇒ SWATJester

^Ready Aim _Fire! 06:53, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Its clear already! The point that: reality depends upon who we are!

That's a subject for another article. Not this talk page. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 07:41, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take that as a yes! You are a quite postmodernist! Camridge 07:52, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Epistemological relativism, social constructivism and antirealism are dead. Again, it can't simply be asserted that there are multiple realities and no objective knowledge. Such a position must be argued for and there is no sound argument for antirealism, epistemological relativism and social constructivism. Most such arguments are self-refuting because they implicitly rely on the exclusion of the premises of the argument from the argument. For example, let P denote the statment "there is no such thing as objective knowledge". For P to have any compelling value -- if I am to not disregard it as more subjective knowledge -- then it must be that not P. This is leads to a contradiction. See for example

Bunge, M. "Realism and Antirealism in Social Science" Theory and Decision 35: 207-235, 1993. Kluwer Academic Publishers,Netherlands.

Bradley, D. R. "HOW TO LOSE YOUR GRIP ON REALITY? AN ATTACK ON ANTI-REALISM IN QUANTUM THEORY" [8]

The success and universality of science and technology as well the history of science and technology (all of the great civilsations including the Arabic and Oriental made scientific discoveries)suggest that (a) there is such a thing as objective knowledge; (b) we can gain objective knowledge; (c) there is a reality; and (d) we are capable of learning about that reality. Science and technology would be impossible if any for of epistemological relativism or antirealism were valid philosophical doctrines. Gravity is their whether you believe in it or not. See the works of Mario Bunge for a detailed defence of scientific realism. flavius 08:33, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You write like someone who has studied philosophy academically. I wish more people would do so. --BrianH123 14:29, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mentorship

The arbitration has recently ruled, in Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Neuro-linguistic_programming:

The article Neuro-linguistic programming is placed under the mentorship of three to five administrators to be named later. All content reversions on this page must be discussed on the article talk page. The mentors are to have a free hand, do not have veto over each other's actions, will be communicating closely and will generally trust each other's judgement. Any mentor, upon good cause shown, may ban any user from editing Neuro-linguistic programming or a related page. All bans shall be posted on the affected user's talk page and at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Neuro-linguistic_programming#Documentation_of_bans. The mentorship arrangement will be reviewed in three months. If, at that time, the mentors agree that the article has demonstrated the ability to grow without strife, the mentorship may be ended and this remedy declared void.

The selected mentors are Jdavidb, Katefan0, Ral315, and Woohookitty. They will get to know the situation and actively monitor this article. Any questions of enforcement or questionable conduct should be directed to them. Thank you. Dmcdevit·t 10:40, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi all. Could I have more than my fair share of mentors please?:)HeadleyDown 13:19, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As we now have mentors here, I"ll be drastically scaling back my mediation efforts here. Thanks for coming guys. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 16:07, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mentor intros

Woohookitty

I thought it'd be easier to introduce myself here, since there are many users involved in this conflict. Just a little introduction. I've been on Wikipedia since December 2004, an admin since June 2005. I believe very strongly in NPOV. Despite my political leanings, I believe very strongly in writing for the enemy. As for my admin style, I try to give people every benefit of the doubt before blocking or banning. My main motto is...argue the issues, not the people. If you follow that, you will be ok. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 11:12, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome --Comaze 11:23, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Great Woohookitty. I am also into the NPOV thing. Perhaps you will help me spread the word to other articles on the fanatical NLP promotional agenda here. NLP has turned out to be a fabulous exemplar for pseudoscientific cults. Also, all articles which have pseudoscience or cult in the subject matter, could be very well clarified with reference to NLP. Regards HeadleyDown 11:46, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

LOL! So much for NPOV :-) - Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C]

12:08, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Its Woohookitty! Sweet...I usually find you at the RfPP layer :).Voice of All^T|@|ESP 18:35, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jdavidb

Hi, folks. Just a quick hello and an intro. I've been on Wikipedia since about 2004-02. I'm a firm believer in NPOV and consensus as the guiding principles that make Wikipedia work; I believe without reservation that these princiles will ultimately result in a high-quality encyclopedia.

Hopefully I'm pretty well-suited for this job. I'm well-accustomed to what needs to be done in order to represent a non-mainstream point of view within Wikipedia's NPOV framework. After all, I'm a fundamentalist Christian who believes the earth is most likely 6000 years old. ;) (Not sure if that will encourage people or dishearten them, at first.) But I know how to take the high ground in making Wikipedia a place where beliefs are fairly and accurately represented without allowing Wikipedia itself to take a stand.

I'm reading up on this article and the arbCom case, and I can see that I'll have to read this talk page's history and probably the history of the article, too. Give me a couple of days to get acquainted with the issue, and then we'll all start moving.

I know all three of my fellow-mentors and happen to know from experience that each of them is a great Wikipedian. I think everyone involved here who wants to see a high-quality, fair article on NLP is in for a real treat! Jdavidb (talk • contribs) 13:56, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem and no rush, please take all the time you need. Watch out for the NLP candies, they're poisonous. HeadleyDown 14:04, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Headley, please don't refer to anyone as "poisonous." I understand that editing controversial articles can be extremely frustrating. (Believe me, I understand!) But please take every opportunity to take the highest ground possible.

I guarantee you that I (and my fellow mentors for this article) are going to watch out for everybody. We've all seen enough that it's amazing we're not any more jaded than we are. :) None of us is going to allow ourselves to be fooled by anything. That's a promise. Jdavidb (talk • contribs) 16:54, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Upon second reading, I realize you were not referring to any people as "poisonous." That said, please be careful. :) Jdavidb (talk • contribs) 18:17, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ral315

I suppose I should introduce myself as well. I'm Ral315, and I've been editing Wikipedia since December 2004. I also strongly believe in NPOV. Like Jdavidb, I'll be looking through the archives, trying to get a feel for the dispute here. I can also say that all of my fellow mentors are good editors, and will do a good job to try and settle this dispute and get this article to where it should be. Ral315 (talk) 17:20, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Katefan0

Hi everybody. I won't go into great detail about myself, because my userpage should explain lots about who I am. But as it pertains to Neuro-linguistic programming, I promise that I'll do my level best to help everybody come up with an article that Wikipedia can be proud of. At the risk of sounding repetitive, I have full faith in all my fellow mentors and look forward to getting started. As an initial comment, I'd like to echo the sentiments already expressed about sticking on-topic. As tempting as it may be, especially when you get angry or irritated, try not to comment on contributors (or even generically to lob tomatoes at "the other side.") It does nothing to further the debate, and only ends up inflaming passions. · Katefan0^(scribble)/poll 22:52, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Progress is actually pretty ok

Hi folks. I think things are moving along quite well. The learning curve is pretty good considering.

We know that the NLP salespeople and their unwitting minions (the NLP fans) are not interested in righting their wrongs, as can be seen by the repeat veiled requests for facts to be removed.
We know that its incredibly easy to antagonize the mediators. They wouldn't last two days here with Comaze on their case. I'm glad Voiceofall has kept mostly out of this - he's the only knowledgeable and harmonious mediator I've met so far and I wouldn't want his image tarnished. Don't worry guys, we'll make you look good in the end.
We also have a well researched article that has a lot of potential for gradual improvement. Sensible nonNLPpromotional mediators have already taken on the boring task of supplying all the fussy details, and explaining the facts to the needy.

Lets keep up the good work. Regards HeadleyDown 11:57, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am still watching though, and I did post the consensus and guidelines text above. I have little to say now, as we are not getting many clear proposals. I am considering making a subpage of my user page for each of you guys to keep working versions of the NLP sections in question (3 at a time tops, but just the into for now). I will check up on them as they are updated and see what I can think up between the versions, so we can have some proposals that considers everyone's ideas, by a third party, that is all in one neat place. If you want to start your subpage, then just tell me and do it.

Some of the third parties (users new to this page) are getting a little too involved. Headley, you should calm down and be more like flavius, in the sense that he just puts up comments and refs with less "us/them" and adjectives to describe his opposition. As for all, including flavius, try not to argue with mentors on their personal beliefs to prove some sort of bais. Not only is it to early to suggest that, but if you do want to do that, then do it via e-mail.

To the mentors: Please be sure not snap or snap back at the users in question. You guys also need to keep your cool, so as to avoid saying anything unreasonable or anything else that may cause a perception of bais or lack of credibility on your part. On the other hand, you guys are bidden here by arbcom, so you certainly lay down the law, where as I mainly suggest. Since I am still mediating, I will not block anyone as a consequence (so you guys need to do it...don't expect me to).Voice of All^T|@|ESP 18:33, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Voice, I'm not sure why you state that any mentors are getting too involved. We don't seem to be much involved at all, yet. The mentors are a group consisting of only four people: Jdavid, Ral315, Woohookitty, and Katefan0. Did I miss something one of us did that prompted you to say that? Jdavidb (talk • contribs) 19:04, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No you didn't...I just got a bad case of name confusion. A lot of third parties and other users cam in recently. Actually, one of the users I was refering to is helping mediate. I reworded thanks. Yeah...looks like the mentors did no more that a self-intro.Voice of All^T|@|ESP 19:16, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are you referring to me Voice of all? Because I've tried to have no "us vs. them" mentality, nor have I been using any adjectives to describe any opposition. ⇒ SWATJester

^Ready Aim _Fire! 19:25, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes and no. The "us/them" was directed towards Headley. The "snapping" comment would apply to your remarks toward Headley. Will I strongly encourage him to calm his tone, and avoid another block, you should avoid scolding him too much whenever possible, even if he starts talking about personal ideology.Voice of All^T|@|ESP 19:39, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I thought I was pretty minimal on any scolding, except in the most blatant of cases where it necessitated some sort of warning. ⇒ SWATJester

^Ready Aim _Fire! 20:00, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you blockheads could block Comaze and the other "editors with vested interests" whenever THEY post the same old repeat attempts to censor fact, I may even start believing the task to keep them in line will not fall on US. Fat chance! Voiceofall. Perhaps you could just block the mentors if they get snappy:) HeadleyDown 00:20, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mentors, note the above comment. I've tried to mediate this disputes from an outside perspective, as have others before me, but this is all that continues to come from this. Obviously each of you will have your different styles, but based on my time here, let me suggest, a heavy hand is probably necessary.....a slap on the wrist here just gets ignored by all considered. If you'd like, I can provide a mediator's summary of what I've found here thus far, and what progress has been made. If interested, just ask on my talk page. ⇒ SWATJester

^Ready Aim _Fire! 00:59, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the introduction, Jdavid, Ral315, Woohookitty, and Katefan0. I wonder whether any of you admins would volunteer to archive this talk page as it is getting physically too large. as archiving by admins will have less chance provoking potential suspiscion of censorship in disputed article. I would like to see everyone including admins to give positive attention to constructive postings. Inapproprate postings should be promptly removed by admins without making a lot commentary on the talk page. I support VoiceofAll banning of "Us and Them ideology". Consensus will come on its own when the group dynamics is healed. --Dejakitty 21:53, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dejakitty, your overwillingness to hide damning evidence and remove unmatchable argument is noted once again. HeadleyDown 23:53, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

These are the kinds of things I was referring to. Please try to assume good faith, even in folks you've clashed with in the past. · Katefan0^(scribble)/poll 23:58, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, do you think I should applaud Dejakitty for encouraging the censorship of the very arguments you lot have been demanding? If I comply with all your silly requests, this discussion is going to be wierd. OK Dejakitty, well done, keep up the good whitewash. HeadleyDown 00:20, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how I've been "encouraging censorship," considering that I've made precisely three edits to this page -- one to introduce myself, one to ask that you not make personal remarks about other editors, and this one, asking that you not make personal remarks about me. I would gently suggest that you're rather starting off on the wrong foot, and would encourage you to refocus your energies on talking about the article's content. Again -- comment on content, not on contributors, please. I'm not asking that you not voice your opinions, but you could just as easily have said "I don't want the page to be archived right now because I feel like it would obscure important discussions," rather than casting aspersions on someone for suggesting such a thing. · Katefan0^(scribble)/poll 00:29, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well said. ⇒ SWATJester

^Ready Aim _Fire! 00:59, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Swatjester, stop just putting the boot in without adding anything constructive. If you lot want to get all pally with co-mediators you can do it over brandy and cigars at your local sauna. DaveRight 01:40, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, what was non-constructive about expressing agreement with the mentor? ⇒ SWATJester

^Ready Aim _Fire! 02:50, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dejakitty, you are and have been very eager to archive and you are yet to demonstrate any behaviour which would be conducive towards harmony. Your main contribution was that post where you referred to yourseldf in the third person and made a series of major logical errors. It looked like some still-born attempt at NLP voodoo. Is that the sort of contribution you expect "positive attention" for? Don't hold your breath waiting for it. Consensus won't come on it's own when the "group dynamic is healed". The solid fact that there is not one randomised and controlled study which demonstrates the efficacy of NLP will not magically disappear. Nor will the large body of research that concludes that NLP is ineffective, pseudoscientific and theoretically unsupported. The problem -- which won't go away automagically -- is that you, Comaze, GregA, FT2, et. won't accept the authoritative scientific conclusion. Consensus can only come if you -- and your ilk -- surrender your prejudices (and pretences), concede your error and ignorance and educate yourself about the topics NLP pretends to be based upon. flavius 02:02, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Swatjester, it wasn't at all well said. The encouraging censorship complaint was pointing to Dejakitty, not Katefan0. Camridge 02:41, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm...indeed it is, you're right. ⇒ SWATJester

^Ready Aim _Fire! 03:39, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Some more "unconstructive" comments from Dave

Lets keep the lock on for another 7 days. We can terrorize any "anti-NPOV" editors with facts in the meantime, and it will take the pressure off (and I can get on with working overtime and doubling my already oversized salary).
The overview is very very good already. And it will benefit a great deal from connection with other similar cults and pseudosciences. The sociology lit will work well there. Concepts in common can include, pseudoscientific use of engrams and other stolen science concepts, new age, occult, and some more clear text on Korzybski and anti-realism/postmodernism - perhaps in reverse order.
The foundational assumptions section needs gradual improvement. It should be listed, but should also be explained in terms of misconceptions with psychology and human behaivour. Also there are some issues regarding it the assumption's convenience for cults to apply pressure and compliance.

Feel free to "vandalize" my comments with further "unconstructive" suggestions

DaveRight 01:53, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As much as I am willing and able to fulfill all of your suggestions it would be OR (it at least most cases). It is true that NLP relies on a form of epistemological relativism as well as a form of fictionalism and that both of these epistemological positions have been bent over and shagged to death over the years by many philosophers but none of them specifically addressed NLP -- why would they? Also much of the details of NLP such as the foundational assumptions are crap also but any generic criticism would be OR. flavius 02:12, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say keep the lock on till we get us fixed! jVirus File:Confederate Battle Flag.svg 04:35, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Nah! Some kind of schedule would be useful. How about 14 days! Camridge 04:36, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All sounds good to me. I'd like to add:

At the risk of appearing cuntishly cruel, I suggest a ban on Comaze's only remaining pleasure - the posting of petty objections (or any other nags and comments) on nonpromotional editor's talkpages. Camridge 02:32, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 527: / Line 527: @@
 #Deferring to the new mentors to find out what their collective plan is.  <b><font color="green">j</font><font color="black">Virus</font></b> [[Image:Confederate_Battle_Flag.svg|16px|]] 04:44, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
-====2006.02.08 : Deferring to the new mentors====
-*new plan : deferring to the mentors to understand their collective plan.
 ===Flavius===