Talk:Neuro-linguistic programming/Archive 24

Archive 20

←

Archive 22

Archive 23

Archive 24

Archive 25

Archive 26

Archive 27

Changed "claim" to "say" per WP:CLAIM

Good edits on June 4 to Early Development. Just used "claim", missing "Synonyms for said" in MoS. We want to avoid WP:OR.

"To write that someone claimed or asserted something can call their statement's credibility into question, by emphasizing any potential contradiction or implying a disregard for evidence."

Noticing this change, I see there are some 20 usages of "claim" in the article. Eturk001 (talk) 22:32, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

There were two instances remaining in Early development which I changed. I don't agree that the use of the word claim is necessarily a problem and the quote you provided suggests that much by characterising it as a possibility rather than a certainty. Rather than a perform global search and replace I think it would be best to go through the article methodically. I have started going through it section by section but was distracted by user 'That Guy from the Show!' (or whatever his name is). AnotherPseudonym (talk) 02:31, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

The genius, for me, of MoS/WP:AVOID is that we don't have to think about which words to avoid to stay encyclopedic/NPOV. "...certain expressions should be used with care, because they may introduce bias. Strive to eliminate expressions that are flattering, disparaging, vague, or clichéd, or that endorse a particular point of view." We should probably replace each "claim" with "say" (individually or in a section) in several edits to organize it, as you suggest. If there is a specific citation with citation proof of an objective fact in question, like an object (date, person, etc.) then that can be reviewed on Talk. Eturk001 (talk) 00:42, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

These changes of "claim" to "say" appear to be watering down the article. A great deal of care has been taken by editors to get the tone right. Quacks, pseudoscientists, shysters etc. make unevidenced "claims", and there is no problem with our articles reflecting that. Roxy the dog (talk) 08:12, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Correct. WP:CLAIM merely says to apply editorial judgement and consideration, and that's been done here. If a claim is made, and you're documenting the claim, then "claim" is the word in English to use - David Gerard (talk) 09:51, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Clearly, WP:CLAIM is implying that the word "claim" is pejorative. So your interpretation, David Gerard, contravenese this MoS. The tone must reflect the sources. WykiP (talk) 16:02, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

No, WP:CLAIM does not imply "claim" is perjorative, but does imply a disregard for evidence. That there is no proper evidence to support NLP is the clear message of this article, and use of "claim" is certainly justified here.Roxy the dog (talk) 17:32, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Apologies, I meant that WP:CLAIM says that "claim" is prone to being pejorative (pejorative comes from the way a word is, not the word itself):

To write that someone claimed or asserted something can call their statement's credibility into question, by emphasizing any potential contradiction or implying a disregard for evidence.

In other words, using the word "claim" tends to imply all these things, which the sources may not. That is why its use is discouraged. WykiP (talk) 21:01, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

After some thought on the matter I agree with Roxy the dog and David Gerard. If we consider only the opinions of significant NLP proponents then NLP is as best unvalidated (as opposed to invalidated) and that is the premise of books like this and projects like this. The absence of reliable evidence for the efficacy of NLP -- a conclusion shared by NLP proponents and critics -- renders all propositions about NLP to be claims. For this reason I think the word 'claim' should be retained and I will reintroduce it into the Early development where 'say' becomes repetitive. AnotherPseudonym (talk) 03:24, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Unless the particular assertion is disputed (with citation), to do so would be WP:OR. WykiP (talk) 18:00, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Can we rely upon citing Wikipedia guidelines and policy rather than what we think, in order to keep articles encyclopedic? What does WP say for word usage in an encyclopedic article? Please cite.

What is "the clear message of this article"? Is a message trying to be conveyed? This is the reason for MoS, so we editors can err on the side of WP form. Are references to "judgement and consideration" and "great deal of care" to mean the article is perfect and needs no corrections? Let's stick to correct WP word usage and citations of guidelines/policy.

Changing "claim" to "say" is a trivial change that just follows MoS. My personal opinion is that there seems to be some wild claims from some characters promoting this topic, but MoS suggests my opinion should not color the article. Let's change MoS rather than ignore parts of it. Eturk001 (talk) 01:31, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

The absence of a base of evidence for the efficacy and validity of NLP makes it legitimate to use the word "claim" and its judicious use will not make the article less encyclopedic. Where a matter is plainly factual (eg. Bandler and Grinder observed Virginia Satir at work) then we should use "say" or a synonym. Conversely where there is a claim to factuality without any evidence (eg. eyes move up when we make images in our head) then the use of the word "claim" is justified and neither comprises OR nor does it detract from the encyclopedic nature of the article. I believe what user Roxy the dog is suggesting by the use of the word "message" is that the article should be consistent. If, for example, several citations have been provided that indicate that X is false or that there is no evidence for X then X should be characterised as a claim for the sake of consistency but also because that is an accurate characterisation. The aim is to produce a coherent, consistent and readable encyclopedic article not an itemised list of citations strung together by a catalogue of neutral connective constructions. Consider what I have done in section Early developments. I have intentionally retained an instance of "say" where B&Gs actvity is being described since that is a matter of fact. B&G say they "modeled" Satir, they did, that is to say they applied the NLP methodology termed modeling to their observations of Satir. Whether modeling actually works or whether Satir is an exemplary psychotherapist is besides the point and neither contradicted nor endorsed by a statement such as "B&G say they modeled Satir". Using the word "claim" in such an instance would be confusing and inappropriate. If I say, "B&G claim they modeled Satir" then my meaning becomes unclear. Am I suggesting that it is contested whether B&G actually observed Satir? Am I suggesting that their model of Satir is flawed? Contrast this with, "B&G say that using their codified model of the psychotherapuetic excellence of Satir anyone can acquire her skills". That is plainly not a statement of uncontested fact and demands substantiation. In the absence of substantiation that proposition is at best a claim to factuality so the use of the word "claim" is justified: "B&G claim that using their codified model of the psychotherapuetic excellence of Satir anyone can acquire her skills". The use of the word "claim" in this instance distinguishes a claim to factuality in the absence of evidence or in the presence of contradictory evidence and that is not OR because the absence of evidence or the presence of contradictory evidence is documented in the article. AnotherPseudonym (talk) 02:58, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Nope, read WP:CLAIM again.

these verbs can convey guilt when that is not a settled matter.

Where it is not a settled matter, other words are better to use than "claim". WykiP (talk) 03:37, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

No you need to read WP:CLAIM again. The context of the phrase you excerpted is:

Similarly, be judicious in the use of admit, confess, and deny, particularly of living people, because these verbs can convey guilt when that is not a settled matter.

We are specifically concerned here with claim vs. say NOT "admit, confess, and deny" so what you quoted is entirely irrelevant. AnotherPseudonym (talk) 09:21, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

I see what you mean, however, the word Similarly proves your assertion that it "is entirely irrelevant" wrong. I think it's also a pretty clear intent of the wording and structure that similar care should be taken with the word claim. WykiP (talk) 10:47, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

WP:CLAIM is principally concerned with the fair presentation of evidence and I agree that care should be taken to present evidence fairly without prematurely denigrating it. Your invocation of WP:CLAIM is irrelevant because we are not here concerned with presenting evidence for NLP because there is no such evidence to present. It is not possible to denigrate, besmirch, question or otherwise undermine something which does not exist. A proposition that is devoid of evidence is -- by definition -- a claim. The message of WP:CLAIM is not that the notion of a claim is to be banished from all pages for the sake of "neutrality" -- some things that people say are just claims and they should be characterised as such and it would be misleading to do otherwise. Characterising a claim as something other than a mere claim does not promote neutrality, rather it encourages confusion. I repeat WP:CLAIM once more:

To write that someone claimed or asserted something can call their statement's credibility into question, by emphasizing any potential contradiction or implying a disregard for evidence.

There is no contrary/counter NLP evidence to present -- NLP proponents readily concede this -- so any concern about its denigration through the use of the word "claim" is entirely moot. WP:CLAIM can be relevant if and only if there exists contrary evidence to present. There is no such evidence. AnotherPseudonym (talk) 11:56, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

AnotherPseudonym, is this an opinion of a new MoS that should be used for all of WP or can you site specific policy or guidelines for the rule so it is clear for any editor. If it's a valid new rule for all of WP, let's change the MoS. Maybe the new rule is: "if the article topic is questioned by scientist then use "claim" instead of say whenever a person speaks about it." In short, MoS has this clarification about alternated for "say" for a reason. Citations please. Eturk001 (talk) 05:10, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

What I am advocating falls well within the terms of WP:CLAIM. Consider what it states:

To write that someone claimed or asserted something can call their statement's credibility into question, by emphasizing any potential contradiction or implying a disregard for evidence.

Where there exists no evidence for claim X or more strongly where there is evidence that contradicts X as editors we want to make that clear to the reader and we can do so by using claim. An abuse of the word "claim" -- which I believe WP:CLAIM is intended to address -- is where there exists evidence for X and the word "claim" is used to besmirch, subvert, question or otherwise undermine that evidence rather than merely present that evidence unembellished. But this situation does not exist in relation to this article because there exists no evidence to subvert or denigrate. This is a critical point. It is not possible to denigrate evidence that doesn't exist. The implication of applying WP:CLAIM to this article is that NLP proponents bear no evidentiary burden but NLP critics do, i.e. the burden of proof is reversed. Where there exists no evidence for X the default epistemic status of X is that it represents a claim to factuality. So to directly asnswer your concern, you are misapplying WP:CLAIM. The prerequisite for the application of WP:CLAIM is the existence of evidence which could be denigrated by the use of the word "claim". The point of WP:CLAIM -- as I understand it -- is to give all available evidence a fair representation. Where no such evidence exists then WP:CLAIM is irrelevant. AnotherPseudonym (talk) 09:41, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

You wrote: "WP:CLAIM is principally concerned with the fair presentation of evidence".

You're flat out wrong there. It's principally concerned with "loaded terms" aka pejorative language. Note it comes under the section "Words that may introduce bias". WykiP (talk) 18:14, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

I think you need to sit down and think this through before just blindly repeating the same thing over-and-over. Look at the stylistic guideline again (and think about the concept of evidence):

To write that someone claimed or asserted something can call their statement's credibility into question, by emphasizing any potential contradiction or implying a disregard for evidence (bolding added).

In the case of NLP there is actual contradiction and there is no favourable evidence so there is no risk of prejudicing a reader by using the word "claim" -- the reader will go where they eventually will go when they read that in all cases there is no evidence for any of NLPs claims and in some cases there is actually contradictory evidence. Where a statement is unsubstantiated -- i.e. has no evidence -- its credibility is necessarily called into question -- that is a natural process. With the exception of mathematics and formal logic any statement about the world -- that isn't tautologous -- is justified with reference to evidence. In relation to empirical reality "loaded terms" have the effect that they do because they implicitly question the existence of evidence or the quality of evidence in relation to some statement about the universe. That is to say, they prematurely and surreptitiously denigrate the evidence that is to be adduced to support a fact claim. Consider a hypothetical argument between you and I. Let P denote your contested propsosition and E denote your adduced evidence for the factuality of P. P is justified with reference to E; if E is demonstrated to be false then so too is P. If I say, "WykiP claims P", I am implicitly making a statement about the relationship of E to P -- I could be prematurely denigrating the significance of E to P and in this sense I am using a "loaded term". The problem with my statement is that I'm implicitly questioning the evidentiary basis of P by implicitly suggesting that E does not justify P. If I am biasing anything it is the reading of E that I am biasing. This is a vital point. Now consider the case where you have no E, you have nothing to adduce in support of P. Your belief in P is founded in anecdote or perhaps like Mormons a burning in the bosom. Given that you have no E for P it is not possible for me to suggest a pejorative relationship between E and P. If in this case I say "WykiP claims P" I am merely making a statement of value-free fact, I am just describing the epistemic status of P. It is not possible to bias the audience towards a negative reading of E because E simply does not exist. Is a mere claim epistemically inferior to a substantiated claim? Yes it is but we have no mandate to be "boosting" mere claims by describing them as something other than what they are. It is a problem for NLP proponents that the field consists of nothing more than mere claims but that is not any editors fault or responsibility to hide or deemphasise. We are not obliged to tip-toe gently around the fact that NLP lacks an evidence base. Where there is no evidence for a specific proposition it is entirely legitimate to use "claim" and in that context its use is not "loaded" or "pejorative". NLP is in a necessaraily inferior position simply because it is devoid of an evidence base and nothing besides obtaining evidence can help that. Using the word "claim" will not put false ideas into the head of the reader -- there is no body of evidence for the reader to be prejudiced against. AnotherPseudonym (talk) 03:49, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

I feel the need to warn you regarding WP:CIVIL.

Are you retracting your assertion that "WP:CLAIM is principally concerned with the fair presentation of evidence"? I don't see much point discussing this if you're going to stubbornly and willfully misinterpret WP:CLAIM.

You highlighted the word "evidence" out of context. It says "implying a disregard for evidence". If there is a disregard for 'evidence that contradicts the particular statement', cite it and then you can use "claim". WykiP (talk) 19:20, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

I can't see anything to justify invoking WP:CIVIL in that comment, OK you may not like what is being said but it all addresses content issues. On the other hand calling another editor stubborn and accusing them of will full misinterpretation is. You might want to retract that ----Snowded ^TALK 20:13, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

I certainly find this phrase: "I think you need to sit down and think this through before just blindly repeating the same thing over-and-over" contravenes WP:CIVIL as does AnotherPseudonym's recent comment section: "User WykiP and Deletion of Detail in IP Disputes Section".

I have not called another editor stubborn so nothing to retract. Misrepresentation is a fact as established in my previous comment. It could be accidental misrepresentation and I allowed for that possibility in my comment. WykiP (talk) 19:08, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Snowded, I see no grounds for invoking WP:CIVIL either. I presented you a detailed case for my position which you have not answered. WP:CLAIM is principally concerned with the fair presentation of evidence and you imply that much by trying to discuss matters of evidence. If I describe a proposition as a claim I am making an implicit statement about its evidentiary basis. If the proposition lacks an evidentiary basis then my use of the word claim is justified and without blame; if the proposition is substantiated then I may be seeking to prejudice my listeners against the evidence. WP:CLAIM is concerned with preventing the latter case. This reading is consistent with the OED definition. The relevant portion of WP:CLAIM reads:

To write that someone claimed or asserted something can call their statement's credibility into question, by emphasizing any potential contradiction or implying a disregard for evidence. (bolding added)

You appear to have arrived at your idiosyncratic interpretation of WP:CLAIM by conflating "any potential contradiction" and "implying a disregard for evidence" -- which are separated by or -- to produce something to the effect of "disregard for contradictory evidence" and indeed you do say "If there is a disregard for 'evidence that contradicts the particular statement'" which confirms this conflation. Your position appears to be based on this conflation and this conflation is based on your failure to honour the semantics of logical disjunction. The conflation is also implicitly evinced by your elimination of the possibility of no evidence in relation to a claim. And this is how you appear to have arrived at your insistence that there needs to be a demonstrable case of disregard for contrary evidence to justify the use of claim. I put it to you that the phrase "implying a disregard for evidence" is unrelated to contradictory evidence and pertains instead to no evidence. The use of or separates the two cases that cause a proposition to be a claim, namely, (i) the existence of contradictory evidence; and (ii) the absence of evidence. The message of WP:CLAIM is that an editor should not imply that (i) or (ii) pertain when they don't. You have failed to comprehend WP:CLAIM, have ignored the "or" and produced a perverse and nonsensical reading of WP:CLAIM. You also appear to be trying to reverse the burden of proof. Instead of producing evidence that NLP can -- for example -- treat myopia and use that evidence as a basis for contesting the use of claim to characterise such propositions you are trying to demand that evidence be produced that NLP can not treat myopia as a justification for using the word claim. The burden of proof always rests on the claimaint; WP:VERIFY is a core Wikipedia policy (and incidentally WP:CLAIM is a stylistic guideline). The statement that NLP can treat myopia lacks substantiation, it is a proposition without evidence, i.e. a claim. Anything that communicates the absence of substantiation -- eg. the word claim -- is warranted on the grounds of accuracy. You are also redefining the concept of a claim. You are suggesting that a proposition is a claim only if there exists contradictory evidence for the proposition. But that is plainly not true. A proposition is also a claim if there is no evidence to support the truth of that proposition. The OED defines a claim as "an assertion that something is true". Clearly an assertion can occur because either what is asserted lacks evidence or there exists contradictory evidence. Lastly your idiosyncratic interpretation of WP:CLAIM leads to a logical incoherence. You wrote:

If there is a disregard for 'evidence that contradicts the particular statement', cite it and then you can use "claim".

On the basis of your reading of WP:CLAIM there would have had to have been evidence that NLP can not -- for example -- cure myopia before NLP existed because these claims are made in the texts that define NLP. Bear in mind that you are requiring the disregard of contradictory evidence as a prerequisite to using the word claim. The existence of any contradictory evidence must necessarily precede publication of the (contradicted) propositions because it must exist in order to be disregarded in the process of composing the manuscripts. NLP is novel, the manuscripts (of the primary texts) define NLP and make specific claims about NLP. Yet you are requiring the presentation of disregarded contradictory evidence about NLP that existed before the books that defined NLP existed. Any such evidence would be be predicated on the existence of NLP and at the same time need to come before NLPs existence. That is logically impossible. The books that were jointly written by Bandler and Grinder are the primary texts for NLP, they are seminal and definitive of NLP. You are implying that it is an existential possibility that there exists evidence that contradicts a statement about the specific efficacy of NLP before Bandler and Grinder wrote the texts that defined NLP (and in the process made the statement(s) about efficacy). I contend that this is impossible. An example will make this clearer. The article currently reads:

Bandler and Grinder claim that the skills of exceptional people can be "modeled" using NLP methodology then those skills can be acquired by anyone.

Your contention is that this is forbidden by WP:CLAIM because it suggests/implies

a disregard for 'evidence that contradicts the particular statement'

Further, you add:

cite it [the contradictory disregarded evidence] and then you can use "claim"

So what you are saying is that the use of the word claim is justified only in the case where it can be shown that B&G made the statement that they did and there existed prior evidence that contradicted their statement that they disregarded and that the onus is on me to find and present this evidence to justify my use of the word claim. That is a nonsensical and impossible requirement. The statement to that effect -- i.e. about the efficacy of NLP modeling and its transferability -- was made in Structure of Magic I which was published in 1975. That is a text that is definitive of NLP, it is the first mass communication of NLP modeling -- something which B&G invented. So what you are asking for is evidence that contradicts B&Gs motivating assumption about NLP modeling, that existed prior to the date of publication of the text that defined NLP modeling. Any evidence of the inability of NLP modeling to transfer any skill to any person will necessarily have to come after the inception and publication of the NLP modeling methodology so your requirement is just garbage. Notice that if you honour the actual meaning of claim -- which includes a proposition lacking evidence -- no such logical impossibility results; it is demonstrable that there is no evidence for that proposition (and hence the use of 'claim' would be justified). So in summation you have:

(1) conflated the two phrases in WP:CLAIM that are separated by or to create a false composite;

(2) redefined the notion of a claim to include only those propositions that conform to your false composite;

(3) reversed the burden of proof; and

(4) required the satisfaction of a logically impossibile task as a prerequisite to using the word claim.

I don't think your case is persuasive. Matters (1)-(4) are strongly suggestive that your reading of WP:CLAIM is entirely flawed and bears revisiting. My reading of WP:CLAIM does not require a redefinition of the word claim, it preserves the burden of proof on the claimant, and most importantly doesn't lead to logical impossibility. AnotherPseudonym (talk) 06:14, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

If there is contradictory evidence, that would mean both (a) that there was evidence both in favor of the proposition and against the proposition; and (b) that the assertions that there is no evidence in favor and no evidence against are both demonstrably false. htom (talk) 20:34, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, IF and the onus is on you to present this evidence. Sturt et al (2012) reviewed all health-related NLP research, Witkowski (2010) reviewed all NLP research. Sturt et al (2012) concluded that NLP at least in relation to health is unvalidated, i.e. lacking evidence; Witkowski (2010) concluded that NLP is generally invalidated, i.e. mostly lacking evidence but where evidence did exist it was mostly unfavourable. On this basis alone it is justified to describe NLP proponents descriptions of NLP as "claims". You need to present us the evidence that NLP can cure myopia, that NLP can cure the common cold, that anyone can do anthing that anyone else can do just as well via modeling, etc. etc. AnotherPseudonym (talk) 06:14, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

You need to demonstrate that there exist studies that support NLP tenets and/or claims of efficacy that were not reviewed in Sturt et al (2012) or Witkowski (2010). Postulating ifs doesn't count for anything and can't be used as a basis for modifying the article. Also, we don't want a research review from you or WykiP -- that would be breach of WP:NOR and hence unacceptable. Thus far there has been no publication in either of the journals that Sturt et al (2012) or Witkowski (2010) appeared in (or similar) that constitutes a critique of either papers. Sturt et al (2012) is not opposed to NLP and they concluded:

This systematic review demonstrates that there is little evidence that NLP interventions improve health-related outcomes. The study conclusion reflects the limited quantity and quality of NLP research, rather than robust evidence of no effect.

Witkowski's conclusion -- after an exhaustive review -- was much stronger and more general. Also many NLP proponents themselves -- not Bandler and Grinder -- have begun to openly admit that NLP has no evidence base and needs one and that is the motivation for conferences such as this and projects like this. Tosey and Mathison are NLP proponents and in 2007 they wrote:

The disadvantage compared with bumblebees is that NLP has not demonstrated that it can fly. The cry, `show me the evidence’, has not yet been answered convincingly.

It is now 2013 and there is no more evidence supportive of NLP than there was when Mathison and Tosey wrote that. You don't seem to realise which way the wind is blowing. I challenged you a month or so ago to stop this petty bickering and present us evidence that is supportive of NLP that was not reviewed in Sturt et al (2012) or Witkowski (2010). You have yet to present any such research and here I am again making the same request. The more sophisticated members of the NLP community have accepted that NLP is unvalidated (and are seeking validation); the consensus scientific opinion is that NLP is invalidated. Here you are like its 1980 as if two guys from Santa Cruz sitting on bar stools pontificating about neuroscience, psychopathology, cognition and communication have all the answers and we should just acquiesce. We have the situation now where there are both NLP proponents and NLP critics in agreement that NLP has not been validated, i.e. that it has no evidence base, and you and WykiP are seeking to have the article communicate something other than this by bickering hopelessly about the use of the word claim in the article. I shake my head in disbelief at this pathetic effort. Clearly, the article needs more citations to make things clearer. The opinions of NLP proponents that state that NLP is devoid of an evidence base should perhaps also be incorporated into the article. AnotherPseudonym (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 08:21, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

The long posts might be a little OR about "evidence", whether NLP works for DSM/psychotherapy, and new ideas for when claim is the best word. Maybe a separate section to help the reader specifically get that NLP lacks successful studies in DSM diagnosis could help the reader? This Talk section is about using "say" or "claim", according to WP and proper encyclopedic form (vs. magazines, newspapers, etc.) As the MoS lays out, "say" is the appropriate WP word when someone says or writes something. Say conveys they just said it, but that doesn't mean it's a fact. Avoiding "claim" helps avoid "messages" from editors coming across. Unless another guideline for usage of "claim" on WP can be cited, the MoS makes it simple, just don't use other words. Please cite a guideline or policy that would support the use of "claim" or let's change WP:CLAIM with the suggestion, "if there isn't much scientific evidence for success, use claim everywhere you would use 'say'". Eturk001 (talk) 01:27, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Here is a guideline that supports the use of the word "claim" in circumstances we have been discussing here - WP:CLAIM - see discussion passim Roxy the dog (talk) 05:40, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

A link missing from Roxy the dog's post? @Eturk: A [claim] is "an assertion that something is true" and it more accurately describes what is happening in the article than the word "say". You say things like "Hello!", you make a claim when you describe the universe, when you utter a proposition that can be true or false. I don't think the two are interchangeable. Further, unless you can produce evidence for the statements that are described as claims in the article your appeals to WP:CLAIM are irrelevant because no biasing of the reader has occurred. An substantiated proposition is a claim so that description is neither misleading nor capable of biasing a reader. AnotherPseudonym (talk) 09:36, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Do you have a link for us Roxy? What is the "spirit" of the WP:CLAIM guideline? Can you help me out with that? Eturk001 (talk) 02:24, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

(apologies if I ruin the flow of the page - I'm really not familiar with responding to something so strangely out of position) - I might have linked to WP:CLAIM, but I have no other links to offer - I thought this topic had gathered dust. Do you see the difference between Sir Isaac Newton saying that the apple falls because of gravity, and Bandler saying that he can cure Yaws? There is not a jot of evidence to support Bandler, and, strangely, a great deal to support Newton. You ask me about the spirit of WP:CLAIN, and I am quite certain that for 98% of Wkipedia using the word say or said is appropriate, but here, using say gives 'approval' - implies 'rightness' and 'agreement' which would seem to violate NPOV by giving an implied approval to NLP. I think perhaps the only way to use say or said in this article instead of claim, is to incorporate the phrase "not a jot of evidence" with each use. Who else would support that? Roxy the dog (talk) 22:51, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

AnotherPseudonym wrote: "If I describe a proposition as a claim I am making an implicit statement about its evidentiary basis."

Correct, and that is WP:OR. Also note that the article is not supposed to have your voice. You do not WP:OWN it. WykiP (talk) 03:02, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

No it isn't WP:OR, a purportedly factual statement that is made in the absence of evidence, is -- by definition a claim. Consider vaccine controversies: "However, since vaccination began in the late 18th century, opponents have claimed that vaccines do not work, that they are or may be dangerous, that individuals should rely on personal hygiene instead, or that mandatory vaccinations violate individual rights or religious principles.[2]". Similarly HIV/AIDS denialism: "The scientific community considers the evidence that HIV causes AIDS to be conclusive[4][5] and rejects AIDS-denialist claims as pseudoscience based on conspiracy theories,[6] faulty reasoning, cherry picking, and misrepresentation of mainly outdated scientific data.[4][5][7]". Similarly holocaust denial:"Holocaust denial is the act of denying the genocide of Jews in the Holocaust during World War II.[1] The key claims of Holocaust denial are: the German Nazi government had no official policy or intention of exterminating Jews, Nazi authorities did not use extermination camps and gas chambers to mass murder Jews, and the actual number of Jews killed was significantly (typically an order of magnitude) lower than the historically accepted figure of 5 to 6 million.[2][3][4]". It isn't WP:OR to correctly describe something and doing so doesn introduce anyone's voice. There is no Wiki directive to dance around the truth, we can and should WP:SPADE. In the absence of evidence a statement can only be a claim. The article doesn't proceed to present any substantive evidence for NLP (because no such evidence exists) so any purportedly factual statement should be characterised as claims. The article on vaccine controversies, HIV/AIDS denialism and holocaust denial don't go on to provide evidence for these positions hence the use of claim is entirely justified. The same reasoning applies to the NLP article. AnotherPseudonym (talk) 04:54, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Wrong. It's quite simple but I'll put your own words in bold for you:

You wrote "If I describe a proposition as a claim I am making an implicit statement about its evidentiary basis."

If you fail to back up that implicit statement, it's WP:OR. WykiP (talk) 06:41, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

The implicit statement is justified by the content of the article. Since the article cites two systematic reviews that state that there is no evidence for NLP and we even have three NLP sources saying the same then the use of the word claim is justified. That isn't WP:OR. Explain in specific terms how it is WP:OR. WP:OR reads: Wikipedia articles must not contain original research. The phrase "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist.[1] This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position not advanced by the sources. The sources Sturt et al (2012), Witkowski (2010), Tosey & Mathison (2007), Wake et al (2013), Gray & Liotta (2012) all say that NLP has no evidence base. In the absence of evidence any statements are -- by definition -- claims. We do "back up" the implicit statement that is what all the citations are. AnotherPseudonym (talk) 09:12, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Wrong again. The assertion isn't that research has proven NLP. The assertion is that "the skills of exceptional people can be "modeled" using NLP methodology then those skills can be acquired by anyone", and, in the circumstance, I think we need to see an exact quote now. WykiP (talk) 15:00, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Addition to section Scientific criticism

I have added neuroscientist Lauren J. Harris' assessment of NLP vis-a-vis neuroscience, in particular the lateralisation (aka hemispheric specialisation) literature. The scientific consensus becomes clear from a review of section Scientific criticism. I have been unable to find a favourable opinion of NLP amongst any brain/behaviour experts that publish in peer-reviewed journals. The more I dig, the more criticism I find. AnotherPseudonym (talk) 10:34, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps there needs to be some context around Corballis and Harris' criticism you cited. From my limited understanding of the NLP literature, your criticism of left/right brain is most commonly related to conscious/unconscious in NLP. See page 35 of Neuro-linguistic programming for Dummies[1] The wikipedia article would not be complete without a discussion of this topic. This concept of conscious and unconscious was imported in NLP from Milton Erickson. The idea that is put forward in NLP is that the left brain tends to be more conscious/rational/verbal and right brain tends to be more creative/unconscious/visual. This is consistent from my limited understanding of neurology: left hemisphere being responsible for language. For example, stroke (left hemisphere) survivors with dysphasia can often sing better than the talk, and respond well to nursery rhymes. --Reconsolidation (talk) 04:17, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

The emotional/rational distinction is I think largely discredited. There are different aspects in particular autonomic v novelty receptive processing but NLP got that one wrong as well----Snowded ^TALK 04:47, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Sorry but you are mistaken and Neuro-linguistic programming for Dummies is considered to be bad even by NLP proponents. The seminal texts of NLP (i.e. those co-authored by Bandler and Grinder) contain numerous references to the hemisphericity myth beyond "conscious/unconscious". Even in Grinder's more recent work he still references the hemisphericity myth. I believe the necessary context exists. Also you are mistaken about the history of NLP. Bandler and Grinder obtained their concpetion of the "unconscious mind" from Gregory Bateson who personally introduced them to Erickson. The Milton-Model is -- as its name suggests -- derived from the modeling of Erickson but the notion of the "unconscious mind" in NLP is at least initially from Bateson. I don't agree that "the wikipedia article would not be complete without a discussion of this topic". As I have painstakingly tried to explain in an earlier discussion the Milton-Model is not intrinsically "NLPish" and neither are the folk notions of "unconscious/conscious mind". The Milton-Model is B&Gs NLP conceptualisation of a portion of Ericksonian hypnosis -- in the final analysis it is just another model. B&G modeled Erickson for the same reasons that they modeled Perls and Satir, namely because he was reputed to be an effective psychotherapist and B&G happened to be interested in psychotherapy (it was California in the 1970s). Your comment implies that Erikcson, Perls and Satir weren't doing Ericksonian Hypnosis, Gestalt Therapy and Family Therapy respectively but were really doing NLP. Milton-Model is essentially no more "NLPish" than an NLP model of tight-rope walking and the Meta-Model is no less important than the Milton-Model (B&G actually state that the Meta-Model is the most important model they produced). I really don't want to argue with you on the basis of your reading of tertiary texts (more so one's rejected by NLPers themselves). If you disagree with me and think that you have a better understanding of NLP then demonstrate that with reference to the primary texts, the texts written by the co-creators. AnotherPseudonym (talk) 04:57, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

PS:- Snowded is correct the central lateralisation myth is "emotional vs. rational" and that is discredited and it is sprinkled through the primary texts. AnotherPseudonym (talk) 04:57, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Here is an example of this pseudo-neuroscience from Frogs into Princes:

One thing that children do is to become hyperactive. One hemisphere is registering the visual input and the tonal input, and the other hemisphere is registering the words and their digital meaning, and they don't fit. They don't fit maximally where the two hemispheres overlap maximally in kinesthetic representation. If you ever watch a hyperactive kid, the trigger for hyperactivity will be incongruity, and it will begin here at the midline of the torso, and then diffuse out to all kinds of other behavior. (p.49) AnotherPseudonym (talk) 05:18, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Example from Neuro-Linguistic Programming: Volume I The Study of the Structure of Subjective Experience:

Much research in recent years has been done on the functional differences in the neurological processing between the dominant hemisphere (the left cerebral hemisphere in most right–handed people) and the non–dominant hemisphere (the right cerebral hemisphere in right–handed people). The dominant hemisphere, it is claimed, tends to carry out linear, sequential, cause–effect type processing and, as a result, is responsible for the manipulation and construction of our internally generated experience. The non–dominant hemisphere, it is claimed, tends to carry out the more presentational, spatial, integrative, gestalten types of processing, and is thus responsible for much of the reaccessing and recalling of past sensory representations. (p.103)

Another distinction related to hemispheric functioning that we consider useful is the difference between digital (verbal) representations in the auditory representational system, and those involving tonal and tempo (non–verbal) qualities. Our language (auditory, digital) representations tend to be primarily organized by neurological systems localized in our dominant hemisphere (the left hemisphere for right–handed people). Although remembered verbal experiences, such as tapeloops and cliches, become incorporated by the non–dominant hemisphere, this .hemisphere seems to be somewhat specialized for organizing the tonal, melodic and rhythmic portions of our auditory experience. The information carried by each of these different processes will often have a very different functional significance. The digital portions of our communications belong to a class of experience that we refer to as "secondary experience." (p. 103) AnotherPseudonym (talk) 05:18, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

From Time for a Change:

When you do several different things simultaneously with your body,one hemisphere can't handle it. You demand both hemisphere,. Then you laterally reverse what you did. Both hemispheres compete for control of both sides of your body. (p.66) AnotherPseudonym (talk) 05:24, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

But in any event there is no basis in the NLP claim that the left-hemisphere is the "conscious mind" and the right-hemisphere is the "unconscious mind". That (and the above hemisphericity pseudoscience) is the sort of bullshit that Corballis (and others) are criticising. Your point has no merit in any respect. AnotherPseudonym (talk) 05:36, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

This piece of genius is from Grinder's Whispering in the Wind:

Frank and a colleague, Anne Jane Grieve, approached Shelah with the proposal of modeling his problem solving ability...Frank also noted that Professor Shelah had a practice of tossing a set of keys from one hand to the other while working on significant portions of the problems presented. It occured to him that this was quite congruent with some of the design features of the new code [NLP] games developed to induce and sustain high performance states -- more specifically in this particular case, the activation of both hemispheres. (p.238)

So if you can, try and masturbate with both hands to achieve activation of both hemispheres. Why should one hemisphere always get the action? Full-Brain Masturbation™ is the way of the future. Genius/exemplar masturbators use both hands. Masturbation the NLP way. ;-) AnotherPseudonym (talk) 06:12, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

And critics of NLP wonder why their opinions are not respected. htom (talk) 06:29, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

If phrases had antonyms htom then that for Faramir's famous "The praise of the praiseworthy is above all rewards" statement in the Two Towers would apply here. ----Snowded ^TALK 06:34, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

A typical new code training activity purported to achieve "high performance states" is juggling. We know from MRI studies that juggling promotes neuroplastic change (Draganski 2004). Its not a huge stretch to generalize this finding to juggling keys. Draganski, B., Gaser, C., Busch, V., Schuierer, G., Bogdahn, U., & May, A. (2004). Neuroplasticity: Changes in grey matter induced by training. Nature, 427, 311–312. --Reconsolidation (talk) 07:54, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

And thus enters the Frankfurtian Bullshit. Neuroplastic change is one thing; "activating both hemispheres" (whatever that means) is another thing. Juggling is one thing; tossing something from one had to another hand is another thing. "Neuroplastic change" is one thing; "high performance states" (whatever they are) are another thing. Most environmental demands produce "neuroplastic change" that is one way that we become better at dealing with them. It is a big jump -- it is actually two big jumps -- and no self-respecting scientist would make those. Compare and contrast:

Tossing keys b/w hands ---> Activation of both hemispheres

Juggling ---> Neuroplastic change

Need I write out each of the incomensurables? Do you really want to argue this point? Also since you want to play apologist in this matter, why in Whispering in the Wind? does Grinder state that the purview of NLP is exclusively subjective representations (and in earlier texts he says things to the effect that he isn't really interested in neuroscience so he shouldn't be criticised in this regard) then he proceeds to make empirical claims about human neurology? If he were true to his stated objective he would just say "tossing keys from one hand to another increases/decreases/creates/removes X", i.e. confine his attention to the behavioural manifestations of key tossing (whatever he thinks they are). But he doesn't he starts talking about brains, hemispheres, activation i.e. neurological anatomies and concepts. To me it seems that Grinder (and Bandler) want to pontificate about neuroscience (and be taken seriously as neuroscientific experts) but when they are critisised (by the actual neuroscientists which we have listed in the article) they retreat into the various incarnations of their sophistry: ham-fisted appeals to Vaihinger's fictionalism, "NLP is concerned only with representations", "we only care about what works", "we have a different epistemology than science" ("epistemology" is Grinder's new favourite word which he uses in a manner which doesn't comport with philosophers who have a life-long specialisation in epistemology", "NLP is composed of pragmatic models", "NLP is a bridge between empiricism and rationalism" (Grinder understands neither), "the Cartesian mind-body split prevails", "we aren't concerned with statistical averages" (Grinder doesn't understand the difference between descriptive statistics and inferential statistics) blah, blah, blah, nonsense heaped upon nonsense and gross self-contradiction. If Bandler and Grinder don't want to be criticised by neuroscientists then they should just shut-up about that topic, confine their pontifications to subjective representation (as they falsely claim to be doing) and say nothing of neuron, hemispheres, cortexes, brains, lateralisation, dominance etc.. Similarly, their wounded followers that frequently make an appearance here should redirect the time they spend here trying to corrupt and debase the article and WP:GAME into writing letters to Bandler and Grinder telling them to shut the f*ck up about neuroscientific matters. AnotherPseudonym (talk) 09:17, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

@AnotherPseudonym. Juggling is much more common new code game and would you'd expect more activation on both sides because it involves a lot of cross-hemispherical co-ordination. The hypothesis would be: does this cross-hemispherical activity increase the performance in problem solving? How would you test that? You could do EEG to test cross-hemispherical activity and a simply two group + control. You assign participants to three groups: Group 1 juggles with two arms, group 2 juggles single handed and group 3 does not juggle at all. You can then just measure the performance in the same problem solving activity using a NLP new code design. You have to engage in intense practice for it to make structural (neuroplastic) changes visible in MRI, see Draganski (2004). To answer your questions about Whispering, I refer you back to chapter 1 of whispering and this quote: "the patterns that are the focus of NLP are not the patterns of the physical world; those patterns of the physical world are the domain of physics and associated disciplines. The patterns that are the focus of NLP are the representations that have already been subjected to neurological transforms prior to our first experience of them"(Whispering ch.1). Ofcourse the neurological transforms are the domain of neuroscience. However, in the conclusion they state that the domain of all sciences is representations only. --Reconsolidation (talk) 13:16, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

My point has been lost on you. I don't want to turn this into an extended debate here beacuse it would be a misuse of the talk page. Again what you are offering is Frankfurtian Bullshit. Firstly, confine your attention to what Grinder actually wrote in WITW:

Frank and a colleague, Anne Jane Grieve, approached Shelah with the proposal of modeling his problem solving ability...Frank also noted that Professor Shelah had a practice of tossing a set of keys from one hand to the other while working on significant portions of the problems presented. It occured to him that this was quite congruent with some of the design features of the new code [NLP] games developed to induce and sustain high performance states -- more specifically in this particular case, the activation of both hemispheres. (p.238)

The above is the subject of concern not your artifice. Secondly no one suggested that Grinder's claim couldn't be tested. Thirdly, your proposed test design is flawed and irrelevant. Fourthly, the central point here is that Grinder (and Bandler) make claims such as those above without first testing them and publishing their results in peer-reviewed journals. That is the vital point. Describing a possible test doesn't mean that the test has been done. In this instance criticism of Grinder is predicated on the possibility and feasibility of experimentation. Regarding what you wrote about WITW I am just shaking my head in disbelief. You don't understand what you are reading. My point wasn't about "neurological transforms" it was about departing from the domain of description in terms of subjective representation which your quote refers to and entering the domain of explanation in terms of neurological substrates (brains, neurons, hemispheres, activation, "cross-hemispherical co-ordination"). That is a fundamental distinction which you don't appear to have a grasp of. If this is true:

the patterns that are the focus of NLP are not the patterns of the physical world; those patterns of the physical world are the domain of physics and associated disciplines. The patterns that are the focus of NLP are the representations that have already been subjected to neurological transforms prior to our first experience of them

then you have no cause to posit explanations in terms of the neurological substrates of "the representations that have already been subjected to neurological transforms". The moment you stop talking about subjective representations and start offering explanations of the representations and their effects in terms of the brain, its parts, their activity and their relationship then you have left the ostensible domain of NLP and entered the domain of neuroscience. Stating that tosssing keys between hands enhances problem solving by activating both sides of the brain is entirely irreconcilable with:

the patterns that are the focus of NLP are not the patterns of the physical world; those patterns of the physical world are the domain of physics and associated disciplines. The patterns that are the focus of NLP are the representations that have already been subjected to neurological transforms prior to our first experience of them

The statement that is consistent (or at least non-contradictory) with the above is simply "tossing keys from hand-to-hand enhances problem-solving ability". That is all. No party in this matter has access to the event of "activation of both hemispheres" -- neither the exemplar nor the modeler. The exemplar is confined to his subjectivity and the modeler is confined to the observable behaviour of the exemplar. Even if it were true that tossing keys produced the "activation of both hemispheres" and that enhanced problem solving ability neither party would be witness to that causal chain. The exemplar would experience enhanced problem-solving ability (trivially in the sense that the problem is more easily solved and subjectively perhaps with a feeling of lucidity and relaxed focus); the modeler would be witness to the key tossing, the quick solution of the problem and some other non-verbal language that is suggestive of the models subjective state. At no point in this exercise is their any revelation of the actual activity of the brain. By Grinder's own lights he is a hypocrite, he is unwilling or unable to abide by his own stated principles. He doesn't have to offer bullshit pseudo-neuroscientific explanations -- indeed his own stated principles state he has no interest in them -- but he does, egregiously and repeatedly and without a scintilla of evidence and that is why NLP is pseudoscientific and that is why it is considered a cultish bunch of nonsense by many neuroscientists. AnotherPseudonym (talk) 02:17, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

I'd ask him the question: where is the evidence? --Reconsolidation (talk) 10:19, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

PS: If "Its not a huge stretch to generalize this finding to juggling tossing keys" then by your inductive logic it is also not a "huge stretch to generalize this finding to" masturbating with two hands. Full-Brain Masturbation™ produces a high-performance wank, a more excellent wank, an exquisite wanking experience, a genius calibre wank. Why not? Any criticism you can level against Full-Brain Masturbation™ can also be leveled against vague, ill-defined and amorphous (i.e. bullshit) concepts like "activate both sides of the brain" or "high performance state". AnotherPseudonym (talk) 09:51, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

I doubt you'll get that one through ethics. --Reconsolidation (talk) 10:12, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

@htom, I think this shows that you aren't truly open-minded. An apt response to the preceding quotes from Bandler and/or Grinder would have been: "And NLP proponents wonder why they have such a hard time being taken seriously" (and those quotes are just a sample of the nonsense I can post from B&G). But you were silent! You have no (or very high) threshold for incredulity in relation to what Bandler and/or Grinder write or say in seminars but you do have a (very low) threshold for displeasure in relation to what others say about what Bandler and/or Grinder write or say in seminars. Don't you think that this is strange? Can you tell us where your threshold for incredulity is pegged in relation to Bandler and Grinder? What would Bandler and Grinder have to write or say for you to just respond "that is a load of bullshit!"? In Bandler's DVD set How to Live a Happy Life, 30 Years of NLP on DVD 3 Bandler claims that he designed the first "space toilet" for NASA; on DVD 1 Bandler claims that he decided what is standard issue in sidearms for the US Army, he says that the US Army sent him hundreds of handguns to his house via a courier company to test for them; on DVD 1 Bandler says that he has "non-human blood"; on DVD 1 Bandler says he is a physicist; I forget which DVD but in that same set he states emphatically that physicists (he uses we because he of course is a physicist) don't know how magnets work; I can go on -- but I won't. How do these claims jibe with you? Is that all gospel truth or plain bullshit? Where do you stand? Am I being a prick if I don't believe that Bandler designed the first space toilet for NASA? Am I tarnishing your idols if I don't believe that Bandler chose the Beretta M9 for the US Army? Am I an out-of-control skeptic that just doesn't believe anything? People like you fascinate me. Tell me more. AnotherPseudonym (talk) 07:33, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

If anyone actually believed Bandler's stories and metaphor, they'd also get lost in content. Did you detect any language patterns or change techniques worthwhile modeling? Obviously Bandler is not a physicist designing toilets for NASA and testing guns for the US Army. You can use the meta model questions or Carl Sagan's Baloney Detection Kit to challenge Bandler's distortions, generalizations and deletions. --Reconsolidation (talk) 12:33, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

[rolling my eyes] I've heard this apology countless times. How then do you explain: this:

Dr Bandler is a consultant to many Fortune 500 Companies., the US Military, US Intelligent (sic) Agencies, Major League Baseball teams, NFL players and Olympic Athletes. He is a true designer of training programs. He has been the CEO of several corporations from Training and Consulting companies to a Research and Development company specializing in Optics and Holographic Storage systems.

So where is the metaphor here? Here we see the incorporation of these fictions into his biographical entry. So his bio entry is a hypnosis inducing metaphor? If that is your position then explain the metaphor, explain the symbol(s) and the signification(s) of his biographical entry. Also relate it to the Milton-Model.

or this ("we were mathematicians") or this ("being trained primarily as a physicist") Where is the metaphor there? Again explain the explain the symbol(s) and the signification(s) here for an idiot like me.

Did you detect any language patterns or change techniques worthwhile modeling? No. His actual metaphors (as opposed to his plain bullshit about his biography) are ham-fisted and he actually messes some of them up (eg. his confusion of chemotherapy with radiotherapy, his confusion about what metals are magnetic). You wrote: "Obviously Bandler is not a physicist designing toilets for NASA and testing guns for the US Army." So why then does he say he is a physicist in interviews? You wrote, "You can use the meta model questions or Carl Sagan's Baloney Detection Kit to challenge Bandler's distortions, generalizations and deletions." Bandler's claims aabout his biography, eg. that he is a physicist are neither distortions, generalisations nor deletions. They are simply fabrications out of whole cloth, in toto lies (WP:SPADE). What you have written is just apologetic "drinking the Kool-Aid" garbage. You wrote, "You can use the meta model questions or Carl Sagan's Baloney Detection Kit to challenge Bandler's distortions, generalizations and deletions." So what is your point? AnotherPseudonym (talk) 04:09, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

So you're saying that if Bandler has something on his website that isn't a metaphor, then it's impossible to him to use metaphors at other times? Also, it's bad article structure to have a separate criticism section. Oh and the section header is pejorative. WykiP (talk) 06:48, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Oh and you keep making statements without sourcing and confusing "pejorative" with "sourced material that NLP advocates do not like" ----Snowded ^TALK 06:53, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

So you're saying that if Bandler has something on his website that isn't a metaphor, then it's impossible to him to use metaphors at other times?

[shaking my head] No. You have reading comprehension problems. I wrote:

His actual metaphors (as opposed to his plain bullshit about his biography) are ham-fisted and he actually messes some of them up (eg. his confusion of chemotherapy with radiotherapy, his confusion about what metals are magnetic).

So that precludes your reading of what I wrote. I'll spell it out in baby steps so that you don't get confused. Do you know what a metaphor is ? Your question suggests that you don't. If Bandler says "I am a physicist" or "I am a mathematcian" in an interview or if his biographic entry describes him as a mathematician then that clearly is a literal (as opposed to metaphoric) statement.

The biographic descriptions:

Dr Bandler is a consultant to many Fortune 500 Companies., the US Military, US Intelligent Agencies, Major League Baseball teams, NFL players and Olympic Athletes. He is a true designer of training programs. He has been the CEO of several corporations from Training and Consulting companies to a Research and Development company specializing in Optics and Holographic Storage systems.

and

Dr. Bandler, a mathematician,...

are devoid of metaphor. If you disagree show me the symbol and the signification. If he is making a literal statmement that is demonstrably false then he is being dishonest. If he is in fact a mathematician or a physicist then if he says "I am a mathematician" or "I am a physicist" then he is being literal and not metaphorical -- he is telling the literal truth. The statement "I am a mathematician" can't be both literal and metaphoric in relation to the same person. If he is a mathematician then when he makes the utterance "I am a mathematician" he is being literal and hence not metaphorical. If he isn't a mathematician when he makes the utterance "I am a mathematician" he may be being metaphoric; if he is being metaphoric then the description "I am a mathematician" can only meaningfully appear in a metaphorical context not a biographic precis (which is literally a list of accomplishments).

Also, it's bad article structure to have a separate criticism section.

That is just an unsubstantiated assertion. It needs reasons to be worth anyone's attention.

Oh and the section header is pejorative.

That too is an unsubstantiated assertion. To quote Christopher Hitchens: 'That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.' AnotherPseudonym (talk) 08:57, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

According to neurologist/neuroscientist Robert Spitzer, Bandler's university degree was in psychology and philosophy at Foothill and later UCSC. You could check this directly with the school. Bandler's tales about his personal history is not new, according to the Clancy/Yorkshire in Mother Jones Magazine (1989): "Bandler told a vast array of tales about his personal and professional life. Although he has no Ph.D., he sometimes called himself Dr. Bandler, as did promoters. Similarly, he described himself as a computer programmer and as a musician; which he knew something of these disciplines, his only real career seems to have been teaching NLP." It is probably related to the ideology in NLP that personal history is no more fixed than a future goal. According to Bandler and Grinder (in Reframing): "Another alternative would be to make him a good hypnotic subject, with the goal of creating a new personal history for him. Get him to agree to using hypnosis, not for recovery of his memories, but for building him a new personal history. If you got a bad one the first time around, go back and make yourself a better one. Everybody really ought to have several histories."(p.51) Bandler and Grinder would probably say this is a designed to challenge the traditional ideology in psychotherapy and psychology of the time (especially psychodynamics) that you need to dig into the past for therapy to be effective. --Reconsolidation (talk) 10:15, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

I know all this, that is why I was offended when you implied I was unable to identify a metaphor. I know what a f'ing metaphor is. You can also read this and this. I also confirmed Bandler's academic record independently; he has a BA in philosophy and psychology and an MA in humanistic psychology. That is all. He holds no patents has no (real, i.e. earned by writing a thesis) doctorate and he has earnt no income outside of NLP-related actvities (excluding his early employment when he was a student, eg. storeman at Spitzer's (IIRC) publishing house). I am a big fan of WP:SPADE. You can dress up bullshit as much as you like but at the end of the day it is still just bullshit. I don't see this tendency with Grinder so I don't agree with your explanation. It is just self-aggrandisement based on fantasy and many of his students lap it all up without question. If you can be satisfied with self-delusion and fantasy then you have no motive to actually achieve anything--if that tendency were to be generalised we would still be living in caves. A small real accomplishment is better than a imaginary large accomplishment. I would suggest that if you rely on delusions to be happy then you aren't well -- therapy has not been effective. A strong case could be argued that the mentally healthy person deals with the world and his circumstances as he finds them and if he doesn't like them he actually changes them rather than pretends to change them; the process of maturity at least partly consists in discarding self-serving delusions. Bandler's well-documented substance abuse, multiple marriage failures, alienation from most of the major figures in NLP, murder trial (even if innocent suggestive of serious failures of judgement), current obesity and loss of most of his teeth I would suggest supports my case. You wrote:

Bandler and Grinder would probably say this is a designed to challenge the traditional ideology in psychotherapy and psychology of the time (especially psychodynamics) that you need to dig into the past for therapy to be effective.

But if you are supposedly creating another personal history then you are still digging into the past, your past must still be having some perceived deleterious effect else you would have no reason to try and "change" it. What you wrote is self-contradictory. If the past is irrelevant -- and validated psychotherapies such as CBT suggest it is -- then there is no reason to try and "meddle" with it. That you are trying to meddle with your past means that you agree with those other psychotherapies about its importance. AnotherPseudonym (talk) 11:19, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Don't rely on what I say about the importance of personal history and NLP. I did a bit of digging and found this source discussing change personal history from social work perspective. It was recently published by Oxford University Press so it can be cited in wikipedia. G Brent Angell (2011) Neuro-linguistic programming and Social work treatment in "Social Work Treatment: Interlocking Theoretical Approaches" edited by Francis J. Turner. Oxford University Press. see p.32 There is also a summary of the applications, empirical research and implications for social work practice. --Reconsolidation (talk) 14:58, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

I quickly read through that chapter and checked all of the provided references that are cited in favour of NLP. There are no new papers covered. Excluding (two) NLP books that are cited that present no evidence beyond the anecdotal all of the references (and much more) were subsumed within the systematic reviews of Sturt et al (2012) and Witkowski (2010). These two reviews have high citability because they appeared in peer-reviewed journals. Furthermore Sturt et al (2012) was reviewed in Murray (2013) -- also published in peer-reviewed journal -- and the conclusion re-affirmed. Angell's chapter mischeviously cites two NLP books -- with zero evidentiary value -- as sources, viz. Bandler's Magic in Action and Dilts' Applications of NLP as sources. Angell's chapter is not a systematic review of all NLP research (even in a given domain), it isn't published in a peer-reviewed journal, it cites no papers that were missed by Sturt or Witkowski, it leaves out many papers reviewed by Sturt and Witkowski and its inclusion criteria (on the basis of including two NLP books) appear questionable. For these reasons I believe it brings nothing of value to the article. AnotherPseudonym (talk) 04:23, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Compare the Young Earth creationism article:

• it has a Criticism section; and
• the word claim is used in relation to the propositions of YECs.

WykiP you are just WP:GAMEing. The NLP article is not unusual in this regard.

We can use claim without breaching WP:CLAIM or WP:NOR because our multiple citations justify its use. We have 6 sources (5 of those distinct) that all say that NLP has no evidence base and ZERO that say it has:

* Witkowski(2010);

* Sturt et al (2012);

* Mathison & Tosey (2007);

* Wake et al (2013);

* Gray & Liotta (2012);

* Murray (2013).

If we have six sources that say NLP is without evidence and ZERO that say it is substantiated then any NLP proposition is necessarily a claim. There isn't really anything to argue about. Many pages on questioned subjects use claim: Vaccine controversies, Holocaust denial, Moon landing conspiracy theories, Phrenology, 9/11 conspiracy theories, HIV/AIDS denialism, Crop circle, Spiritism etc. AnotherPseudonym (talk) 10:06, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Levelt

Why are we quoting a google translation of Levelt? Isn't there are better source for that view? --Reconsolidation (talk) 07:05, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

We are using Drenth also. AnotherPseudonym (talk) 11:32, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Overgeneralisation in lead

Firstly, I would like to remind Snowded of WP:AGF. To accuse me of being a banned editor (who?) then refuse to call a SPI contravenes one of the five pillars of Wikipedia.

Secondly, on what grounds can you justify taking a judgment on 2%(?) of NLP and generalising it across the whole of NLP? I'm talking about Snowded's multiple reversions, removing the context of addictions from the lead, but are included in the body (4.2). WykiP (talk) 20:17, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Firstly at the moment I am not sure if you are or not, but you are now picking up one of the favourite edits of the sock master. Given he uses multiple IP addresses and has organised a meat farm it will have to be on behavioural grounds so that means building evidence. I hope its not the case but I make no apology for suspicion given the long history.

Secondly please advise what has changed since the last time this was discussed, it has been several time before. ----Snowded ^TALK 20:28, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

You can accumulate evidence without accusing literally everyone who you disagree with of being a sock puppet or a meat puppet.

WP is based on WP:CONSENSUS, not some discussion you had with another skeptic months ago.

I ask again. On what grounds can you justify taking a judgment on 2%(?) of NLP and generalising it across the whole of NLP? WykiP (talk) 21:53, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

It was extensively debated several times over the last year, I have never had conversations with "another skeptic" here, any conversation has mostly been with protagonists seeking to modify referenced criticism. If you check the archives you will find the discussion and there is some obligation on you not to require other editors to go through the whole cycle again, and again ....----Snowded ^TALK 22:17, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

So you've plucked a figure from the air -- 2% -- and we are expected to argue around that? What is 2% of NLP and how did you arrive at this figure which we are supposed to bend to? This just seems to be another waste of time that you are initiating. Are you trying to communicate that NLP-derived psychotherapeutic techniques are only "2%" of NLP so the conclusions of Norcross et al (2006) pertains to "2%" of NLP, i.e. only "2%" of NLP is quakery? If so then that is entirely absurd not only for the arbitray "2%" which you have invented but because the implications of your criticism contradict the fundamental principles of NLP. According to the Grinder-school of NLP (and sometimes according to the Bandler-school of NLP) the core of NLP is their modelling process. One of the central claims of these NLP proponents is that NLP techniques are derived from the modelling process. All of the first NLP models were psychotherapeutic in nature being derived from Perls, Satir, Farelly and Erickson and the foundational NLP books (those jointly authored by Bandler and Grinder) are concerned with psychotherapeutic applications. NLPs early impact was exclusively in the psychotherapeutic domain. But even today much of Bandler's seminar time is devoted to (supposedly) psychotherapeutic applications of NLP. So on this basis alone your "2%" is garbage. But furthermore, if a modelling-derived technique fails to work -- and where the model was created by Bandler and Grinder so there can be no appeal to incompetence -- then this reveals a problem with the modelling process itself -- the core of NLP. All of the NLP fundamentals -- aside from the modelling process itself -- were derived from Bandler and Grinder's modelling of their psychotherapeutic exemplars. And it is these fundamentals that have been subjected to testing and found wanting. The test of any NLP technique is also a test of the core of NLP, viz. their modelling process and its assumptions. If that is indeed the basis of your objection it has no merit whatsoever, neither on conventional experimental grounds nor even on purely NLP grounds. If you are going to mine more from http://www.bradburyac.mistral.co.uk/ (assuming you aren't Andy Bradbury) and contend that the applications of the NLP techniques in the research were incompetent then you will have to produce evidence for this ambit claim which is repeated by NLP proponents. AnotherPseudonym (talk) 04:05, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

No idea why you posted that site. No idea who "Andy Bradbury" is. I see you ignore WP:AGF too.

Most of your argument is absolutely meaningless. Yes 2% was plucked out of thin air. That's why it has a question mark after it..

Addictions count for what, 5-10% of psychological conditions? So even if you argue 50% of NLP is therapy, that's 2.5-5% of NLP.

Yet you're advocating generalising to 100% of NLP. WykiP (talk) 17:34, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Why do you insist on looking only at Norcross et al (2010) (the Norcross paper that reports expert consensus on discredited addiction treatments) whilst ignoring Norcross et al (2006) (the Norcross paper that reports expert consensus on discredited psychotherapeutic methods in general which -- by definition -- includes treatments for addiction)? What I am advocating is reporting the conclusions of both Norcross papers as they relate to NLP, without debasement and in an elegant manner. Taking the two Norcross papers together we can honestly and safely say that psychotherapeutic NLP (or NLP techniques applied to psychotherapy) is(/are) considered to be "probably discredited" by the majority of mental health experts. I am arguing for the inclusion of words to that effect. That isn't a generalisation to "100% of NLP" -- which I don't believe is a sound idea for the reasons I have provided elsewhere. Specifying that one of the Norcross papers is concerned with addictions is pointless because there is no editorial imperative to itemise every single specific conclusion and that is excessively detailed for a lead. So all this rubbish about percentages of NLP is pointless and I would also suggest meaningless. For the sake of producing elegant prose there is nothing wrong with presenting a conclusion that is a composite of two or more papers. If citations are provided and the composite conclusion is consistent with the conclusions of each paper then there is no breach of Wikipedia policy. Words such as "quakery" and "intervention" belong to the medical/healthcare domain so it is clear that the "discrediting" in this instance relates specifically to NLP as it is applied as a psychotherapy. I don't see the "overgeneralisation" that you are claiming. With respect to NLP outside of psychotherapy other experts label it "pseudoscience", "pseudoscientific rubbish", "fraud" etc. and that too needs to be in the lead (and it is) and it is unrelated to the Norcross papers. AnotherPseudonym (talk) 04:01, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

RE: Norcross et al (2006) and alleged overgeneralisation

Regarding the significance and citability of Norcross et al (2006) consider the following:

• The journal Professional Psychology: Research and Practice is indexed in the Master Journal List of the Institute for Scientific Information (http://ip-science.thomsonreuters.com/mjl/)

• The journal Professional Psychology: Research and Practice is a publication of the American Psychological Association (APA). The APA is "the largest scientific and professional organization representing psychology in the United States. APA is the world's largest association of psychologists, with more than 134,000 researchers, educators, clinicians, consultants and students as its members." (http://www.apa.org/about/index.aspx)

• A preliminary version of Norcross et al (2006) was presented at 113th Annual

Convention of the APA on August 2005 (see paper)

• Norcross et al (2006) is indexed in PsycINFO (http://psycnet.apa.org/index.cfm?fa=buy.optionToBuy&id=2006-12438-013)

• Norcross is a distinguished scholar, this can be confirmed by examining his CV (http://www.scranton.edu/faculty/norcross/Vita%202013.pdf) and entering his name into Google Scholar (returns 27,700 results).

• One of Norcross's specialisations is psychotherapy (confirmed by author biographical synopsis, CV, and Google Scholar).

• Norcross et al (2006) consists of a survey of experts regarding "discredited psychological treatments and assessments". This is highly relevant to the task of reporting consensus views in the article.

With regard to citability in Wikipedia Norcross et al (2006) is unimpeachable; it is very relevant and it is very significant.

Regarding the claim of an overgeneralisation in the lead, this claim appears to be entirely spurious. Firstly, Norcross et al (2006) concerns "discredited psychological treatments and assessments" of all sorts not merely those for addictions. Secondly, your figure of "2%" is just rubbish that you made up to try and build an argument. Thirdly, NLP modelling and NLP applications do not comprise disjoint sets and neither do NLP application X and NLP application Y. There are a set of working assumptions that cut across NLP modelling and all NLP applications and there are both working assumptions and techniques that cut across all NLP applications. This is not my original research, all of the details are to be found in Whispering in the Wind. NLP psychotherapeutic techniques -- or even more specifically NLP psyhotherapeutic techniques that are applied to treating addiction -- are not hermetically sealed and isolated from NLP modelling (the core of NLP according to Grinder) or from other applications. The basic techniques and concepts are domain neutral, eg. anchoring is used in psychotherapy, sales, self-improvement, coaching. If for example predicate matching has been invalidated in the context of psychotherapy then it has also been invalidated in all other applications because it is the same in all of the domains that it is applied to. Again this isn't my original research, this genericity is foundational for NLP. Proponents of NLP conceptualise techniques such as anchoring, predicate matching, double bind etc as patterns, discerned structures that are devoid of content and hence generic. So from the point of view of the researcher these don't have to be invalidated in every domain they are applied. To assert otherwise is to contradict a foundational assumption of NLP. According to Grinder (in Whispering in the Wind) the core of NLP that generates these generic patterns is the process he terms modelling. The implication of this is that if an NLP application can be shown to be invalid then the generating process can also be shown to be invalid. By implication if the generating process is invalid then the core of NLP is also invalid. Invalidating an NLP application has a "ripple effect" that extends right back to the core of NLP, i.e. modelling. Those patterns and models (collections of patterns) that are used in psychotherapy -- and more specifically in treating addiction -- are generic. The NLP techniques that this article suggests for treating addiction -- reframing, anchoring, stacking anchors -- are neither specific to addiction nor even psychotherapy they are entirely generic and are also applicable to all of the other fields that NLP has been applied to. So your figure of "2%" is utter rubbish and your broader claim of overgeneralisation is entirely without merit. AnotherPseudonym (talk) 08:46, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

That's a whole load of irrelevant repetition.

The core of your argument is this: "Invalidating an NLP application has a "ripple effect" that extends right back to the core of NLP". :This is MOS:OPED. This is the second time I've had to tell you. Do you not understand that Wikipedia cannot be editorialised by editors and their inherent biases? This is why it is based on reliable sources.

You are not a source for this article. Thus your entire argument is irrelevant. WykiP (talk) 17:44, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Actually the lede summarises the article and the overall position there is clear. This has been discussed before several times and the end conclusion each time is that the current text is OK, albeit with NLP advocates dissenting. Your restatement of AnotherPseudonym is a little bit a strawman as far as I can see. Also you are following in a long tradition of editors who want to qualify anything negative about NLP to soften the criticism. Again that approach has been rejected many times in the past over near identical edits ----Snowded ^TALK 18:53, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Well I'm not an NLP advocate and not sure I know enough to take a position -- which, if you keep compelling me to edit this article, I'll try not to do. Clearly, you and AnotherPseudonym are against NLP, and that may be a form of bias in itself.

But the lead is clearly POV, either to a small or large degree and your defense of it doesn't do you any favours. I cannot comment on previous editors but if they were trying to reduce the POV, maybe they had a point. WykiP (talk) 15:56, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Hilarious stuff! If I offer an explanation in the talk page that does not constitute MOS:OPED. Show me where in the article I have editorialised using my "inherent biases" or where in the article I have introduced an unreliable source? This is the second time you have invoked MOS:OPED in the context of what I have written in the talk page and this is the second time I have pointed out to you that MOS:OPED is concerned with the article not with what is written in the talk page. You wrote:

Do you not understand that Wikipedia cannot be editorialised by editors and their inherent biases? This is why it is based on reliable sources.

Yes, I understand that. It is you that doesn't appear to understand that. The section of the lead that you are objecting to is based on an unimpeachable source that was co-authored by a highly distinguished academic psychologist and published in a highly-regarded psychology journal. Norcross et al (2006) is a rock-solid source, it is as reliable as a Wikipeia source can be. You also appear to need to read or re-read at least the abstract in order to understand that its scope was psychotherapy in general and not just addiction treatment. I'll reproduce it here for your convenience:

In the context of intense interest in evidence-based practice (EBP), the authors sought to establish consensus on discredited psychological treatments and assessments using Delphi methodology. A panel of 101 experts participated in a 2-stage survey, reporting familiarity with 59 treatments and 30 assessment techniques and rating these on a continuum from not at all discredited to certainly discredited. The authors report their composite findings as well as significant differences that occurred as a function of the experts' gender and theoretical orientation. The results should be interpreted carefully and humbly, but they do offer a cogent first step in consensually identifying a continuum of discredited procedures in modern mental health practice. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2012 APA, all rights reserved) (emphasis added) (http://psycnet.apa.org/index.cfm?fa=buy.optionToBuy&id=2006-12438-013)

You've just made up a figure of 2% and appended a question mark in parentheses after that as if that somehow alters the fact that you've just made up a figure and you now expect us to argue around something which you've just made up. I can't even characterise your attempt to quantify how much of NLP is concerned with addiction -- which is entirely irrelevant in any event -- as WP:NOR because you literally just made it up. Expecting other editors to argue around the product of your imagination as if it is a well-sourced fact suggests to me that you lack good faith; attempting to berate me for allegedly not understanding that Wikipedia "is based on reliable sources" corroborates that assumption. So what you are telling us is that your imagination -- which hatched the 2% figure -- comprises a "reliable source" which is of such significance that it is sufficient to displace Norcross et al (2006). Is that right? But there is no overgeneralisation in the first instance. That section of the lead that references Norcross' papers is as follows:

In research designed to identify the "quack factor" in modern mental health practice, Norcross et al. (2006) [10] list NLP as possibly or probably discredited for treatment of behavioural problems. Norcross et al 2010 list NLP in the top ten most discredited interventions.

It is clear from this that the discrediting relates to NLP as it is applied in a psychotherapeutic context. But as I have already tried to explain there are no psychotherapy specific NLP techniques as such; there are really only generic techniques that are applied in a psychotherapy context so your attempted tactic of trying to "contain the damage" as it were is ill-conceived and contradictory of a fundamental tenet of NLP. So in sum, you have made no case and there is no case to answer. AnotherPseudonym (talk) 03:01, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

"Is that right?" Not even close.

Your unwarrented accusation of WP:AGF is WP:AGF in itself. Your comment "Hilarious stuff!" contravenes WP:CIVIL.

You used MOS:OPED to justify the generalisations in the lead, which still says "interventions.[14] and Glasner-Edwards and Rawson (2010) list NLP therapy as "certainly discredited".[15]"

Not only does this have a few words missing because Snowded reverted my correction, but it generalises across the whole of NLP from Norcross et al's "discredited" result for addictions.

You say that Norcross et al (2006) "is as reliable as a Wikipeia source can be". It is not. It is qualitative assessment of opinions, bias and all.

Now that you mention it, "top ten most discredited interventions" is pejorative too, implying a stronger sense of discredited than "possibly or probably". WykiP (talk) 15:31, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

In the interests of demonstrating your good faith don't you think you should abandon nonsense such as: "Your unwarrented accusation of WP:AGF is WP:AGF in itself."? I too can reply "Your claim that my allegedly unwarrented accusation of WP:AGF is WP:AGF itself is itself a breach of WP:AGF" and so on...but I won't. You shouldn't either. My comment was not a breach of WP:CIVIL and I think you should concentrate on trying to make a substantive contribution to the article rather than pointing the bone at editors. You seem to be confusing the Norcross' papers with Glasner-Edwards and Rawson. The listing of "certainly discredited" is not from Norcross but from Glasner-Edwards and Rawson. I repeat once again that one of the Norcross papers is concerned with ALL psychotherapy not just treatments for addiction. Norcross et al (2006) -- the paper concerned with all psychotherapy -- went through extensive peer review. Not only was it published in an APA journal but a preliminary version of the paper was preseneted at an APA conference. That the paper was not met with dissent at the conference or in subsequent editions of the journal indicates that its conclusions are broadly in alignment with the community of academic and clinical psychiatrists and psychologists. You seem to be fixated on the fact that both of the Norcross papers are opinion surveys. I take you back to the example of creationism/intelligent design and court cases such as Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District. We know from these sorts of cases that even in non-social sciences (eg. biology, biochemistry, genetics, geology etc.) we can find those that are willing to assert the truth of creationism or ID. On your reasoning this would seem to suggest actual controversy regarding the age of the earth and the origin of species -- and indeed the argument of these dissenters was to "teach the controversy". In such cases the court does not attempt to analyse all of the evidence starting from first principles, instead it tries to establish the consensus opinion in each of these fields. Similarly, it is not our place as editors to try and recreate (a non-existant) debate amongst mental health experts regarding NLP. Instead we try and determine what the consensus view of mental health and brain experts is regarding NLP. For the same reasons that judges in legal cases that concern such topic as holocaust denial and creationism refer to the consensus opinion of subject experts so too do we. It is not your role as an editor to second guess those experts that participated in the Norcross surveys which were extensively peer reviewed. As editors all we need do is confirm that our sources are reliable -- and that we have. It is up to other experts to identify the faults -- if any -- of those papers. You are in effect inventing your own criteria for citability. Concerning matters of mental health and the behavioural sciences the APA journals are amongst the most citable -- that is an incontroverible fact. That two papers report the outcomes of expert opinion surveys does not alter the citability of APA journals; rather you can treat these papers as speaking for the community of USA psychologists regarding NLP. AnotherPseudonym (talk) 08:57, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

RE: Rephrasing that part of lead that references the Norcross papers

I don't agree with WykiP that there is "overgeneralisation" in the lead and there is no Wikipedia rule that every result or conclusion in a paper needs to be individually itemised. I'm guessing that this itemised style of the article is because of a procession of editors like WykiP that insist on itemisation. I think the sentence:

In research designed to identify the "quack factor" in modern mental health practice, Norcross et al. (2006) [10] list NLP as possibly or probably discredited for treatment of behavioural problems. Norcross et al 2010 list NLP in the top ten most discredited interventions.[14] and Glasner-Edwards and Rawson (2010) list NLP therapy as "certainly discredited".[15]

can be rewritten as

In two polls of mental health experts regarding discredited therapeutic interventions the psychotherapeutic applications of NLP were graded as "possibly discredited"-"probably discredited".[10][14] More strongly, Glasner-Edwards and Rawson (2010) list NLP as "certainly discredited".[15]

or something like that without compromising those sources. To (again) address WykiP's complaint, there is no overgeneralisation here, the context is clearly psychotherapeutic application. The phrasing encompasses the conclusions of both Norcross papers and since addiction treatment is a subset of psychotherapy there is no problem with grouping the results of the two papers together. And this produces nicer prose. Specifying "addiction" is too detailed for a lead and actually superfluous because addiction treatment is legitimately subsumed within the broader generalisation about psychotherapy. At most the detail about Norcross et al (2010) being about addiction treatment can be incorporated into the body of the article. Regarding "quackery", to quote the authors:

We searched electronic databases (eg, PubMed, PsycINFO, Cochrane Collaboration, and Google Scholar) for published literature using the keywords “discredited,” “quack,” and “harmful” placed with the words “treatment” and “addiction.” (Norcross et al (2010))

So it is legitimate to include the word "quack" (or its derivatives) but I don't think it is essential. The word "discredited" more or less conveys the same meaning. AnotherPseudonym (talk) 06:47, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

In order to be legitimate to include the word "quack" in the lead, it would be have to be demonstrable from sources that the scientific community generally calls NLP "quackery". Same goes for "discredited". I am deriving from the use of ARBCOM rules for pseudoscience here.

I would prefer: In two polls of (academic?) psychologists regarding discredited therapeutic interventions, the psychotherapeutic applications of NLP were graded as "possibly discredited"-"probably discredited". to current wording, although I'm far from convinced that the scientific community generally calls NLP discredited. Your second sentence is still overgeneralising. WykiP (talk) 15:41, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

When you refer to the "scientific community" you do appreciate that with respect to behavioural sciences the "scientific community" consists chiefly of experimental/academic psychologists and psychiatrists? The "scientific community generally" is not relevant; only that subset of the scientific community that is concerned with human brains and behaviour is relevant. We don't -- for example -- expect to find an opinion on NLP in a climatology journal nor do we consider the opinion of a climatologist re NLP to be authoritative. So when you say "although I'm far from convinced that the scientific community generally calls NLP discredited" it is unclear what you intend. If you mean to say that you are not convinced that -- for example -- the majority of polymer chemists -- a type of scientist -- "calls NLP discredited" then I will remind you that we are only concerned with what behavioural scientists say about NLP. You should also note that the APA is the preeminent professional association of psychologists and that they are the bulk of the "scientific community" in the USA in the matter of brain and behaviour. The use of the word "quack" in the lead is used in the context of describing the Norcross papers and that use is legitimate because that word was one of their search terms. AnotherPseudonym (talk) 09:16, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

No.

The "scientific community generally" is not relevant; only that subset of the scientific community that is concerned with human brains and behaviour is relevant. This is merely your opinion. Just as we would not use sociologists as authorities on sociological aspects of NLP, I've already stated that psychiatrists, including the APA, lack credibility within the scientific community. This is easily sourced. Furthermore, we would expect them to be biased towards their own speciality and, given the anti-psychiatry rants by the creators of NLP, biased against NLP.

I would make an exception for neuroscientists, who would presumably be equally biased against all psychologies. More authoritative would be researchers whose job it is to evaluate psychotherapies. Perhaps more authoritative again would be multi-disciplinary scientists of the likes of Los Alamos and the Santa Fe institute. These are the people I think the scientific community would look to.

The word "quack" is pejorative regardless of whether it was a search term. With such prominent placement in the lead, it clearly implies NLP is quackery without anyone having said that. WykiP (talk) 04:26, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

I only just noticed this contribution today. Wow!

(1) We would use sociologists as authorities on the sociological aspects of NLP. Sociology is the domain of expertise of well, um, sociologists. If sociologists aren't the experts on sociology who then is?

(2) "I've already stated that psychiatrists, including the APA, lack credibility within the scientific community. This is easily sourced." Then source it. So what if you've "already stated" something?

(3) "Furthermore, we would expect them to be biased towards their own speciality and, given the anti-psychiatry rants by the creators of NLP, biased against NLP." Don't say "we" when you are just expressing your own opinion as if it no one will notice that you are just opining. That is just your prejudice.

(4) "I would make an exception for neuroscientists, who would presumably be equally biased against all psychologies." What evidence do you have for this claim? Do you know any neuroscientists?

(5) "More authoritative would be researchers whose job it is to evaluate psychotherapies." Yes like John C. Norcross.

(6) "Perhaps more authoritative again would be multi-disciplinary scientists of the likes of Los Alamos and the Santa Fe institute. These are the people I think the scientific community would look to." Are you serious when you post this stuff or are you trolling us? Why would the Los Alamos National Laboratory or the Santa Fe Institute have anything to say about NLP? So what evidence do you have for this strange claim? Have you got any papers on NLP from either organisation? I looked and I can't find any. The Max Planck Institutes are ranked number 10 wordlwide as research centers. Do you want to know what Willem Levelt the founder of the Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics wrote when he was director of the Institute? He wrote this:

"NLP is not informed about linguistics literature, it is based on vague insights that were out of date long ago, their linguistics concepts are not properly construed or are mere fabrications, and conclusions are based upon the wrong premises. NLP theory and practice has nothing to do with neuroscientific insights or linguistics, nor with informatics or theories of programming" (Drenth, J.D. (2003). "Growing anti-intellectualism in Europe; a menace to science". Studia Psychologica 45: 5–13.) AnotherPseudonym (talk) 12:41, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Why would anyone at Santa Fe bother with NLP in the first place? Its claims are made within a scientific domain and it is judged within that. ----Snowded ^TALK 06:47, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

What is that phrase we use? Ah,[Citation Required] Where, Snowded, was that claim made? There are several places where their claim was that NLP was not scientific. htom (talk) 00:19, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Then find a source which says their claim was not scientific and the implications and we can look at it. Not by the way something which is your interpretation of a primary source, or something from a group of NLP consultants. ----Snowded ^TALK 01:09, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

"Why would anyone at Santa Fe bother with NLP in the first place?" They may or they may not. All I'm saying is that if they did, they'd be a lot more credible amongst the wider scientific community than a bunch of psychiatrists who might have an axe to grind.

I've looked for a further explanation of this "scientific community generally considers" clause and only found this: "The statement that all or most scientists or scholars hold a certain view requires reliable sourcing that directly says that all or most scientists or scholars hold that view." WP:RS/AC

So this is WP:POLICY on statements of 'most scientists believe X'. If the criteria are less strict for 'categorising as Pseudoscience' should the category not be renamed as "Probably Pseudoscience"? I see no reason why 'categorising as Pseudoscience' should not require a direct statement from an authoritative secondary or tertiary source, amongst other criteria. WykiP (talk) 01:22, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

We don't qualify statements made in reliable sources just because an editor doesn't like them. ----Snowded ^TALK 01:58, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

No, we are supposed to accurately reflect sources and follow Wikipedia Policy. WykiP (talk) 16:05, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

(Out)

Why would anyone at Santa Fe bother with NLP in the first place? Its claims are made within a scientific domain and it is judged within that. ----Snowded ^TALK 06:47, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

What is that phrase we use? Ah,[Citation Required] Where, Snowded, was that claim made? There are several places where their claim was that NLP was not scientific. htom (talk) 00:19, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Then find a source which says their claim was not scientific and the implications and we can look at it. Not by the way something which is your interpretation of a primary source, or something from a group of NLP consultants. ----Snowded ^TALK 01:09, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

You've made the claim, "Its claims are made within a scientific domain and it is judged within that." Support your claim. That secondary sources (reliable or not) do not correctly quote the primary source tends to discredit the secondary sources. htom (talk) 02:40, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Read the existing references htom, its pretty clear in those ----Snowded ^TALK 08:42, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

That would be SYN, or OR, or both. Citation? htom (talk) 15:50, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

He's back! But brings no citation. :( htom (talk) 06:21, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Rewrite of Intellectual property disputes section

I rewrote the Intellectual property disputes section because it didn't document the actual disputes and their eventual resolution; and this schism/conflict/settlement is essential to understanding the NLP "camps" that exist today. I removed any reference of Grinder's "New Code NLP" because that doesn't belong in a section that is supposed to be about IP disputation since it was never the subject of any such disputation. The line about Bandler had even less context so I removed that also. Perhaps a new section devoted to NLP schools/camps that emerged after the split between Bandler and Grinder could be created and New Code and Bandler's solo work can be mentioned there. AnotherPseudonym (talk) 09:14, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

There are three sources cited (currently 84-86). Are all three WP:RS? Has any other editor checked them? Two seem to be something someone wrote themselves for their website. The third, "superior court" link, does list a 1997 case but I don't see detail that can be cited. Eturk001 (talk) 02:21, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

The principal citations are are a facsimile of an actual legal document and a transcription of most of the court transcript (presumably before OCR was cheaply available)

http://web.archive.org/web/20010620184646/http://www.anlp.org/imagepage1.htm

http://www.steverrobbins.com/nlpschedule/random/lawsuit-text.html

respectovely.

Given that Bandler lost all cases (those in which he was plaintiff and defendant) the winners account of the cases -- the supplementary citations -- should be citable. AnotherPseudonym (talk) 02:23, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Are they WP:RS? Being that they are just 1st person files on a website, and may be accounts by defendants, not verified to be unaltered or their POV, not 3rd parties (i.e. the court), they do not seem to be RS for an encyclopedia. And, the links to court site just show there was some filing, not even what the filing was about or status. Let's here from other editors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eturk001 (talk • contribs) 03:36, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't understand what you are trying to tell me. Having transcripts of a court case online is a "nice to have", it isn't mandatory. A court case transcript is a reliable source. What you are arguing can be said of any source, you could just as well apply your concerns to any source which doesn't exist online. The purpose of the court links is to give anyone that so desires sufficient information to go to the court and access the transcripts. Also those court links do show the status of the court cases. WP:RS is not equivalent to "exists online". WP:V can be satisfied by providing all the information required to retrieve a case. Just because the court itself doesn't make transcriots available online doesn't mean that a court transcript can't be referenced. That's like saying that if I reference a book I find in a library that isn't online it doesn't satisfy WP:RS or WP:V. That's just plainly wrong. Most books and journals aren't online or are behind a paywall. AnotherPseudonym (talk) 04:20, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

I just rechecked http://63.197.255.150/openaccesspublic/civil/casereport.asp?casenumber=CV132495&courtcode=A&casetype=CIS&dsn= and http://63.197.255.150/openaccesspublic/civil/casereport.asp?casenumber=CV078482&courtcode=A&casetype=CIS they give you the case numbers and the name of the court and that is all that is needed to obtain the transcripts from the court. That is sufficient for the sake of WP:V. AnotherPseudonym (talk) 04:31, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Just to be clear here. Regarding the NLP IP disputes I am citing:

Case CISCV132495 - RICHARD W BANDLER ET AL VS QUANTUM LEAP INC ET AL

Case CISCV078482 - NOT LTD VS UNLIMITED LTD ET AL

of the Santa Cruz Superior Court, California, USA as the primary sources. If you have a problem with these as sources then you need to obtain them and demonstrate an inaccuracy, distortion of omission or commission. Transcripts from these cases represent the most authoritative and hence most citable source on the matter of the civil litigation pertaining to NLP IP. A direct quote made by the presiding judge in stating his/her decision is unimpeachable.

These alone satisfy the editors evidentiary burden, being consistent with WP:NPOV, WP:RS and WP:V. To supplement the above I am/will also cite the following:

http://www.neurosemantics.com/nlp/the-history-of-nlp/the-lawsuit-that-almost-killed-nlp

http://web.archive.org/web/20010620184646/http://www.anlp.org/imagepage1.htm

http://www.steverrobbins.com/nlpschedule/random/lawsuit-text.html

http://67.15.208.115/printstory.php?sid=2945&storySection=Local

http://users.telenet.be/merlevede/lawsuit.htm

http://www.nlp.de/aktuell/arc/tm_grinder-e.shtml

http://www.chris-nlp-hall.com/galleries/docs/Summary%20of%20Legal%20Proceedings.pdf

http://www.nlp.de/aktuell/arc/tm_bandler-e.shtml

The supplemntary citations are offered as optional, online corroborative evidence. AnotherPseudonym (talk) 08:35, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the many citations here AnotherPseudonym. My main question was if any other editors are reading citations. You are making a flurry of edits on NLP, so fast that it's tough to keep up on all the citations, read them, see what they actually say. I see a consistent flaw in WP in that citations are often not fully read by editors, either because they can't find them or just don't read them fully to help the original editor stay NPOV. An encyclopedia ought to be a collaborative process, I would think.

I'm referring to WP:RS "Like text sources, ... must be produced by a reliable third party and be properly cited." Is the 1st person Christina Hall PDF citation, listed currently as #89, reliable? The edit cite has the WP title: "Text of Bandler Lawsuit". Retrieved 12 June 2013, however, it's not the text of the suit but a "summary" by Hall and their opinion/summary. It does say Yonts presided, but it is not by the judge or the transcript. Is that particular citation WP:RS? It seems WP:SPS. Can you point to the section of WP:RS that supports usage of this particular citation? Again, have other editors read this citation and can cite WP usage guideline? Eturk001 (talk) 22:08, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

This is getting tedious and I don't understand what the impediment is to your understanding. I repeat, the sources for the case details that I am citing are the official transcripts of cases:

Case CISCV132495 - RICHARD W BANDLER ET AL VS QUANTUM LEAP INC ET AL

Case CISCV078482 - NOT LTD VS UNLIMITED LTD ET AL

of the Santa Cruz Superior Court, California and these are WP:RS. AnotherPseudonym (talk) 03:05, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Hopefully we can resolve this here. As I am learning more about Wikipedia, my concern was whether a posting on a personal website can work for citation. I can now see that the link to a personal website, in the absence of availability of a link to the original document, could just be a help to the reader. Eturk001 (talk) 01:01, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

User WykiP and Deletion of Detail in IP Disputes Section

@WykiP please discuss major alterations to any sections of the article before or at the least after making them. Arbitrarily deleting a significant detail from the section and just describing it as "pejorative" is unacceptable and disruptive. What you deleted (and David Gerard thankfully reverted) is an excerpt from a court transcript taken from a court case that marked a major milestone in the history of NLP. How can a judges ratio decidendi be "pejorative"? The judges statement is a matter of public record. It is what it is, those aren't my words. If it makes Bandler look bad then that's just tough luck -- Wikipedia exists to inform, to provide factual content, not to be a PR or advertising organ. I provided links in the article to major NLP figures (eg. Hall) that described the significance of the ruling to NLP and you just ignored those. Bandler's trademarking of NLP and the subsequent revocation of those trademarks in the USA and UK are watershed moments. Bandler's attempt to shut-out Grinder and to deny him a place in the history of NLP is similarly significant. The judges statement serves to set the historical record straight. What exactly is the nature of your interest in Bandler's public image? It seems highly improbable to me that you are just a disinterested editor -- with no special interest in NLP -- and you took umbrage at this:

On February 2000 the Court found against Bandler stating that "Bandler has misrepresented to the public, through his licensing agreement and promotional materials, that he is the exclusive owner of all intellectual property rights associated with NLP, and maintains the exclusive authority to determine membership in and certification in the Society of NLP.

The pattern of your edits, editorial concerns and refusal to engage in discussion on matters such as this reeks of bad faith. You can't just demand that fellow editors WP:AGF then go ahead and act in a manner which suggests bad faith. I maintain that the deletion of the above text is highly suspect and suggestive that you have some sort of commercial interest in NLP. AnotherPseudonym (talk) 15:42, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

This is a bizarre and paranoid accusation. Since when is adding to an edit disruptive?

You seem to want to make this Bandler guy look bad. That is called POV-pushing. But I don't think that trying to make money is a particularly bad thing. He does seem to have put a lot of time and effort into NLP and is often cited as its creator or co-creator. To make it look like a particularly bad thing is pejorative.

You seem to be trying to bully me into leaving the article. Your calling me out is also an ad hominem personal attack. I suspect that if Wikipedia's rules and guidelines justified your defence of this article, you wouldn't be doing this sort of thing and that is why I'm taking an interest. WykiP (talk) 18:57, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Please stop making personal attacks against other editors. This is harassing and intimidatory behaviour, and is entirely unsuitable for the Wikipedia editing environment - David Gerard (talk) 19:54, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

I agree this is unsuitable for a Talk page and should have been put on my talk page to begin with.

I'm not sure how to engage with all the bizarre accusations. Where are the personal attacks? Where have I refused to engage in discussions? WykiP (talk) 20:37, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Well you do seem to have a habit of deleting sourced material on the grounds that it is "pejorative". If the article uses properly sourced material then you should look for additional (again sourced) material to balance it. It is not PoV pushing to use a Judge's decision from a course case. AnotherPseudonym is pushing the boundaries a bit in his comment above, but given the number of meat puppets and also editors who have been here just to promote Brandler its understandable. I suggest you spend a little time getting up to speeed on the rules for evidence here and focus on content issues. ----Snowded ^TALK 21:35, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

"This is a bizarre and paranoid accusation."

I don't think so. In many cases you just arbitrarily delete well-sourced material. In other cases you try and invoke policy but typically distort it (eg. WP:CLAIM) but when your proposal is challenged you don't argue a case, you just repeat an assertion over-and-over and then just go ahead and edit (and it just gets reverted). That is WP:DE. You also spend much time trying to hex other editors by making spurious claims of policy breaches, eg. WP:CIVIL when you are not being civil nor collegial

"Since when is adding to an edit disruptive?"

You AREN'T adding anything to the article, you are deleting, and you are deleting well-sourced material that is relevant. That is WP:DE.

"You seem to want to make this Bandler guy look bad. That is called POV-pushing."

No, I want to report the facts and that is what I have done. It is not a POV that Bandler sought to retrospectively own all of NLP at the expense of his co-creator and others and lost. That is a matter of historical fact.

"He does seem to have put a lot of time and effort into NLP and is often cited as its creator or co-creator. To make it look like a particularly bad thing is pejorative."

Bandler is the co-creator of NLP and nothing that I wrote in the article (or implied by what I have written) suggests otherwise. Who said or implied that Bandler hadn't put "put a lot of time and effort into NLP"? Who said that "trying to make money is a particularly bad thing"? You are implying that I have misrepresented the facts of the matter when all I have done is accurately and verifiably reported the facts. I quoted a judge -- I didn't paraphrase the judge and editorialise his statement. I reproduced the judges words verbatim. Also the IP disputes section reproduces part of the agreement between Bandler and Grinder: "By the end of 2000, Bandler and Grinder entered a release where they agreed, amongst other things, that "they are the co-creators and co-founders of the technology of Neuro-linguistic Programming"". But you just deleted that piece of text without discussion. That is WP:DE.

"You seem to be trying to bully me into leaving the article."

I'm trying to get you to stop being disruptive and vexatious. If you have well-sourced material to bring to the article then bring it.

"Your calling me out is also an ad hominem personal attack."

You have no argument -- you just delete other people's work without any reason -- so ad hominem is not relevant. I am accusing you of being vexatious and disruptive. I suspect you are being vexatious and disruptive because you have an undeclared (direct or indirect) interest in the promotion of NLP. A disinterested editor would not be seeking to eliminate from the article a judge's statement about Bandler's illegal trademarks. You haven't produced any convincing reasons why you have a special interest in Bandler's legal history.

"I suspect that if Wikipedia's rules and guidelines justified your defence of this article, you wouldn't be doing this sort of thing and that is why I'm taking an interest."

What specifically is "this sort of thing"? This is a good example of your vexatious innuendo and accusation based on question-begging. You haven't demonstrated that I have done anything wrong in relation to the article. I have answered all of your accusations (in all cases) and other editors have reverted your edits. But you just assume that I am guilty of wrongdoing and post as if it were a established fact. All of my edits conform to Wikipedia's rules and guidelines, if they didn't they would have been removed by the other editors here. It is your edits that violate policy and ignore previous decisions made in relation to the article. And it is your edits and perverse interpretations of policy and guidelines that waste editors time. AnotherPseudonym (talk) 02:24, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

"In many cases you just arbitrarily delete well-sourced material."

I have just logically justified that particular edit using the core principle of WP:NPOV. What other accusations are you making?

You also spend much time trying to hex other editors by making spurious claims of policy breaches, eg. WP:CIVIL when you are not being civil nor collegial

Firstly, they are not spurious but rather fully justified in text at the time. Secondly, one person's behaviour does not justify another person breaching policy. Thirdly, although I'm finding your harassment and paranoia rather difficult to maintain civility around, I believe I have done so. I'm waiting for evidence that I haven't.

Pretty much all of your posts to this page and deviant edits to the article are evidence of your bad faith. It's too much to list. Just as a sample, what about this:

You seem to have just talked to yourself as if you were talking to another person. That is very interesting. WykiP (talk) 19:15, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

or this

I suspect that if Wikipedia's rules and guidelines justified your defence of this article, you wouldn't be doing this sort of thing and that is why I'm taking an interest.

or this

Perhaps more authoritative again would be multi-disciplinary scientists of the likes of Los Alamos and the Santa Fe institute. These are the people I think the scientific community would look to.

Innuendo, ridiculous proposals (that are never followed-up), edits without any discussion, forced revisiting of already settled matters... AnotherPseudonym (talk) 09:04, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

"You AREN'T adding anything to the article, you are deleting, and you are deleting well-sourced material that is relevant. That is WP:DE.

I was deleting pejorative material that would seem to be much more relevant to Bandler's personal page than this one. That is core principle, not WP:DE.

Bandler may be a co-creator of NLP but his personal failings are not relevant to the topic of NLP, any more than Newton's and Einstein's personal failings are relevant to physics.

The judges quote isn't about Bandler's failings it's concerned with who owns NLP and the judge is stating in plain language that Bandler doesn't own NLP. AnotherPseudonym (talk) 09:04, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

"It is not a POV that Bandler sought to retrospectively own all of NLP at the expense of his co-creator and others and lost."

Actually it is. That's editorialising. You don't know what he sought to do. Do you even know what contractual agreements they had?

These: "Bandler has misrepresented to the public, through his licensing agreement and promotional materials, that he is the exclusive owner of all intellectual property rights associated with NLP, and maintains the exclusive authority to determine membership in and certification in the Society of NLP" are not my words, they are the judge's. The judge knows what Bandler "sought to do" and "what contractual agreements they had" because it is contained in Bandler's counsel's submissions to the court and in the transcript of the case. Judgement was made against Bandler and Bandler did not appeal so the judges reasons -- for all legal purposes -- count as fact. For these reasons the judges quote should be in the article. AnotherPseudonym (talk) 03:04, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Who said that "trying to make money is a particularly bad thing"? You are implying that I have misrepresented the facts of the matter when all I have done is accurately and verifiably reported the facts. I quoted a judge -- I didn't paraphrase the judge and editorialise his statement. I reproduced the judges words verbatim

Reproducing someone's words verbatim is not enough to satisfy NPOV.

Reproducing a judges statement verbatim is indeed enough to satisfy NPOV -- the judge is literally the final arbiter on the matter. There are no other authorities or sources on the matter. AnotherPseudonym (talk) 09:04, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

"I'm trying to get you to stop being disruptive and vexatious. If you have well-sourced material to bring to the article then bring it."

If being NPOV vexes you, it probably says something more about you. Your DE allegation has been refuted. Wikipedia is not merely about bringing new source material, although I did bring Sturt et al. Wikipedia is about created good articles and that often involves neutralising POV.

You aren't promoting NPOV. Merely asserting that you are promoting NPOV or aren't guilty of DE doesn't consitute a case. You didn't bring Sturt et al, I did. All you did was do a search in Google Scholar. I knew about that paper before you mentioned it. I obtained the paper, I read it in its entirety, I incorporated its conclusion into the article. You've done nothing other than delete things and some trivial edits. You haven't added anything positive and substantive to the article. Nothing. AnotherPseudonym (talk) 09:04, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

"You have no argument -- you just delete other people's work without any reason -- so ad hominem is not relevant"

So you don't deny it, instead repeating the refuted allegation. Pretty sure attachment to edits isn't good Wikiquette.

You haven't refuted anything. It is a matter of fact that you haven't added one iota to the article. You have no case, no argument. All you have done is try to delete material from the article on the basis of a perverse reading of policy and guidelines. That is all. AnotherPseudonym (talk) 09:04, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

"It is your edits that violate policy and ignore previous decisions made in relation to the article."

This is a serious allegation. Justify it please or retract. WykiP (talk) 19:08, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

I already have justified it -- many times over. You are neither consensual nor collegial. You wantonly and repeatedly disregard that the article owes its current form and content to many previous decisions. You have no right to attempt to influence the article in any direction. The article's overall form and content is a settled matter. Only edits that improve the current form and content of the article or that further corroborate the positions advanced are legitimate. AnotherPseudonym (talk) 09:04, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

"It is not PoV pushing to use a Judge's decision from a course case."

Let's be really really clear about this.

WP:NPOV means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic.

In other words, pejorative language should be avoided "as far as possible". That's not just WP policy, that's core principle.

Pejorative language is that which creates an unfavourable impression which isn't justified by sources.

The quote about Bandler creates an unfavourable impression which isn't justified by sources.

There is only one source on a legal ruling, viz. the court that made the ruling, and that is where that quote is sourced from. It is "justified by sources" because the source -- the court -- made that statement. AnotherPseudonym (talk) 03:14, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Thus it should be avoided "as far as possible".

So I get called out, harassed and accused of "having some sort of commercial interest in NLP", merely for following the WP core principle of WP:NPOV. I've previously been accused of being "Andy Bradbury". Likewise I've seen other incoming editors being accused of similar. It's extremely weird. Not to mention, the paranoia is very disruptive.

Nor did I make this edit out of nowhere. I made this edit after AnotherPseudonym made a series of edits on the same section. I then get told that I'm not allowed to make major alterations even though AnotherPseudonym clearly considers him/herself being allowed to. WykiP (talk) 18:23, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

You are seeking to alter the previously agreed upon form and content of the article. You are in effect disregarding prior deliberative efforts and trying to force them to be revisited. The overall position of the article in relation to NLP is not negotiable because it is a settled matter. The evidence that would be required to shift the overall position of the article towards something more favourable to NLP simply does not exist so any such attempts are illegitimate. AnotherPseudonym (talk) 09:04, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

So you are trying to persuade us that the (a) a court transcript doesn't comprise a reliable source; (b) that the judge presiding over the case was biased; (c) that the judges understanding of the facts is questionable; and (d) the judges reasons for his decision -- as quoted in the transcript -- are "pejorative". A judges ratio decedendi -- as documented in a transcript -- satisfies the three core content policies of Wikipedia:

WP:NPOV a presiding judges neutrality is implicit and in the absence of a subsequent appeal his/her decision represents the final word on the legalities in relation to that case;

WP:V a court transcript is a public record

WP:NOR quoting a judge verbatim avoids even the possibility of OR or editorialising.

AnotherPseudonym (talk) 02:49, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Can you use normal style replies please. You made a mess of my comment and this may breach WP:TPO.

I'm not going to clean up your mess, nor respond to your strawman "So you are trying to persuade us that the (a) a court transcript doesn't comprise a reliable source; (b) that the judge presiding over the case was biased; (c) that the judges understanding of the facts is questionable; and (d) the judges reasons for his decision -- as quoted in the transcript -- are "pejorative"." and you've offered no evidence of any wrongdoing on my part so I think it's best we draw a line under it. If you disagree, feel free to take it to my Talk Page as you should have done originally.

In relation to your comment: "You are seeking to alter the previously agreed upon form and content of the article. You are in effect disregarding prior deliberative efforts and trying to force them to be revisited. The overall position of the article in relation to NLP is not negotiable because it is a settled matter", can you cite where this is part of WP principles, policy or guidelines? WykiP (talk) 02:37, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

There wasn't much choice with the comment placement, the context would have been lost. That isn't a "strawman" it is what you are implying and it deserves an answer, don't just quietly try and back away from another ludicrous position: either agree that it was bullshit or defend it. Multiple/alternative sources don't exist in relation to a judge's decision and the reasons (s)he provides for that decision. In the absence of an appeal -- and Bandler did not appeal -- the judge is the last word on the matter and (s)he is implictly unbiased else a mistrial would have been sought by Bandler's counsel. Bandler's counsel sought neither an appeal nor a mistrial, i.e. they accepted the judges decision so it is quotable. You need to show how the judges quote amounts to editorialising or bias. Now you are trying to argue that previous decisions are irrelevant. Consult the articles voluminous talk page history. All of the edits (specifically deletions) that you have tried have been tried before and eventually a consensus was formed against them, eg. NLP as pseudoscience, NLP as invalid (vs. unvalidated). The onus is on you to consult that history rather than bothering everyone with old matters that have already been dealt with. The article is as it is essentially because that is where the evidence leads. You said you wanted the opinions of non-clinical psychologists and non-psychiatrists on NLP and I obliged. I included the opinion of two neuroscientists and a psycholinguist on NLP. You mentioned some bollocks about the Santa Fe Institute and just left it at that. You refuse to admit that all the evidence has been taken account of but at the same time you can't produce any evidence that would justify a re-tilting of the article. Unable to produce any such evidence you instead resort to spurious claims of policy and guidleline breach and plainly wrong positions (eg. a judges decision is biased). AnotherPseudonym (talk) 04:32, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

I've already laid out in simple logic why my edit followed the core principle of NPOV in my reply to Snowded.

"Now you are trying to argue that previous decisions are irrelevant." This is another strawman. I merely asked you to cite WP policy etc for your statements: "You are seeking to alter the previously agreed upon form and content of the article. You are in effect disregarding prior deliberative efforts and trying to force them to be revisited. The overall position of the article in relation to NLP is not negotiable because it is a settled matter" as it would seem to be a crucial factor in our disagreement. WykiP (talk) 06:52, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

If it is a "strawman" then why are you seeking justification in terms of WP policy? Are you sure you are using Strawman correctly? If what I have put to you is a strawman then you should clarify what your actual argument is. You aren't stating another argument, i.e. one instead of the "strawman", you are confirming that I am addressing your actual argument by your request for justification. Wikipedia is predicated on a type of Evidentialism such that content needs to be substantiated (WP:PROVEIT) and that substantiation should come from reliable sources (WP:SOURCE). Exceptional claims need to be sourced from multiple high-quality sources (WP:REDFLAG) and undue weight should not be accorded to minority views (WP:UNDUE) and those should not be treated as having equal validity as the mainstream expert consensus (WP:VALID). Specifically, pseudoscience should be characterised as such and not presented alongside mainstream scientific consensus (WP:SCICON) as if it has equal legitimacy (WP:PSCI). The evidentiary burden (WP:PROVEIT) and the earnest application of all relevant policies and guidelines will necessarily give the article a particular "shape" -- it currently has that "shape" and that was acquired through a series of disputes and their eventual resolution and the application of semi-protection (WP:SILVERLOCK). That shape may not be to everyone's liking but that is besides the point. We can only take the article where the evidence justifies and no further and that has been done. Previous estabslished consensus (and consensus does not mean unanimity (WP:CON)) has to be respected (WP:CONS) -- that is a WP norm. Previous consensus can only be justifiably ignored if circumstances change such that the previous consensus becomes irrelevant. Previously established consensus does not have a "use-by" date. With respect to the article, the discarding of the previous consenus -- and the establishment of a new consensus -- could only be justified if new scientific research and scientific opinion were to be published that supported NLP and that material would have to come from equally reputable sources and in comparable quantity to the existing evidence that is unfavourable to NLP. That has not happened. It may happen in the future but until that time the previous consensus must prevail. One of your errors appears to be the assumption that because the article is not "balanced" it must be flawed. That is a false assumption: WP:PSCI and WP:UNDUE. The fundamental question -- around which consensus has formed -- is: Does the article accurately represent the evidentiary status of NLP and consenus scientific opinion of NLP? You seem to think that the fundamental question is: "Is the article balanced?". The article isn't balanced and it can't be because the evidence and opinion isn't balanced (WP:PSCI, WP:UNDUE). The article will balance if/when the evidence and opinion balances. I think you are -- and have been -- trying to WP:GAME and WP:PS. You have WP:NPANPA and WP:LAWYER on several occasions, most notably in relation to WP:CLAIM (which lead you into demanding a demonstration of "disregarded of contrary of evidence" regarding NLP claims that existed before NLP was created) and more recently your spurious claim that quoting text from a judges decision constitues POV-pushing. You also steadfastly refuse to concede that you were/are mistaken (WP:CONCEDE) and this creates the impression of filibustering and of bad faith. AnotherPseudonym (talk) 14:53, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

For the third time, I've already laid out my actual argument which you responded to on 03:14, 19 June 2013 with your unhelpful inline editing, and referred to it again in my previous post.

You seem to think that the fundamental question is: "Is the article balanced?" I would suggest not putting words in my mouth, as you consistently lack accuracy with this.

Quoting WP:NPOV "Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic". That is my position.

None of those links to Wikipedia guidelines justifies your statements: "You are seeking to alter the previously agreed upon form and content of the article. You are in effect disregarding prior deliberative efforts and trying to force them to be revisited. The overall position of the article in relation to NLP is not negotiable because it is a settled matter" Do you care to revise these statements?

What was I mistaken about? WykiP (talk) 16:58, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

No I don't want to revise that statement. The current balance of the article is the result of a long-running series of disputes and their eventual resolution and that is why it is semi-protected. Those previously established consensuses remain relevant and should be respected. The article is written from a NPOV and you have provided no evidence that would suggest otherwise. Again, the lack of balance in the article does not indicate that the article hasn't been written with a NPOV. The onus is on you to show where WP:NPOV has been breached and to argue a case in relation to a specific instance. Your claim, for instance, that including a judges statement in handing down his decision is POV-pushing is frankly speaking bullshit and the other editors agree. The presiding judge's reasons for deciding are the only significant view on the case, the judge is without bias, court transcripts are a reliable source and they are the only source and directly quoting the judge avoids the possibility of editorialising. This provides good evidence that you are just WP:GAME and WP:LAWYER. This is becoming tedious and I am inclined to start treating you just as the other editors do, i.e. revert your delinquent edits and provide a one-line justification. You've pretty much vaporised your credibility and your failure to make a positive substantive contribution to the article suggests that you have nothing valuable to offer here. AnotherPseudonym (talk) 02:05, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

As there appear to be no WP policy justification for those statements according to WP policy, it seems that my attempts to move the article towards NPOV are entirely justified.

I don't see any other editors agreeing with you, though Snowded might.

I've argued specifically for 2 changes towards NPOV: the overgeneralisation one and this pejorative and irrelevant use of the judge's statement. WykiP (talk) 04:20, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

No they aren't because you have failed to demonstrate that that the article fails in WP:NPOV. You have asserted that it does but haven't provided any legitimate reason. Provide reasons and then you will have just reached step one. Also what about WP:CLAIM? Are you quietly backing away from that without WP:CONCEDE? If you proceed and make these edits without arguing a case and responding to criticisms of that case then they will be reverted. AnotherPseudonym (talk) 03:13, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Let's return back to cited editing. My comment on the addition of IP rights citations may have been missed. Can we work together to review the citations? Since this topic was created by business and does have licensing debate (like software), it can be helpful for readers to be aware of the current status. Let's watch the tone, however, so Wikipedia's voice is not trying to convey a "message" of something nefarious or make it biographical. It's too easy for our personal POV to leak in. That's why we have guidelines.

I think it can be helpful, when citations are added, that several editors read them before they get lost in the stack. Can we review them in the above "IP disputes section"? Eturk001 (talk) 00:02, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

I've responded in that section AnotherPseudonym (talk) 02:49, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

I just reread your comment. If you think that I or someone else is misrepresenting the facts of either of the legal cases then the onus is on you to obtain the transcripts for the two cases and show how I or anyone else is misrepresenting them. There is no "licensing debate". The matter is settled. Is that not clear from the section? "Nefarious" is too strong but "illegal" is spot on. There was something illegal going on: Bandler had two illegal trademarks that were subsequently anulled in two legal jurisdictions and he claimed sole retrsospective ownership of NLP on the basis of what the judge in the Santa Cruz Superior Court case described as a lie. This is not my opinion, it is the documented opinion of the presiding judge. If you -- or WykiP -- know otherwise then present the contrary evidence. As described in the article, Bandler and Grinder agreed to a settlement in 2001. So this matter is completely settled. If you have a different understanding of this matter then present it along with references. AnotherPseudonym (talk) 10:07, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Question over using personal web sites for citations responded to, and hopefully resolved, in IP section. Eturk001 (talk) 01:05, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Section Empirical validity changes

Section Empirical validity contained some statments that with the passage of time had become factually false. There are now fact 5 RCTs on various aspects of NLP rather than just the research on PRS from the 1980s and 1990s. Rather than itemise these studies -- and to avoid any OR -- I have instead referenced the reviews of Witkowski and Sturt et al. In the interests of balance and neutrality I have highlighted the divergence of subsidiary conclusions in those two papers and I think I have done so without obfusacating or demoting the consensus scientific opinion. I have also referenced the views of some "progressive" NLP proponents regarding the matter of NLPs evidence base. Sturt et al (2012) and these NLP proponents are effectively putting forward the opinion that NLP is unvalidated rather than invalidated (as per Witkowski (2010) and numerous others). But I have avoided cocuhing the matter in those terms to avoid OR and have instead just quoted from those papers. AnotherPseudonym (talk) 03:50, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Incorporated opinion of Murray (2013) to section. Murray is a review of the Sturt et al literature review review that essentially agrees with the conclusion of Sturt et al (2012). AnotherPseudonym (talk) 06:16, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

I suggest I add Lisa Wake's statements about the limited validity of NLP research, as it demonstrates a shift in pro-NLP attitude : the author clearly state there is no real research, especially there is no significant "Level A" (randomized, controlled) research (The Clinical Effectiveness of Neurolinguistic, page 1):

And this is acknowledged by Lisa Wake : "Level A evidence is based upon randomized well-controlled clinical trials for individuals / … / There are no A studies yet completed for NLP techniques."

- Damien Raczy (talk) 06:56, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

I suggest that you don't because it is a false statement. There are actually 5 RCTs regarding NLP and they are reviewed in Sturt et al (2012). I don't think Wake knew of these studies when she wrote that. Also we have to consider that Wake is a partisan (pro-NLP) source (all of the books contributors are NLP trainers) and that it is a book rather than a peer-reviewed journal paper. Also, it is far too early to treat this as representing a shift towards a pro-NLP attitude; a statement to that effect would not only be premature and unjustified but it would be an editorialisation. We need to wait for more reviews and reviews of those reviews and then (hopefully) more RCTs and their results. Remember we have Witkowski (2010) and many scientists that deem NLP invaliated and untenable -- those views cannot be brushed aside merely on the basis of a hope for better reserach. At the least I think you need to be patient to see how this turns out. I referenced their discussion paper in the article but we need to wait for their proposed RCT. AnotherPseudonym (talk) 11:08, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Please, AnotherPseudonym, be factual and precise. According to you, what are these 5 trials exactly about? Give the full original refs, with appropriate links or excerpts. - Damien Raczy (talk) 04:05, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Guys, this page is for discussing changes to the article not for discussion of the subject. We can't interpret original material. That said Damien, like Lisa Wake is an NLP practitioner (material deleted from his user page here but I have a copy) so any comment by her needs additional sourcing. ----Snowded ^TALK 08:13, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Before writing anything on this page, in order to avoid any suspicion of "hidden goals", I fully disclosed my ID, my previous training (PhD, Psychology, Antrhopogy, TA and NLP) and my current job: coach and consultant. 15 June 2013 I wrote it again on this discussion page. So, nothing is hidden. Today, Snowed is strongly suggesting that what I write is suspect because I disclosed my NLP expertise. My impresion is that sounds like false suspicion, bad faith, it sounds as accusing, unfair... There are many wikipedia rules violated here. More, I want to let you know that this page is the only one where I met this attitude. Even in politic pages about my country, New Caledonia, I don't meet this kind of agressive behavior. - Damien Raczy (talk) 09:47, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

And I ask again: What are these 5 trials exactly about? Give the full original refs, with appropriate links or excerpts. If it is impossible, tell us, because I could help in demonstrating in which precise extent NLP is not validated, which is my aim. - Damien Raczy (talk) 09:55, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

If you had just deleted it Raczy that would be believable, but you asked an admin to remove all the material on that talk page so that people would no longer discover it. There are far two many sock/meat puppet accounts and the way to avoid suspicion is not to act suspiciously ----Snowded ^TALK 16:56, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Firsly, I agree with Damien Raczy that there are multiple policies continually broken on here including an aggressiveness towards people who represent a threat towards the anti-NLP nature of the article.

However, I'd have thought it better Wikiquette to be open and honest about your potential bias and accept a higher level of scrutiny. But was it in the admin's judgment that Damien's association with NLP should be deleted and if so, why?

Lastly, I know it's a fine line between disclosure and ad hominem but can we try, please. WykiP (talk) 18:44, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Snowed. What you interpret is your problem not ours. If yu want to act like a sniper, go to your prefered pseudo skeptik forums. I really begin to have a problem with that. Stop it right now, definitely. And more, if I have to face this climate longer, I'll ask for conflict resoution - Damien Raczy (talk) 22:25, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

WykiP, I'll try to answer your interrogation, for the first and the last time. The reason why I asked for blanking my page is personal and have nothing to do with trying to hide something as I am clearly visible on the web. My id is known, my firsname+second name is unique, and a search on the web clearly shows who I am and what I do. And all that have nothing to do in that discussion page. If you want to know more precisely my opinions about coaching, gurus and magic "wounds", send me a mail, skype... (Remember English is not my mother tongue) You'll easily find my mail or skype id on viadeo ou linkedin. But, please, stop discussing the "Damien Raczy's case" here, as this discussion page is not a general pseudo skeptic forum. PS : Thank you for you balanced comments. Cheers. - Damien Raczy (talk) 22:54, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Sturt and the 5 trials

For the third time, I ask to AnotherPseudonym and others: What are these 5 trials exactly about according to you? Give the full original refs, with appropriate links or excerpts. If it is impossible, tell us, because I could help in demonstrating in which precise extent NLP is not validated, which is my aim. If there is no objective clear answer, I'll insert Lisa Wake's excerpt. I hope that there will not have to see any disruptive or any aggressive behavior from pseudo skeptic editors. - Damien Raczy (talk) 22:38, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

This is a request to other editors to engage in original research and/or synthesis and you might want to lay off anything other than factual statements about other editors (two spelling errors corrected). For the record I am not aware of taking part in a skeptical or even pseudo-skeptical forums. If you have evidence of that please present it otherwise withdraw. For the record you requested that your talk page be deleted, it was not the initiative of any admin. ----Snowded ^TALK 02:26, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

@Damien Raczy Your stated aim constitutes a breach of WP:NOR. It is not up to you to determine "precise extent NLP is not validated" (sic), that is the task of the review papers we cite. The five RCTs are reviewed in Sturt et al (2012) and that they exist can be confirmed by just reading the abstract of that paper ("Searches revealed 1459 titles from which 10 experimental studies were included. Five studies were randomised controlled trials (RCTs)") and that is enough to show that Wake's book is incorrect in that statement. Besides being factually incorrect Wake's book is a biased source. If you use it to try and create a false impression of the evidentiary status of NLP (WP:UNDUE) or to obscure the consensus opinion of scientists (WP:PSCI) then any such edits will be deleted. I referenced Wake's book because it is biased NLP source which openly admits that NLP lacks an evidence base, that NLP is largely devoid of any evidence (and that is the consensus opinion). Also you are demanding that I (or others) act as your personal assistant and summarise portions of Sturt et al (2012) for you and provide precis and links to the 5 RCTs included in Sturt et al (2012). My immediate response to that is being suppressed in the interests of etiquette and civility. Do that yourself, you have a full citation of Sturt et al (2012) and that satisfies WP:VERIFY. AnotherPseudonym (talk) 03:00, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

AnotherPseudonym, I mainly agree with you, and the abstract of Slut’s paper in interesting. But you should read the paper, not only the abstract. So, the question is not about Slurt.

The question is about a book, not peer reviewed, written by a NLPer and coauthored by other NLPers. I fully agree with you on that. And the content of the book should not be "considered as gospel" (in French: prendre pour parole d'évangile). But the statement is definitely not an original research. What in interesting is that it is clearly stated that _techniques_ have never been RCTed (may I write that in English?) and, as far as I know, there is absolutely no evidence that this is false. For example, I read some papers about that 10-15 years ago about eye cues. This was done for the police. These papers clearly demonstrated what Richard Bandler tell about eye cue is bullshit. But this is definitely not a research about techniques using eye cue. And, today, to my knowledge, there are no well controlled trials about any NLP technique for individual change. And I think that it is highly believable because I wanted to write a chapter for a text book with some scientific evidence for NLP, TA and solution oriented techniques. I found good papers for TA and solution oriented approach, but I didn’t find any valid research about NLP techniques. And I am quite sure that you could not find any valid RCT about NLP _techniques_. That is an important distinction.

And if we have only one ref, if this ref is not perfect, we can just write that this ref is not peer reviewed, which is honest.

Now, as English is not my mother tong, I understand that the wording may have to be improved to help the reader to fully understand the limits (and vacuity) of this specific layer of scientific research, without misleading his/her understanding. - Damien Raczy (talk) 03:43, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Why would we include non-peer reviewed, partial material from a source with a clear conflict of interest? ----Snowded ^TALK 04:11, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Snowded, if you demonstrate that the excerpt mentioned above is not describing the truth, I'll be the first to say bravo. And many would be very interested because they desperatly search good controled research about techniques in the field of NLP. And the reality is that there are good controlled researches in other fields but not for NLP techniques for individuals in psychotherapy ;) - Damien Raczy (talk) 04:46, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

LOL! Sturt not slut and I have read the entire paper more than once. I mentioned the abstract because you can confirm that Wake is factually incorrect by only reading the abstract. You can't blackmail other editors: "educate me or I will post merde". Go to an academic library and retrieve Sturt and read it. Sturt et al is a systematic review that was published in a major journal of the UK medical profession (GPs rather than mental health specialists but nevertheless) and that is more authoritative than a book written by a group of NLP trainers that looks like it hasn't even been fact checked. It identified five RCTs and they were tests of techniques including Visual/Kinaesthetic Dissociation. We can't include a statement in an article that we know for certain is factually incorrect. The statement made by Wake and her co-authors that "There are no A studies completed for NLP techniques." is certainly wrong. Wake et al may not like the results of some of those RCT but they do exist. So we have two reaons for not using Wake's book: (i) the statement about RCTs is wrong; and (ii) it is a very biased source. But what you are proposing is a breach of WP:NOR. We don't want a review of NLP research by Damien Raczy. Do you understand? AnotherPseudonym (talk) 04:54, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Raczy, normally researchers do not go on flogging a dead horse after something has been established. The fact that some NLP practitioners publish a book which says there is no evidence is not relevant here ----Snowded ^TALK 04:59, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

That they say there is no evidence for NLP is not the problem, that is what scientific critics have been saying for years and only now after almost 30 years NLP proponents are starting to admit that (and that is why I thought it worthy of inclusion in the article). What is pernicious about that book is that it makes the claim that all research that finds against NLP is flawed and it tries to reverse the burden of proof by arguing that in the absence of falsifying evidence NLP should be accepted as efficacious on the basis of anecdote. It calls for more research into NLP (presumably at the tax payers expense) but the purpose of this research is not to demonstrate that NLP is efficacious -- NLPers KNOW already that NLP is efficacious because they have seen it work and they have been told that it works --- but to persuade stupid clinicians and scientists that NLP works. Dumb scientists and clinicians asking for evidence, phhht! Just watch a video of Bandler doing the "fast phobia cure", that's evidence! ;-) AnotherPseudonym (talk) 05:17, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

There is some rude language, signs of loss of control, dichotomic reasoning... I suggest a break. Have a good night. - Damien Raczy (talk) 07:09, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

I think your account page should declare your conflict of interest. It is not entirely clear that this is you. Also your entitlement mentality and demands that other editors do research for you and deliver to you digests is offensive. No one is obliged to do that for you. Your ignorance of the NLP research -- even though you are a self-declared NLP expert -- is your problem, your embarassment not that of other editors. It is sufficient for the purposes of editing this article to provide a complete citation for Sturt et al (2012) and that has been done. Had you simply asked politely with an acknowledgement that I was under no obligation to do so (ideally on my talk page) I would have provided you the citations for the five RCTs and links to their abstracts (which I had to find). But instead you chose to be insolent and to act entitled so I will not do you that favour. AnotherPseudonym (talk) 07:33, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

AnotherPseudonym, I strongly suggest a break, and stop personnal harassment. - Damien Raczy (talk) 08:26, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

I strongly suggest that you spend your time editing articles in which you have no obvious WP:COI and in which you have language competency. I also suggest that you learn basic manners and don't address editors as if they are here to service your whims. Also don't big-note yourself and then in the same breath demonstrate your ignorance of the literature -- and demand other editors deliver to you an "executive summary" -- if you value your credibility. I repeat, if you insert partial and demonstrably factually incorrect material from the garbage Wake book I will revert it and won't even bother providing a comment. Go to an academic library or pay for the Sturt paper and read it yourself. Your ignorance of a reference doesn't constitute grounds for introducing an inferior and factually incorrect source. Also your attempt to effectively blackmail other editors into doing work for you is repugnant. AnotherPseudonym (talk) 09:18, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

AnotherPseudonym, please stop personnal attacks, please, stop it. - Damien Raczy (talk) 10:18, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Everyone, please show civility and good faith.

Damien Raczy, I'll look up Sturt for you in the next day or two. You just want the article names and authors? WykiP (talk) 13:02, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Wykip. About this point, we need to be specific, no need to waste too much time. I guess everyone here have read the paper. It is a simple and clear paper. The experiments are clearly reported. So, only the page number in the paper and name of authors are useful to know what we are talking about. So, keep it as short and simple as possible (the refs are long to type, and we all know these refs). And they are clearly listed p 759, 760 & p 762, in well documented tables.

For me, the point is that these experiments are not about techniques but about interventions, which is not the same level. As far as I read, nowhere there is a general statement which could imply controlled trials about techniques. For me, it is all about interventions. And, in last page (763); Sturt & al write that simple NLP techniques are excluded from the scope of the study.

My aim is not being dichotomic, is is getting a clear and precise view of Sturt’s paper, and modify my understanding if I was wrong. - Damien Raczy (talk) 22:46, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

You can't re-review papers that have been reviewed as part of systematic review that has been published in a peer-reviewed journal. That would be a breach of WP:NOR and furthermore your review has no standing, it is not authoritative. Only another systematic review or a commentary on the review (eg Murray) that has been published in a peer reviewed journal is admissable as a source to include in the article. Your distinction between "interventions" versus "techniques" is irrelevant and if you think Sturt et al is mistaken then you should try and get a review of their review published in a peer reviewed journal, if you get published then we can include your opinion in the article otherwise keep your opinions out of the article. Also, you appear to already have Sturt et al (2012) so why are you asking for me and now WykiP to tell you what the 5 RCTs are? AnotherPseudonym (talk) 01:31, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

You are right, we are not here to review any peer reviewed paper and we are not here to create our own distinctions and interpretations. Only the facts and distinction clearly stated in the paper are valid.

About the scope of the paper, the conclusion gives a precise idea as they write "There is little evidence that NLP _interventions_ improve health-related outcomes.". This word, intervention, is also used pages 759, 760 and 761 (42 occurrences).

And the authors clearly exclude simple interventions from the scope of their study as they write "The decision was taken to exclude studies using single NLP techniques." (p 763, line 3-4).

So as Sturt et al. state their scope is _intervention_, and they state that simple _techniques_ are excluded from the scope of the study. - Damien Raczy (talk) 06:33, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

For the second question, as we have not the same understanding, we may share what we understand and why. So, I explain my arguments, trying to be precise and specific. I would like to fully understand yours, if you are willing to. And it is why I ask you to bring precise refs with links or excerpts. It is exactly what I do when I tell you the page and line numbers, and excerpts. And if WykiP can help, it is great. - Damien Raczy (talk) 06:49, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't think neither I nor WykiP understood your original request and that we both misinterpreted it suggests that you failed to make yourself clear. So if I am understanding you correctly you want the details (beyond the abstract) of the five RCTs that were reviewed in Sturt et al (2012). You want to confirm that they were evaluations of NLP intervention versus NLP technique and you believe this detail is significant for the article. Here then are my reason for (a) excluding the Wake statement "There are no A studies completed for NLP techniques."; (b) for arguing that the distinction between intervention and technique is irrelevant to the article; and (c) that Sturt et al has been accurately represented.

Reason 1 The Wake statement is factually false because there are at least five (5) RCTs that have evaluated NLP techniques/interventions (which exactly is ambiguous, see Reason 2).

Reason 2 Two of those RCTs definitely did just test a single NLP technique:

Krugman et al (1985) tested the Change Personal History Pattern as specified in pp. 108-16 of Frogs into Princes

Simpson and Dryden (2011) tested V/K dissociation

Reason 3 I think you are misunderstanding the conclusion of Sturt et al (2012) and this is tedious for me to explain (and really I shouldn't have to do this) but I will do so as a gesture of good faith. Consider the following (oversimplification):

Hierarchy of validation

1 Evidence of efficacy; no evidence of absence of efficacy, i.e. validated

2 Evidence of efficacy; evidence of absence of efficacy, i.e. unclear

3 No evidence of efficacy; no evidence of absence of efficacy, i.e. unvalidated.

4 No evidence of efficacy; evidence of absence of efficacy, i.e. invalidated.

According to Sturt et al (2012) NLP is at number 3. Read closely what is written:

This systematic review demonstrates that there is little evidence that NLP interventions improve health-related outcomes. The study conclusion reflects the limited quantity and quality of NLP research, rather than robust evidence of no effect. (p.762)

I assume that you are familiar with evidence-based medicine (EBM). According to EBM a treatment should only be applied/paid for by tax/taught to clinicians if it is at number 1, this is why they say:

The allocation of NHS resources to support NLP activities should be confined to research investigations. (p. 758)

and

There is currently insufficient evidence to recommend use of NLP for any individual health outcome. (p. 763)

You seem to think that Sturt et al (2012) is arguing that NLP is at number 4 and you want to confine the scope by saying technique A, technique B, technique C...etc only are invalidated. But even if Sturt was saying that NLP is at number 4 it would still be a breach of WP:NOR to itemise the invalidated techniques. Witkowski (2010) on the other hand does argue that NLP is at number 4. Now read closely what I wrote in the article and you will understand why I am offended by your and WykiP's bullshit accusations of breaching WP:NPOV and being "pejorative" (WykiP's favourite new word):

Reviewers Witkowski (2010) and Sturt et al (2012) agree that NLP lacks an evidence base but disagree on the invalidity of NLP: Witkowski—expressing the consensus scientific opinion—states, "My analysis leads undeniably to the statement that NLP represents pseudoscientific rubbish, which should be mothballed forever"; Sturt et al—in common with some NLP proponents—state that "[t]he study conclusion [of no effect] reflects the limited quantity and quality of NLP research, rather than robust evidence of no effect." Reviewing Sturt et al (2012) Murray (2013) affirms their conclusion and adds that "[c]ollectively, the academic research base yields nominal support for paying for NLP training or services."[81]

I have accurately represented Sturt and Murray and this stuff about intervention vs. technique is irrelevant. But let's be clear here number 3 is BAD -- e.g. no drug would be allowed to go to market if it was at 3, and the manufacturer/merchant of a product at 3 would be found guilty of false and misleading advertising in most jurisdictions. The scientific consensus is that NLP is at 4 and that should be made patently clear in the article (WP:PSCI; WP:SCICON). The article should not create the impression that NLP is at 2 and that there is debate amongst scientists nor should it suggest or even imply that 3 is an acceptable evidentiary position. AnotherPseudonym (talk) 10:49, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

I carefully read Murray and Sturt et al. They clearly draw conclusions for interventions, not for techniques. Techniques are explicitly excluded from the scope of the research. So, according to the authors there is a distinction between interventions and techniques. AnotherPseudonym write that the "intervention vs. technique is irrelevant". For me this a very serious problem. - Damien Raczy (talk) 06:00, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Damien, in this context the distinction between intervention v. technique doesn't matter because the conclusion of Sturt is that NLP is unvalidated. Had Sturt argued that NLP is invalidated then that distinction may have been relevant. I think this pseudo-problem is a result of your poor English. AnotherPseudonym (talk) 02:53, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Please, AnotherPseudonym, stop telling what I am thinking, understanding… Stick to the subject.

Sturt et al. paper is a good one. They are very specific, they do not make any over generalisation. Not paying attention to this kind of difference between levels (technique/intervention) is over generalizing. - Damien Raczy (talk) 03:38, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

You don't understand what Sturt et al (2012) is saying and I don't think someone with such poor English skills should be here. I'm having to teach you English comprehension in order to make my point. For the fifth(?) time they are saying that there is no evidence that NLP works but at the same time they are saying that there is no robust evidence that it does not work. If the paper says that there is no evidence either way it is irrelevant whether they are concerned with interventions or single techniques. Do you understand the difference between INvalidated and UNvalidated? Also, if an intervention is comprised of one or more techniques and NLP interventions are unvalidated then techniques too are unvalidated (NOT INvalidated, UNvalidated). The distinction between techniques and interventions may be relevant only where a systematic review concluded that there is evidence that NLP works or there is evidence that it does not work. In those cases we then ask which techniues specifically work or do not work. But where the systematic review concludes that there is no evidence for either conclusion then the distinction is irrelevant. There is no overgeneralising because Sturt et al does not conclude that NLP does not work. Rather than just repeat yourself over-and-over can you please confirm that you understand the difference between unvalidated vs. invalidated? AnotherPseudonym (talk) 07:26, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes I understand what you write : the difference between un-validated and in-validated is just what you learn in 1st year at the university. You are right on many points. Just, the authors state it is not validated for interventions, nothing more, nothing less. I never suggested the authors say that it is invalidated. And they say nothing about techniques except it is excluded from the scope. So your statement is an overgeneralization as there are RCT for interventions, with no invalidation, and no RCT for techniques, which is different. I don’t know if you have the correct intellectual background to understand that. If you want, you can skype me and I'll give you a private course in experimental psychology. I can do it in English as I suppose you don’t speak fluently my mother tongue. Cheers - Damien Raczy (talk) 09:33, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Damien, don't be snooty and presumptuous. I have studied experiment design, inferential statistics and experimental psychology (amongst other things). Your reading comprehension of Sturt is flawed and so is your logic. I will try another way to show you. Read what I write closely and stop and think about what I am saying.

Reading Comprehension Problem

Sturt doesn't exclude all studies based on a single technique. As I said earlier two of those RCTs definitely did just test a single NLP technique:

Krugman et al (1985) tested the Change Personal History Pattern as specified in pp. 108-16 of Frogs into Princes; and

Simpson and Dryden (2011) tested V/K dissociation.

Those are both single technique-based studies. This is sufficient to show that you are mistaken but there are more reasons. Read closely what they say. Sturt et al say:

The decision was taken to exclude studies using single NLP techniques.

You think that this means "The decision was taken to exclude all studies using single NLP techniques." It doesn't and what follows makes that clear. They go on to say:

NLP has a lack of consensus surrounding a definition of techniques and mechanism of effect and on an individual technique basis there is overlap with more established and evidence-based psychological techniques. Arguably these could include developing rapport = person-centred counselling; modelling = vicarious learning; eliciting well formed outcomes = goal setting; reframing = cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) techniques; and anchoring = classical conditioning. Inclusion of studies labelled by their authors as NLP and focusing on one of these single NLP techniques [i.e. rapport, modelling, well-formed outcomes, reframing, anchoring] would have lead to a misleading observation of the evidence.

So they only excluded single technique studies where they believed that the technique was not unique to NLP. This interpretation is consistent with their inclusion of Change Personal History Pattern and V/K dissociation because those are unique to NLP. Your reading of Sturt is nonsensical and inconsistent with the facts. Why would they want to include only papers that test interventions and exclude those that just test single NLP teachniques? What would be gained from that? This is a basic problem of reading comprehension. You are incapable of grasping nuanced meaning. But your logic is also flawed and you should have used your sense of logic to try and validate your reading comprehension.

Logic Problem #1

If the aim of Sturt et al is to evaluate NLP -- and that is a stated and implied aim -- then it makes no difference whether they include studies that test an NLP intervention with many NLP techniques or only those that test one technique. All that matters is that only NLP techniques are singly-tested and that an intervention consists only of NLP techniques. Just because a paper evalauates an intervention does not mean that all of the techniques that comprise the intervention will be NLP. You are in effect implying that Sturt et al think that if they choose only papers that evaluate interventions then they can be confident that they are testing only NLP techniques. That doesn't make any sense either and the opposite is more likely to be true.

Logic Problem #2

A paper that evaluates an intervention and doesn't list the details of the intervention is more likely to include the implicit evaluation of a non-NLP technique than a paper that tests only a single NLP technique. On that basis there is no reason for Sturt et al to exclude papers that test only a single technique except in those cases which they list, i.e. the tested technique overlaps with some other well-establshed non-NLP technique. So on this account also your reading of Sturt doesn't make sense.

Logic Problem #3

An intervention is a set of one or more techniques. A systematic review is concerned to make a general conclusion over an aggregate of results. From an aggregate point-of-view it doesn't matter if we have one intervention study that uses five NLP techniques or five individual studies each testing one NLP technique. If the conclusion of the review is that NLP is unvalidated (as opposed to invalidated) it doesn't matter how those individual techniques are distributed. The distribution of NLP techniques over one intervention, two interventions, three interventions or no interventions and just a single techniques makes no difference to the evidentiary position and hence to to the general conclusion if the conclusion is that "This systematic review demonstrates that there is little evidence that NLP interventions improve health-related outcomes. The study conclusion reflects the limited quantity and quality of NLP research, rather than robust evidence of no effect." If they had instead written, "This systematic review demonstrates that there is little evidence that NLP techniques improve health-related outcomes. The study conclusion reflects the limited quantity and quality of NLP research, rather than robust evidence of no effect", the meaning doesn't change because an intervention is a set of one or more techniques and the conclusion is generalised and aggregate rather than specific and itemised. Please don't just repeat yourself. Read closely what I have written and think about what I have written. Also given that English is my native tongue and your understanding of Sturt et al leads to nonsensical conclusions (arbitrary criteria, false assumptions, inexplicable study selection) who is most likely to be correct? AnotherPseudonym (talk) 10:27, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Let's have this be a WP:CIVIL collaboration that avoids name calling or using adjectives to describe editors and focuses on suggesting specific language for edits, based on citations. This is a WP:TALK page, not a forum. Raczy, your suggestion to review the RCTs could be WP:NOR if you are coming up with a new idea not stated by a WP:RS source. You might read Synthesis for some help on your research.

Trying to understand your struggle with the distinction between "intervention" and "technique" does have me question if this article may have a Logical Fallacy of Generalization problem in editing style. "Intervention" has me think typically of a DSM-described problem, such as substance abuse, anxiety, depression, eating disorders, etc. In Sturt (2012), there are only 5 RCTs on medical or psychological concerns. Sturt, PhD in Health Science doesn't see EBP for NLP. With only 5 RCTs completed, and just 1 successful, there aren't enough EBPs to suggest using it in medicine or psychology (interventions). Do these studies on interventions generalize to "communication", personal development, etc. which are used in the description? I doubt that Active Listening could be proven to eradicate depression but it is very useful to learn in business, as well possibly being helpful to a psychologist or medical doctor/nurse. Thus, the claims of instant medical cures by some promoters of NLP may be confused with more basic communication skills (as pointed out by Sturt) that are in other disciplines currently. Eturk001 (talk) 20:16, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

You aren't helping and you can't collaborate on a article when you know nothing of the subject matter and can't be bothered doing anything beyond a Google search. Forget the DSM and stop mentioning it, it is irrelevant to this matter and more generally to the article. An intervention is just clinical jargon for the application of one or more psychotherapeutic techniques to a patient (couple, or family) and this matter is settled as far as I am concerned. I'm not struggling with anything. I don't need an explanation of Sturt et al and there is no overgeneralisation. Also, you are misusing " EBP": "there aren't enough EBPs" is meaningless nonsense. EBP is essentially a principle of clinical practice, namely that practice is to be determined by evidence. RCTs provide the basis for EBP, i.e. for justifying a particular medical practice. An RCT is not an EBP: "there aren't enough EBPs to suggest using it in medicine or psychology (interventions)" is also meaningless nonsense." You should have said "there aren't enough RCTs...". EBP is an approach to medicine that sets an evidentiary standard; RCTs most satisfy that evidentiary standard. Your misuse is akin to saying "there weren't enough beyond reasonable doubts so the judge found the accused innocent". Given that you clearly know so little about NLP, behavioural sciences and mental health don't you think you should ease off on the posting and do more reading? AnotherPseudonym (talk) 05:25, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

I paused the discussion because your were still doing personnal attacks. And you also still fail to prove your claims with facts : precise refs, precise quotes.

Interventions generally use specific technics but this does not mean that the RCT is about the technic. Some of your refs were mixing the two levels. RCT about technic need to control the different factors at a different levels. So, the RCT must at least include a clear description of the technic, or a reference to a clear description, clear conclusions specific to the technic level, specific hypothesis at the technic level... You failed to provide such elements with clear refs and precise quotes. If you prove your claim, l'll say bravo. But, I'll need specific evidences, no speculations, no overgeneralizations, not a personnal interpretation. - Damien Raczy (talk) 22:18, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Misleading lead

I've brought this up before but the current status seems worse than it was earlier. Respondents were asked to rate their opinion of "Neuro-linguistic Programming for drug and alcohol dependence" in 2006 which was listed by Norcross 2008, 2010 and Glasner-Edwards and Rawson, 2010).

• "In research designed to identify the "quack factor" in modern mental health practice, Norcross et al. (2006) [21] list NLP as possibly or probably discredited for treatment of behavioural problems. Norcross et al. (2010) list NLP in the top ten most discredited interventions[25] and Glasner-Edwards and Rawson (2010) list NLP therapy as "certainly discredited".[26]"
• Norcross et al 2010: "Table 2 presents, in ranked order, the experts’ mean ratings of 59 potentially discredited treatments. The table presents the mean, standard deviations, and percentage of experts not familiar with (and thus not rating) each item from both rounds of data collection. For those treatments rated by at least 25% of experts, considerable convergence existed on those consensually viewed as “certainly discredited” (mean rating of 4.50 or higher on the 5-point scale). For the specific purpose listed, experts considered 11 treatments as “certainly discredited”: electrical stimulation of the head for alcohol dependence; past-life therapy for drug addictions; past-life therapy for alcohol dependence; metronidazole for alcohol dependence; electric shock for alcohol dependence; psychedelic medication for alcohol dependence; ultra-rapid opioid detoxification under anesthesia for alcohol dependence; Neuro-linguistic Programming for drug and alcohol dependence; scared straight for prevention of alcohol dependence; scared straight for prevention of drug abuse; and stimulant medications for alcohol dependence."
• Glasner-Edwards and Rawson (2010): Table 3. "Discredited techniques in addiction treatment" lists Neuro-linguistic programming. Table 3 cites Norcross' 2006/2008 Delphi poll

So based on the sources, it should say: In the context of growing interested in evidence-based practice (EBP), researchers have sought to establish consensus on discredited psychological treatments. NLP was listed as possibly or probably discredited for treatment of behavioural problems (Norcross et al., 2006) and was listed as certainly discredited for drug and alcohol addiction (Norcross et al 2006; Fala et al 2008; Norcross et al 2010, Glasner-Edwards and Rawson, 2010).

--Reconsolidation (talk) 08:08, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

"In the context of growing interested (sic) in evidence-based practice (EBP)" is is grammatically wrong, but overall prima facie what you propose seems reasonable to me. I earlier have made the following point: in the interests of brevity because we are concerned with the lead we should form a compound conclusion based on the two Norcoross papers. Addictions are a proper subset of behavioural problems so we can abstract from that to just "behavioural problems" and present the conclusion as a range, i.e. possibly discredited-to-certainly discredited. The body of the article can detail the two conclusions of the Norcross papers (as it currently does). The lead should be a precis of what follows rather than repetition. AnotherPseudonym (talk) 11:46, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

We need to be careful not to imply that the "certainly discredited" rating for drug addictions also applies for behavioural/mental disorders. I think it can be done concisely, how about this: In the context of evidence-based practice (EBP), researchers have sought to establish consensus on discredited psychological treatments. NLP has been rated between possibly or probably discredited for treatment of behavioural/mental disorders, and certainly discredited for drug and alcohol addiction. Can you make this any more concise while maintaining the distinction? --Reconsolidation (talk) 13:46, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree that AnotherPseudonym's draft creates a misleading POV interpretation. I agree with your wording and highlighted the original POV over-generalisation just over a month ago. WykiP (talk) 14:48, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

And I disagree with you, these constant attempts to try and hide away legitimate criticism take us no where----Snowded ^TALK 21:33, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

That's bad faith. Again. Do you have any relevant comments on Reconsolidation's draft? WykiP (talk) 21:54, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Its not bad faith, its an accurate statement and I have made the comment, try and keep up ----Snowded ^TALK 22:02, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

It is bad faith. You have portrayed Reconsolidation as a POV pusher. Please desist or take it to WP:ANI.

I see no relevant comments on Reconsolidation's draft. WP is not a democracy -- your vote is irrelevant. WykiP (talk) 22:05, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

If we get the same behaviour I will make the same type of comments. As to relevant comments they have been made too many times before to repeat them all over again. Otherwise if my opinion is irrelevant so is yours, whatever you have no consensus to change. ----Snowded ^TALK 22:15, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

I said your vote is irrelevant. I don't see a reasoned opinion yet and it's unreasonable to expect us to search through hundreds of Talk page history for some alleged NPOV discussion.

"often we must settle for as wide an agreement as can be reached" WP:CONSENSUS WykiP (talk) 01:30, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Rather than attribute a motivation to the action, I will describe it as functionally indistinguishable from attempting to hide away legitimate criticism - David Gerard (talk) 22:18, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

The average rating of 4.51 "certainly discredited" was for drug and alcohol dependence. The rating for treatment of behavioural/mental disorders was lower 3.51 (between possibly and probably discredited). What is your interpretation of data? My attempt is functionally equivalent to emphasizing what the source says and emphasizing legitimate criticism. I proposed we change "In research designed to identify the "quack factor" in modern mental health practice" with "In the context of growing interested in evidence-based practice (EBP), researchers have sought to establish consensus on discredited psychological treatments." This strengthens the legitimate criticism because it closer to what the source says and is sounds less like "pseudoskeptical debunking" so more people will take it seriously, not less. It does not go beyond the data. --Reconsolidation (talk) 00:33, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

In the context of claims that NLP can cure the common cold and myopia (which come from B&G and the myopia claim is repeated by Grinder in WITW outside of a dialogical context so the bullshit claim that it is "covert hypnotic induction" can't be made) "quack factor" is fitting. Also, "quack" and its derivatives were part of their search criteria. I still maintain that the generalisation I proposed is truth preserving. Addictions are mental disorders, so what you are arguing about is addictions versus other mental disorders. All of the rankings fall within the category discredited, only the degree of confidence varies. A positive ranking ("not at all discredited" or "unlikely discredited") is not being obscured. Finally a reminder that it is Wykip's position that the two Norcross papers are not citable:

You say that Norcross et al (2006) "is as reliable as a Wikipeia source can be". It is not. It is qualitative assessment of opinions, bias and all. Now that you mention it, "top ten most discredited interventions" is pejorative too, implying a stronger sense of discredited than "possibly or probably". WykiP (talk) 15:31, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

I provided a comprehensive rebuttal to this specious argument. This example is demonstrative of Wykip's bad faith and intention to eliminate legitimate references from the article. AnotherPseudonym (talk) 02:42, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Wasn't the top ten list for certainly discredited drug and alcohol addictions? What data are you using? --Reconsolidation (talk) 04:38, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

We have been though this twice before and no new arguments are being advanced, in fact the arguments are almost identical to those advocated by a now permanently blocked editor. Go check the archives and see if you can come up with something more original ----Snowded ^TALK 05:21, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Of course, I didn't say the two Norcross papers are not citable, I merely corrected AnotherPseudonym's statement that Norcross et al (2006) "is as reliable as a Wikipeia source can be".

S/he didn't provide a comprehensive rebuttal. I do note the WP:OR and editorialising starting from "Addictions are mental disorders..." though. The accusation of POV breaches WP:AGF. Still not seeing any reasoned objections and let's face it, there aren't any. WykiP (talk) 06:15, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

If we accept Norcross' data at face value that there is scientific consensus that NLP is certainly discredited for the treatment of drug and alcohol dependence based, it does not follow that NLP is certainty discredited for mental/behavioural disorders. The rating for mental/behavioural disorders was between possibly and probably. We should not blur these factsseparate ratings in the lead. --Reconsolidation (talk) 00:06, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

do you think that the difference between possibly and probably is factual? Can somebody define it for me? There is no case to make changes to the lead. Roxy the dog (talk) 00:45, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Which data set are you referring to? The one about addictions or the one about mental/behavioral disorders? --Reconsolidation (talk) 04:38, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Interesting Post-hoc edit there Reconsolidation. Could you tell me the difference between probably and possibly?Roxy the dog (talk) 04:55, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

If we accept Delphi as a reliable measure of expert opinion, between possibly and probably discredited relates to average expert rating on a likert scale: 1 – not at all discredited, 2 – unlikely discredited, 3 – possibly discredited, 4 – probably discredited, 5 – certainly discredited. We (as wikipedians) are making post-hoc interpretation of what average rating of 3.87 means, i.e. between possible and probably discredited. Agreed? --Reconsolidation (talk) 05:20, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Not really, at 3.87 then probably is reasonable, the reference is there is people want to check out the details ----Snowded ^TALK 06:00, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Hang on a minute. Are we seriously discussing the merits of an opinion poll?Roxy the dog (talk) 13:54, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't think so, its a Delphi technique thing between professionals as I read it ----Snowded ^TALK 16:34, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

I think Norcross' response might answer you query: "We are frequently asked, “Why not simply rely on the results of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) to determine what does not work?” Our response: Many reasons. First, because most suspect treatments have not (and will not) be subjected to controlled research. In fact, our and others’ attempts to identify discredited treatments from RCTs yielded only one or two possibilities. Second, using RCTs brings the difficulty of “proving” the null hypothesis (no differences between treatment and comparison or placebo). Third, there are proportionally speaking, few bona fide, dispassionate comparisons of alternative treatments in mental health (Wampold, 2008). Many RCTs involve comparisons of structurally unequal treatments and/or a heavy dose of the researcher allegiance effect (Luborsky et al., 1999). Fourth and final, we cannot rely on RCTs as the field lacks consensual criteria for defining discredited or ineffective treatments. For all these reasons, we turned to expert consensus to identify discredited treatments in mental health and the addictions in two separate Delphi polls."[2] --Reconsolidation (talk) 02:27, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

From the wiki "Overall the track record of the Delphi method is mixed. There have been many cases when the method produced poor results. Still, some authors attribute this to poor application of the method and not to the weaknesses of the method itself.[citation needed] It must also be realized that in areas such as science and technology forecasting, the degree of uncertainty is so great that exact and always correct predictions are impossible, so a high degree of error is to be expected." I don't see the point of this discussion continuing.Roxy the dog (talk) 04:02, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

There has been little point for some time. Reconsolidation seems to want to argue the case for NLP rather than look at creating an encyclopaedia entry based on secondary sources which is what this place is meant to be about ----Snowded ^TALK 04:17, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Ok, let's focus on the article text related to Norcross' two Delphi Polls (1. mental/behavioural disorders, 2. drug and alchohol addiction): from the lead: "NLP also appears on peer reviewed expert-consensus based lists of discredited interventions.[15] In research designed to identify the "quack factor" in modern mental health practice, Norcross et al. (2006) [21] list NLP as possibly or probably discredited for treatment of behavioural problems. Norcross et al. (2010) list NLP in the top ten most discredited interventions[25] and Glasner-Edwards and Rawson (2010) list NLP therapy as "certainly discredited".[26]..." from the body (scientific criticism): According to Witkowski (2010), NLP also appears on "the list of discredited therapies" published in the Journal of Professional Psychology: Research and Practice.[15] With reference to work by Carroll (2003), Della Sala (1999), Lilienfeld et al. (2003) and Singer and Lalich (1996) on "pseudoscientific, unvalidated, or "quack" psychotherapies" within clinical psychology, Norcross et al. (2006) included NLP for treatment of mental/behaviour disorders in a survey[21] of the opinions of psychologists who rated NLP between possibly discredited and probably discredited, a rating similar to dolphin assisted therapy, equine therapy, psychosynthesis, scared straight programs, and emotional freedom technique (EFT). Norcross et al. (2010) listed "neurolinguistic programming for drug and alcohol dependence" seventh out of their list of the ten most discredited drugs and alcohol interventions,[25] and it is listed as "certainly discredited" for addiction treatment in Evidence-based practices in addiction treatment: review and recommendations for public policy.[26]" Let's work together on improving this. --Reconsolidation (talk) 09:36, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

But there isn't anything wrong with it. Roxy the dog (talk) 15:34, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

"Hang on a minute. Are we seriously discussing the merits of an opinion poll?" Essentially yes. The one that AnotherPseudonym stated "is as reliable as a Wikipeia source can be" and accused me of POV pushing for disagreeing. WykiP (talk) 11:52, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

We can always bring the Dolphin Therapy back in, that was removed last time we went through this saga. Sorry, you guys are not introducing anything new and you seem intent on trying to explain away what the sources say. ----Snowded ^TALK 19:47, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry I wasn't here for the Dolphin Therapy discussion. What ailments of dolphins did they claim to be able to cure?Roxy the dog (talk) 21:45, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

/Archive_17#Professionally_discredited_therapies - note similar writing styles from participants - David Gerard (talk) 22:03, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

@Snowded, can you please explain your reasoning: "at 3.87 then probably is reasonable". This is not consistent with Norcross' own reporting, for example: "mean rating of psychodynamic– humanistic therapists was 2.8 (between unlikely discredited to possibly discredited)." e.g. Norcross does not round up. Are we justified in reporting it like this: "NLP for mental/behavioral disorders was 3.87, between possibly discredited to probably discredited"? --Reconsolidation (talk) 23:00, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

David Gerard, are you commenting as an outside observer? Who has similar writing styles? --Reconsolidation (talk) 23:43, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Hmm lots to reply to.

Reconsolidation seems on very solid ground here. The current statement overgeneralises the sources and is thus POV.

David Gerard, looking at AJRG, I actually have some sympathy and understanding for the way you guys have treated me here. AJRG does write quite a lot like me although I disagree with a couple of his/her points. Would it be appropriate to SPA myself?

On that page I also saw much criticism of Witkowski and I now know who Andy Bradbury is. ;)

Lastly, Snowded, to lump me with Reconsolidated or anyone else is 'us and them' mentality. To be quite frank, your own attitudes are far closer to AnotherPseudonym's than mine are to Reconsolidated. Furthermore, you are bordering on an WP:UNCIVIL accusation of us POV pushing. I don't know if Reconsolidation's point is new but it certainly needs answering. WykiP (talk) 00:40, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

You were there the last time we went around this one and as to PoV pushing, sorry if it quacks then generally its a Duck ----Snowded ^TALK 04:36, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

July 2013 (UTC)

WykiP, you keep posting crap like this: "The current statement overgeneralises the sources and is thus POV" and I don't know whether this is an attempt at subterfuge or you are just ignorant and also incapable of perceiving irony. If a statement "overgeneralises the sources" then it is simply an overgeneralisation, a bad inference or perhaps a failed induction, it isn't by implication "POV". An overgeneralisation may be a manifestation of a POV but it isn't necessarily as your use of "thus" suggests. Your equation of overgeneralisation with POV is idiotic and inflammatory. Even if you have demonstrated an overgeneralisation (and in this case you have not) then it still remains your burden to demonstrate a breach of WP:NPOV. Furthermore, your use of "POV-pushing" implies an intentional breach of WP:NPOV and this adds to your burden. AnotherPseudonym (talk) 08:39, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Let's see if we can achieve some sort of agreement. I think we can all agree that Norcross is an expert in the field of science and pseudoscience in clinical psychology, psychotherapy and personal change/self-help (see his new Changeology book). I'm not doubting that. I think the follow points are true: 1) there are two Norcross delphi studies (a. mental/behavioral disorders, b. addiction treatment); 2) Witkowski is referring to Norcross 2006 delphi study which rates "NLP for mental/behavioral disorders" as 3.51 in first round and 3.87 in second round which means "between possibly and probably discredited" or according to Snowded, "probably discredited"; 3) The second study relating to addiction treatment rated NLP for treatment of alcohol and drug addiction as 4.51 (certainly discredited). 4) It is Norcross second study which rated "NLP for drug and alcohol depedence" which is cited by Norcross's (2010) "top ten" list and Glasner-Edwards and Rawson (2010) in their list of discredited addiction treatments. Please let me know exactly what points you disagree with and why so we can work toward a consensus. --Reconsolidation (talk) 12:30, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

This has been dealt with before already in much depth: [3][4][5]. So here it appears to be just another waste of time. Lam Kin Keung (talk) 14:40, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

And it remains unanswered. So it's been POV all that time? Wow.

Snowded seems more interested in bad faith accusations than reasoned arguments or even submitting an ANI or SPA request. WykiP (talk) 19:10, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Norcross is a collection of Delphi polls? I should have been paying more attention. A Delphi poll is a very good way of collecting people's opinions ... and they are frequently "wrong to the world". htom (talk) 21:45, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

I still don't think you are paying sufficient attention. AnotherPseudonym (talk) 07:58, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Snowded is not prepared to go round and round the same arguments every six months with editors who can't be bothered to check the history and/or were involved in those discussions before. ----Snowded ^TALK 01:20, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Yet rather than posting links to such arguments or cutting & pasting them or repeating them (allegedly well-rehearsed by now), you expect everyone else to do a long search of 18+ pages for allegedly settled NPOV discussion with the predictable reaction of being told you didn't look properly when there clearly are none. One must question why you're willing to risk a ban by throwing around sock puppet and POV pushing accusations in clear breach of WP:AGF. Is it perhaps important for you to distract from your ongoing refusal to answer the question? WykiP (talk) 03:52, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

I have made one edit to make it clear that "certainly discredited" rating from the second Norcross Delphi study was related to NLP for drug and alcohol addiction. --Reconsolidation (talk) 05:21, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

A change previously made by our now banned Australian NLP practitioner/advocate and meat puppet master. It was rejected then. Use of 'their' breaks wikipedia rules on presenting reliable sources I might be prepared to accept the addiction qualification if other editors agree and if it means this comes to an end. ----Snowded ^TALK 05:29, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

I acknowledge that Norcross et al. (2010) and Glasner-Edwards and Rawson (2010) are published in high ranking journals and the authors are reputable. Really, this change should be uncontroversial - an RfC should not be required. We cannot have a reasoned discussion if you refuse to accept that Norcross et al. (2010) and Glasner-Edwards and Rawson (2010) are based on the same Delphi study on discredited addiction treatments. I'll leave it to you to make the correction. --Reconsolidation (talk) 06:18, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Seems quite unnecessary in the context of lede. Both parts of sentence are served well with existing links to relevant references. Lam Kin Keung (talk) 06:40, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

In the interest of accuracy, it could be as simple as changing "certainly discredited" to "certainly discredited for addiction treatment". You could synthesize Norcross et al. (2010) and Glasner-Edwards and Rawson (2010) in the lead and just use inline citations to save space. --Reconsolidation (talk) 06:58, 8 July 2013 (UTC) Here's another option for lead: In the context of growing interested in evidence-based practice (EBP), researchers sought to establish consensus on discredited psychological treatments. A panel of experts rated NLP for treatment of mental/behavioural problems between possibly and probably discredited [21] and certainly discredited for drug and alcohol addiction[25][26] --Reconsolidation (talk) 07:12, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

I suggested a compound/synthetic statement re Norcross' papers and out came WykiP to accuse me of "POV-pushing" (apparently accusations of POV-pushing are uncivil only when everyone besides WykiP makes them) and you offered a generic rejection which failed to explain the specific problems of my formulation. My objection to changing "certainly discredited" to "certainly discredited for addiction treatment" is that it is too much specificity for the lead and it is a detail that is repeated (as opposed to expanded) in the body. A precis can be truth-preserving and I believe I offered such a precis. It is not POV-pushing nor is it editorialising to abstract and condense so long as the end-result is consistent with the sources. I think this insistence on the strict itemisation of every statement (even in the lead) vitiates the production of an article. The end-result of repeatedly yielding to this sort of WP:GAME is essenitlly a list. Concomitant with this is the derogation of verbs such as claim (based on an abusive reading of WP:CLAIM). The aim of these efforts appears to be to debase the article into an agglomeration of piecemeal statements, i.e. a list that is devoid of all readability and cohesiveness. For these reasons I would rather maintain the status quo (which I think is adequate) than establish a precedent for the incremental debasement of the article. AnotherPseudonym (talk) 07:53, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Concur. These repetitions of past failed nitpicks at the article are, if not intentionally, then functionally querulous - David Gerard (talk) 09:14, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

I propose a minimal change to try to take into account AnotherPseudonym's objections while making the change I desire. I offer this shorter, more concise diff. I'm going to take a holiday from editing now and return with fresh eyes. --Reconsolidation (talk) 10:54, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

If pushing for accuracy and NPOV (never mind this is in the lead) is querulous, Wikipedia surely needs querulous editors. WykiP (talk) 11:01, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

out came WykiP to accuse me of "POV-pushing"

For somebody supposedly trained in a communications methodology, your ability here to understand the difference between a) your draft being POV and b) being accused of intentionally POV pushing... is notably lacking. I am bemused to wonder whether this is a reflection on NLP. WykiP (talk) 10:58, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Norcross et al. state "treatments were consensually designated as probably discredited (mean rating of 4.0 or greater)"[6]. So can we all agree that NLP for mental/behavioural disorders 3.87 is between possibly and probably discredited? Not probably as stated by User:Snowded. Can we all agree on this? --Reconsolidation (talk) 12:32, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

No, and you still haven't told me the difference between possibly and probably Roxy the dog (talk) 19:01, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Norcross et al asked experts to rate the treatments on a scale from not at all discredited to certainly discredited. He asked them to link their ratings with criteria for expert opinions as delineated in Daubert v. Merrell-Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., (1993) 509 U.S. 579, 113 S. Ct. 2786. Operationally, possibly and probably are defined operationally as: unlikey discredited (mean rating under 3.0), discredited possibly discredited (mean rating of 3.0 or greater), probably discredited (mean rating of 4.0 or greater), certainly discredited (mean rating of 4.5 or greater). --Reconsolidation (talk) 22:51, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

The difference between "possibly" and "probably" is the words used by the author. Choosing our own desired word would be WP:OR or misrepresentation to the reader. Using them as if they are the same word ignores the authors specific separate usage. For the exact difference, we would have to ask Norcross, as he does not define them in the paper. I do WP:CONCEDE that the difference is subtle. I have no intent of WP:LAWYERING, filibustering, or any other distracting accusation. I just have a concern that words are too interchangeable by editors, leaning always to the most damning, as if to convey a "message" (mentioned earlier). I WP:AGF as each editor, "naturally having their own points of view", may have that POV subtly change words without realizing it. Eturk001 (talk) 01:41, 11 July 2013 (UTC)