This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | ← | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | → | Archive 15 |
Hi Voiceofall. Sure we need to be constructive.
Through discussion, we have some more facts to add. Firstly, the Devilly paper will help clarify things. I will see what we can add there. Sounds like Flavius has his finger on the pulse there. Great stuff!
It is clear that Comaze and co are still bent on removing scientific facts. Therefore, although those facts were well supported throughout mediation, they will require further clarification in the article. Then the fanatics may "get it" (I'm an optimist).
It is clear that certain refs are way down on the hierarchy of researchers out there. Namely, Mathison, Tosey and Malloy, amongst others, which are way down on the list. There are many other far more relevant researchers who could be added. Of course, they tend to stick to science, and will be largely very critical of NLP. Tough! Comaze and co insist on trying to tear the most eminent scientists from the article, so that attitude can be better applied to Mathison, Tosey and Malloy.
I'm sure the article will advance nicely this way. HeadleyDown 14:13, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Yo, I'm not involved in this article, I'm an outside view. You ALL look like you need to back off and stop revert warring. Camridge in particular, I've seen your contribs page and you've clearly violated the 3rr. I'm assuming that Comaze probably did to since your revert war appears to be with him. Maybe it's time you guys all stepped back and let some other editors do it without revert warring hmm? And while at it, review both WP:3RR and WP:AGF.
Swatjester
09:46, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
I couldn't agree more, Swatjester. But I don't think we need AfD, RfC, ArB in this case. We just need proactive and consistent mediation. If VoA feels up to it, then thats great. If VoA is getting sick of this page, perhaps he should ask another admin to take over the mediation process.-- Dejakitty 11:50, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Swatjester! The reason the admins don't block Camridge is due to their being reasonable. Comaze has caused a huge amount of unnecessary work for editors on this article, has acted in bad faith by repeatedly nagging for the same changes to be made when they were resolved through mediation, excess evidence, and consensus, and continues to display the cultlike nature of NLP. Dejakitty is just another of his meatpuppets and has also advocated for removal of eminently supported scientific facts that come to the conclusion that NLP is ineffective and cultlike. I notice you also seem to be siding with Comaze. More fool you! If you wish to support Comaze some more, you will be causing more antagonism for editors who consistently provide accurate facts in good faith, and you will be called names far worse than fool. HeadleyDown 13:35, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Oh really will I? a) I'm not siding with Comaze. Notice that I point out that he violated 3RR too. Second of all, you're now violating WP:NPA, and threatening me. I'm going to have to ask you to stop.
May we remind you to be civil and to not form personal attacks or edit wars through your or others' comments; doing so will only cause tension and annoyance. ( CJ) Swatjester 14:04, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Let me be blunt here: I'm here to help mediate this topic. I don't give two rats asses about NLP, hell I'd never heard about it until now. I'm here to help mediate your dispute. If we can act civilly, we'll get through this and move on, everybody should be happy, and you continue editing. If both sides choose to continue to personally attack me, or each other, I'm warning you right now, I'll take every action available to me: RfC against each of you, Arbcom, WP:AIV, +protection request, 3RR reports, etc. I don't side with anybody. So far I've seen 3 violators with only minor checking: Comaze, Camridge, and HeadleyDown. I'm more than happy to dig through history here and find every little nugget that ever violated a policy, but that wouldn't be WP:AGF. Show me WHY I should be assuming good faith, and work your problems out here. Swatjester 14:11, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
OK Swatjester, your cred just about checks out. But I doubt you have the knowledge level of VoiceOfAll. "IF" you are interested in mediating here, you should realise that people come here regularly professing to be wikipedia savvy and uninterested parties, then they turn out to be utter wankers with several NLP certificates and vested interests in promoting their own businesses, cults and religions. They then go on to conduct the most desperately delusional set of NLP "persuasion techniques" in order to somehow magically transform a pseudoscience into a science and trying to fool mediators and arbitrators into believing that piss is wine. Comaze is a long term censor, and as you can see, has just been irritating people for the past few days by repeatedly badgering for deletions that were denied many multiple times during mediation, and by posting harrasment on personal pages. There are some editors here who understand NLP. Not just from reading promotional cult manuals, but also from studying the actual research of the most independent researchers (scientists). So if you really like fluffy and pleasantly sounding ideas, I suggest you disappear. IF you are into hard facts then stick around. The article is just about to get more realistic.
HeadleyDown
17:28, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Ok so here's the first step of this. Using the following template, which will show up when you click on edit this section, please state what you feel is the nature of this dispute. Do NOT attack other editors in this... by that I mean say "I feel XXX is pushing POV and deleting stuff he doesn't agree with", not "I feel XXX is an asshole, pushing his retarded POV and deleting whatever truth he doesn't believe in". Each person involved here is welcome to submit a different view of their version of events. If you see one that you already believe in, there will be a section where you can endorse it by signing with ~~~~.
Looks like we're having some trouble reading here. Lets keep the statements of dispute short please, and limit them only to naming the NATURE of the dispute, not evidence supporting it. What do you think is the problem here? Is it that this user does not show good faith? is it that this other user continuously reverts? what is the actual physical problem, at the lowest level possible? I ask that Comaze, you rewrite your statement to better fit the template's request please? And try to keep it around 4-5 sentences?
Swatjester
00:25, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
(state the dispute here as you see it. Remember, no personal attacks. This section is not for evidence, nor should it need to be more than 4 sentences long. Just state what you think the dispute is over.)
The dispute is the same as always, but the action of the dispute is being used to highlight Comaze's months of fact censorship, slur campaigning on talk pages, and general antagonism. Comaze is not acting in good faith, and any chance he gets he tries to delete (whitewash) sections written by me or others on this discussion page. He also tries to accuse others of personally attacking him. He has been warned by mediators not to post warning or sockpuppet stickers or threats to block on other editors talk pages, yet he continues. Some comments do contain personal attack, but considering the circumstances they are totally understandable, the comments have consistently been directed towards Comze's persistent and daily antiNPOV misdeeds. He has used every surreptitious method possible, including creating extra promotional articles, and altering images irrecoverably. His actions and statements have encouraged many other NLP fans to behave with similar antiNPOV activities. Comaze has caused a huge amount of extra work for editors and mediators here, and he advocated for a ref format change, but expected others to do it for him. We are all waiting for him to finish the job. He decided to antagonize people, make deletions of fact, and continue with his slur campaigning on personal talk pages instead. HeadleyDown 18:06, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Note, EACH AND EVERY ONE OF THE ABOVE SIGNERS was later demonstrated to be sockpuppet of HeadleyDown. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
76.226.91.83 (
talk)
01:01, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Further to Headley's view, the secondary impediment to improving the quality of the article is the regularly rotated gaggle of scientifically illiterate, brainwashed, ignorant cretin wankers (that believe they are super-persuasive) that don't have any familiariry with the cited literature nor an appreciation of its significance that insist on injecting their marginally illiterate, shitful, inspid "pearls" into the article. These are typically one-liners such as, "Bandler says he doesn't do theory", "NLP is a model" etc. The current cast of dead weights includes DejaKitty, Metabubble, 7even, Akulkis and some other tosser that edits anonymously. Although Comaze's behaviour is objectionable I would not include him in this League of (Nihlistic) Morons". I have stated months ago that the disputes regarding this article are non-justiciable, i.e. they cannot be adjudicated upon, and I am being proven correct. I have attempted to elicit reasons from Comaze -- publicly and privately -- in an attempt to yield a justiciable issue. I have found none. Comaze's position is essentially faith-based, he has no substantive resaons for his positions. Comaze's ultimate recourse is simply, "I have found it to be useful" and he appears to believe that this has equal evidentiary value as several dozen (peer-reviewed) research papers and literature reviews. Comaze's position contains an implicit rejection of all of the critical NLP research (and a hypocritical acceptance of favorable research reports). Furthermore, his rejection is justified with (NLP) platitudes and cliches (eg. "NLP has a different epistemology to science", "NLP has it's own criteria of evidence and argumentation") or in a circular question-begging manner ("the research is bad because it is critical of NLP"). There is no way forward with Comaze or with the League of (Nihilistic) Morons. flavius 16:55, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
There is motion to close at arbom so I'll wait until their decision is finalised. Currently I do not have the confidence to contribute to this article. -- Comaze 14:19, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
The following sentence appears to make no sense to me: "Some authors [107][108] use internal Verbal/Auditory/Kinesthetic strategies in order to categorize people within a thinking strategies or learning styles framework for instance, that there exist visual, kinesthetic or auditory types of manager." -- Xyzzyplugh 19:48, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Read the literature. Hardly any of it makes sense. Bad writing was introduced here at the insistance of NLP zealots and mediators who pushed for that format: Such and such states that: -----------. Normal clear writing usually makes a statement and then has a ref to support it. If you want your ridiculously obscure and lengthy attribution format, then don't fucking complain about how it reads. HeadleyDown 02:33, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
OK, I advocate the use of clear writing of statements, with references at the end of the line. I also advocate ignoring unreasonable demands of NLP fanatics and mediators. HeadleyDown 06:26, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
VAK strategies are based upon the central tennet (BAGEL) model of NLP. This is not in dispute in the literature, though long term censors have attempted to remove it from the article at regular times. Those senses based assumptions, are intrinsically, implicitly, and explicitly connected to the engram concept. Engrams ARE theoretical brain circuits, although the pseudoscience of NLP has them confoundingly confused with the Hubbardian notion of engrams in the subconscious. In addition to that piece of pseudoscience, many authors explicitly make universal categories of visual people, auditory people, and kinesthetic people. The others simply make implicit reference to such categories. Research into the invalidity of these concepts has obviously concluded that its all easy to swallow hogwash that will leave the imbiber with nothing to do but spit nonsense. These have become common mind myths due in part to the lack of clarity within the salesbabble and the unqualified overpromotional nature of NLP literature and seminars. It will be clarified more in this article and related articles. Camridge 03:39, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
Mmmm, to be more specific though. Reviews of NLP literature state that NLP's theoretical assumptions are flawed, pseudoscientific, based on metaphors that are woefully out of date. It is very important to explain this point. If readers assume that NLP's more recent flavours are any more correct than the original confections, then they will be wrong. Modern (post 1960s) science will need to be clearly referred to in order to solve this pressing problem.
HeadleyDown
10:28, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
Hi new zealots and mediators. If you want to edit/mediate here I suggest you spend about 3 weeks reading the archives first. Basically it goes: NLP idiots don't like the bare facts, so they delete them, and neutrally minded editors restore them. Fanatics demand extra refs, those refs are found, and supplied through library searches, and the fanatics delete regardless. Reversion wars ensue. Mediation takes place at the insistence of NLP fanatics, NLP fanatics do not like mediator's sense of balance, and they beg for a new mediator or for arbitration. NLP fanatics (especially Comaze) become desperate, and try any subterfuge, officious pretence, surreptitious edit, accusation, vexatious litigation, threat in order to try to ban neutrally minded editors, to include whitewash, to censor well supported facts etc. Sometimes it quitens down. So much fact and extra evidence was provided (due to the nagging of NLP fanatics) that the file size was over limits. The article became brevified, and some of that evidence cut.
Now, we seem to have a new mediator, and I guess the process of NLP fanatics demanding extra evidence will rise again (I noticed Comaze's mediation template). So much work has been done here to satisfy mediators and NLP fanatics. Looks like its going round again. No wonder Headley and other neutrally minded editors are so pissed. To put it bluntly: READ THE DAMN ARCHIVES! COMAZE AND OTHER NLP FANATICS CONSISTENTLY (DAILY) ACT AGAINST WIKIPEDIA POLICY. JPLogan 03:04, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
Yes JP. It all is too predictable. I suggest ignoring most of it. It is just a pain. Reduce the overwork by restoring all the extra damning evidence that the moneygrabbing bookburning NLPpromoters asked for. They asked for it. They should get it now. HansAntel 03:49, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
I have just restored some of those uncontroverted facts. The article contains more facts that help to better explain to readers and fanatics the nature of NLP.
OK now all the newcomers have become more acquainted with what their chores are (so far its mostly been about antagonizing editors and being ignored), I think they can simply get on with mediating instead. In a few weeks, after they have read the archives, they may have something to offer.
In the meantime, there are more facts to restore to the article. We will place them back in as they were, and then start to condense them down a little over time, whilst keeping all the meaningful content and refs.
If Comaze or any other censor wishes to delete any of it, those facts will be enlarged again to their original quote size. If Comaze and co wish to demand answers to questions that have been covered multiple times in the archives then those facts will be enlarged upon and added into the article in order to clarify those facts to the fanatics. Now won't that be fun! HeadleyDown 11:12, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
The page has been protected per mediator request. Place all comments, responses, etc here not on my talk page. KillerChihuahua ?!? 12:11, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps we can start a practice sub-page (e.g. Neuro-linguistic programming/draft ) to get practice on collaborative writing. When the collaborative process returns normal without edit wars, we can unlock the main page. -- Dejakitty 16:04, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
Please excuse that I use the right to participate in the free encyclopedia, as I saw this might not be welcomed here. As a Wikipedian from a non-English speaking country, one of the things I can say is that the form of discussion here resembles many of the discussions in my country and throughout the world. It is always the same story: people try to divide each other into two groups—allies and enemies. The main rule of the discussion is to state in every message that enemies are bloody fanatics, devil worshippers and completely messed up stupid dickheads. About "ourselves" in such discussions it is good to say "oh we've been trying everything, but these fanatics didn't want to listen." Curious thing that usually both sides are working in the same model of dialogue—the model we may call "Put as much trash on your opponent as you can." The most interesting thing, as I see it, happens when an outsider (who's alien to the discussion and is able to look at it without many a bias) comes: for him or her, those who yell about the fanaticism of the other side seem fanatics themselves. The same thing has happened so many times in the history, that it became not interesting to discuss.
Another interesting thing's that when sometimes one side declines to choose the model of "I am the only smartest here" behavior, and works in a civil manner, keeping to the neutrality tone, the other side would claim his actions are fanatical anyway, no matter what real reasons the former had. They just will to interpret his actions this way because according to their tunnel of reality they are doing the best in their interests (that's why in the first comment of mine I asked, Cui bono?). In most cases they believe they are pursuing the truth. You see that's how Lysenkoism happens: when one side keeps only to rational arguments and other side keeps to emotional arguments, for a common third-side person, who's not experienced and not prepared to keep emotions off when it's necessary, the emotional arguments might feel more right, perhaps because emotions compared to reason are philogenetically far more ancient and influence more structures in the organism system. A more experienced person would be able to divide the arguments driven by emotions and the reasonable arguments.
The point I want to make is: please keep your emotions to minimum in your comments. This would happen if you try to avoid
I understand it's probably impossible here, where everybody—no matter what the level of his or her maturity and self-development is—can insert his own word, but I consider it necessary for making a good article or at least a goodwill discussion. In real life, too, if you feel you are right, and you have many friends who feel the same, the little socium you can be considered a part of will massively support your viewpoint, and this will construct a visibility of your own righteousness and unrighteousness of others—that's how it works in real religious cults and with real religious fanatics.
Excuse me for such a long comment, but it could've been much longer. I am not trying to say that one side's right and other is not. However I would like to believe that every one of you does not just push one's own point of view (supporting it with dozens of refs—"we have something for everybody"—or not), but wants to find a compromise because there can be no way to prove that absolute truth is hidden only in your opinion or an opinion of the scientists who support you. I think people have the right to get acquainted with the theory of NLP; and there are many great minds, scientists, and psychologists who use NLP in their practice, and you can't just call all of them freakin fanatics and scientologists only because NLP works well for them. Also I think people have the right to know that other great minds, scientists, and psychologists are opposed to NLP because of research and experimental data (I myself would like to read and consider that kind of information). Thus both sides should be represented in the article, because I think that in the modern world no one should call any one as the Absolute Authority.
Thank you, 7even 13:27, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
Thank you 7even for your input. I agree that there is a lot of room for improvement with regards to our listening skills. I would be grateful if you can make your posting a bit shorter as lots of people feels like they have a lot to say. Thanks -- Dejakitty 16:14, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
To Killerchihuahua, I am sorry that you take my message as a form of personal attack. I was just trying to point out behaviour that may disrupt the process rather than attacking any particular editor per se. I think it is important to separate behaviour from people when dealing with these kinds of situation. I hope that you will be able to concentrate on the process rather than get sucked into disputed content. If you think this is still personal attack, please feel free to delete all my posting here. -- Dejakitty 15:56, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
Flavius, please review WP:NPA.
Swatjester
19:12, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
I have retracted my idea of having draft page, given that VoA or other admin will volunteer to do the actual editing while the page is protected.-- Dejakitty 01:03, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
It would be better not to acknowledge or respond to any unconstructive postings (I am talking in general, I am not attacking anyone here.) either positively or negatively, else you will find yourself sucked into endless futile debate. On the other hand please give more positive support to constructive postings. Thank you. -- Dejakitty 20:20, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
Socks/meatpuppets are a problem here, when it comes to consensus, as it distorts the true consensus. That has been making things difficult. Many editors have edited only NLP articles, and have very similar user pages. We may need more outside opinions.
As I have done recently, personal attacks will be removed. Vague commentary will be removed as well. Edits should be made through admins only, since all else has failed. Vague accuations of POV or simplistic characterizing of everything as a "fact" will not be tolerated either. Accesive associations and other clear NPOV violations should not even be proposed.
Whether NLP is "total fraud" or not, its models, propositions, and criticism must be represented per NPOV. There is enough criticism in this article that we cleary do not need associations with pseudosciences such as Scientology in every paragraph, just because some unheard of practioner also uses them. Intelligent Design is a good article example of a topic that is far more widely rejected by scientists (albeit perhaps as it is more popular and gets more attention), but it does not have things like "ID is quakery nonsense just to endorse christianity (A 19YY)(B 19YY)(C 19YY)(D 19YY)(E 19YY)(F 19YY)(G 19YY)(H 19YY)", as clearly, wording like that has an agenda. The article gets across the point that it is rejected by the mainstream scientific community without having "ID sucks" quotes flooded into the article all over the place. NLP is even less centralized than ID. Due to its high variance, and usage in some reasonable circles (police force, ect...), parts of it likely have some value, and not all of them where studied. Not to mention that it has evolved. Having such a varying disorganized, mainly totally unsupported, models floating all around alots for much confusion about its effectiveness. Overal, one might reasonably say that it is not effective per 1970s/1980s studies, but that does not rule out every aspect. Some people use more classical conditioning like techniques for clients, while ignoring other NLP ideas or "positive/negative energy" Scientology ideas. Others use it in cults in certain European circles.
To concude, we must avoid the use of blanket statements where they can not be used. We must avoid spreading criticism all over every section. We must avoid the excessive use of "NLP sucks" quotes. If a reference is out of context, it should be corrected (and I don't believe that many are). Solid refs that have been unchallenged for months should not be suddenly challenged though. Rebuttals to critics by very minor practioners should not be included, as we don't put in our British Literature profesor's criticism of a novel just because he has a PhD. Notice that Intelligent design avoids such minor critics, as it should, as anyone can dig up some guy that supports them, and through it in as criticism. And remember to avoid origional research, such as "he saw EST lectures, therefore NLP=EST and Scientology". Remember that we have plenty of solid criticism, so personal (WP:OR) critical commentary, beyond being innapproprate per WP:NPOV, is not even needed. That goes for origional research criticism of critism too. Voice of All T| @| ESP 21:29, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
Consensus is not important here, mostly due to the presence of editors who's religion overcomes judgment or recognition of science. Ditching one's religion is necessary to edit in this case. The cold steel of science will be the order of the year on this article. HeadleyDown 17:19, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
Damn! I go away for 12 hours and everything goes nuts! Ok so just to let everyone know what's up, I've got military training obligations keeping me away today and tomorrow during the day, but I'm here for the evenings. When I return from dinner tonight, we'll begin the first step of the mediation process on the article, which is going to start from the top. So, start thinking in your heads about how you want to present the very first introduction paragraphs on the article. Currently they say this
So, start looking at how you want to revise that if at all. I'm coming back in about 3 hours, and will remain here tonight to listen to the rest of your responses. Swatjester 23:44, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
I want to see the current intro shortened, the removal of the "Dianetics and Scientology references", the removal of false claim like belief in "unlimited potential":
(can someone else finish this for me -- I'm out of time)... -- Comaze 00:37, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
Consider your throat cut. Your request is badgering. Nothing more. Refer to the archives. Dianetics and Scientology will become more than a cursory mention. You obviously don't get it, therefore, it will be enlarged upon with explanation. HeadleyDown 17:26, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
Swatjester, Comaze thanks for volunteering. This talk page is full. Would it be helpful to make a page with a list of proposed changes ( Neuro-linguistic programming(RequestforEdits)) for people to comment on and vote for. I think that we will have to rely on admin's good will to make update edits of approved changes, something like once every 1-2 month? Looks like VoA is getting on the right track. So I don't think you need my further unsolicited intrusion. Goodbye -- Dejakitty 00:51, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
I wish I had more to add, I am just not fluent enough.
jVirus
03:47, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
Re: Dejakitty's suggestion up above, no new page is needed for this discussion. The talk page is where people expect to find it, and it will do just fine. Perhaps if one of the mediators thinks it is worthwhile, some of the above discussion can be archived so this talk page isn't quite as long. —
Cleared as filed.
05:20, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
Indeed, New Age needs expanding in the article in relation to NLP. Metabubble has asked for its removal before. Nothing new was added to arguments that have been presented in the archives multiple times. That is badgering and antagonistic. For the sake of keeping a steely peace, request is ignored. HeadleyDown 17:26, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
flavius 19:24, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
Again I request for Metabbubble to be blocked from this discussion. Mettabubble, you are saying all the right stuff for irritating the editors here. It is not Flavius' fault that there is no magic search function for the archives. There is an overwhelmingly compelling reason for the NCAHF to be included, and it relates in part to the zealously litigous nature of cults and pseudoscience promoters. This has been covered in depth, and Metabbubble is indeed trying to pull the wool, repeat nag, and screw as much out of the new mediator/s as possible. I repeat my request for the blocking of Mettabubble. HeadleyDown 12:22, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
Indeed, Metabubble is badgering in the same way that other "editors with vested interests in NLP" have persistently done. Request for metabubble to be blocked. HeadleyDown 17:27, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
No it does not make sense. Stop wasting editor's time. Read the archives and aquaint your self with science. HeadleyDown 17:31, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
Good grief! Mettabubble has badgered for Dianetics etc to be removed before, and other NLP promoters have done the same throughout the archives. I shall repeat some for the sake of the present newbie mediators. NLP has been clearly compared to Scientology/Dianetics in the research for many reasons. Dianetics and NLP are:
In the interests of punishing those who conflictingly nag for the simple reason that they think they can get away with conning the new mediators, I request that Mettabubble be blocked from editing or commenting on this discusion page. Camridge 06:29, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
Metta Bubble : I really like your suggestion to remove the Term "New Age" from the Intro. I think it might be more clear if we set up a structure for the article. If we chose to make the Intro closer to very basic simple purpose and things as described by the original co-founders, I think the intro itself will be quite hammered down solid? Perhaps we could then have a body describing some of the things in the intro, followed by a conclusion. And whatever. This being the basic form of our article. What do you think? This also means Flavius that in the intro, however long the intro may be, toward the end of the intro we would have a nice criticism paragraph about the same size as one of the intro paragraphs, or whatever is rationally needed. Those criticisms could then be expounded in the body in a order, similar to the other expoundings from the intro. Is this favorable or what might be your concerns if any? This means actually that in the intro critisim part you could if it is agreeable to everyone say something like "NLP is criticised as being of the New Age, Pseudoscientific, having little or no effect as to it's claims" or whatever is needed. Then we could expound on the intro criticism area in similar order in the body. The body being a reflection of the Intro if it might be. What do you think ppl? jVirus 11:00, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
The following was removed:
This is possibly the only factual statement that is known about NLP. I am not here to argue for its inclusion, I just want to know the reason for its removal. Bensaccount 16:11, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
I'm withdrawing the part of my earlier proposal where we have separate Pro and Con sub-sections, because it's not supported by some of the principal editors on this article, and I'm having seconds thoughts about that myself.
What remains of my proposal is what the Intro should contain. Here are my thoughts, and then I'm preserving only those comments that have to do with the Intro part. (If deleted anything you want to keep, I apologize -- please add it back, in a separate section if it dosn't have to do with the Intro per se.)
Guidelines for the Intro:
We might start off with something like this, which I believe is neutral:
Leave your comments below.
-- BrianH123 21:12, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
The only stabilization required is on the discussion page, because that is where the problems are. Repeat (daily) badgering questions, and requests for censorship and pseudoscience to gain priority over science have destabilized the discussion and caused a lot of conflict and extra work. With a mentor for Comaze and others with a similar agenda, the discussion will likely improve. HeadleyDown 03:30, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
Good, looks like we're making good progress here. I'm going to step back for a little bit and watch as you guys decide on the information. I'll still be here watching. Swatjester
Yeah I am excited. jVirus 08:41, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
Headly, please stop trying to dominate this talk page. Your last several edits have been demanding and confrontational, and ignoring users with differing opinions does nothing to help the further development of this page. Please try to edit constructively and join this mediation, for the good of the article. Swatjester 01:44, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
I will not dominate. Science WILL. HeadleyDown 02:47, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
I'm not getting into the specifics of NLP, because I don't know, and I don't care. But we have to conform with NPOV, and right now it's not happening. Domination of this article will lead only to revert wars like the one that got this page locked. This is what we're trying to avoid here. Instead of being defensive, we need to be constructive and reach a compromise here.
Swatjester
04:31, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
Oi mate! Swatjester I don't believe you have been here long enough to know. Headley is not dictating. He has consistently been the most cooperative, constructive, anti-propaganda editor on this article. He seems to be enforcing the "spirit" of NPOV policy better than you. The nonpromotional editors are constructive and cooperative. Now we have gained your attention, I think it is time to continue improving the article from its already advanced form - With NLP fanatics under a tighter state of apprehension. DaveRight 04:42, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
Swatjester, NPOV conformity doesn't entail passing bullshit off as fact and privileging pseudocience such that it speaks as loud as science in the article. If it did then the half of the Earth article would be devoted to flat-earth theory. flavius 05:21, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
Maybe what would help is, if we got one (specific) sentence statement from each user, ie refrences, honesty, clarity, punctuation, structure, whatever that might help. I am just not sure any longer. We maybe need clarity from people on what they feel the article needs to be finished. If it needs anything at all. Just one clear sentence would be good. The most important thing in your opinions maybe. (feel free everyone to edit your own opinions to make them more clear)
jVirus 00:12, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
New plan
-- BrianH123 18:14, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
Brian Would you be willing to list your desires of the above stated Hierarchically. But make them into just 3. Your top 3 wants for the article Hierarchically. jVirus 00:04, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Swatjester 20:20, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
Swatjester would you maybe your wants of the above stated for the article hierarchically. But make them just your top 3. Your top 3 wants for the article hierarchically. jVirus 00:06, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
I don't understand what you're asking me Jvirus. Swatjester 00:34, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Firstly, I agree that dispassionate discussion is important and that pressure should be taken off the mediators concerning requests to block NLP fan(atics)/promoters. But mediators would do well to understand that neutrally oriented editors here have already stated that detailed citations will be provided. It would help if mediators started to RECOGNIZE AND ACCEPT the cooperation of nonNLPpromotional editors. Camridge 07:58, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Is your position the same as Flavius,that what this article needs is more Scientific Backed Evidence? If you had to pick your top priority. jVirus 08:33, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
Sorry guys, I've made a priority change. I now believe the most important thing is to keep a refridgerator on discussion. Especially when NLP fans make unreasonable repeat demands. I make no demands on mediators or mentors to keep NLP promoters with vested interests, or NLP fans in order. Let them make whatever demands they like without the threat of blocking, and they will be dealt with coolly, and if necessary, scientific explanations should be increased in the article. When NLP fans/promoters delete facts in the article, or delete inappropriately on the discussion page, those deletes will be coolly reverted, and any reminders of agenda promotion should be dispassionate. HeadleyDown 12:18, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
JVirus, you seem to me to have misunderstood (perhaps deliberately) the requirements. We don't necessarily need MORE scientific evidence (though plenty more exists), but we do need more scientific explanation for the sake of clarity (a commitment to explanation of views from the point of view of science).
What is also very important is the recognition that some "editors with promotional agendas" have repeatedly asked and acted for the deletion of certain facts so that they cannot have explanations. Those views and explanations of experts work against commercial promotion of pseudoscience. The constant requests for certain authors to be disallowed, is an example of this. Eg, the repeat pleading and actions by Comaze, Akulkis, and Dejakitty for the emminently qualified authors, Singer, Lilienfeld, Carroll, and Eisner to be ejected from the article.
Correct me where I am off target Flavius, I believe CLEAR EXPLANATION with the benefit of rigorous research and science is your recommendation. I cannot speak for Dave, but I believe that is where one strong area of agreement is. HeadleyDown 12:02, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
HeadleyDown : Sorry with my words to DaveRight that you and Flavius responded to, I was not meaning along the lines that there was not enough evidence in the world to support, but rather questioning if he felt there were not sufficient scientificly backed passages as in, he Does he want more of the claims to be well scienficially refrenced. blah blah. foot in mouth on my part. Anyway. jVirus 00:00, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Interesting! Yes I would also like to know who are the members of the skeptics group, or if there are any. So far we know Comaze, and a few other NLP promoters have vested interests at stake. You should also know that Flavius and myself are qualified. I encourage the other NLP qualified to prove they are not biased towards NLP promotion. HeadleyDown 14:44, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Metta Bubble will make your wants of the above stated for the article hierarchically. But make them just your top 3. Your top 3 wants for the article hierarchically. jVirus 00:08, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Terms such as Dianetics, Scientology and Chomsky are not guilt by association. They are the qualified views of scientists, and with citations they are facts. They require more explanation. The views of scientists are the most dispassionate and credible. New age, cult-like, rituals, quasispiritual are all technically correct terms, and they all come from scientific research. I request Mettabubble to be blocked for deliberately attempting to irritate editors by repeat badgering for the censorship of facts. NLP is a fringe practice and requires no sub-pages. The only people setting up sub pages here are the NLP fans/promoters with vested interests. No neutrally inclined editor has ever set up subpages. Those subpages were all criticised by non promotional editors for being "how tos" and were criticised for being biased and promotional. NLP literature is designed to be intrinsically promotional. Any subpage should be written largely from the perspectives of researchers who research NLP, rather than NLP promoters who only wish to feather their own nests. Comaze and his intro should be deleted from this discussion for the sake of keeping the peace. The ONLY problem with this article is the presence of editors such as Mettabubble and Comaze who are using the new situation as a further opportunity to remove factual information from wikipedia. I request that they both be blocked. HeadleyDown 03:08, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Jejakitty, removing discussion completely, is not constructive, and it shows that you are prone to censoring text. I leave it up to you to remedy that. HeadleyDown 14:14, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
I agree with the suggestion to work on stabilizing this discussion, rather than the suggestion to censor facts from the article. The terms "pseudoscience" "New Age" and so on are actual facts according to NPOV policy. They are also facts attributed to eminent scientists. This article is concerned with pseudoscience, and science is most important for clarifying the facts. Removal of the terms "pseudoscience" and "new age" from the article is censorship. This has been dealt with in detail already in the archives. HeadleyDown 02:53, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Please include your comments here, I will make adjustments based on the comments: -- Comaze 12:52, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
Comaze, you need to argue each point, rather than simply weasel in your objections to the article. Your extreme and obsessive bias towards censorship has been noted and you will have your nose rubbed in it for as long as you extrete it. HeadleyDown 03:07, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Camridge 04:22, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
Comaze, I find your list of items disheartening in that my efforts towards educating you -- privately and publicly -- have been in vain.
Hello all, how's it going?
I look forward to it.
Comments? GregA 04:12, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
GregA.
Invite some more of your mates from the NLP newsgroups GregA. I'd love to point out some more of their vandalism, blundering illogic, and obsessive fanaticism. Camridge 04:34, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
Looks like we got some official mentors. The above information is quite raw for everyone. Hightly useful to me. I think since we got some new mentors I will perch this endeavour till we find out their collective plan and move from there. jVirus File:Confederate Battle Flag.svg 04:47, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
In regards to this edit [5], actually I think that page ix is correct. Normally in an introduction, the foreword is listed in lowercase roman numerals, such as ix, which would actually be page 9. This makes sense also because stylistically when citing a page, one cites the numerical number (in this case 6) not the written number (six). If the user really meant six there, he'd have put "6" instead, so I believe it really did mean to be "ix". Can we get clarification? Swatjester 04:35, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
Yes this is correct. But it needs more clarity from science. Some readers may miss the banal stupidity of Bateson's remark. To state that any science avoids theory is utter nonsense. If he said that "behavioral occult technology has often avoided theory" he would be right. We have views of scientists that state "NLP has contributed nothing to behavioural science". This will make a smart comparison for clarifying the issue. DaveRight 04:49, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
I do not. If you want to discuss the topic above, then make a new section for it. This section was only for clarification on "six" vs. "ix" Swatjester 19:09, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
The quote is definitely p.ix and is on the first page of Gregory Bateson's introduction to Structure of Magic Vol.1. -- Comaze 22:42, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
In regards to this edit [6], actually I think that page ix is correct. Normally in an introduction, the foreword is listed in lowercase roman numerals, such as ix, which would actually be page 9. This makes sense also because stylistically when citing a page, one cites the numerical number (in this case 6) not the written number (six). If the user really meant six there, he'd have put "6" instead, so I believe it really did mean to be "ix". Can we get clarification? Swatjester 04:35, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
Yes this is correct. But it needs more clarity from science. Some readers may miss the banal stupidity of Bateson's remark. To state that any science avoids theory is utter nonsense. If he said that "behavioral occult technology has often avoided theory" he would be right. We have views of scientists that state "NLP has contributed nothing to behavioural science". This will make a smart comparison for clarifying the issue. DaveRight 04:49, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
I do not. If you want to discuss the topic above, then make a new section for it. This section was only for clarification on "six" vs. "ix" Swatjester 19:09, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
The quote is definitely p.ix (page 9) and is on the first page of Gregory Bateson's introduction to Structure of Magic Vol.1. -- Comaze 22:42, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
Sure, I'll do my best to clarify such silly statements with the light of science and solid research. DaveRight 09:03, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
SWATjester : I have a feeling that hitting on the little bits and pieces that are wrong with the article first is just going to get us more of the same. I am somewhat under the impression that if we do not make concensus starting on the basics heading for the specifics is just going to take use more pages and more pages of talk. jVirus 09:47, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
What the article needs more than anything is exactly this kind of effective clarification of misconception. What the discussion page needs is for repeat NLPpromoters to be tortured by presenting more facts and logic. When they repeat badger, just ignore them, and get on with formulating the text for the article. Camridge 04:42, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
ArbCom Ruling complete. You can read it here but let me summarize it for you.
Rules: 1) Users who edit in a point of view or obsessive way may be banned partially or completely 2) It is not sufficient to simply refer to "Jones (1984)" as the source of information. There are a number of acceptable formats but a sufficient reference includes sufficient information to enable others to easily find the text relied on. 3) Wikipedia:Neutral point of view contemplates inclusion of all significant points of view regarding the subject of an article.
Situation: 1) A number of users have been engaging in aggressive point of view editing of Neuro-linguistic programming and related articles as well as personal attacks, examples may include but are not limited to: Comaze, HeadleyDown, JPLogan, Camridge, DaveRight, AliceDeGrey, and Flavius vanillus. 2) Most of the cited sources in the article do not meet minimum standards for reliable sources, lacking information regarding page number and identification of edition. 3) The article could more closely conform to neutral point of view by ascribing controversial viewpoints such as "NLP is pseudoscience" to those who have expressed such opinions, rather then presenting them as bald statements of fact.
Punishment: 1) Any administrator, upon good cause shown, may ban any user, from editing Neuro-linguistic programming or a related page. All bans shall be posted on the affected user's talk page and at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Neuro-linguistic_programming#Documentation_of_bans 2) Comaze, HeadleyDown, JPLogan, Camridge, DaveRight, and AliceDeGrey are reminded to provide an adequate description of the source of information included in the article, in the case of publications to page and edition 3) Comaze, HeadleyDown, JPLogan, Camridge, DaveRight, and AliceDeGrey are reminded to ascribe point of view statements to those making them. 4) Comaze, HeadleyDown, JPLogan, Camridge, DaveRight, and AliceDeGrey are required to discuss any content reversions on Neuro-linguistic programming on its talk page.
Mentorship: 5) The article Neuro-linguistic programming is placed under the mentorship of three to five administrators to be named later. All content reversions on this page must be discussed on the article talk page. The mentors are to have a free hand, do not have veto over each other's actions, will be communicating closely and will generally trust each other's judgement. Any mentor, upon good cause shown, may ban any user from editing Neuro-linguistic programming or a related page. All bans shall be posted on the affected user's talk page and at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Neuro-linguistic_programming#Documentation_of_bans. The mentorship arrangement will be reviewed in three months. If, at that time, the mentors agree that the article has demonstrated the ability to grow without strife, the mentorship may be ended and this remedy declared void.
Blocking: 1) If a user banned from editing under this decision does so, they may be briefly blocked, up to a week in the event of repeat offenses. After 5 blocks the maximum block shall increase to one year.
Now, with that out of the way, lets get back to editing constructively. Swatjester 15:21, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
Swatjester. Just so you understand. Proper detailed and sufficiently fussy attribution will be attained as long as mentors do their duty and get the fanatics off the back of the neutrally inclined editors. If mentors allow NLP fanatics to remove facts that have been established through the supported (with citations) views of scientists and proper researchers, then those page numbers, ISBNs and all the other infernal beurocracy can be dealt with, regardless of whether the views and facts are as common sense and blatantly obvious as they are already. Better still, if mentors can somehow encourage the NLP fanatics into looking up the refs and supplying the appropriate page numbers etc, then the editors who work in good faith can simply get on with clear explanations. Here is a constructive suggestion: Comaze and other similar "editors" have yet to make the changes to the ref format that they advocated. I'm sure they can kill two birds with one stone, and supply a lot of the details that have been so requested at the same time. After all the requests were supplied by arbitration that NLP fans demanded. It would be very sensible and constructive to divert the NLP fans to "pay" for the excessive amount of strife THEY have caused.
HeadleyDown
16:01, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
You're missing the point. Everyone now has to provide that kind of citation, both the pro-NLP and anti-NLP camps. Furthermore, nobody is being allowed to remove any facts for two reasons. 1) the page is protected, and will be until this is resolved. 2) any edits by the named parties in the arbcom must be discussed and agreed upon on the talk page. Swatjester 16:42, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
No Swatjester, you were talking about bullshit. Nobody has refused to provide citations. You are antagonizing and finding fault where none exists. HeadleyDown 02:48, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
==Archival== I'm preparing to archive everything from "Summary of findings" above. Swatjester 20:21, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for volunteering, Swatjester. It may be better to request an admin to do the archiving to avoid (I am not accusing anyone here, just talking in general.) accusation of censorship for the time being. Remember, do not respond to, acknowledge or give your attention to any personal attacks or inappropriate postings. Though in general it is permissible to remove any hypothetical abusive posting, in this particular case, it is better to leave this to admins to do it for the time being. -- Dejakitty 22:24, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
Yeah. But we won't need an admin to do it, and I think everyone involved on this page knows that we have at least 4 admins watching (KillerChihuahua, VoA, Bagdhani, and Cleared-as-filed, possibly more). In order to avoid any censorship accusations I'm cutting the archive short of where I wanted to, but I think starting from the "summary of findings" gives a good enough impression. If I don't hear anything by midnight tonight, I'll go ahead with the archive. BTW, you can preview the archived version by clicking the "archive 10" link at the top of this page. Swatjester 23:33, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
Swatjester, JVirus, I have no fundamental objection to doing archiving. The talk page needs one badly. I was just considering potential porblems with archiving in tense situations. I trust you to make the right decision using your judgement. -- Dejakitty 00:38, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Further, if/when this is archived I put that this section named "Archival" to be deleted. -- Comaze 10:32, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Archival is complete. I won't delete this section, instead it will be moved into the next archive.
Swatjester
16:16, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Further to the suggestions to placing criticisms throughout the article. It would not be sensible to restrict all criticisms to the criticisms section. However, clear scientific explanation can be given throughout the article. To deal with the deliberately confusing NLP concepts, a clear scientifically or research based clarification should be presented. This will be a great help to the less knowledgeable readers. If ends up sounding critical, that is only due to the deliberately misleading nature of lot of NLP concepts (the obvious contrast you gain when you juxtapose nonsense and common sense). The criticism section seems necessary because a good deal of the literature is referred to as "critical view or review" and those criticisms could do with more explanation also. Camridge 08:26, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Oh I agree, a critical section is 100% necessary. Can we agree though, that the majority (perhaps 90%) of the criticism be kept to that section, and that criticisms in the rest of the article be kept short?
For instance in a section involving NLP Claims, criticism be kept to a minimum, and even then short, 1 or two sentences at most. This section would be immediately followed up with a section called "NLP Criticisms and Controversies" where you could go as in depth as you want with that criticism. This keeps everything clean and readable. What say you? Swatjester 16:15, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Another pointer! I would like to point out the "beliefs" of some of the editors here. I am sure VOA would agree that some of the claims that NLPers make even on this article are quite wild - eg, it really works, it is powerful, you can give people orgasms just by speaking using NLP, you can get laid using NLP, NLP is far advanced of psychology and science etc. Here is just a hint of that in the dialogue between Comaze and Jvirus - [7]. I am not implying that they are deluded. But you will notice how "belief" sustaining their language and dialogue is. Camridge 10:32, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
On a light note, this discussion here is not always so chilly. I invite the mediators to stick around. The claims and absurdity regarding NLP claims are often hillarious, and the flailing attempts by the more desperate editors, to pull the other one, are generally ball-bouncingly funny. Probably one reason why editors remain. HeadleyDown 14:53, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
What! You mean you havn't been laughing your nuts off at this mediation/NLPpromotion attempt for the past few days? Is there something wrong with you? Cheers DaveRight 04:24, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Please disassociate the mediation attempt from the NLP Promoters. Mediators are impartial. If you would like to help the mediation effort, you're more then welcome to help constructively. ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 05:40, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Just a suggestion to take the pressure off everyone. It may be a good idea to keep the page locked for a few days longer. This can enable a search of the archives to come up with a set of standard replies (or links) to deal with nagging unreasonable requests for the wholesale dismissal of science etc. A lot has been written already, and a great deal has been done to properly answer the questions of the NLPpromotional editors. The constructive part of this suggestion will involve the search for concise replies that will solve the problem of "oh its in the archives somewhere" objection. This will take time, and if the mediators push for more thorough use of the archives, then amicable pagelocks could be used while nonpromotional NLP editors take their time searching for re-usable evidence and logic without having to deal with the inevitable sneaky edits of the NLP promoters. HeadleyDown 15:23, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
100% agreed. Swatjester 16:09, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Was someone considering unlocking it, the main page are we talkng about?!??? jVirus 23:51, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Not that I know of. ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 02:50, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
There's a lot to read today, so I will be brief. I am not dictating, but here is how the article will be, nomatter what ANYBODY says.
JPLogan 05:01, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Yes, thats pretty clear. I commit to coping with the everpresence of NLP fan(atics) and NLP promoters with vested interests. I encourage other editors to do the same. It seems we have no other option but to "correct" the misbehaviour and misconceptions of NLP sharks and sheep ourselves. Wikipedia arbitrators and mediators! I thank you for allowing me to recognize and accept this reality, and I will act accordingly. Camridge 07:22, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Good suggestion. Best to take the perspective of reality! I believe nonNLPpromotional editors have shirked their duty to some extent though. Only with regard to throwing the book at Comaze and other miscreants. Yes Headley, I disagree with you on that, and I believe you should not be so proud about due process. Comaze and the other promotional editors have a rotten history and we should take the time to do RFCs and whatever other paperwork is required in order to post permanent blemishes on the censors/whitewashers/wikispammer's talk pages and to warn other unwitting editors on other articles of their agendas. Mediators have a hard time already, and I will do my best to make it easy for them. I will provide brief explanation wherever necessary even though I've typed a thousand miles of the stuff already. We could even make this fun. You know I like making fun! Here's to progress and clarity! Cheers DaveRight 09:02, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Lets put lots of personal comments on Comaze's discussion page. HeadleyDown 12:10, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
I propose the following as consensus guidelines for editing the article. The source of each of these is in {braces} after the statement. If people agree with these, perhaps they could be posted to the top of the talk page.
Please state whether you agree with the above. And if you want to propose additional guidelines, feel free to do that as well.
— BrianH123 21:47, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Hmm...I agree with everything the ArbCom presents...as for the stuff you've added on your own, I'm going to withhold judgement for a bit while I ponder it. I do want to propose my own guideline: that all criticisms be confined to the Criticism section. Proper structure will be the key to keeping the NPOV in this article.
⇒
SWATJester
Ready
Aim
Fire!
22:27, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Yeah I suppose I agree basically. Not sure what this gets us as far as progress right this second but yeah these rules would be good. jVirus 23:36, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Well the terms such as pseudoscience, engram, and new age need MORE explanation as the relate strongly to NLP in many ways. That is extremely important because so many people here simply don't get it, or simply don't want it. There is a lot to read on such subjects, and I can understand people not wanting to have to delve the bookshelves, so far more explanation should be done within the article. HeadleyDown 02:59, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
I see Brian. The whole article needs proper representation in the opening. It will help readers if such clarifying facts are briefly presented in the opening. I know its objectionable to NLPpromoters, but they will just have to live with it. DaveRight 04:21, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Hi Brian. It seems to me that keeping the terms you suggest out of the opening is only to appease the permanently posted censors of fact. That's a pretty bad reason. Certainly, the NLP fan(antics) and pseudoscience promoters will remove those terms from the opening just as they always have done. I fully accept the task of reverting their censorship. Camridge 04:56, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Comment: Fair and unbiased does not mean equal. Please see WP:NPOV#Undue weight. KillerChihuahua ?!? 09:14, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Excuse me again Killerchihuahua. Your comment seems to be unconnected to any one else's. I take it that you mean that fancy sounding pseudoscientific salespitch is not equal to science, good research and logic. Camridge 10:07, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Hello Brian. I will be as clear as possible as you are a newbie to the subject. Pseudoscientific psychocult is a neutral term used in science, anthropology, and sociology amongst other research areas. Notice pseudoscience is also a category used liberally by wikipedia. Psychocults are groups of devotees who adhere to a particular area of psychology as a support for their beliefs. A pseudoscientific psychocult adheres to the earlier and more pseudoscientific notions of psychology such as the belief in superhuman potential, and the overwhelming power of the subconscious etc. I understand you wish to promote harmony here, but harmony does not entail farting in tune with fact censoring NLP salespeople. Regards
HeadleyDown
11:38, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
By the way, as Comaze saw fit to try to censor the engram article for the past few months, he should now be extremely wary of misbehaving again there in future. He will sorely regret it. If he cannot help himself, then he will simply suffer more of the facts. NPOV policy will be there to "correct" his misdeeds. I realize NLPpromoters will continue to write extra promotional pages to link to this one. It will most likely remain the nonNLPpromotional editors job to remove such spam from the main article. HeadleyDown 02:59, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Please feel free to add stuff.
Cheers DaveRight 04:35, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Warning:
All posts on this page should be article related. End of story. Cease personal attacks, "us vs. them" mentality and verbiage. AGF and focus on the article. Be civil. KillerChihuahua ?!? 09:21, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
The mediators do not bring their biases into this. Your description is especially off, as I'm a republican conservative, far from those things you mentioned. Please stop insulting the mediators at every step, it's not constructive to this. ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 05:45, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
DaveRight: If you're referring to me, you're sorely mistaken. Read my posts throughout this talk page. I have consistently argued for a scientific point of view on this article, that it should be the majority viewpoint in the article (take up the most space), that NLP's claims to have an "alternative epistemology" are crap, etc. I'm not in the least bit post-modernist: I'm very anti-epistemological-relativism, and I don't have a New Age bone in my body. And you can use any word you want to in the article: just source it, and explain it, and at least introduce the NLP topic before you tar and feather it. -- BrianH123 06:09, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Brian and Swatjester. Dave's suggestions are very constructive. YOU are being overdefensive. You have given me strong impressions of your biases. This is a salient point partly due to the fact that the postmodern attitudes are quite widespread especially on the web. This is also important as you both have stated that you don't know much about NLP. I urge YOU to assume good faith. Camridge 07:02, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Brian, we are here to make it easy on the reader to read well researched facts. Not flounder in a pit of salespitch. HeadleyDown 00:36, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
Nice to know, Swatjester. So you won't be exhibiting a bias in that direction then! Fine! Camridge 08:18, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Does any mediator here agree with this point?
Its clear already! The point that: reality depends upon who we are!
That's a subject for another article. Not this talk page.
⇒
SWATJester
Ready
Aim
Fire!
07:41, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
I'll take that as a yes! You are a quite postmodernist! Camridge 07:52, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Bunge, M. "Realism and Antirealism in Social Science" Theory and Decision 35: 207-235, 1993. Kluwer Academic Publishers,Netherlands.
Bradley, D. R. "HOW TO LOSE YOUR GRIP ON REALITY? AN ATTACK ON ANTI-REALISM IN QUANTUM THEORY" [8]
The success and universality of science and technology as well the history of science and technology (all of the great civilsations including the Arabic and Oriental made scientific discoveries)suggest that (a) there is such a thing as objective knowledge; (b) we can gain objective knowledge; (c) there is a reality; and (d) we are capable of learning about that reality. Science and technology would be impossible if any for of epistemological relativism or antirealism were valid philosophical doctrines. Gravity is their whether you believe in it or not. See the works of Mario Bunge for a detailed defence of scientific realism. flavius 08:33, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
The arbitration has recently ruled, in Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Neuro-linguistic_programming:
The article Neuro-linguistic programming is placed under the mentorship of three to five administrators to be named later. All content reversions on this page must be discussed on the article talk page. The mentors are to have a free hand, do not have veto over each other's actions, will be communicating closely and will generally trust each other's judgement. Any mentor, upon good cause shown, may ban any user from editing Neuro-linguistic programming or a related page. All bans shall be posted on the affected user's talk page and at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Neuro-linguistic_programming#Documentation_of_bans. The mentorship arrangement will be reviewed in three months. If, at that time, the mentors agree that the article has demonstrated the ability to grow without strife, the mentorship may be ended and this remedy declared void.
The selected mentors are Jdavidb, Katefan0, Ral315, and Woohookitty. They will get to know the situation and actively monitor this article. Any questions of enforcement or questionable conduct should be directed to them. Thank you. Dmcdevit· t 10:40, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Hi all. Could I have more than my fair share of mentors please?:) HeadleyDown 13:19, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
As we now have mentors here, I"ll be drastically scaling back my mediation efforts here. Thanks for coming guys.
⇒
SWATJester
Ready
Aim
Fire!
16:07, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
I thought it'd be easier to introduce myself here, since there are many users involved in this conflict. Just a little introduction. I've been on Wikipedia since December 2004, an admin since June 2005. I believe very strongly in NPOV. Despite my political leanings, I believe very strongly in writing for the enemy. As for my admin style, I try to give people every benefit of the doubt before blocking or banning. My main motto is...argue the issues, not the people. If you follow that, you will be ok. -- Woohookitty (cat scratches) 11:12, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Welcome -- Comaze 11:23, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Great Woohookitty. I am also into the NPOV thing. Perhaps you will help me spread the word to other articles on the fanatical NLP promotional agenda here. NLP has turned out to be a fabulous exemplar for pseudoscientific cults. Also, all articles which have pseudoscience or cult in the subject matter, could be very well clarified with reference to NLP. Regards HeadleyDown 11:46, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Hi, folks. Just a quick hello and an intro. I've been on Wikipedia since about 2004-02. I'm a firm believer in NPOV and consensus as the guiding principles that make Wikipedia work; I believe without reservation that these principles will ultimately result in a high-quality encyclopedia.
Hopefully I'm pretty well-suited for this job. I'm well-accustomed to what needs to be done in order to represent a non-mainstream point of view within Wikipedia's NPOV framework. After all, I'm a fundamentalist Christian who believes the earth is most likely 6000 years old. ;) (Not sure if that will encourage people or dishearten them, at first.) But I know how to take the high ground in making Wikipedia a place where beliefs are fairly and accurately represented without allowing Wikipedia itself to take a stand.
I'm reading up on this article and the arbCom case, and I can see that I'll have to read this talk page's history and probably the history of the article, too. Give me a couple of days to get acquainted with the issue, and then we'll all start moving.
I know all three of my fellow-mentors and happen to know from experience that each of them is a great Wikipedian. I think everyone involved here who wants to see a high-quality, fair article on NLP is in for a real treat! Jdavidb ( talk • contribs) 13:56, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Headley, please don't refer to anyone as "poisonous." I understand that editing controversial articles can be extremely frustrating. (Believe me, I understand!) But please take every opportunity to take the highest ground possible.
I guarantee you that I (and my fellow mentors for this article) are going to watch out for everybody. We've all seen enough that it's amazing we're not any more jaded than we are. :) None of us is going to allow ourselves to be fooled by anything. That's a promise. Jdavidb ( talk • contribs) 16:54, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Upon second reading, I realize you were not referring to any people as "poisonous." That said, please be careful. :) Jdavidb ( talk • contribs) 18:17, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
I suppose I should introduce myself as well. I'm Ral315, and I've been editing Wikipedia since December 2004. I also strongly believe in NPOV. Like Jdavidb, I'll be looking through the archives, trying to get a feel for the dispute here. I can also say that all of my fellow mentors are good editors, and will do a good job to try and settle this dispute and get this article to where it should be. Ral315 (talk) 17:20, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Hi everybody. I won't go into great detail about myself, because my userpage should explain lots about who I am. But as it pertains to Neuro-linguistic programming, I promise that I'll do my level best to help everybody come up with an article that Wikipedia can be proud of. At the risk of sounding repetitive, I have full faith in all my fellow mentors and look forward to getting started. As an initial comment, I'd like to echo the sentiments already expressed about sticking on-topic. As tempting as it may be, especially when you get angry or irritated, try not to comment on contributors (or even generically to lob tomatoes at "the other side.") It does nothing to further the debate, and only ends up inflaming passions. · Katefan0 (scribble)/ poll 22:52, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Hi folks. I think things are moving along quite well. The learning curve is pretty good considering.
Lets keep up the good work. Regards HeadleyDown 11:57, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the introduction, Jdavid, Ral315, Woohookitty, and Katefan0. I wonder whether any of you admins would volunteer to archive this talk page as it is getting physically too large. as archiving by admins will have less chance provoking potential suspiscion of censorship in disputed article. I would like to see everyone including admins to give positive attention to constructive postings. Inapproprate postings should be promptly removed by admins without making a lot commentary on the talk page. I support VoiceofAll banning of "Us and Them ideology". Consensus will come on its own when the group dynamics is healed. -- Dejakitty 21:53, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Feel free to "vandalize" my comments with further "unconstructive" suggestions
DaveRight 01:53, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
All sounds good to me. I'd like to add:
Camridge, this my favourite piece of Bandler Bullshit(TM) that was uttered in an interview so his lackeys can't say that he's eliciting state:
Here is my suggestion-
Are representational systems, not the PRS theory, scientifically supported? jVirus File:Confederate Battle Flag.svg 14:50, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
The research AND the NLP books variably refer to PRS as sensory representational systems, representational systems amongst others. Which ever way you look at it, there is no evidence that any NLP claims are correct. They have been falsified scientifically. I wish to reiterate another point. None of the background to RS (PRS) is valid or supported. Further to that, there is an abundance of OTHER pseudoscientific notions within NLP. NLP was always pseudoscientific, and NLP has been classed as pseudoscientific many times in many different arenas and different countries. We have been through this many times already. The NLP research stream dried up well over a decade ago, and scientific reviewers generally refuse to review academic papers that are based on pseudoscience. It is not worth anybody's time or effort. And I would like to repeat the view of Eisner (2000) that refers to the usual extraordinary claims of NLP proponents, "if NLP proponents have actually achieved the miraculous results that they claim, why have these not been properly documented and presented to the scientific community?" HeadleyDown 15:28, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
OK Here's a more clarifying example for you. In NLP a common ritual is to use the imagination to search "perspectives" and to "put yourself in other's shoes" etc. NLP notions generate rituals partly through the use of different internal senses. So if you try to imagine yourelf as Einstein. Place yourself in his shoes and 1. See what he sees, 2, hear what he hears, and 3, feel what he feels. This is one example related to PRS, or involvdes RS. The fact is, when it comes to internal perceptions, there is no real difference between visual and kinesthetic according to psychology. Tests show they cannot be seperated. Therefore, when you imagine things using NLP, you are simply using ritual. Its a set of steps or rules that have no basis in the science of psychology. Further to that, those rituals are claimed to achieve extraordinary results. Look at Dilts' Patterns of Einstein. He makes the ridiculous jump from bogus theory to practically becoming Einstein. Believe me, 3 idiots do not make an Einstein, but 3 idiots can certainly claim so. HeadleyDown 15:51, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | ← | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | → | Archive 15 |
Hi Voiceofall. Sure we need to be constructive.
Through discussion, we have some more facts to add. Firstly, the Devilly paper will help clarify things. I will see what we can add there. Sounds like Flavius has his finger on the pulse there. Great stuff!
It is clear that Comaze and co are still bent on removing scientific facts. Therefore, although those facts were well supported throughout mediation, they will require further clarification in the article. Then the fanatics may "get it" (I'm an optimist).
It is clear that certain refs are way down on the hierarchy of researchers out there. Namely, Mathison, Tosey and Malloy, amongst others, which are way down on the list. There are many other far more relevant researchers who could be added. Of course, they tend to stick to science, and will be largely very critical of NLP. Tough! Comaze and co insist on trying to tear the most eminent scientists from the article, so that attitude can be better applied to Mathison, Tosey and Malloy.
I'm sure the article will advance nicely this way. HeadleyDown 14:13, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Yo, I'm not involved in this article, I'm an outside view. You ALL look like you need to back off and stop revert warring. Camridge in particular, I've seen your contribs page and you've clearly violated the 3rr. I'm assuming that Comaze probably did to since your revert war appears to be with him. Maybe it's time you guys all stepped back and let some other editors do it without revert warring hmm? And while at it, review both WP:3RR and WP:AGF.
Swatjester
09:46, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
I couldn't agree more, Swatjester. But I don't think we need AfD, RfC, ArB in this case. We just need proactive and consistent mediation. If VoA feels up to it, then thats great. If VoA is getting sick of this page, perhaps he should ask another admin to take over the mediation process.-- Dejakitty 11:50, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Swatjester! The reason the admins don't block Camridge is due to their being reasonable. Comaze has caused a huge amount of unnecessary work for editors on this article, has acted in bad faith by repeatedly nagging for the same changes to be made when they were resolved through mediation, excess evidence, and consensus, and continues to display the cultlike nature of NLP. Dejakitty is just another of his meatpuppets and has also advocated for removal of eminently supported scientific facts that come to the conclusion that NLP is ineffective and cultlike. I notice you also seem to be siding with Comaze. More fool you! If you wish to support Comaze some more, you will be causing more antagonism for editors who consistently provide accurate facts in good faith, and you will be called names far worse than fool. HeadleyDown 13:35, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Oh really will I? a) I'm not siding with Comaze. Notice that I point out that he violated 3RR too. Second of all, you're now violating WP:NPA, and threatening me. I'm going to have to ask you to stop.
May we remind you to be civil and to not form personal attacks or edit wars through your or others' comments; doing so will only cause tension and annoyance. ( CJ) Swatjester 14:04, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Let me be blunt here: I'm here to help mediate this topic. I don't give two rats asses about NLP, hell I'd never heard about it until now. I'm here to help mediate your dispute. If we can act civilly, we'll get through this and move on, everybody should be happy, and you continue editing. If both sides choose to continue to personally attack me, or each other, I'm warning you right now, I'll take every action available to me: RfC against each of you, Arbcom, WP:AIV, +protection request, 3RR reports, etc. I don't side with anybody. So far I've seen 3 violators with only minor checking: Comaze, Camridge, and HeadleyDown. I'm more than happy to dig through history here and find every little nugget that ever violated a policy, but that wouldn't be WP:AGF. Show me WHY I should be assuming good faith, and work your problems out here. Swatjester 14:11, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
OK Swatjester, your cred just about checks out. But I doubt you have the knowledge level of VoiceOfAll. "IF" you are interested in mediating here, you should realise that people come here regularly professing to be wikipedia savvy and uninterested parties, then they turn out to be utter wankers with several NLP certificates and vested interests in promoting their own businesses, cults and religions. They then go on to conduct the most desperately delusional set of NLP "persuasion techniques" in order to somehow magically transform a pseudoscience into a science and trying to fool mediators and arbitrators into believing that piss is wine. Comaze is a long term censor, and as you can see, has just been irritating people for the past few days by repeatedly badgering for deletions that were denied many multiple times during mediation, and by posting harrasment on personal pages. There are some editors here who understand NLP. Not just from reading promotional cult manuals, but also from studying the actual research of the most independent researchers (scientists). So if you really like fluffy and pleasantly sounding ideas, I suggest you disappear. IF you are into hard facts then stick around. The article is just about to get more realistic.
HeadleyDown
17:28, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Ok so here's the first step of this. Using the following template, which will show up when you click on edit this section, please state what you feel is the nature of this dispute. Do NOT attack other editors in this... by that I mean say "I feel XXX is pushing POV and deleting stuff he doesn't agree with", not "I feel XXX is an asshole, pushing his retarded POV and deleting whatever truth he doesn't believe in". Each person involved here is welcome to submit a different view of their version of events. If you see one that you already believe in, there will be a section where you can endorse it by signing with ~~~~.
Looks like we're having some trouble reading here. Lets keep the statements of dispute short please, and limit them only to naming the NATURE of the dispute, not evidence supporting it. What do you think is the problem here? Is it that this user does not show good faith? is it that this other user continuously reverts? what is the actual physical problem, at the lowest level possible? I ask that Comaze, you rewrite your statement to better fit the template's request please? And try to keep it around 4-5 sentences?
Swatjester
00:25, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
(state the dispute here as you see it. Remember, no personal attacks. This section is not for evidence, nor should it need to be more than 4 sentences long. Just state what you think the dispute is over.)
The dispute is the same as always, but the action of the dispute is being used to highlight Comaze's months of fact censorship, slur campaigning on talk pages, and general antagonism. Comaze is not acting in good faith, and any chance he gets he tries to delete (whitewash) sections written by me or others on this discussion page. He also tries to accuse others of personally attacking him. He has been warned by mediators not to post warning or sockpuppet stickers or threats to block on other editors talk pages, yet he continues. Some comments do contain personal attack, but considering the circumstances they are totally understandable, the comments have consistently been directed towards Comze's persistent and daily antiNPOV misdeeds. He has used every surreptitious method possible, including creating extra promotional articles, and altering images irrecoverably. His actions and statements have encouraged many other NLP fans to behave with similar antiNPOV activities. Comaze has caused a huge amount of extra work for editors and mediators here, and he advocated for a ref format change, but expected others to do it for him. We are all waiting for him to finish the job. He decided to antagonize people, make deletions of fact, and continue with his slur campaigning on personal talk pages instead. HeadleyDown 18:06, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Note, EACH AND EVERY ONE OF THE ABOVE SIGNERS was later demonstrated to be sockpuppet of HeadleyDown. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
76.226.91.83 (
talk)
01:01, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Further to Headley's view, the secondary impediment to improving the quality of the article is the regularly rotated gaggle of scientifically illiterate, brainwashed, ignorant cretin wankers (that believe they are super-persuasive) that don't have any familiariry with the cited literature nor an appreciation of its significance that insist on injecting their marginally illiterate, shitful, inspid "pearls" into the article. These are typically one-liners such as, "Bandler says he doesn't do theory", "NLP is a model" etc. The current cast of dead weights includes DejaKitty, Metabubble, 7even, Akulkis and some other tosser that edits anonymously. Although Comaze's behaviour is objectionable I would not include him in this League of (Nihlistic) Morons". I have stated months ago that the disputes regarding this article are non-justiciable, i.e. they cannot be adjudicated upon, and I am being proven correct. I have attempted to elicit reasons from Comaze -- publicly and privately -- in an attempt to yield a justiciable issue. I have found none. Comaze's position is essentially faith-based, he has no substantive resaons for his positions. Comaze's ultimate recourse is simply, "I have found it to be useful" and he appears to believe that this has equal evidentiary value as several dozen (peer-reviewed) research papers and literature reviews. Comaze's position contains an implicit rejection of all of the critical NLP research (and a hypocritical acceptance of favorable research reports). Furthermore, his rejection is justified with (NLP) platitudes and cliches (eg. "NLP has a different epistemology to science", "NLP has it's own criteria of evidence and argumentation") or in a circular question-begging manner ("the research is bad because it is critical of NLP"). There is no way forward with Comaze or with the League of (Nihilistic) Morons. flavius 16:55, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
There is motion to close at arbom so I'll wait until their decision is finalised. Currently I do not have the confidence to contribute to this article. -- Comaze 14:19, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
The following sentence appears to make no sense to me: "Some authors [107][108] use internal Verbal/Auditory/Kinesthetic strategies in order to categorize people within a thinking strategies or learning styles framework for instance, that there exist visual, kinesthetic or auditory types of manager." -- Xyzzyplugh 19:48, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Read the literature. Hardly any of it makes sense. Bad writing was introduced here at the insistance of NLP zealots and mediators who pushed for that format: Such and such states that: -----------. Normal clear writing usually makes a statement and then has a ref to support it. If you want your ridiculously obscure and lengthy attribution format, then don't fucking complain about how it reads. HeadleyDown 02:33, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
OK, I advocate the use of clear writing of statements, with references at the end of the line. I also advocate ignoring unreasonable demands of NLP fanatics and mediators. HeadleyDown 06:26, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
VAK strategies are based upon the central tennet (BAGEL) model of NLP. This is not in dispute in the literature, though long term censors have attempted to remove it from the article at regular times. Those senses based assumptions, are intrinsically, implicitly, and explicitly connected to the engram concept. Engrams ARE theoretical brain circuits, although the pseudoscience of NLP has them confoundingly confused with the Hubbardian notion of engrams in the subconscious. In addition to that piece of pseudoscience, many authors explicitly make universal categories of visual people, auditory people, and kinesthetic people. The others simply make implicit reference to such categories. Research into the invalidity of these concepts has obviously concluded that its all easy to swallow hogwash that will leave the imbiber with nothing to do but spit nonsense. These have become common mind myths due in part to the lack of clarity within the salesbabble and the unqualified overpromotional nature of NLP literature and seminars. It will be clarified more in this article and related articles. Camridge 03:39, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
Mmmm, to be more specific though. Reviews of NLP literature state that NLP's theoretical assumptions are flawed, pseudoscientific, based on metaphors that are woefully out of date. It is very important to explain this point. If readers assume that NLP's more recent flavours are any more correct than the original confections, then they will be wrong. Modern (post 1960s) science will need to be clearly referred to in order to solve this pressing problem.
HeadleyDown
10:28, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
Hi new zealots and mediators. If you want to edit/mediate here I suggest you spend about 3 weeks reading the archives first. Basically it goes: NLP idiots don't like the bare facts, so they delete them, and neutrally minded editors restore them. Fanatics demand extra refs, those refs are found, and supplied through library searches, and the fanatics delete regardless. Reversion wars ensue. Mediation takes place at the insistence of NLP fanatics, NLP fanatics do not like mediator's sense of balance, and they beg for a new mediator or for arbitration. NLP fanatics (especially Comaze) become desperate, and try any subterfuge, officious pretence, surreptitious edit, accusation, vexatious litigation, threat in order to try to ban neutrally minded editors, to include whitewash, to censor well supported facts etc. Sometimes it quitens down. So much fact and extra evidence was provided (due to the nagging of NLP fanatics) that the file size was over limits. The article became brevified, and some of that evidence cut.
Now, we seem to have a new mediator, and I guess the process of NLP fanatics demanding extra evidence will rise again (I noticed Comaze's mediation template). So much work has been done here to satisfy mediators and NLP fanatics. Looks like its going round again. No wonder Headley and other neutrally minded editors are so pissed. To put it bluntly: READ THE DAMN ARCHIVES! COMAZE AND OTHER NLP FANATICS CONSISTENTLY (DAILY) ACT AGAINST WIKIPEDIA POLICY. JPLogan 03:04, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
Yes JP. It all is too predictable. I suggest ignoring most of it. It is just a pain. Reduce the overwork by restoring all the extra damning evidence that the moneygrabbing bookburning NLPpromoters asked for. They asked for it. They should get it now. HansAntel 03:49, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
I have just restored some of those uncontroverted facts. The article contains more facts that help to better explain to readers and fanatics the nature of NLP.
OK now all the newcomers have become more acquainted with what their chores are (so far its mostly been about antagonizing editors and being ignored), I think they can simply get on with mediating instead. In a few weeks, after they have read the archives, they may have something to offer.
In the meantime, there are more facts to restore to the article. We will place them back in as they were, and then start to condense them down a little over time, whilst keeping all the meaningful content and refs.
If Comaze or any other censor wishes to delete any of it, those facts will be enlarged again to their original quote size. If Comaze and co wish to demand answers to questions that have been covered multiple times in the archives then those facts will be enlarged upon and added into the article in order to clarify those facts to the fanatics. Now won't that be fun! HeadleyDown 11:12, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
The page has been protected per mediator request. Place all comments, responses, etc here not on my talk page. KillerChihuahua ?!? 12:11, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps we can start a practice sub-page (e.g. Neuro-linguistic programming/draft ) to get practice on collaborative writing. When the collaborative process returns normal without edit wars, we can unlock the main page. -- Dejakitty 16:04, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
Please excuse that I use the right to participate in the free encyclopedia, as I saw this might not be welcomed here. As a Wikipedian from a non-English speaking country, one of the things I can say is that the form of discussion here resembles many of the discussions in my country and throughout the world. It is always the same story: people try to divide each other into two groups—allies and enemies. The main rule of the discussion is to state in every message that enemies are bloody fanatics, devil worshippers and completely messed up stupid dickheads. About "ourselves" in such discussions it is good to say "oh we've been trying everything, but these fanatics didn't want to listen." Curious thing that usually both sides are working in the same model of dialogue—the model we may call "Put as much trash on your opponent as you can." The most interesting thing, as I see it, happens when an outsider (who's alien to the discussion and is able to look at it without many a bias) comes: for him or her, those who yell about the fanaticism of the other side seem fanatics themselves. The same thing has happened so many times in the history, that it became not interesting to discuss.
Another interesting thing's that when sometimes one side declines to choose the model of "I am the only smartest here" behavior, and works in a civil manner, keeping to the neutrality tone, the other side would claim his actions are fanatical anyway, no matter what real reasons the former had. They just will to interpret his actions this way because according to their tunnel of reality they are doing the best in their interests (that's why in the first comment of mine I asked, Cui bono?). In most cases they believe they are pursuing the truth. You see that's how Lysenkoism happens: when one side keeps only to rational arguments and other side keeps to emotional arguments, for a common third-side person, who's not experienced and not prepared to keep emotions off when it's necessary, the emotional arguments might feel more right, perhaps because emotions compared to reason are philogenetically far more ancient and influence more structures in the organism system. A more experienced person would be able to divide the arguments driven by emotions and the reasonable arguments.
The point I want to make is: please keep your emotions to minimum in your comments. This would happen if you try to avoid
I understand it's probably impossible here, where everybody—no matter what the level of his or her maturity and self-development is—can insert his own word, but I consider it necessary for making a good article or at least a goodwill discussion. In real life, too, if you feel you are right, and you have many friends who feel the same, the little socium you can be considered a part of will massively support your viewpoint, and this will construct a visibility of your own righteousness and unrighteousness of others—that's how it works in real religious cults and with real religious fanatics.
Excuse me for such a long comment, but it could've been much longer. I am not trying to say that one side's right and other is not. However I would like to believe that every one of you does not just push one's own point of view (supporting it with dozens of refs—"we have something for everybody"—or not), but wants to find a compromise because there can be no way to prove that absolute truth is hidden only in your opinion or an opinion of the scientists who support you. I think people have the right to get acquainted with the theory of NLP; and there are many great minds, scientists, and psychologists who use NLP in their practice, and you can't just call all of them freakin fanatics and scientologists only because NLP works well for them. Also I think people have the right to know that other great minds, scientists, and psychologists are opposed to NLP because of research and experimental data (I myself would like to read and consider that kind of information). Thus both sides should be represented in the article, because I think that in the modern world no one should call any one as the Absolute Authority.
Thank you, 7even 13:27, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
Thank you 7even for your input. I agree that there is a lot of room for improvement with regards to our listening skills. I would be grateful if you can make your posting a bit shorter as lots of people feels like they have a lot to say. Thanks -- Dejakitty 16:14, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
To Killerchihuahua, I am sorry that you take my message as a form of personal attack. I was just trying to point out behaviour that may disrupt the process rather than attacking any particular editor per se. I think it is important to separate behaviour from people when dealing with these kinds of situation. I hope that you will be able to concentrate on the process rather than get sucked into disputed content. If you think this is still personal attack, please feel free to delete all my posting here. -- Dejakitty 15:56, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
Flavius, please review WP:NPA.
Swatjester
19:12, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
I have retracted my idea of having draft page, given that VoA or other admin will volunteer to do the actual editing while the page is protected.-- Dejakitty 01:03, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
It would be better not to acknowledge or respond to any unconstructive postings (I am talking in general, I am not attacking anyone here.) either positively or negatively, else you will find yourself sucked into endless futile debate. On the other hand please give more positive support to constructive postings. Thank you. -- Dejakitty 20:20, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
Socks/meatpuppets are a problem here, when it comes to consensus, as it distorts the true consensus. That has been making things difficult. Many editors have edited only NLP articles, and have very similar user pages. We may need more outside opinions.
As I have done recently, personal attacks will be removed. Vague commentary will be removed as well. Edits should be made through admins only, since all else has failed. Vague accuations of POV or simplistic characterizing of everything as a "fact" will not be tolerated either. Accesive associations and other clear NPOV violations should not even be proposed.
Whether NLP is "total fraud" or not, its models, propositions, and criticism must be represented per NPOV. There is enough criticism in this article that we cleary do not need associations with pseudosciences such as Scientology in every paragraph, just because some unheard of practioner also uses them. Intelligent Design is a good article example of a topic that is far more widely rejected by scientists (albeit perhaps as it is more popular and gets more attention), but it does not have things like "ID is quakery nonsense just to endorse christianity (A 19YY)(B 19YY)(C 19YY)(D 19YY)(E 19YY)(F 19YY)(G 19YY)(H 19YY)", as clearly, wording like that has an agenda. The article gets across the point that it is rejected by the mainstream scientific community without having "ID sucks" quotes flooded into the article all over the place. NLP is even less centralized than ID. Due to its high variance, and usage in some reasonable circles (police force, ect...), parts of it likely have some value, and not all of them where studied. Not to mention that it has evolved. Having such a varying disorganized, mainly totally unsupported, models floating all around alots for much confusion about its effectiveness. Overal, one might reasonably say that it is not effective per 1970s/1980s studies, but that does not rule out every aspect. Some people use more classical conditioning like techniques for clients, while ignoring other NLP ideas or "positive/negative energy" Scientology ideas. Others use it in cults in certain European circles.
To concude, we must avoid the use of blanket statements where they can not be used. We must avoid spreading criticism all over every section. We must avoid the excessive use of "NLP sucks" quotes. If a reference is out of context, it should be corrected (and I don't believe that many are). Solid refs that have been unchallenged for months should not be suddenly challenged though. Rebuttals to critics by very minor practioners should not be included, as we don't put in our British Literature profesor's criticism of a novel just because he has a PhD. Notice that Intelligent design avoids such minor critics, as it should, as anyone can dig up some guy that supports them, and through it in as criticism. And remember to avoid origional research, such as "he saw EST lectures, therefore NLP=EST and Scientology". Remember that we have plenty of solid criticism, so personal (WP:OR) critical commentary, beyond being innapproprate per WP:NPOV, is not even needed. That goes for origional research criticism of critism too. Voice of All T| @| ESP 21:29, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
Consensus is not important here, mostly due to the presence of editors who's religion overcomes judgment or recognition of science. Ditching one's religion is necessary to edit in this case. The cold steel of science will be the order of the year on this article. HeadleyDown 17:19, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
Damn! I go away for 12 hours and everything goes nuts! Ok so just to let everyone know what's up, I've got military training obligations keeping me away today and tomorrow during the day, but I'm here for the evenings. When I return from dinner tonight, we'll begin the first step of the mediation process on the article, which is going to start from the top. So, start thinking in your heads about how you want to present the very first introduction paragraphs on the article. Currently they say this
So, start looking at how you want to revise that if at all. I'm coming back in about 3 hours, and will remain here tonight to listen to the rest of your responses. Swatjester 23:44, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
I want to see the current intro shortened, the removal of the "Dianetics and Scientology references", the removal of false claim like belief in "unlimited potential":
(can someone else finish this for me -- I'm out of time)... -- Comaze 00:37, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
Consider your throat cut. Your request is badgering. Nothing more. Refer to the archives. Dianetics and Scientology will become more than a cursory mention. You obviously don't get it, therefore, it will be enlarged upon with explanation. HeadleyDown 17:26, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
Swatjester, Comaze thanks for volunteering. This talk page is full. Would it be helpful to make a page with a list of proposed changes ( Neuro-linguistic programming(RequestforEdits)) for people to comment on and vote for. I think that we will have to rely on admin's good will to make update edits of approved changes, something like once every 1-2 month? Looks like VoA is getting on the right track. So I don't think you need my further unsolicited intrusion. Goodbye -- Dejakitty 00:51, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
I wish I had more to add, I am just not fluent enough.
jVirus
03:47, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
Re: Dejakitty's suggestion up above, no new page is needed for this discussion. The talk page is where people expect to find it, and it will do just fine. Perhaps if one of the mediators thinks it is worthwhile, some of the above discussion can be archived so this talk page isn't quite as long. —
Cleared as filed.
05:20, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
Indeed, New Age needs expanding in the article in relation to NLP. Metabubble has asked for its removal before. Nothing new was added to arguments that have been presented in the archives multiple times. That is badgering and antagonistic. For the sake of keeping a steely peace, request is ignored. HeadleyDown 17:26, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
flavius 19:24, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
Again I request for Metabbubble to be blocked from this discussion. Mettabubble, you are saying all the right stuff for irritating the editors here. It is not Flavius' fault that there is no magic search function for the archives. There is an overwhelmingly compelling reason for the NCAHF to be included, and it relates in part to the zealously litigous nature of cults and pseudoscience promoters. This has been covered in depth, and Metabbubble is indeed trying to pull the wool, repeat nag, and screw as much out of the new mediator/s as possible. I repeat my request for the blocking of Mettabubble. HeadleyDown 12:22, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
Indeed, Metabubble is badgering in the same way that other "editors with vested interests in NLP" have persistently done. Request for metabubble to be blocked. HeadleyDown 17:27, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
No it does not make sense. Stop wasting editor's time. Read the archives and aquaint your self with science. HeadleyDown 17:31, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
Good grief! Mettabubble has badgered for Dianetics etc to be removed before, and other NLP promoters have done the same throughout the archives. I shall repeat some for the sake of the present newbie mediators. NLP has been clearly compared to Scientology/Dianetics in the research for many reasons. Dianetics and NLP are:
In the interests of punishing those who conflictingly nag for the simple reason that they think they can get away with conning the new mediators, I request that Mettabubble be blocked from editing or commenting on this discusion page. Camridge 06:29, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
Metta Bubble : I really like your suggestion to remove the Term "New Age" from the Intro. I think it might be more clear if we set up a structure for the article. If we chose to make the Intro closer to very basic simple purpose and things as described by the original co-founders, I think the intro itself will be quite hammered down solid? Perhaps we could then have a body describing some of the things in the intro, followed by a conclusion. And whatever. This being the basic form of our article. What do you think? This also means Flavius that in the intro, however long the intro may be, toward the end of the intro we would have a nice criticism paragraph about the same size as one of the intro paragraphs, or whatever is rationally needed. Those criticisms could then be expounded in the body in a order, similar to the other expoundings from the intro. Is this favorable or what might be your concerns if any? This means actually that in the intro critisim part you could if it is agreeable to everyone say something like "NLP is criticised as being of the New Age, Pseudoscientific, having little or no effect as to it's claims" or whatever is needed. Then we could expound on the intro criticism area in similar order in the body. The body being a reflection of the Intro if it might be. What do you think ppl? jVirus 11:00, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
The following was removed:
This is possibly the only factual statement that is known about NLP. I am not here to argue for its inclusion, I just want to know the reason for its removal. Bensaccount 16:11, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
I'm withdrawing the part of my earlier proposal where we have separate Pro and Con sub-sections, because it's not supported by some of the principal editors on this article, and I'm having seconds thoughts about that myself.
What remains of my proposal is what the Intro should contain. Here are my thoughts, and then I'm preserving only those comments that have to do with the Intro part. (If deleted anything you want to keep, I apologize -- please add it back, in a separate section if it dosn't have to do with the Intro per se.)
Guidelines for the Intro:
We might start off with something like this, which I believe is neutral:
Leave your comments below.
-- BrianH123 21:12, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
The only stabilization required is on the discussion page, because that is where the problems are. Repeat (daily) badgering questions, and requests for censorship and pseudoscience to gain priority over science have destabilized the discussion and caused a lot of conflict and extra work. With a mentor for Comaze and others with a similar agenda, the discussion will likely improve. HeadleyDown 03:30, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
Good, looks like we're making good progress here. I'm going to step back for a little bit and watch as you guys decide on the information. I'll still be here watching. Swatjester
Yeah I am excited. jVirus 08:41, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
Headly, please stop trying to dominate this talk page. Your last several edits have been demanding and confrontational, and ignoring users with differing opinions does nothing to help the further development of this page. Please try to edit constructively and join this mediation, for the good of the article. Swatjester 01:44, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
I will not dominate. Science WILL. HeadleyDown 02:47, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
I'm not getting into the specifics of NLP, because I don't know, and I don't care. But we have to conform with NPOV, and right now it's not happening. Domination of this article will lead only to revert wars like the one that got this page locked. This is what we're trying to avoid here. Instead of being defensive, we need to be constructive and reach a compromise here.
Swatjester
04:31, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
Oi mate! Swatjester I don't believe you have been here long enough to know. Headley is not dictating. He has consistently been the most cooperative, constructive, anti-propaganda editor on this article. He seems to be enforcing the "spirit" of NPOV policy better than you. The nonpromotional editors are constructive and cooperative. Now we have gained your attention, I think it is time to continue improving the article from its already advanced form - With NLP fanatics under a tighter state of apprehension. DaveRight 04:42, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
Swatjester, NPOV conformity doesn't entail passing bullshit off as fact and privileging pseudocience such that it speaks as loud as science in the article. If it did then the half of the Earth article would be devoted to flat-earth theory. flavius 05:21, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
Maybe what would help is, if we got one (specific) sentence statement from each user, ie refrences, honesty, clarity, punctuation, structure, whatever that might help. I am just not sure any longer. We maybe need clarity from people on what they feel the article needs to be finished. If it needs anything at all. Just one clear sentence would be good. The most important thing in your opinions maybe. (feel free everyone to edit your own opinions to make them more clear)
jVirus 00:12, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
New plan
-- BrianH123 18:14, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
Brian Would you be willing to list your desires of the above stated Hierarchically. But make them into just 3. Your top 3 wants for the article Hierarchically. jVirus 00:04, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Swatjester 20:20, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
Swatjester would you maybe your wants of the above stated for the article hierarchically. But make them just your top 3. Your top 3 wants for the article hierarchically. jVirus 00:06, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
I don't understand what you're asking me Jvirus. Swatjester 00:34, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Firstly, I agree that dispassionate discussion is important and that pressure should be taken off the mediators concerning requests to block NLP fan(atics)/promoters. But mediators would do well to understand that neutrally oriented editors here have already stated that detailed citations will be provided. It would help if mediators started to RECOGNIZE AND ACCEPT the cooperation of nonNLPpromotional editors. Camridge 07:58, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Is your position the same as Flavius,that what this article needs is more Scientific Backed Evidence? If you had to pick your top priority. jVirus 08:33, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
Sorry guys, I've made a priority change. I now believe the most important thing is to keep a refridgerator on discussion. Especially when NLP fans make unreasonable repeat demands. I make no demands on mediators or mentors to keep NLP promoters with vested interests, or NLP fans in order. Let them make whatever demands they like without the threat of blocking, and they will be dealt with coolly, and if necessary, scientific explanations should be increased in the article. When NLP fans/promoters delete facts in the article, or delete inappropriately on the discussion page, those deletes will be coolly reverted, and any reminders of agenda promotion should be dispassionate. HeadleyDown 12:18, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
JVirus, you seem to me to have misunderstood (perhaps deliberately) the requirements. We don't necessarily need MORE scientific evidence (though plenty more exists), but we do need more scientific explanation for the sake of clarity (a commitment to explanation of views from the point of view of science).
What is also very important is the recognition that some "editors with promotional agendas" have repeatedly asked and acted for the deletion of certain facts so that they cannot have explanations. Those views and explanations of experts work against commercial promotion of pseudoscience. The constant requests for certain authors to be disallowed, is an example of this. Eg, the repeat pleading and actions by Comaze, Akulkis, and Dejakitty for the emminently qualified authors, Singer, Lilienfeld, Carroll, and Eisner to be ejected from the article.
Correct me where I am off target Flavius, I believe CLEAR EXPLANATION with the benefit of rigorous research and science is your recommendation. I cannot speak for Dave, but I believe that is where one strong area of agreement is. HeadleyDown 12:02, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
HeadleyDown : Sorry with my words to DaveRight that you and Flavius responded to, I was not meaning along the lines that there was not enough evidence in the world to support, but rather questioning if he felt there were not sufficient scientificly backed passages as in, he Does he want more of the claims to be well scienficially refrenced. blah blah. foot in mouth on my part. Anyway. jVirus 00:00, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Interesting! Yes I would also like to know who are the members of the skeptics group, or if there are any. So far we know Comaze, and a few other NLP promoters have vested interests at stake. You should also know that Flavius and myself are qualified. I encourage the other NLP qualified to prove they are not biased towards NLP promotion. HeadleyDown 14:44, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Metta Bubble will make your wants of the above stated for the article hierarchically. But make them just your top 3. Your top 3 wants for the article hierarchically. jVirus 00:08, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Terms such as Dianetics, Scientology and Chomsky are not guilt by association. They are the qualified views of scientists, and with citations they are facts. They require more explanation. The views of scientists are the most dispassionate and credible. New age, cult-like, rituals, quasispiritual are all technically correct terms, and they all come from scientific research. I request Mettabubble to be blocked for deliberately attempting to irritate editors by repeat badgering for the censorship of facts. NLP is a fringe practice and requires no sub-pages. The only people setting up sub pages here are the NLP fans/promoters with vested interests. No neutrally inclined editor has ever set up subpages. Those subpages were all criticised by non promotional editors for being "how tos" and were criticised for being biased and promotional. NLP literature is designed to be intrinsically promotional. Any subpage should be written largely from the perspectives of researchers who research NLP, rather than NLP promoters who only wish to feather their own nests. Comaze and his intro should be deleted from this discussion for the sake of keeping the peace. The ONLY problem with this article is the presence of editors such as Mettabubble and Comaze who are using the new situation as a further opportunity to remove factual information from wikipedia. I request that they both be blocked. HeadleyDown 03:08, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Jejakitty, removing discussion completely, is not constructive, and it shows that you are prone to censoring text. I leave it up to you to remedy that. HeadleyDown 14:14, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
I agree with the suggestion to work on stabilizing this discussion, rather than the suggestion to censor facts from the article. The terms "pseudoscience" "New Age" and so on are actual facts according to NPOV policy. They are also facts attributed to eminent scientists. This article is concerned with pseudoscience, and science is most important for clarifying the facts. Removal of the terms "pseudoscience" and "new age" from the article is censorship. This has been dealt with in detail already in the archives. HeadleyDown 02:53, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Please include your comments here, I will make adjustments based on the comments: -- Comaze 12:52, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
Comaze, you need to argue each point, rather than simply weasel in your objections to the article. Your extreme and obsessive bias towards censorship has been noted and you will have your nose rubbed in it for as long as you extrete it. HeadleyDown 03:07, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Camridge 04:22, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
Comaze, I find your list of items disheartening in that my efforts towards educating you -- privately and publicly -- have been in vain.
Hello all, how's it going?
I look forward to it.
Comments? GregA 04:12, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
GregA.
Invite some more of your mates from the NLP newsgroups GregA. I'd love to point out some more of their vandalism, blundering illogic, and obsessive fanaticism. Camridge 04:34, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
Looks like we got some official mentors. The above information is quite raw for everyone. Hightly useful to me. I think since we got some new mentors I will perch this endeavour till we find out their collective plan and move from there. jVirus File:Confederate Battle Flag.svg 04:47, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
In regards to this edit [5], actually I think that page ix is correct. Normally in an introduction, the foreword is listed in lowercase roman numerals, such as ix, which would actually be page 9. This makes sense also because stylistically when citing a page, one cites the numerical number (in this case 6) not the written number (six). If the user really meant six there, he'd have put "6" instead, so I believe it really did mean to be "ix". Can we get clarification? Swatjester 04:35, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
Yes this is correct. But it needs more clarity from science. Some readers may miss the banal stupidity of Bateson's remark. To state that any science avoids theory is utter nonsense. If he said that "behavioral occult technology has often avoided theory" he would be right. We have views of scientists that state "NLP has contributed nothing to behavioural science". This will make a smart comparison for clarifying the issue. DaveRight 04:49, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
I do not. If you want to discuss the topic above, then make a new section for it. This section was only for clarification on "six" vs. "ix" Swatjester 19:09, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
The quote is definitely p.ix and is on the first page of Gregory Bateson's introduction to Structure of Magic Vol.1. -- Comaze 22:42, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
In regards to this edit [6], actually I think that page ix is correct. Normally in an introduction, the foreword is listed in lowercase roman numerals, such as ix, which would actually be page 9. This makes sense also because stylistically when citing a page, one cites the numerical number (in this case 6) not the written number (six). If the user really meant six there, he'd have put "6" instead, so I believe it really did mean to be "ix". Can we get clarification? Swatjester 04:35, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
Yes this is correct. But it needs more clarity from science. Some readers may miss the banal stupidity of Bateson's remark. To state that any science avoids theory is utter nonsense. If he said that "behavioral occult technology has often avoided theory" he would be right. We have views of scientists that state "NLP has contributed nothing to behavioural science". This will make a smart comparison for clarifying the issue. DaveRight 04:49, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
I do not. If you want to discuss the topic above, then make a new section for it. This section was only for clarification on "six" vs. "ix" Swatjester 19:09, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
The quote is definitely p.ix (page 9) and is on the first page of Gregory Bateson's introduction to Structure of Magic Vol.1. -- Comaze 22:42, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
Sure, I'll do my best to clarify such silly statements with the light of science and solid research. DaveRight 09:03, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
SWATjester : I have a feeling that hitting on the little bits and pieces that are wrong with the article first is just going to get us more of the same. I am somewhat under the impression that if we do not make concensus starting on the basics heading for the specifics is just going to take use more pages and more pages of talk. jVirus 09:47, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
What the article needs more than anything is exactly this kind of effective clarification of misconception. What the discussion page needs is for repeat NLPpromoters to be tortured by presenting more facts and logic. When they repeat badger, just ignore them, and get on with formulating the text for the article. Camridge 04:42, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
ArbCom Ruling complete. You can read it here but let me summarize it for you.
Rules: 1) Users who edit in a point of view or obsessive way may be banned partially or completely 2) It is not sufficient to simply refer to "Jones (1984)" as the source of information. There are a number of acceptable formats but a sufficient reference includes sufficient information to enable others to easily find the text relied on. 3) Wikipedia:Neutral point of view contemplates inclusion of all significant points of view regarding the subject of an article.
Situation: 1) A number of users have been engaging in aggressive point of view editing of Neuro-linguistic programming and related articles as well as personal attacks, examples may include but are not limited to: Comaze, HeadleyDown, JPLogan, Camridge, DaveRight, AliceDeGrey, and Flavius vanillus. 2) Most of the cited sources in the article do not meet minimum standards for reliable sources, lacking information regarding page number and identification of edition. 3) The article could more closely conform to neutral point of view by ascribing controversial viewpoints such as "NLP is pseudoscience" to those who have expressed such opinions, rather then presenting them as bald statements of fact.
Punishment: 1) Any administrator, upon good cause shown, may ban any user, from editing Neuro-linguistic programming or a related page. All bans shall be posted on the affected user's talk page and at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Neuro-linguistic_programming#Documentation_of_bans 2) Comaze, HeadleyDown, JPLogan, Camridge, DaveRight, and AliceDeGrey are reminded to provide an adequate description of the source of information included in the article, in the case of publications to page and edition 3) Comaze, HeadleyDown, JPLogan, Camridge, DaveRight, and AliceDeGrey are reminded to ascribe point of view statements to those making them. 4) Comaze, HeadleyDown, JPLogan, Camridge, DaveRight, and AliceDeGrey are required to discuss any content reversions on Neuro-linguistic programming on its talk page.
Mentorship: 5) The article Neuro-linguistic programming is placed under the mentorship of three to five administrators to be named later. All content reversions on this page must be discussed on the article talk page. The mentors are to have a free hand, do not have veto over each other's actions, will be communicating closely and will generally trust each other's judgement. Any mentor, upon good cause shown, may ban any user from editing Neuro-linguistic programming or a related page. All bans shall be posted on the affected user's talk page and at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Neuro-linguistic_programming#Documentation_of_bans. The mentorship arrangement will be reviewed in three months. If, at that time, the mentors agree that the article has demonstrated the ability to grow without strife, the mentorship may be ended and this remedy declared void.
Blocking: 1) If a user banned from editing under this decision does so, they may be briefly blocked, up to a week in the event of repeat offenses. After 5 blocks the maximum block shall increase to one year.
Now, with that out of the way, lets get back to editing constructively. Swatjester 15:21, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
Swatjester. Just so you understand. Proper detailed and sufficiently fussy attribution will be attained as long as mentors do their duty and get the fanatics off the back of the neutrally inclined editors. If mentors allow NLP fanatics to remove facts that have been established through the supported (with citations) views of scientists and proper researchers, then those page numbers, ISBNs and all the other infernal beurocracy can be dealt with, regardless of whether the views and facts are as common sense and blatantly obvious as they are already. Better still, if mentors can somehow encourage the NLP fanatics into looking up the refs and supplying the appropriate page numbers etc, then the editors who work in good faith can simply get on with clear explanations. Here is a constructive suggestion: Comaze and other similar "editors" have yet to make the changes to the ref format that they advocated. I'm sure they can kill two birds with one stone, and supply a lot of the details that have been so requested at the same time. After all the requests were supplied by arbitration that NLP fans demanded. It would be very sensible and constructive to divert the NLP fans to "pay" for the excessive amount of strife THEY have caused.
HeadleyDown
16:01, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
You're missing the point. Everyone now has to provide that kind of citation, both the pro-NLP and anti-NLP camps. Furthermore, nobody is being allowed to remove any facts for two reasons. 1) the page is protected, and will be until this is resolved. 2) any edits by the named parties in the arbcom must be discussed and agreed upon on the talk page. Swatjester 16:42, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
No Swatjester, you were talking about bullshit. Nobody has refused to provide citations. You are antagonizing and finding fault where none exists. HeadleyDown 02:48, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
==Archival== I'm preparing to archive everything from "Summary of findings" above. Swatjester 20:21, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for volunteering, Swatjester. It may be better to request an admin to do the archiving to avoid (I am not accusing anyone here, just talking in general.) accusation of censorship for the time being. Remember, do not respond to, acknowledge or give your attention to any personal attacks or inappropriate postings. Though in general it is permissible to remove any hypothetical abusive posting, in this particular case, it is better to leave this to admins to do it for the time being. -- Dejakitty 22:24, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
Yeah. But we won't need an admin to do it, and I think everyone involved on this page knows that we have at least 4 admins watching (KillerChihuahua, VoA, Bagdhani, and Cleared-as-filed, possibly more). In order to avoid any censorship accusations I'm cutting the archive short of where I wanted to, but I think starting from the "summary of findings" gives a good enough impression. If I don't hear anything by midnight tonight, I'll go ahead with the archive. BTW, you can preview the archived version by clicking the "archive 10" link at the top of this page. Swatjester 23:33, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
Swatjester, JVirus, I have no fundamental objection to doing archiving. The talk page needs one badly. I was just considering potential porblems with archiving in tense situations. I trust you to make the right decision using your judgement. -- Dejakitty 00:38, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Further, if/when this is archived I put that this section named "Archival" to be deleted. -- Comaze 10:32, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Archival is complete. I won't delete this section, instead it will be moved into the next archive.
Swatjester
16:16, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Further to the suggestions to placing criticisms throughout the article. It would not be sensible to restrict all criticisms to the criticisms section. However, clear scientific explanation can be given throughout the article. To deal with the deliberately confusing NLP concepts, a clear scientifically or research based clarification should be presented. This will be a great help to the less knowledgeable readers. If ends up sounding critical, that is only due to the deliberately misleading nature of lot of NLP concepts (the obvious contrast you gain when you juxtapose nonsense and common sense). The criticism section seems necessary because a good deal of the literature is referred to as "critical view or review" and those criticisms could do with more explanation also. Camridge 08:26, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Oh I agree, a critical section is 100% necessary. Can we agree though, that the majority (perhaps 90%) of the criticism be kept to that section, and that criticisms in the rest of the article be kept short?
For instance in a section involving NLP Claims, criticism be kept to a minimum, and even then short, 1 or two sentences at most. This section would be immediately followed up with a section called "NLP Criticisms and Controversies" where you could go as in depth as you want with that criticism. This keeps everything clean and readable. What say you? Swatjester 16:15, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Another pointer! I would like to point out the "beliefs" of some of the editors here. I am sure VOA would agree that some of the claims that NLPers make even on this article are quite wild - eg, it really works, it is powerful, you can give people orgasms just by speaking using NLP, you can get laid using NLP, NLP is far advanced of psychology and science etc. Here is just a hint of that in the dialogue between Comaze and Jvirus - [7]. I am not implying that they are deluded. But you will notice how "belief" sustaining their language and dialogue is. Camridge 10:32, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
On a light note, this discussion here is not always so chilly. I invite the mediators to stick around. The claims and absurdity regarding NLP claims are often hillarious, and the flailing attempts by the more desperate editors, to pull the other one, are generally ball-bouncingly funny. Probably one reason why editors remain. HeadleyDown 14:53, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
What! You mean you havn't been laughing your nuts off at this mediation/NLPpromotion attempt for the past few days? Is there something wrong with you? Cheers DaveRight 04:24, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Please disassociate the mediation attempt from the NLP Promoters. Mediators are impartial. If you would like to help the mediation effort, you're more then welcome to help constructively. ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 05:40, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Just a suggestion to take the pressure off everyone. It may be a good idea to keep the page locked for a few days longer. This can enable a search of the archives to come up with a set of standard replies (or links) to deal with nagging unreasonable requests for the wholesale dismissal of science etc. A lot has been written already, and a great deal has been done to properly answer the questions of the NLPpromotional editors. The constructive part of this suggestion will involve the search for concise replies that will solve the problem of "oh its in the archives somewhere" objection. This will take time, and if the mediators push for more thorough use of the archives, then amicable pagelocks could be used while nonpromotional NLP editors take their time searching for re-usable evidence and logic without having to deal with the inevitable sneaky edits of the NLP promoters. HeadleyDown 15:23, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
100% agreed. Swatjester 16:09, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Was someone considering unlocking it, the main page are we talkng about?!??? jVirus 23:51, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Not that I know of. ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 02:50, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
There's a lot to read today, so I will be brief. I am not dictating, but here is how the article will be, nomatter what ANYBODY says.
JPLogan 05:01, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Yes, thats pretty clear. I commit to coping with the everpresence of NLP fan(atics) and NLP promoters with vested interests. I encourage other editors to do the same. It seems we have no other option but to "correct" the misbehaviour and misconceptions of NLP sharks and sheep ourselves. Wikipedia arbitrators and mediators! I thank you for allowing me to recognize and accept this reality, and I will act accordingly. Camridge 07:22, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Good suggestion. Best to take the perspective of reality! I believe nonNLPpromotional editors have shirked their duty to some extent though. Only with regard to throwing the book at Comaze and other miscreants. Yes Headley, I disagree with you on that, and I believe you should not be so proud about due process. Comaze and the other promotional editors have a rotten history and we should take the time to do RFCs and whatever other paperwork is required in order to post permanent blemishes on the censors/whitewashers/wikispammer's talk pages and to warn other unwitting editors on other articles of their agendas. Mediators have a hard time already, and I will do my best to make it easy for them. I will provide brief explanation wherever necessary even though I've typed a thousand miles of the stuff already. We could even make this fun. You know I like making fun! Here's to progress and clarity! Cheers DaveRight 09:02, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Lets put lots of personal comments on Comaze's discussion page. HeadleyDown 12:10, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
I propose the following as consensus guidelines for editing the article. The source of each of these is in {braces} after the statement. If people agree with these, perhaps they could be posted to the top of the talk page.
Please state whether you agree with the above. And if you want to propose additional guidelines, feel free to do that as well.
— BrianH123 21:47, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Hmm...I agree with everything the ArbCom presents...as for the stuff you've added on your own, I'm going to withhold judgement for a bit while I ponder it. I do want to propose my own guideline: that all criticisms be confined to the Criticism section. Proper structure will be the key to keeping the NPOV in this article.
⇒
SWATJester
Ready
Aim
Fire!
22:27, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Yeah I suppose I agree basically. Not sure what this gets us as far as progress right this second but yeah these rules would be good. jVirus 23:36, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Well the terms such as pseudoscience, engram, and new age need MORE explanation as the relate strongly to NLP in many ways. That is extremely important because so many people here simply don't get it, or simply don't want it. There is a lot to read on such subjects, and I can understand people not wanting to have to delve the bookshelves, so far more explanation should be done within the article. HeadleyDown 02:59, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
I see Brian. The whole article needs proper representation in the opening. It will help readers if such clarifying facts are briefly presented in the opening. I know its objectionable to NLPpromoters, but they will just have to live with it. DaveRight 04:21, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Hi Brian. It seems to me that keeping the terms you suggest out of the opening is only to appease the permanently posted censors of fact. That's a pretty bad reason. Certainly, the NLP fan(antics) and pseudoscience promoters will remove those terms from the opening just as they always have done. I fully accept the task of reverting their censorship. Camridge 04:56, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Comment: Fair and unbiased does not mean equal. Please see WP:NPOV#Undue weight. KillerChihuahua ?!? 09:14, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Excuse me again Killerchihuahua. Your comment seems to be unconnected to any one else's. I take it that you mean that fancy sounding pseudoscientific salespitch is not equal to science, good research and logic. Camridge 10:07, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Hello Brian. I will be as clear as possible as you are a newbie to the subject. Pseudoscientific psychocult is a neutral term used in science, anthropology, and sociology amongst other research areas. Notice pseudoscience is also a category used liberally by wikipedia. Psychocults are groups of devotees who adhere to a particular area of psychology as a support for their beliefs. A pseudoscientific psychocult adheres to the earlier and more pseudoscientific notions of psychology such as the belief in superhuman potential, and the overwhelming power of the subconscious etc. I understand you wish to promote harmony here, but harmony does not entail farting in tune with fact censoring NLP salespeople. Regards
HeadleyDown
11:38, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
By the way, as Comaze saw fit to try to censor the engram article for the past few months, he should now be extremely wary of misbehaving again there in future. He will sorely regret it. If he cannot help himself, then he will simply suffer more of the facts. NPOV policy will be there to "correct" his misdeeds. I realize NLPpromoters will continue to write extra promotional pages to link to this one. It will most likely remain the nonNLPpromotional editors job to remove such spam from the main article. HeadleyDown 02:59, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Please feel free to add stuff.
Cheers DaveRight 04:35, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Warning:
All posts on this page should be article related. End of story. Cease personal attacks, "us vs. them" mentality and verbiage. AGF and focus on the article. Be civil. KillerChihuahua ?!? 09:21, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
The mediators do not bring their biases into this. Your description is especially off, as I'm a republican conservative, far from those things you mentioned. Please stop insulting the mediators at every step, it's not constructive to this. ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 05:45, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
DaveRight: If you're referring to me, you're sorely mistaken. Read my posts throughout this talk page. I have consistently argued for a scientific point of view on this article, that it should be the majority viewpoint in the article (take up the most space), that NLP's claims to have an "alternative epistemology" are crap, etc. I'm not in the least bit post-modernist: I'm very anti-epistemological-relativism, and I don't have a New Age bone in my body. And you can use any word you want to in the article: just source it, and explain it, and at least introduce the NLP topic before you tar and feather it. -- BrianH123 06:09, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Brian and Swatjester. Dave's suggestions are very constructive. YOU are being overdefensive. You have given me strong impressions of your biases. This is a salient point partly due to the fact that the postmodern attitudes are quite widespread especially on the web. This is also important as you both have stated that you don't know much about NLP. I urge YOU to assume good faith. Camridge 07:02, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Brian, we are here to make it easy on the reader to read well researched facts. Not flounder in a pit of salespitch. HeadleyDown 00:36, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
Nice to know, Swatjester. So you won't be exhibiting a bias in that direction then! Fine! Camridge 08:18, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Does any mediator here agree with this point?
Its clear already! The point that: reality depends upon who we are!
That's a subject for another article. Not this talk page.
⇒
SWATJester
Ready
Aim
Fire!
07:41, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
I'll take that as a yes! You are a quite postmodernist! Camridge 07:52, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Bunge, M. "Realism and Antirealism in Social Science" Theory and Decision 35: 207-235, 1993. Kluwer Academic Publishers,Netherlands.
Bradley, D. R. "HOW TO LOSE YOUR GRIP ON REALITY? AN ATTACK ON ANTI-REALISM IN QUANTUM THEORY" [8]
The success and universality of science and technology as well the history of science and technology (all of the great civilsations including the Arabic and Oriental made scientific discoveries)suggest that (a) there is such a thing as objective knowledge; (b) we can gain objective knowledge; (c) there is a reality; and (d) we are capable of learning about that reality. Science and technology would be impossible if any for of epistemological relativism or antirealism were valid philosophical doctrines. Gravity is their whether you believe in it or not. See the works of Mario Bunge for a detailed defence of scientific realism. flavius 08:33, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
The arbitration has recently ruled, in Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Neuro-linguistic_programming:
The article Neuro-linguistic programming is placed under the mentorship of three to five administrators to be named later. All content reversions on this page must be discussed on the article talk page. The mentors are to have a free hand, do not have veto over each other's actions, will be communicating closely and will generally trust each other's judgement. Any mentor, upon good cause shown, may ban any user from editing Neuro-linguistic programming or a related page. All bans shall be posted on the affected user's talk page and at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Neuro-linguistic_programming#Documentation_of_bans. The mentorship arrangement will be reviewed in three months. If, at that time, the mentors agree that the article has demonstrated the ability to grow without strife, the mentorship may be ended and this remedy declared void.
The selected mentors are Jdavidb, Katefan0, Ral315, and Woohookitty. They will get to know the situation and actively monitor this article. Any questions of enforcement or questionable conduct should be directed to them. Thank you. Dmcdevit· t 10:40, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Hi all. Could I have more than my fair share of mentors please?:) HeadleyDown 13:19, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
As we now have mentors here, I"ll be drastically scaling back my mediation efforts here. Thanks for coming guys.
⇒
SWATJester
Ready
Aim
Fire!
16:07, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
I thought it'd be easier to introduce myself here, since there are many users involved in this conflict. Just a little introduction. I've been on Wikipedia since December 2004, an admin since June 2005. I believe very strongly in NPOV. Despite my political leanings, I believe very strongly in writing for the enemy. As for my admin style, I try to give people every benefit of the doubt before blocking or banning. My main motto is...argue the issues, not the people. If you follow that, you will be ok. -- Woohookitty (cat scratches) 11:12, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Welcome -- Comaze 11:23, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Great Woohookitty. I am also into the NPOV thing. Perhaps you will help me spread the word to other articles on the fanatical NLP promotional agenda here. NLP has turned out to be a fabulous exemplar for pseudoscientific cults. Also, all articles which have pseudoscience or cult in the subject matter, could be very well clarified with reference to NLP. Regards HeadleyDown 11:46, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Hi, folks. Just a quick hello and an intro. I've been on Wikipedia since about 2004-02. I'm a firm believer in NPOV and consensus as the guiding principles that make Wikipedia work; I believe without reservation that these principles will ultimately result in a high-quality encyclopedia.
Hopefully I'm pretty well-suited for this job. I'm well-accustomed to what needs to be done in order to represent a non-mainstream point of view within Wikipedia's NPOV framework. After all, I'm a fundamentalist Christian who believes the earth is most likely 6000 years old. ;) (Not sure if that will encourage people or dishearten them, at first.) But I know how to take the high ground in making Wikipedia a place where beliefs are fairly and accurately represented without allowing Wikipedia itself to take a stand.
I'm reading up on this article and the arbCom case, and I can see that I'll have to read this talk page's history and probably the history of the article, too. Give me a couple of days to get acquainted with the issue, and then we'll all start moving.
I know all three of my fellow-mentors and happen to know from experience that each of them is a great Wikipedian. I think everyone involved here who wants to see a high-quality, fair article on NLP is in for a real treat! Jdavidb ( talk • contribs) 13:56, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Headley, please don't refer to anyone as "poisonous." I understand that editing controversial articles can be extremely frustrating. (Believe me, I understand!) But please take every opportunity to take the highest ground possible.
I guarantee you that I (and my fellow mentors for this article) are going to watch out for everybody. We've all seen enough that it's amazing we're not any more jaded than we are. :) None of us is going to allow ourselves to be fooled by anything. That's a promise. Jdavidb ( talk • contribs) 16:54, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Upon second reading, I realize you were not referring to any people as "poisonous." That said, please be careful. :) Jdavidb ( talk • contribs) 18:17, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
I suppose I should introduce myself as well. I'm Ral315, and I've been editing Wikipedia since December 2004. I also strongly believe in NPOV. Like Jdavidb, I'll be looking through the archives, trying to get a feel for the dispute here. I can also say that all of my fellow mentors are good editors, and will do a good job to try and settle this dispute and get this article to where it should be. Ral315 (talk) 17:20, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Hi everybody. I won't go into great detail about myself, because my userpage should explain lots about who I am. But as it pertains to Neuro-linguistic programming, I promise that I'll do my level best to help everybody come up with an article that Wikipedia can be proud of. At the risk of sounding repetitive, I have full faith in all my fellow mentors and look forward to getting started. As an initial comment, I'd like to echo the sentiments already expressed about sticking on-topic. As tempting as it may be, especially when you get angry or irritated, try not to comment on contributors (or even generically to lob tomatoes at "the other side.") It does nothing to further the debate, and only ends up inflaming passions. · Katefan0 (scribble)/ poll 22:52, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Hi folks. I think things are moving along quite well. The learning curve is pretty good considering.
Lets keep up the good work. Regards HeadleyDown 11:57, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the introduction, Jdavid, Ral315, Woohookitty, and Katefan0. I wonder whether any of you admins would volunteer to archive this talk page as it is getting physically too large. as archiving by admins will have less chance provoking potential suspiscion of censorship in disputed article. I would like to see everyone including admins to give positive attention to constructive postings. Inapproprate postings should be promptly removed by admins without making a lot commentary on the talk page. I support VoiceofAll banning of "Us and Them ideology". Consensus will come on its own when the group dynamics is healed. -- Dejakitty 21:53, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Feel free to "vandalize" my comments with further "unconstructive" suggestions
DaveRight 01:53, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
All sounds good to me. I'd like to add:
Camridge, this my favourite piece of Bandler Bullshit(TM) that was uttered in an interview so his lackeys can't say that he's eliciting state:
Here is my suggestion-
Are representational systems, not the PRS theory, scientifically supported? jVirus File:Confederate Battle Flag.svg 14:50, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
The research AND the NLP books variably refer to PRS as sensory representational systems, representational systems amongst others. Which ever way you look at it, there is no evidence that any NLP claims are correct. They have been falsified scientifically. I wish to reiterate another point. None of the background to RS (PRS) is valid or supported. Further to that, there is an abundance of OTHER pseudoscientific notions within NLP. NLP was always pseudoscientific, and NLP has been classed as pseudoscientific many times in many different arenas and different countries. We have been through this many times already. The NLP research stream dried up well over a decade ago, and scientific reviewers generally refuse to review academic papers that are based on pseudoscience. It is not worth anybody's time or effort. And I would like to repeat the view of Eisner (2000) that refers to the usual extraordinary claims of NLP proponents, "if NLP proponents have actually achieved the miraculous results that they claim, why have these not been properly documented and presented to the scientific community?" HeadleyDown 15:28, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
OK Here's a more clarifying example for you. In NLP a common ritual is to use the imagination to search "perspectives" and to "put yourself in other's shoes" etc. NLP notions generate rituals partly through the use of different internal senses. So if you try to imagine yourelf as Einstein. Place yourself in his shoes and 1. See what he sees, 2, hear what he hears, and 3, feel what he feels. This is one example related to PRS, or involvdes RS. The fact is, when it comes to internal perceptions, there is no real difference between visual and kinesthetic according to psychology. Tests show they cannot be seperated. Therefore, when you imagine things using NLP, you are simply using ritual. Its a set of steps or rules that have no basis in the science of psychology. Further to that, those rituals are claimed to achieve extraordinary results. Look at Dilts' Patterns of Einstein. He makes the ridiculous jump from bogus theory to practically becoming Einstein. Believe me, 3 idiots do not make an Einstein, but 3 idiots can certainly claim so. HeadleyDown 15:51, 9 February 2006 (UTC)