This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Just to clarify stands for:
citation needed Famous dog (c) 11:14, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
As far as I can tell this page is an advertisement. 99.132.249.24 ( talk) 20:40, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
FWIW, I found the introduction fairly heavy going, but perhaps this is appropriate for a more formal/theory-based article? Natebailey ( talk) 11:12, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
I have rewritten the lead because it contained redundancies, had no citations and presented NLP postulates as matters of fact. The remainder of the article needs attention. AnotherPseudonym ( talk) 13:30, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
So it seems that User:That_Guy,_From_That_Show! has a problem with the multiple issues banner I added and removed it along with the similar banner I created at the NLP methods article. In defence of my tagging these articles, they have both been edited (mainly by bots) a hand-full of times this year and a hand-full of times last year. None of the problems have gone away and they remain POV-forks for NLPers. That Guy also removed the refimprove tag that has been on the 'representational systems' article since July 2016 without any suggestion that this issue had been improved upon. I plan to reinstate both these banners, but please - convince me otherwise. Famous dog (c) 11:21, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
I give up. I've done what TGFTS seems to think is "how things are done here" and tagged every single instance of unsourcery, speculation, and synth in both these articles. I think such an approach is (to use TGFTS's term) "silly" and it serves only to make the point that both of these articles are claptrap and should be deleted, but I will step back from the brink and let somebody else AfD or PROD them, for fear I upset TGFTS's carefully balanced, purely objective and, of course, totally correct opinion of "how things are done." Famous dog (c) 11:50, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
So, given that NLP is considered pseudoscience by most academia, yet despite the lack of similar consensus among mental health professionals some of whom still make use of the techniques of NLP, nonetheless every last reference to the original authors of NLP is tagged as "unreliable fringe source"? Really?
So in other words, despite the original works of the authors who originated the subject matter of this article (a particular model of NLP pseudoscience) being the clearest references available on the subject, these works are nonetheless tagged as unreliable and fringe? Seems like a misuse of the tag.
To quote from the template itself: "Parity of sources may mean that certain fringe theories are only reliably and verifiably reported on, or criticized, in alternative venues from those that are typically considered reliable sources for scientific topics on Wikipedia. For example, the lack of peer-reviewed criticism of creation science should not be used as a justification for marginalizing or removing scientific criticism of creation science, since creation science itself is almost never published in peer-reviewed journals. Likewise, views of adherents should not be excluded from an article on creation science solely on the basis that their work lacks peer review. Other considerations for notability should be considered as well. Fringe views are properly excluded from articles on mainstream subjects to the extent that they are rarely if ever included by reliable sources on those subjects.
The prominence of fringe views needs to be put in perspective relative to the views of the entire encompassing field; limiting that relative perspective to a restricted subset of specialists or only among the proponents of that view is, necessarily, biased and unrepresentative."
I hereby submit that, if the prominence of fringe or pseudoscientific views is to be kept in perspective relative to the views of the entire encompassing field, then limiting that perspective to only the opponents of that view greatly impedes the function of the article to describe the pseudoscientific view being opposed in the first place.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.148.16.46 ( talk) 22:23, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Just to clarify stands for:
citation needed Famous dog (c) 11:14, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
As far as I can tell this page is an advertisement. 99.132.249.24 ( talk) 20:40, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
FWIW, I found the introduction fairly heavy going, but perhaps this is appropriate for a more formal/theory-based article? Natebailey ( talk) 11:12, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
I have rewritten the lead because it contained redundancies, had no citations and presented NLP postulates as matters of fact. The remainder of the article needs attention. AnotherPseudonym ( talk) 13:30, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
So it seems that User:That_Guy,_From_That_Show! has a problem with the multiple issues banner I added and removed it along with the similar banner I created at the NLP methods article. In defence of my tagging these articles, they have both been edited (mainly by bots) a hand-full of times this year and a hand-full of times last year. None of the problems have gone away and they remain POV-forks for NLPers. That Guy also removed the refimprove tag that has been on the 'representational systems' article since July 2016 without any suggestion that this issue had been improved upon. I plan to reinstate both these banners, but please - convince me otherwise. Famous dog (c) 11:21, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
I give up. I've done what TGFTS seems to think is "how things are done here" and tagged every single instance of unsourcery, speculation, and synth in both these articles. I think such an approach is (to use TGFTS's term) "silly" and it serves only to make the point that both of these articles are claptrap and should be deleted, but I will step back from the brink and let somebody else AfD or PROD them, for fear I upset TGFTS's carefully balanced, purely objective and, of course, totally correct opinion of "how things are done." Famous dog (c) 11:50, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
So, given that NLP is considered pseudoscience by most academia, yet despite the lack of similar consensus among mental health professionals some of whom still make use of the techniques of NLP, nonetheless every last reference to the original authors of NLP is tagged as "unreliable fringe source"? Really?
So in other words, despite the original works of the authors who originated the subject matter of this article (a particular model of NLP pseudoscience) being the clearest references available on the subject, these works are nonetheless tagged as unreliable and fringe? Seems like a misuse of the tag.
To quote from the template itself: "Parity of sources may mean that certain fringe theories are only reliably and verifiably reported on, or criticized, in alternative venues from those that are typically considered reliable sources for scientific topics on Wikipedia. For example, the lack of peer-reviewed criticism of creation science should not be used as a justification for marginalizing or removing scientific criticism of creation science, since creation science itself is almost never published in peer-reviewed journals. Likewise, views of adherents should not be excluded from an article on creation science solely on the basis that their work lacks peer review. Other considerations for notability should be considered as well. Fringe views are properly excluded from articles on mainstream subjects to the extent that they are rarely if ever included by reliable sources on those subjects.
The prominence of fringe views needs to be put in perspective relative to the views of the entire encompassing field; limiting that relative perspective to a restricted subset of specialists or only among the proponents of that view is, necessarily, biased and unrepresentative."
I hereby submit that, if the prominence of fringe or pseudoscientific views is to be kept in perspective relative to the views of the entire encompassing field, then limiting that perspective to only the opponents of that view greatly impedes the function of the article to describe the pseudoscientific view being opposed in the first place.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.148.16.46 ( talk) 22:23, 1 February 2018 (UTC)