Talk:Association for Neuro Linguistic Programming

Current Research in NLP Vol1

"The inaugural issue of the peer reviewed journal, Current Research in NLP, contains proceedings from the First International NLP Research Conference held at the University of Surrey, UK, on 5th July 2008. The conference was organised by the University of Surrey in partnership with the Association for NLP (ANLP International CIC)." (from the back cover of the journal). AJRG (talk) 22:47, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Third party reference please, that is self-reported. --Snowded ^TALK 06:27, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Sandra I. Woolley - Publications Sections "Journal Papers" and "Peer Reviewed Conferences and Magazines". AJRG (talk) 07:26, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Saying that there is a peer reviewed journal for something which has only one publication two years ago and one planned one is misleading. In addition peer review on conference proceedings is not the same thing as for a normal journal (which I would expect to see 2/4 times a year as minimum). I have amended to describe what it is.--Snowded ^TALK 06:54, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

The conference was in July 2008. The journal was published in December 2009. Peer review takes time. AJRG (talk) 07:29, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

If it was an academic conference then the review took place of submitted papers before the conference and three months is a normal publication lead time. --Snowded ^TALK 04:53, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't doubt that's your personal experience. AJRG (talk) 10:43, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

UKCP Membership

It is not listed as a current member. This would also be notable, however I assume that it transferred this to another group (per other pages). Is this is the case and is there some material to support it. Otherwise we need to add it "as of (date) it is no longer listed as a member. --Snowded ^TALK 06:51, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I think you mean UKCP. There was material in the article, but you deleted it (diff). "The Road to Recognition" explains that the NLPtCA (Neuro Linguistic Psychotherapy & Counselling Association) became the official accrediting organisation in 2002. AJRG (talk) 07:21, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I deleted it because it was an internal document. I saw the NLPtCA document (and see that article was deleted). I did look on the NLP site and couldn't find anything - is there a link you can share? If the NLP say that they transferred then fine as NLPtCA is listed on the UKCP (mistake corrected) site --Snowded ^TALK 08:33, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Does this help? ANLP Executive Minutes (item numbered 8. PCS) AJRG (talk) 09:31, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I'll live with it, although its an internal source and difficult to validate. Other editors might take a firmer line. --Snowded ^TALK 21:57, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

The first & the only

Neither of these statements are supported by third party citation, they are based on the listed membership on the UKCP page. This is original research. It is also misleading to imply some special status. The UKCP is a membership group, the hoops to membership make no comment on the method itself, but the processes. In addition it is more than possible that another NLP organisation could gain membership, or that one of the others already there has some NLP practice or position. The attempts to assert this look like promotion of the ANLP. There may be an argument to nominate this article for deletion if it continues to be a promotional vehicle. The article on NLPtCA was deleted on less grounds. --Snowded ^TALK 09:00, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

There seems to be some confusion as to how to describe ANLP's relationship with UKCP following the deletion of a reference by snowded (talk) (diff). It was both a member of UKCP and the only accrediting organisation for NLP, as UKCP Member Organisations (1997) shows, until it passed the baton to NLPtCA. AJRG (talk) 09:21, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Please read the above comments on Original Research--Snowded ^TALK 09:24, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

A is the first letter of the alphabet. The Moon is the only natural satellite of Earth. Some things can be plainly seen, without interpretation. I originally used the word first because it quite neutrally allows for others to come after, and makes no claim to exclusivity. AJRG (talk) 10:40, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately that does not apply here. You have no way of establishing that other members do not provide NLP training in some aspect. Aside from that the wording was implying some endorsement beyond the reality of membership. Drawing conclusions from primary sources is original research pure and simple. --Snowded ^TALK 10:49, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

The electronic entry for ANLP reads Association for Neuro-Linguistic Programming Acc. The paper version is clearer that this means that the ANLP is an accrediting (not a training) organisation. The directory is arranged into sections by modality, so that any Experiential Constructivist therapies would be in the same section. NLP is one of the two therapies under this heading, the other being Personal construct theory which is represented by the Centre for Personal Construct Psychology. AJRG (talk) 11:08, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

You are drawing conclusions there. Another organisation might be entered under their primary interest for example. I've said this to you before, you need to get your head around the original research rules in Wikipedia. I think you are probably right, it is the first to have membership, it may well be the only one to have membership; but to make either of those statements requires a third party source. For the moment all you can establish is that they are a member. --Snowded ^TALK 11:12, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm using the document in the way it was intended to be used. An organisation accrediting Experiential Constructivist psychotherapists would be listed in this section. ANLP's status as an accrediting organisation, in addition to its status as a member, is clearly stated. AJRG (talk) 11:33, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Its still original research I'm afraid. You cannot draw conclusions from primary sources and that is your interpretation of how it is meant to be used. Get a third party source or give up please --Snowded ^TALK 11:46, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

ANLP's status as an accrediting organisation, in addition to its status as a member, is clearly stated in the reference. AJRG (talk) 12:31, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Which reference are you talking bout now? The membership records simply establish membership of a named organisation in a specific year, no more. being an accrediting organisation is not the same thing as being accredited. --Snowded ^TALK 15:21, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

And a PS, do you really think this article is notable anyway? --Snowded ^TALK 11:14, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I think it could be improved, certainly, but I consider it notable. AJRG (talk) 11:33, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

You thought that for the daughter article as well but the community disagreed with you - any reason why you think this is different?--Snowded ^TALK 11:46, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Each case is different. The public recognition of NLPt as a therapy in the UK is notable. How the ANLP achieved that should be documented in Wikipedia. ANLP also promotes academic conferences (two so far), its members write books and contribute to academic publications, and one of its members (Lisa Wake) was the chair of UKCP for two years. AJRG (talk) 12:31, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

No objection to you documenting membership, every objection to your making deductions from that membership without third party citation support. However ANLP is no longer a member and therefore Lisa Wake represents NLPt not ANLP so not relevant here. --Snowded ^TALK 14:22, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

You can't have it both ways. If NLPtCA doesn't warrant a page of its own, then it belongs here as the daughter organisation of ANLP. The PCS subsection of ANLP became NLPtCA in 2002 and Lisa Wake was Vice Chair and then Chair of UKCP from 2003 to 2007. AJRG (talk) 15:10, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I am wondering if this article deserves a page, it seems no more notable than NLPtCA which was rejected by the community.--Snowded ^TALK 15:22, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. AJRG (talk) 15:51, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Well you did with the last AfD as well so congratulations for consistency! I'll think about it for the moment. --Snowded ^TALK 15:55, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

In The Road To Recognition, another reference deleted by snowded (talk) (diff), James Lawley writing in NLP World Volume 1, No. 2, July 1994 says "The only NLP accrediting body recognised by UKCP is the Association for NLP". The question is whether the UKCP Directory of Member Organisations supports this claim. AJRG (talk) 18:17, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

The UKCP site explains (Information about Organisational Members) that "UKCP has around 80 organisational members, grouped together in modality colleges representing all the main traditions in the practise of psychotherapy in the UK. Organisational members may be training, accrediting or both. Individual psychotherapists can only join the UKCP register following accreditation by one of these organsiations." AJRG (talk) 18:17, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

The current register (List of UKCP accrediting organisations (alphabetical) (page 2)) lists the NLPtCA as an accrediting organisation and the 1997 register (UKCP Member Organisations (1997) (section 3)) lists ANLP as an accrediting organisation. The 1993 register also lists the ANLP as an accrediting organisation. AJRG (talk) 18:17, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Firstly a NLP source for the claim, secondly original research on the UKCP site. How many times does OR have to be explained to you? Even if the NLP source was valid it is now 16 years old ....--Snowded ^TALK 22:09, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

The published registration status of a UKCP member organisation is a matter of record, not OR. The UKCP was founded in 1993, so it's unsurprising that an article relating to its foundation is just as old. AJRG (talk) 23:20, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Its a matter of record that it became a member of UKCP in 1993, that is all --Snowded ^TALK 05:30, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

It's a matter of record that it became an accrediting member when the UKCP was created in 1993. AJRG (talk) 10:29, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

It accredits NLP practitioners, that does not mean it is accredited --Snowded ^TALK 12:51, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

As an accrediting member organisation, ANLP used to accredit and since 2002 the NLPtCA now accredits the training that NLP practitioners must complete to become a registered UKCP psychotherapist. As to the standard of UKCP member organisations, the UKCP page quotes this: "The United Kingdom Council for Psychotherapy (UKCP) exists to promote and maintain high standards in the practice of psychotherapy for the benefit of the public, throughout the United Kingdom. Only psychotherapists who meet the training requirements of UKCP and abide by its ethical guidelines are included on the UKCP's online Register of Psychotherapists. The Council has, as its members, the great majority of reputable psychotherapy organisations in the United Kingdom and welcomes applications from new organisations, which are rigorously scrutinised." AJRG (talk) 14:23, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

So?--Snowded ^TALK 14:35, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

So it's a matter of record that it became an accrediting member when the UKCP was created in 1993. AJRG (talk) 14:49, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

So? that is what the UKCP is about. What change are you proposing? --Snowded ^TALK 18:50, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Pending resolution of "the first & only", I suggest we move to "It became an accrediting member organisation of the United Kingdom Council for Psychotherapy (UKCP) when it was created in 1993." AJRG (talk) 19:40, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

The first and last will only be "resolved" if you find a reliable third party source. I see no reason to include "accrediting". The UKCP allows members to create programmes by which individuals can become members of the UKCP. The accrediting in NLP is something that is to do with the association (given no centralised NLP authority). --Snowded ^TALK 19:44, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not clear what point you're trying to make. AJRG (talk) 23:49, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

That I agree with your sentence if the word "accrediting" is removed --Snowded ^TALK 05:45, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

"accrediting" is verifiable. ANLP was a UKCP accrediting member but not a UKCP training member. Failing to make the distinction is potentially misleading. The UKCP requirements for training as a psychotherapist were given in 2000 here. However, the registration requirements here make it clear that "Registration with UKCP is obtained through our Member Organisations. The most common route to registration is to complete an accredited training with a Member Organisation of the Council. On completion of such a course an individual becomes eligible for registration. However, there are also a number of Member Organisations that can accredit individuals who have not trained with a Member of the Council". That last sentence applies to ANLP. AJRG (talk) 19:23, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Your reference to "accrediting" goes to a web site based on degrees and long term training, not the NLP three week style courses. Again you are engaged on OR. They are a member of the UKCP, using "accrediting" is misleading. I've also made contact with the UKCP to check some facts out, but for the moment I am removing accrediting. Neither the wikipedia article on the UKCP web pages makes that distinction. --Snowded ^TALK 02:19, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia article on UKCP is slight at best. Please re-read the reference here, which is UKCP's own web page from 2000 where the distinction is made. It has never been possible to be a registered psychotherapist with UKCP on the basis of a three week NLP course. It requires a degree and long term training, or other very convincing equivalent experience. AJRG (talk) 12:28, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Some insight into the current direction of training requirements can be found here. AJRG (talk) 13:42, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

That is exactly the point I am making - it takes time to qualify. Also if you are up to date with a lot of the current controversies around CBT, the role of UKCP and legislation you will know this is a difficult and complex area. Saying they are a member is more than enough. --Snowded ^TALK 15:34, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

That's OR. AJRG (talk) 23:23, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

"accrediting" is verifiable. UKCP's Directory of Member Organisations here is explicit that ANLP was a UKCP accrediting organisation in its Experiential Constructivist psychotherapy section. AJRG (talk) 23:23, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

WP:IDONTLIKEIT doesn't wash. I've given a reliable source for ANLP being a "UKCP accrediting organisation" in the "Experiential Constructivist Therapies section". A current example of the usage of the term by UKCP is here. If you have already received training from an organisation which is not a member of UKCP, or have worked for some years as a counsellor or psychotherapist, your earlier experience may be taken into account. Ask the UKCP training organisation(s) you have chosen or approach a UKCP accrediting organisation and discuss accredited prior learning (APL) or accredited prior experiential learning (APEL) with them. If you want to say "an accrediting organisation for NLPt", on the basis of the NLP World 1994 reference, I don't object. AJRG (talk) 13:55, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

It is misleading to imply that they accredit outside the specific context of NLP. My view is that there membership is more than sufficient for this article, otherwise we end up having to explain the membership structure and implications of UKCP membership which is really going too far. I have no idea what you are talking about on the OR point as I am proposing no edit. --Snowded ^TALK 14:01, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

It's equally misleading to imply by default that they provided training. Details of UKCP's membership structure belong on the UKCP page. You keep making judgements based on what you think you know. Wikipedia isn't about personal experience, it's about verifiable sources. AJRG (talk) 14:12, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

There is no implication by default, the fact they are members if more than enough. Your wording could easily be misinterpreted and adding in additional words which themselves require contextual explanation is a nonsense. As it happens I do know something about the UKCP and its structures, but nothing that you couldn't find out if you read the site and did a bit of research. --Snowded ^TALK 17:08, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps you could read the UKCP FAQ:

UKCP currently delegates the accreditation and re-accreditation of members to UKCP organisational members. At present there is no way of registering directly with UKCP.

UKCP does not run courses leading to UKCP accreditation - these are provided by our organisational members.

Some training organisations also accredit and will award Accreditation of Prior Learning (APL) or give 'credit' for previous training experience.

If you trained on a course that does not lead directly to membership, then you will need to seek accreditation by an accrediting Organisational Member. Click here for a list of UKCP Accrediting Organisations. AJRG (talk) 18:59, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Read it before, understand it and the context and see no reason to change my opinion. --Snowded ^TALK 07:53, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Please cite sources to support your personal opinion. AJRG (talk) 09:08, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Its nothing to do with my personal opinion. The sources support saying they were a member, the danger is confusing their accreditation in NLP thereby allowing membership of UKCP with some wider endorsement. The sources already references support that position. Lets keep it simple. --Snowded ^TALK 11:26, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

The sources support saying they were a UKCP accrediting organisation... What Wikipedia policy do you believe yourself to be applying? AJRG (talk) 13:58, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Notable figures

Its not normal for someone to be listed as notable if they don't have a wikipedia entry Is there any evidence of notability here? --Snowded ^TALK 02:30, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

This is simply untrue, see for example List of Alpha Phi Omega members and Clariosophic Society. People who have become well known or who have attained high ranking positions in their particular career field are notable, but may not warrant their own page. AJRG (talk) 12:03, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm dubious here, I left it in as she has a book published but its not especially notable. If there are no other names then I suggest removing the section but saying in the main body that she was given the position --Snowded ^TALK 15:35, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

What is your source for the claim "Current or former officers"? AJRG (talk) 23:14, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Yet more references deleted by snowded (talk) (diff). In this case, newspaper articles quoting Lisa Wake. AJRG (talk) 23:57, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

You are littering every phrase and word with promotional references. All we need is the one to her book and the one which establishes her status in the organisation. --Snowded ^TALK 03:48, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

First you question her notability. Then, when I give you national newspapers quoting her, you delete the references... AJRG (talk) 11:13, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

The first newspaper article establishes her as a member of ANLP. The second as Chair of UKCP. AJRG (talk) 07:28, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I questioned notability full stop. A couple of newspaper articles would not make her notable in wikipedia terms. Her Chair makes her a prominent member of this NLP organisation which is fine (ie the new title means notability is contextual to the organisation). Wikipedia is not a press cuttings service. --Snowded ^TALK 11:24, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

What Wikipedia policy do you believe yourself to be applying? AJRG (talk) 14:04, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

NLPtCA

Since NLPtCA doesn't warrant its own page, notable facts about it belong here with its parent organisation. AJRG (talk) 12:12, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I haven't seen anything yet (other than a set of web based minutes which are never safe) which shows the relationship. --Snowded ^TALK 15:36, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps you should read this reference. AJRG (talk) 23:09, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Read it, internal document --Snowded ^TALK 03:47, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Here, then. "Britischer Verband für NLPt (NLPtCA / früher ANLP-PCS )" meaning "British Association for NLPt (NLPtCA / former ANLP-PCS)". AJRG (talk) 11:15, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

You keep coming up with internal documents. As I said no issue with it being mentioned, but its not a sub section --Snowded ^TALK 12:11, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Calling the publicly available statutes of a European organisation "internal documents" is priceless. AJRG (talk) 14:23, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Don't worry I won't ask for payment. All your sources are NLP ones, please try and find some third party ones

You keep deleting third party references... AJRG (talk) 23:03, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Rehabilitation of Torture Victims

Yet another reference deleted by snowded (talk) (diff).

Since Wikipedia has a page on the Medical Foundation for Care of Victims of Torture, an article in their magazine The Supporter about NLPtCA member Paul Burns' use of NLPt should be included here. AJRG (talk) 11:18, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Just because it is referenced, it doesn't mean it has to be included. Here you have another internal document which makes a casual reference to Paul Burns, its not notable. Incidentally I am finding it increasingly difficult to believe you don't have some association with these groups. Per WP:AGF I will assume you don't, but finding some third party material or ceasing promotional edits would help--Snowded ^TALK 12:13, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I find documents using a sophisticated tool called Google... It isn't a casual reference - it's a whole page. Since I don't have anything to promote, you'll have to explain what you mean by promotional. AJRG (talk) 14:19, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I mean that you appear to be trying to build the position of the Association, and relying far too much on internal sources from archives. --Snowded ^TALK 06:49, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm trying to place it in context. AJRG (talk) 07:13, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Good thing to do, but the lack of third party references remains an issue - look at the comments on the AfD for its daughter association if you want a better sense of what is needed. --Snowded ^TALK 08:59, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Controversy

In addition to neuro-linguistic programming itself being perceived as controversial, there has been criticism of the ANLP’s code of ethics. Roderique Davies (2009) quotes the following disclaimer from the code of ethics:

"The Code does not assume that individual Members possess particular levels of skill in any specific area; it is important, therefore, that users of Members’ services do satisfy themselves that the person they are working with is appropriately skilled."

Roderique Davies (2009) states “To put the onus of responsibility onto the individual seeking the service is scandalous. What basis do they have to satisfy themselves that an individual is qualified in the face of impressive sounding claims and ‘qualifications’?”

This controversy information above was removed from the article. Please give the discussion or reasons here. Lam Kin Keung (talk) 04:02, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Association for Neuro Linguistic Programming. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120308131321/http://www.watfordobserver.co.uk/news/business/businessnews/4794687.ANLP_is_FSB_s_best_small_business/ to http://www.watfordobserver.co.uk/news/business/businessnews/4794687.ANLP_is_FSB_s_best_small_business/
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20090612084042/http://www.eanlpt.org:80/eanlptste9.pdf to http://www.eanlpt.org/eanlptste9.pdf
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20090602032627/http://www.eanlpt.org:80/organisation.html to http://www.eanlpt.org/organisation.html
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20080516193549/http://www.bps.org.uk/media-centre/press-releases/releases$/statutory-regulation/100000-reject-government-plans.cfm to http://www.bps.org.uk/media-centre/press-releases/releases$/statutory-regulation/100000-reject-government-plans.cfm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:49, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Association for Neuro Linguistic Programming. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080225005443/http://www.nlptca.com/history.php to http://www.nlptca.com/history.php
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.bps.org.uk/media-centre/press-releases/releases%24/statutory-regulation/100000-reject-government-plans.cfm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:05, 10 July 2017 (UTC)