Talk:Principles of NLP/Archive 1

Archive 1

Untitled

This article requires deletion. It was set up by NLP fanatics because arbitration and mediation would not allow them to promote their vested interests on the main NLP article. It is only here as an opportunity to promote NLP. Its basically wikispam. HeadleyDown 14:17, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Please refrain from personal insults and assume good faith. The discussion below is in favour of keeping the articles separate. Peace. Metta Bubble 05:47, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Who did I insult personally? And good faith was what I assumed for months. Bad behaviour of NLP fanatics was the result, including their directing personal insults such as wanker, cunt, etc to myself. So take a running jump, your sanctimonious bullshit is as misguided as your belief in NLP. HeadleyDown 13:47, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

My first post was in reference to your comments:

• "set up by fanatics" -- a personal attack specifically targetting the creator(s) of this page
• "promote their vested interests" -- an assumption of bad faith

I have refered your subsequent comments to WP:WQA. If you have concerns over any specific edits I have introduced please don't be afraid to discuss them civilly. Peace. Metta Bubble 05:02, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Mettabubble, you are evading discussion just as your promotional NLP teammates have consistently evaded discussion. It has been abundantly clear that you have no satisfactory answer to the issue of this article being just another opportunity for more NLP promotion. HeadleyDown 03:08, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Headley, you were warned about WP:NPA as a result of another editor posting a WP:WQA alert the same day I did. I am not evading you personally or your arguments. It's merely your uncivil behaviour (which is obviously not serving your interests anyway). Drop the behaviour and I will gladly engage with you or any other editor acting in good faith. It is worth noting that I currently believe you are acting in good faith. It's the incivility I'm evading. If I thought you were acting in bad faith, I wouldn't even post this response. Peace. Metta Bubble 05:33, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Mettabubble, if I made an attack in my last post, then point it out clearly. If you do not answer the issue of NLP promotion, you will further damage your already shaky credibility. You are still trying to evade discussion. HeadleyDown 07:46, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Suggestions; Basically just write your "how to" in a wikibook instead

Firstly, overall, there is absolutely no need for such a huge section on NLP principles. The effect of this subpage is to turn the article in to a “how to”. Moreover, it is highly promotional and deliberately narrowing to a single vague view. NLP is full of self-promotional terms. That is it’s bread and butter. There is no actual result to any of this. NLP has been largely found to be ineffective. If you want to write on wikipedia, you need balance.

You talk of denying holism. This would need a set of sources (more than 3) as NLP is does actually state holism in some of its books.

The NLP described by Bandler and Andreas have had no balance through science at all. That is biased. They both promote and say vague things, there is no explanation.

You state that NLP promoters promise much but on slender or no evidence. You would be more specific if you state that the only evidence they supply is anecdotal.

You show bias again: According to Jane Revell, a British NLP trainer, the presuppositions of NLP "are not a philosophy or a credo or a set of rules and regulations. Rather, they are assumptions upon which individuals base future actions and plan for meaningful learning experiences." [1] Her’s is only one view. There are many views within NLP about those presuppositions, including highly spiritual perspectives (James 2000)

Map and territory (Korzybski) is unbalanced. You need to show the view of science (which is against Korzybski’s view). That would require a lot of words.

Openendedness is not the problem. There are many eclectic fields that remain unpseudoscientific. Use whatever works is truly as pseudoscientific excuse.

NLP claims to be empirical. It is not empirical in the accepted or acceptable sense or in the scientific sense. There is no way of reliably telling through straight observation whether the model is right or whether it can be successfully universally applied to other general populations. However, true objective empiricism has tested NLP and found it to be ineffective. That does need explaining, but it is done already very clearly and concisely on the main NLP article.

You explain the principles, but fail to relate them to other therapies. For example, normal therapies state that clients are all resistant at some point (due to natural tensions) and to recognize this is being realistic.

Your 90% and 10% information is pseudoscientific and groundless. The fact is, you are taking this principle idea from a purely fringe therapist viewpoint. You have not represented what NLP is mostly about: New age/ self help. I have also read NLP tomes that state we use 1% of our brain, or that communication is 30%words and 70%body language. This is all pseudoscientific talk.

Probably the worst of all, it is highly biased to respond to NLP’s critics without furthering the criticisms of those excuses. All of those excuses have been criticized further and in depth. This page seems to have been added in order to make excuses into conclusions.

Overall, this piece of your own work is unacceptable, unencyclopedic and by and large extremely biased. It narrows the view of NLP to that of the most vague. I understand why you would want to keep it vague (to clarify this section with science would lead to a huge document).

Suggestion. Instead of promoting NLP as is the case here, this NLP “how to” would be better presented as a promotional Wikibook. I’m sure nobody would mind if you snipped this article off and just pasted it into your own new wikibook.HeadleyDown 11:10, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Summary responses:

1. An NLP principles article is reasonable as the subject is notable, distinct, and substantive in the wikipedia sense.

Evidence should be provided that it is notable. As you have not, it is clear that you cannot. This article should be deleted.HeadleyDown 05:12, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

1. NLP clearly denies wholism by asserting behavior can be understood and modelled as "the sum of parts" and providing a proposed way to break down behavior into parts. That is classic reductionism.

Sharpley, Eisner, and other such researchers of the subject of NLP have stated that it is wholist. HeadleyDown 05:12, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

1. "The NLP described by..." is a criticism relating to NLP as a whole, not principles of NLP.

You left out the rest of the line. That relates exactly to the principles. HeadleyDown 05:12, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

1. The evidence if any of efficacy is either a criticism on NLP as a whole, or of a specific principle/s. Either way it either isn't relevant, or needs clarifying which exact principle is disputed and by whom.

The principles have been criticised on the main NLP article, and citations provided. This article is redundant. HeadleyDown 05:12, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

1. Map & territory is linked for the full debate. Alternative views and extra information are a good thing, done properly.

Map and territory is not exclusively NLP. Stop representing it as such. HeadleyDown 05:12, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

1. "Use whatever works" is a means not an end. Its use does not determine whether the end is scientific or not. Experts in many sciences, arts and other disciplines also use a similar principle to this, and "use any technique or innovate new ones, to meet new situations."

Use what works is a common statement of pseudoscientists (eg Hubbard). THis needs clarifying in the main NLP article. HeadleyDown 05:12, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

1. Empiricism is (apparently, if you can cite credible sources) disputed. Scientists say NLP is not empirical. NLP practitioners say that everything they do is based upon observation and feedback constantly. So both views might need stating and considering.

This has been dealt with in the pseudoscience section of the main NLP article. HeadleyDown 05:12, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

1. This isnt an article about resistance, its an article about "things NLP is based upon or believes". While it might be interesting to relate this to other therapies, it's basically tangential as this is not listing views on resistance, but summarising NLP's view etc.

This is an article promoting NLP and it is biased. It should be deleted.HeadleyDown 05:12, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

1. 90/10 is citable. Its a view by a renowned NLP author. I will add the citation when I get to dig it up.
2. The rest is personal opinion, personal remark, and inaccurate.

FT2 01:15, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

FT2. You have provided no evidence of your claims. As you cannot deal with the issues presented, this article should be deleted. HeadleyDown 05:12, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Due to POV warfare-style issues on other NLP pages, I have not had a chance to dig up full citations as yet. There might well be some valid ways for editors to characterize some types of criticisms. If so it would have a place in an article.

The purpose of this article is NLP's principles, not NLP in general. As far as I know, every quote here is sourceable as a principle that is widely held by some informed group about NLP. There may well be others. The problem is, your comments are mostly very general. They are comments about NLP, but very few of them are comments about actual specific principles of NLP. Out of roughly 12 comments I can identify, only a minority seem to be pointing out extra possible information (such as spiritual perspectives on NLP principles). Here's a rough guide for what's needed: if you wish to contribute with value, then it will help if you give it in this format pretty much:

1. Specific principle which is missing viewpoints: name a specific principle of NLP
   (Note: "NLP is wrong/discredited/hype/etc", is not a criticism of a principle, but a criticism of NLP as a whole, and belongs in that article)
2. Omitted viewpoint: Why that principle is considered by some people a less valid view of the world or similar, or what opinions about it are noteworthy but not documented.
3. Citations: credible person or people who have stated these views in a verifiable location.
4. Counter-criticisms: citations if any by others who feel it is correct or the criticism is wrong whether scientists or not. This is something a good researcher does, and you need to learn to do. There are usually citable views for and against ANY viewpoint, often from different fields or approaches. (Indeed, a good researcher will often anticipate this and consider the likely criticisms within their work too). You need to look seriously for them, and also explain in THEIR view not yours, why some others believe as they do, and the basis (if any) for further others (if any) disagreeing, not just expect others to do your work digging this information up.

That is a neutral description that will help you keep on target and within NPOV. The subject here is principles, not NLP as a whole. So it's appropriate to critique specific principles, for example. That's another reason it is split off, the principles form a sizable distinct topic, and splitting off as an article on its own makes it much easier to document notable views for and against.

FT2 01:15, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

This article has already been merged into the main NLP article, so it needs deleting. DaveRight 02:58, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Emerging Project

I agree. We should link the abstract on the main page to the article here. The trouble with diluting the principles into the main page has been the principles become completely nonsensical and inappreciable to a reader. This article has a distinctly differently flavour to the main page. It is presenting what practices you actually find in NLP. The main article is presenting a larger perspective on NLP. Keeping the articles separate helps prevent the 'opinion piece' style and volatility of the main page from polluting well researched information being presented on the principles of NLP. So while I concur that care needs to be taken to defer readers to the main page for a context on NLP, I also concur that the topic of the principles of NLP is notable, distinct, and substantive (and even has a history of it's own that is distinct from the history of NLP that is presented on the main page). I nominate to remove the merge tag from this page as it is discordant with the NLP project team which has begun in good faith and is acting in good faith towards writing an encyclopedia. Peace. Metta Bubble 07:45, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

The recent reversion by Mettabubble is further evidence of anti-NPOV promotion of NLP. Those subjects reverted are irrelevant to NLP. As all researchers of the subject of NLP, dianetics, phrenology and other pseudosceinces should understand, the claim to other sciences is bogus and only presented as a promotion ploy. Consider yourself corrected. Any further reversion of such "sources" can be considered intellectual fraud (and the deliberate attempt of promoters to con the public into believing their product is associated with valid subjects). HeadleyDown 07:52, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Headley. I copncur with your concerns and add my concerns. I'm especially concerned with the misinformation contained in the articles regarding the nature of science and the treatment of mental illness that runs counter to fact and government and non-government advocacy campaigns that have been run in most of the English-speaking world over the last decade. In Australia, the Federal and State governments have spent much public funds on advocacy campaigns aimed at encouraging young people (especially girls) to study science and engineering. There is a science museum in the state in which I live that aims to motivate children to become interested and excited about science. The post-modern assertion -- besides being mere assertion -- that there are a plurality of truths and a plurality of sciences, i.e. that truth and fact are socially contructed is socially harmful, in that it discourages the study of science by young people and is mind destroying. There have been many government and non-government campaigns aimed at educating the general public about depression and schizophrenia and the Schizophrenia Fellowship (now called the Mental Health Fellowship) ran several campaigns aimed at dispelling the myths surrounding Schizophrenia. Bateson's double-bind theory of schizophrenia is a myth, it has been disproven (I can supply references). Like Hubbard, Bateson aims to blame schizophrenia on bad parenting: contradictory communications instead of attempted abortions using coat hangers. I implore the mediators, mentors and arbitrators to delete these sprawling -- largely unwatched -- sub-articles. If this be too aggressive a request then please insist on substantiation from verifiable sources. Wikipedia shouldn't be promoting pseudoscience in connection with mental illness, an issue already associated with myths and stigma and it shouldn't be denigrating science -- the engine of the largest economies -- by spreading post-modern nonsense about the topic. flavius 02:47, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

The External Link Posted By The Creator

The external link I am restoring was posted by the creator of this article. It is clearly a source for the content on this page, both at the time of creation and currently. I agree the website being linked to has some marketing at the bottom and so I would gladly consider a link that doesn't do this. However, as it stands, this is our best external source for the current content on this article.

Please do not revert based on previous biases or problems with other articles. This article is it's own beast and should avoid WP:POINT issues. If anyone would like a third opinion on this, please seek one at the third opinion page. Peace. Metta Bubble 02:48, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Question

Is it true that this article has already been incorporated into Neuro-linguistic programming? · Katefan0^(scribble)/poll 03:25, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

No I don't believe so. It was developed by FT2 and others who claimed that mediation was not working, so in addition to making their complaints to arbitrators, they also decided to promote using an NLP wikiproject and then link the main NLP article to the project pages. The reason it has not been incorporated was due to its extreme bias towards the use of promotional language (NLP language contains abundant self-hype and the more you write using NLP viewpoint, the more pseudoscientific promotion you will get) and its links to commercial promotional sites etc. Its just promotion. Its my guess that the NLP project will remain a large promotional opportunity for NLP proponents. Never mind, we can compensate using scientifically based clarity on the main NLP article. HeadleyDown 03:56, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Just to clarify. No merging is necessary. The principles of NLP are very simple and have been represented clearly already in the main NLP article, and as NLP is a how to, any further detailed breakdown of the principles from the NLP view, will be a how to. This article is a promotional how to. HeadleyDown 05:04, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi Katefan0. Mettabubble accused me of vandalism [1]. Would you briefly put Mettabubble straight. HeadleyDown 03:58, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi Katefan0. I agree that this sub-topic hasn't already been merged. There is support from the wikiproject editors for it to remain separate (as per FT2's discussion above and on other pages). It's been over a month since the merge tag was posted and no one has addressed mine and FT2's reasons for keeping it separate. I am open to discussion on merger. However, I believe posting the merge tag was a misguided mediation action and should never have been done. We should note that "The Principles of NLP" is a term used in all schools of NLP worldwide. All sides agree that the principles of NLP have changed over the years (as new teachers add their own slant). The principles of NLP are core to all NLP training (and they are probably also useful for accurate criticism of NLP). If this article expanded into a history of NLP principles it would be both notable and very different to a general history of NLP. My preference is for the main NLP article have a summarised form of this daughter article. Peace. Metta Bubble 05:42, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

On vandalism: I used the word vandalism to refer to an edit summary that says "see discussion" when the discussion is merely an ad-hominem attack. Peace. Metta Bubble 05:42, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

KetefanO. The "schools" Mettabubble refers to are actually competing factions of NLP. They are pseudoscientists with vested interests at stake. The principles section in the NLP article will be best described using the clarifying (and broader) perspective of science and the respective researchers of the subjects - pseudoscience, NLP, the New Age, and the human potential movement. If NLP promoters are used to present the information, it will only be more of the same promotion. HeadleyDown 06:58, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

You need to be speaking with each other as much as me. Part of being a mentor means helping you learn how to work with others here on Wikipedia. · Katefan0^(scribble)/poll 18:50, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

The "Principles of NLP" are within the domain of NLP. If you google the precise phrase you get over 9000 exact matches. To discuss this topic within a broader context of science would be to title the article "A scientific perspective of the Principles of NLP" (a perspective that doesn't even specifically exist). This would be akin to reframing the Holy Trinity article from the perspective of science. Such a viewpoint is not in the same domain as the topic. Well wishes. Metta Bubble 23:17, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Metta bubble. You assertion is quite a non starter considering the abundance of fact that we have already. The main NLP article is full of scientific views on NLP and the principles of NLP. This can include more explanation on the difference between normal scientific thought, Korzybski's map-reality difference, and its relationship between Dianetics and the occult. I notice you have left that set of relationships out in this article. It can all be handled in the main NLP article. HeadleyDown 01:40, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Matabubble. Your analogy is incomprehensible unless you are proposing that NLP is a religion. Given that NLP makes claims and posits explanations regarding learning, memory, thinking, mental illness, motivation, neurology and physiology its "domain" (as you put it) is the same as that of science. NLP is offering competing theories and therapies to established scientific disciplines. The doctrine of the Holy Trinity is exclusively concerned with theology, it is entirely a religious matter and is hence entirely outside of the scope of scientific inquiry. During the 14th century when the Roman Church did stray outside its proper domain of discourse and opine on matters of astronomy and medicine -- subjects of science -- it was plainly in error. The Roman Catholoc Church was not offering a legitimate Christian perspective on astronomy or medicine. What the NLP industry is doing is akin to the medieval Christian Church competing with science on matters outside of its authority. If your reasoning were sound then it would be sensible to discuss phrenology, treappaning, blood-letting and powdered mummy as if they were effective forms of diagnosis and therapy and couch any criticism exclusively in terms of "A scientific perspective of Phrenology...". No such thing occurs, a plurarlity of views concerning the validity of phrenology or the efficacy of powdered mummy as a panacea is not possible since these are issues that can be resolved with empirical investigation and they either work or they don't work. Any hypothesis that is falsifiable is amenable to scientific testing. The doctrine of the Holy Trinity is not a falsifiable hypothesis -- we can not define a priori what conditions would demonstrate its falsity. Such is not the case with PRS, eye accessing cues, matching, mirroring, persuasion, embedded commands, indirect suggestiion, fast phobia cure, VK dissociation, anchoring and reframing. All of these aspects of NLP contain implicit and falsifiable hypotheses. Hence a scientific perspective is the most authoritative perspective on these topics. The onus is on you to demonstrate that NLP is sui generis and hence incapable of investigation employing well-proven methods. I see no such justification. You have done nothing more than asserted that NLP is somehow beyond the realm of scientific inquiry. A prima facie disproval of your contention comes in the form of the extant scientific research into NLP. Furthermore, these papers have been published in peer-reviewed journals. The review process would have flushed out any issues of misapplication of paradigm or methodological error. The only peer criticism regarding any of the NLP research came in the form of one solitary paper in response to Sharpley (1984). Sharpley rebutted all of the criticisms presented by Einspruch. You are attempting to evade the negative conclusions regarding NLP in a most philosophically naive fashion. You are obliged -- by Wikipedia principles -- to present evidence that the scientific scrutiny of NLP is inappropriate -- your assertions are insufficient. I know of no such evidence and you have presented none. Experimental psychologists do in fact study subjective experience -- their method is distinguished from any NLP approach in that it is objective. Subjective experince can and is studied objectively. What then is it that makes NLP sui generis and hence beyond scientific examination? More importantly from a Wikipedia perspective -- because we are not free to perform OR or include unverifiable material -- who is it that presents a cogent argument and evidence that all of the scientific research into NLP is invalid? Who is it that demonstrates that NLP is not amenable to scientific investigation? flavius 02:14, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Please focus on discussing specifics of article content. Wikipedia talk pages are not for long, rambling debates over issues in the abstract. · Katefan0^(scribble)/poll 03:08, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Katefan0. I am focussing on the specifics of the article content -- the issue at hand is the relevance of scientific literature to the sprawling NLP articles. Exchanging assertions will not achieve anything. Is that what you are advocating in the name of specificity? I fail to see how a technical matter can be answered without recourse to explanation. Given that I specifically mention a catalogue of NLP techniques and two researchers I'm struggling to comprehend where the specificity and concreteness is lacking in my response. The false analogy between theology and NLP required answering since this was the justification for the exclusion of relevant literature. Would you have preferred, "No it isn't" as a response? Headley and I have raised several substantive issues concerning evidence or the lack thereof provided for the claims in the NLP articles. I'm at a loss how to understand how perfunctory chastisement -- which a bot can be programmed to perform -- will resolve the matters of contention or produce a worthwhile article. flavius 05:12, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

It's simple. If you aren't using this talk page to directly discuss proposed changes (or recent changes) to the article itself, then you aren't using this talk page correctly. Focus on the article itself. If you'd like to discuss whether it is proper to include a discrete source, go ahead. But the abstract ideas need to stop. I've also refactored some of your comments. Please be more careful how you address other editors going forward. · Katefan0^(scribble)/poll 11:48, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

That would be my point as well. Focus on the article. Since my mentorship began, the main problem I've seen here and on the other NLP related articles is that again, we're not looking for a discussion about the merits of NLP here. We want to make a good Wikipedia article. Long, rambling looks at what NLP means isn't our purpose. If you want to have that kind of discussion, I'd recommend a message board, not an encyclopedia. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 13:58, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Katefan0 and Woohookitty. I can't say that I understand what you are trying to tell me and I suspect that it may be incomprehensible. You assert, "If you aren't using this talk page to directly discuss proposed changes (or recent changes) to the article itself, then you aren't using this talk page correctly". Isn't requesting the deletion of the articles or requesting that at least substantiating the claims contained therein doing just that? I am addressing the concern of preparing a "good Wikipedia article". Verifiability of content is a pillar of Wikpipedia. I have pointed out where this is lacking in the "NLP Project". Your revulsion towards "abstract ideas" is your problem, not mine. Justification and rebuttal will often entail use of "abstract ideas". Perhaps neither of you are suited for mediation, arbitration and mentorship regarding the article? flavius 08:29, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Talking about deletion, sure, but that wasn't what I was commenting about. The rest of it, no. We aren't here to "substantiate claims," Wikipedia's threshold for inclusion is verifiability, not truth. So using the talk page to "substantiate claims" is worse than useless, it's a policy violation.

Talk pages are for discussing the article's text. They're not for exchanging abstract ideas about NLP or debating whether certain claims are substantiated or not -- Wikipedia is not a soapbox and editors do not decide the relative merits of a sourced claim. The only hurdle is, is it properly cited, sourced reliably? If so, then it may be included, subject to balance requirements of course -- but there is no need to "substantiate its claims."

The only discussions that should take place on article talk pages are those relevant to changing the article's text. Period. From Wikipedia:Talk pages: Wikipedians generally oppose the use of talk pages just for the purpose of partisan talk about the main subject. Wikipedia is not a soapbox; it's an encyclopedia. In other words, talk about the article, not about the subject. It's only the habits we encourage that keep Wikipedia from turning into another h2g2 or Everything2. · Katefan0^(scribble)/poll 08:44, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes. Wikipedia is not a message board or a blog. It is in WP:NOT. We can discuss deletion. We can discuss what should be in the article in terms of what can be verified, etc. But if you are looking for a detailed discussion of NLP, it's principles and it's "truthfullness", then Wikipedia is not the place for you. I think you misunderstand our purpose here. We're not here to say "OK. You are correct" or "you are incorrect" or "NLP is correct" or "NLP is a load of crud". We are here to help craft a good Wikipedia article with verifiable sources. We are not looking for the "truth". As Kate mentioned, Wikipedia is not a soapbox. It is not a place where we debate right and wrong. It's an encyclopedia, which means that it's a place where verifiable information is gathered and honed into text readable to a general level of readers. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 08:51, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

And what I mean is demonstrated by you saying "More importantly from a Wikipedia perspective -- because we are not free to perform OR or include unverifiable material -- who is it that presents a cogent argument and evidence that all of the scientific research into NLP is invalid?" up above. We are not here to determine validity of scientific research into NLP. We are here to present all significant viewpoints. We are not here to determine correctness. That's what kate and I are getting at. We would say one side says this about NLP and the other side says this. If it's a verifiable source and it demonstrates a significant viewpoint, then it's (in general terms) ok to use it. We are not here to evaluate the sides and to determine "the truth". We do not compare and constrast arguments. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 08:58, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

3rd opinion

(as requested on Wikipedia:Third_opinion)
The link used as reference looks like a typical spam URL (nlp-now.co.uk), have you tried finding a source from an educational insitution TLD? Obli (Talk) 17:55, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for responding Obli. A good suggestion, and I would welcome one, except that most NLP training occurs in private organisations, so that's where we probably have to look for accurate educational information. Universities that do teach NLP (and there are some) haven't got course material online that one can find easily. Until info is found, I suggest leaving the current first external link as a good indicator for what represents the current article. But here's another one if that helps. Maybe it's best if we add a few different ones from google so it's less likely to appear like spam. The current last external link is interesting in it's scientific perspective but it is not really The Principles of NLP. Peace. Metta Bubble 23:22, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Principles of NLP Should Be Deleted

The raison d'etre of this article is to subvert editorial efforts towards NPOV and scientific rigour. The content of the article overlaps with the NLP article -- minus any critical opinion -- and it is not far removed from an instructional manual on NLP. The sprawling NLP sub-articles should be pruned back. Despite marketing propaganda that suggests otherwise, NLP is simple and it can be covered in one article. NLP isn't an academic subject, it's a commercial product and it has been discredited by scientific experimentation and review. Hence there should be no NLP project. flavius 09:44, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome to nominate any article for deletion at WP:AFD. · Katefan0^(scribble)/poll 11:49, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

This page has the merge tag. Has any work been done to integrate this into the main NLP article. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 13:02, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

The merge tag's applicability is disputed by at least two editors, and perhaps a third. The main article contains a brief version, so enough content has been merged and enough has been kept separate for a good treatment in both articles. The treatment in the main article is too brief to justify deleting this article... as FT2 has said, and I concur, as per previous points above (let me know if you don't find them easily enough). Peace. Metta Bubble 10:47, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

WP:3o

A third opinion was requested on this page. Persuant to such, I have evaluated this conflict, and determined two things. Firstly, the link to the Pegasus should be included in this article as it is a good example of one groups list of Fundamental Principles. The link, however, should be clear that it is the view only of Pegasus NLP Trainings, and not fully accepted. Additionally, I find that this article appears to be a POV Fork, and likley should be merged into the Main NLP article. Hipocrite - «Talk» 17:47, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the 3O. I would like to evaluate whether people still thinks it's a POV fork when the main article has finally settled down. It's difficult to classify something as POV fork if there is a project team for it. I believe we will see that this article here is a distinct topic, much as Psychotherapy has daughter articles of Brief therapy, Group Therapy, Gestalt Therapy, Cognitive Therapy, Behaviorism, and so on. This is probably the most relevant daughter article to NLP, outside of a list of practices. I believe some articles might be deleted, but not this one. It's a core teaching of NLP and would be difficult to treat properly in a way that keeps the main article trim. Peace. Metta Bubble 10:58, 15 February 2006 (UTC)