Talk:Representational systems (NLP)

VAKOG

Just to clarify stands for:

• V = Visual
• A = Auditory
• K = kinesthetic
• O = Olfactory
• G = Gustatory

Famous_dog (c) 11:14, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

External Links are commercial

As far as I can tell this page is an advertisement.99.132.249.24 (talk) 20:40, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Very dense beginning!

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)

Re-wrote Lead

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)

Multiple issues banner

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)

That Guy's edit summary in both cases reads "This has been worked on over the years, don't steamroll over the efforts of many people just because you can, if you had legitimate issues, you'd use the talk pages first." I see some evidence that these articles have "been worked on over the years," but I would argue that they have been worked on as a way to get around the increasing scepticism with which NLP concepts are greeted in the main article and therefore constitute a POV-fork. I also don't know how many people I am supposed to be "steamrollering", but these pages have not been edited much in recent years, they have just been left to stagnate by their authors (who have probably given up on Wikipedia). I believe I have "legitimate issues", and I attempted to highlight them with the multiple issues banners. Thoughts? Famous_dog (c) 11:34, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

The problem with simply adding banners is that other editors don't know where the issues are or how to resolve them. It would be helpful if you could be more specific. I would suggest that you pick one issue at a time... spell out how you think the issue can be resolved and the changes you would like to see... and (once resolved) move on to the next issue. It will take more time, but ultimately it will be more productive.

For example... you complain that the article is POV... could you be more specific, and give us some examples of statements you consider non-neutral? Blueboar (talk) 12:38, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Famousdog, you need to understand that when you find an article that you object to you can't just throw a bunch of banners on it. This is doubly true when it is regarding articles where issues with them have been worked out after large amounts of time have been put into making sure the edits have followed wikipedia guidelines.

If you have issues beyond "i don't like the content", then list them and we can have a productive discussion about each individual thing you feel is at issue one by one.

What's important here is that we improve articles, not just throw bumper stickers on them in a spam-like manner.

-- That Guy, From That Show! 02:23, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

So what you're saying is, when a massively long article has absolutely no RS support for any of the statements in it I should go through it and tag every unsupported statement instead of adding a single banner. Surely that's worse than a banner? But, sure. let's do it your way, That Guy. Famous_dog (c) 10:39, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

When an article is focused on subjective experience, it doesn't fit into wikipedia because wikipedia isn't designed to be able to deal with the subject in an applied manner. For example, this article revolves around indirect realism yet with even 5.4 million pages the closest wikipedia directly deals with it is the article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_and_indirect_realism

NLP articles do not belong on wikipedia and they're extremely difficult to deal with while they stay here. They deal with a subject (subjective experience) that wikipedia is not suited to being able to deal with: the actual experience of life people are having.

I mention this, for example, because even though you have a problem with labels like pseudoscience in these articles, they're really stand-ins for "pseudowikipedia"

-- That Guy, From That Show! 14:53, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

This all sounds like special pleading because there really are no reliable sources that support the claims of NLP, and now you're just making up perjorative terms to smear people who demand evidence of NLP's ridiculous claims. Famous_dog (c) 12:24, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

That's totally silly. There is no evidence for NLP claims so there aren't any people to smear. I am not sure why you keep insisting you're being persecuted on wikipedia when we're just pointing out how things are done here. Why not spend a bit of that energy discussing specific issues with content in these articles instead of playing victim non-stop?

-- That Guy, From That Show! 14:02, 7 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)

Unreliable Fringe Source? Really?

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)

Hey, read the discussion right above this one for an explanation of the ridiculous tagging on this article. Basically, User:That_Guy,_From_That_Show! forced my hand. Famousdog (woof)(grrr) 13:21, 16 April 2018 (UTC)