Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Neuro-linguistic programming

Dispute over Neuro-linguistic programming

Summary

Group A: Dispute is mainly over removal of cited fact, but also extends to dispute over whether the article should contain multi-viewpoints, or a narrow Grinder/Bandler viewpoint. Non-pro-NLP editors believe that the article should remain multi-viewpoint.

Group B: Dispute is mainly over the lack of describing NLP as common NLP books describe itself - focussing instead on descriptions from other fields, books on cults, skeptics dictionary etc, and their judgements.

Dispute

Group A: The pro-NLP group keep demanding excessive evidence on the concept of engrams (a widely accepted neurology concept, and named in NLP literature (at least 7 credible published book/academic paper sources of direct mention of engrams, with all of NLP books describing engrams, and with many other credible web sources of direct mention). They (or more specifically user:Comaze especially) removes the facts on engrams from the NLP article on a regular basis (for over a month). A "viewofall" page was provided during mediation a few weeks ago, and this included engrams in the opening paragraph. The engram facts have actually been removed by non-pro-NLP editors as a compromise, but as the compromise was not met (more extensive deletion of cited facts), the engram facts were restored. Recent discussion has led to the majority view of engrams being named directly in most NLP theory, and the experiential aspects of engrams being used throughout every book on NLP known to the editors.

Group B: We would like even one reference from a common NLP book mentioning Engrams. We accept that Engrams is a term used in psych, and some non-NLP books mention it, if we had one credible/common/popular NLP book at least we could acknowledge it as a minority view of NLP. Similar issues exist throughout the article, with a focus on what a psychologist says NLP says (secondary source), in preference to going to common NLP books (primary source). The definition should come from NLP, the outside response should come from outside. There is also repetition of negative POVs and continual links of NLP to pseudoscience, EST, dianetics, etc. Spirituality is portrayed as a major part of NLP, rather than a context some practitioners apply NLP processes to. Articles cited are often dubious quality, and some quality articles are quoted out of context.

Group A: Presently, the page is undergoing NPOVing with the prompting of a new editor. The banning of user:Comaze has been proposed as a solution due to flagrant disregard for NPOV over months, and due to user:Comaze's antagonistic behavior, even to other pro-NLP editors.

Group B: When our ideas differed and neither group was really saying what they wanted, the page split into 2 parallel versions. We were pleased with some of the merging achieved a week back, but the page is sliding back into a simple attack (though it's worded better each time!). We continue to improve the parallel (temp) page as our attempt at true NPOV. Some users did propose Comaze's banning, though I'm sure both sides would like to ban people in the other group.

Users involved

Group A:

• DaveRight 03:19, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
• User:AliceDeGrey
• User:JPLogan
• User:HeadleyDown

Group B:

• User:GregA 07:56, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
• I nominate User:GregA as a representative --Comaze 23:49, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm assigning Sasquatch to this case. I'll let him work out the details ;-) Redwolf24 (talk—How's my driving?) 03:38, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

I'll take it =) Hope I can help. Sasquatcht|c 22:43, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

For whatever reason, there was no mediator working on this article, so I have assumed that role.Voice of All ^{T|@|Esperanza} 04:04, 26 October 2005 (UTC)