Content deleted Content added
Tgeorgescu (talk | contribs) |
|||
Line 1:
{{
{{ArbComPseudoscience}}
{{American English}}
{{Article history|action1=FAC
|action1date=12:53, 29 January 2006
|action1link=Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Neuro-linguistic programming/archive1
|action1result=not promoted
|action1oldid=37173548
|action2=PR
|action2date=19:38, 17 May 2006
|action2result=reviewed
|action2oldid=53459411
|action3=PR
|action3date=20:25, 28 December 2006
|action3link=Wikipedia:Peer review/Neuro-linguistic programming/archive2
|action3result=reviewed
|action3oldid=96983242
|action4=PR
|action4date=20:51, 5 February 2007
|action4link=Wikipedia:Peer review/Neuro-linguistic programming/archive3
|action4result=reviewed
|action4oldid=105758979
|action5=GAN
|action5date=12 December 2007
|action5result=not listed
|action5oldid=177059328
|action6=PR
|action6date=18:39, 29 November 2012
|action6link=Wikipedia:Peer review/Neuro-linguistic programming/archive4
|action6result=reviewed
|action6oldid=525550741
|currentstatus=FFAC
}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=B|collapsed=y|
{{WikiProject Alternative medicine}}
{{WikiProject Alternative Views |importance=Mid }}
{{WikiProject Religion|importance=Low |NRM=yes |NRMImp=Mid }}
{{WikiProject Psychology|importance=Low }}
{{WikiProject Linguistics|importance=Low }}
{{WikiProject Skepticism|importance=high }}
{{WikiProject Neuroscience|importance=Mid }}
}}
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn
|target=/Archive index |mask=/Archive <#> |leading_zeros=0 |indexhere=yes
}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config
|archiveheader = {{Talk archive}}
|algo = old(182d)
|maxarchivesize = 300K
|minthreadsleft = 5
|minthreadstoarchive = 1
|counter = 24
|archive = Talk:Neuro-linguistic programming/Archive %(counter)d
}}
== Shortened Citation Notes ==
The article currently uses a mix of referencing styles and there are missing page numbers for quotes or what may or may not be paraphrased text but we don't know because there are missing page numbers. See [[Template:Sfn]] for a guide how add page numbers and quotes. --[[User:Notgain|Notgain]] ([[User talk:Notgain|talk]]) 01:34, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
* '''Oppose''', it's disruptive. See [[WP:REFVAR]], which requires a [[WP:CONSENSUS]] from the regular editors of the page before you may do so: "'''Editors should not attempt to change an article's established citation style, merely on the grounds of personal preference or to make it match other articles, without first seeking consensus for the change.'''" [[User:Skyerise|Skyerise]] ([[User talk:Skyerise|talk]]) 23:25, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
*:I would contend that it was not "merely on the grounds of personal preference". I was looking at the best practises in other Good and Featured Article candidates. I'm personally most comfortable with the APA format but done research papers using Harvard referencing style with footnotes. I was thinking that style was the best for this article. Given that the article covers critiques from counseling psychology, coaching psychology, communications theorists, sociology and linguistics, its not simple. Do you have examples of article with similar content and multidisciplinary critiques? What referencing style worked best? --[[User:Notgain|Notgain]] ([[User talk:Notgain|talk]]) 06:18, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
:I also notice that {{ping|Newimpartial}} reverted you on [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ANotgain&diff=906242438&oldid=838920344 several] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Neuro-linguistic_programming&diff=1222292837&oldid=1222292447 occasions] just after you broke a bunch of citations by trying the same thing back on 5 May, a day or so before I noticed what you were doing. So that's 2 opposed. [[User:Skyerise|Skyerise]] ([[User talk:Skyerise|talk]]) 23:41, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
::I’ve already explained this and it is also in the edit comments. I fixed that citation errors. I didn’t know about the display error setting which was off by default. Again, I did appreciate your help. When I get more time, I’ll go back and justify each change. —[[User:Notgain|Notgain]] ([[User talk:Notgain|talk]]) 03:30, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
:::'''• Oppose,''' as [[User:Skyerise|Skyerise]] explained to you, you can't just change citation style without [[Wikipedia:Consensus|consensus]]. If you want to do changes '''you have to clearly justify them''' in order to show other editors your reasons or concerns about it, and if these go according to the [[Wikipedia:REFVAR|WP:CS]]. [[User:Rodrigo IB|Rodrigo IB]] ([[User talk:Rodrigo IB|talk]]) 04:52, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
::::You're absolutely right about needing consensus. My first step should have been proposing these referencing changes here on the talk page. Would you be willing to join a discussion about how to best improve the consistency and verifiability of the article's references? --[[User:Notgain|Notgain]] ([[User talk:Notgain|talk]]) 06:01, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
:::::As the [[Wikipedia:REFVAR|WP:CS]] sustains. Citations are key for [[Wikipedia:Verifiability|verifiability]]. Looking at the changes you [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Neuro-linguistic_programming&diff=1222292837&oldid=1222292447 did], im concerned that these could compromise the access of common editors and readers to those sources. Which is '''very''' crucial for this article.
:::::Editors with their own personal bias can incur in practices (like meat-puppetry) that violate [[WP:V]],[[WP:NPOV]],[[Wikipedia:Manual of Style|WK:STYLE]].
:::::The controversies sorrounding NLP obligate us as editors to make sure we are not doing [[Wikipedia:OR|original research]]. Which, for surprise of no one, has to be verified by others. For that reason, i think is naive to compare it to other articles just because different citation styles were used, or due to their extensivity in other disciplines. [[User:Rodrigo IB|Rodrigo IB]] ([[User talk:Rodrigo IB|talk]]) 06:29, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' There are several ways to add pagenumbers in/with reftag-refs (not surprisingly), including [[Template:Rp]]. [[User:Gråbergs Gråa Sång|Gråbergs Gråa Sång]] ([[User talk:Gråbergs Gråa Sång|talk]]) 05:46, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
*:The inconsistent styles and missing page numbers make [[WP:V]] and editing difficult. Have you come across similarly complex articles that successfully used <nowiki>{{Rp}}</nowiki> or other templates to maintain readability while ensuring accurate citation information? Especially ones covering multiple disciplines, as this article does? The immediate issue is that there are paraphrasing of sources without clear page numbers which makes [[WP:V]] difficult. Another issue is that are duplicates of the same sources across the article. That was an advantage of using <nowiki>{{efn}}</nowiki> and <nowiki>{{sfn}}</nowiki>. We are already using <nowiki>{{r}}</nowiki> in the article. <nowiki><ref></nowiki> is also often combined with <nowiki>{{sfn}}</nowiki>. Also some of the quotes in the current article are inside the cite element when they would be better handled as an <nowiki>{{efn}}</nowiki>. We have critiques from linguistics, counseling psychology, anthropology and sociology. --[[User:Notgain|Notgain]] ([[User talk:Notgain|talk]]) 06:12, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
*::I have nothing against sfn etc as a style, though ref-tag is always my choice when ''I'' start articles, with rp if necessary. IMO reftag is generally more understandable for general and new users, and both VE and source editors benefits from named refs if used. But an article should be consistent, and if consensus here is to use sfn or whatever, that's fine. [[User:Gråbergs Gråa Sång|Gråbergs Gråa Sång]] ([[User talk:Gråbergs Gråa Sång|talk]]) 06:21, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
*::Fwiw, my knee-jerk reaction when scrolling through the ref section, is that "traditional reftag" seems to be the majority use, so if I was to start working on consistency, I would change the "Jeremiah 1995." style ones and get rid of the "Works cited" sections. But if the primary/secondary division is considered valuable, that might not work. I think some Wikipedians consider the more academic look of sfn-style a mark of quality. [[User:Gråbergs Gråa Sång|Gråbergs Gråa Sång]] ([[User talk:Gråbergs Gråa Sång|talk]]) 06:31, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
*:I'm told that <nowiki>{{cite Q}}</nowiki> would solve one of the issues I had with existing use of <nowiki><ref name="Joe-1995">{{cite journal|...}}</ref></nowiki>. <nowiki>{{cite Q}}</nowiki> enables you to pull the reference data from wikidata by using its Q ID. It was too verbose and made it difficult to maintain especially in source mode. My proposal is for any citations that are current citations that are defined inline such as <nowiki>"<ref name="Joe-1995">{{cite journal..."</nowiki> that if that citation is on wikidata then we is replace it with <nowiki>"<ref name="Joe-1995">{{cite Q|..."</nowiki>. That will reduce some of the clutter and retain existing r and rp template use. Then we can use r and rp. Then if there is consensus to use sfn then we can adopt that together with efn which is already in use in the current article. --[[User:Notgain|Notgain]] ([[User talk:Notgain|talk]]) 08:32, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
*::No, you should revert to the previous citation style per consensus and [[WP:REFVAR]], full stop. [[User:Remsense|<span style="border-radius:2px 0 0 2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F;color:#fff">'''Remsense'''</span>]][[User talk:Remsense|<span lang="zh" style="border:1px solid #1E816F;border-radius:0 2px 2px 0;padding:1px 3px;color:#000">诉</span>]] 09:20, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
*:::Do you know what I mean by <nowiki><ref name="...">{{Cite Q|...}}</nowiki>? It just moves the clutter of the reference out of the content. That is one of the biggest issues with the article in its current state. Its still using the same citation style. It is a wrapper for <nowiki>{{Citation}}</nowiki> that returns formatted citation from statements stored on a Wikidata item (referred to by its Q identifier or QID) for citable source. It would be a good interim solution while consensus is sought for sfn which is my preference as it would be far more professional. efn has been used in the article for years. --[[User:Notgain|Notgain]] ([[User talk:Notgain|talk]]) 10:19, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
*::::Yes, I know what it means, I've used it myself. It is a different method of referencing, even if the output looks the same. The words "method" and "style" are used interchangeably on the guideline page, but the reason underlying changes in both is {{em|the changes are disruptive to others}}, hence why the guideline is to defer to the first format used in a dispute: other editors who want to edit this page don't want to suddenly swap to having to look up Wikidata codes. You seem increasingly unwilling to understand that. [[User:Remsense|<span style="border-radius:2px 0 0 2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F;color:#fff">'''Remsense'''</span>]][[User talk:Remsense|<span lang="zh" style="border:1px solid #1E816F;border-radius:0 2px 2px 0;padding:1px 3px;color:#000">诉</span>]] 10:33, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
*:::::Do you understand that we are currently using <nowiki><ref>{{Cite Journal |...}}</ref></nowiki> in the article and post people use tools already like [https://citer.toolforge.org/] to populate the details of that from the DOI, ISBN, etc. So using <nowiki><ref>{{Cite Q |...}}</ref></nowiki> might actually be less work, and they'd be familiar anyway. The editors who don't undertstand wiki syntax usually use a visual editor or they just rely on other wikipedians to clean up after them. I guess we'll need to wait for others to chime in with their preferences. --[[User:Notgain|Notgain]] ([[User talk:Notgain|talk]]) 13:13, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
*::::::Do you understand that whether you think they'd like it better doesn't matter? [[User:Remsense|<span style="border-radius:2px 0 0 2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F;color:#fff">'''Remsense'''</span>]][[User talk:Remsense|<span lang="zh" style="border:1px solid #1E816F;border-radius:0 2px 2px 0;padding:1px 3px;color:#000">诉</span>]] 13:17, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
*:::::::some like the simplicity of ref even thought sfn is technically better. There are featured articles that use ref only but the longer ones with notes and many references prefer sfn. —[[User:Notgain|Notgain]] ([[User talk:Notgain|talk]]) 04:45, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
*::::::::Again, as pointed out just above, that is irrelevant here. The only relevant thing is whether you have consensus or not. Clearly, you don't. [[User:Skyerise|Skyerise]] ([[User talk:Skyerise|talk]]) 11:26, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
*:::::::::I’d like to hear the arguments for and against sfn v ref, with examples. Besides none of the regular contributors to this specific article have raised objections so there is no evidence of clear consensus from regular editors. I have enabled errors so I can correct the errors you complained about. I think now consensus can be sought through editing and discussion. —-[[User:Notgain|Notgain]] ([[User talk:Notgain|talk]]) 21:11, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
*::::::::::No, the burden to demonstrate a change is preferable is on you. If no one agrees, then you may not make the change. (You have; no one has; you may not.) People are entitled to establish consensus regardless of contributions; frequent editors do not [[WP:OWN|own]] the articles in question. [[User:Remsense|<span style="border-radius:2px 0 0 2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F;color:#fff">'''Remsense'''</span>]][[User talk:Remsense|<span lang="zh" style="border:1px solid #1E816F;border-radius:0 2px 2px 0;padding:1px 3px;color:#000">诉</span>]] 06:43, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
*:::::::::::I must have misunderstood what you were saying on AN/I. I thought your earlier point was that changing from ref to sfn referencing format would be unwelcome because of the learning curve for the existing or previous editors of this article, or that existing editors might not like it. You said, "the changes are disruptive to others" (above). I assumed you were referring to previous editors of this article. How could it possibly be disruptive to edits who have never edited this article? I assumed you meant you needed to obtain consensus from them (previous editors of this article). None of them have commented yet. However, the silence from the previous contributors could be interpreted in different ways. It could mean that they are indifferent to the change, that they are unaware of the discussion (most likely scenario), or that they are still forming opinions. Anyway, I'm going to help out at [[:Category:Harv and Sfn no-target errors]] not to recruit or canvas support but to learn more about the interaction between sfn, efn and ref formats - as well as learning more about [[WP:V]] --[[User:Notgain|Notgain]] ([[User talk:Notgain|talk]]) 16:30, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
*::::::I'd note that converting references to Cite Q en masse would be contentious even without CITEVAR. -- <small>LCU</small> '''[[User:ActivelyDisinterested|A<small>ctively</small>D<small>isinterested</small>]]''' <small>''«[[User talk:ActivelyDisinterested|@]]» °[[Special:Contributions/ActivelyDisinterested|∆t]]°''</small> 15:54, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
*:::::::my intention for suggesting sfn was to enhance readability and maintainability. With sfn, you define the reference using cite templating in the bibliography. Assuming ref is inadequate too, do you know of an alternative solution that meets that need given the huge number of citations on this article? —[[User:Notgain|Notgain]] ([[User talk:Notgain|talk]]) 02:10, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
*::::::::120 inline citations is simply not a particularly high number, and is adequately accommodated by any common means of citation. [[User:Remsense|<span style="border-radius:2px 0 0 2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F;color:#fff">'''Remsense'''</span>]][[User talk:Remsense|<span lang="zh" style="border:1px solid #1E816F;border-radius:0 2px 2px 0;padding:1px 3px;color:#000">诉</span>]] 06:48, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
*::::::::I'm well aware of how {{tl|sfn}} templates work, but your supposition that ref tags are inadequate is simply your own personal opinion. You won't find any concensus that one form of referencing is better than another, the editing community is deeply split on the matter. This is why CITEVAR warns against changing style types, as it causes unnecessary drama that wastes editors time. -- <small>LCU</small> '''[[User:ActivelyDisinterested|A<small>ctively</small>D<small>isinterested</small>]]''' <small>''«[[User talk:ActivelyDisinterested|@]]» °[[Special:Contributions/ActivelyDisinterested|∆t]]°''</small> 10:55, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
*:::::::::Afaik, neither VE or [[WP:REFTOOLBAR]] has any "format ref as sfn/harvn" option, is that correct? Also, no ref-tag, no named ref. [[User:Gråbergs Gråa Sång|Gråbergs Gråa Sång]] ([[User talk:Gråbergs Gråa Sång|talk]]) 12:15, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
*::::::::::Kind of, VE supports adding templates so it supports {{tl|sfn}} (as long as you know what they are), the same would be true of {{tl|r}}, {{tl|ref}}, {{tl|efn}}, etc. I don't think the REFTOOLBAR point is relevant, if you already using source editing then using the toolbar to format sfn/harv would take longer than typing it.<br>I don't think REFTOOLBAR has any ability to re-use a refname, but again it would be quicker to type it, VE certainly can though. -- <small>LCU</small> '''[[User:ActivelyDisinterested|A<small>ctively</small>D<small>isinterested</small>]]''' <small>''«[[User talk:ActivelyDisinterested|@]]» °[[Special:Contributions/ActivelyDisinterested|∆t]]°''</small> 10:46, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
*:::::::::::Reftoolbar absolutely has the ability to re-use a refname, "Named references", to the right of the ref-template drop-down. [[Wikipedia:RefToolbar/2.0]]. In VE it's Cite > Re-use. In source, you name them with the "Ref name" field in the template window. [[User:Gråbergs Gråa Sång|Gråbergs Gråa Sång]] ([[User talk:Gråbergs Gråa Sång|talk]]) 10:56, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
*::::::::::::Your right, I had missed that in REFTOOLBAR. -- <small>LCU</small> '''[[User:ActivelyDisinterested|A<small>ctively</small>D<small>isinterested</small>]]''' <small>''«[[User talk:ActivelyDisinterested|@]]» °[[Special:Contributions/ActivelyDisinterested|∆t]]°''</small> 12:05, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
* '''Neutral'''. I'm not super educated on the nuances of citation styles, but I feel like the citation style used on this article in particular is not super important. I think the bigger issue is that when Notgain tried to convert it all to {{tl|sfn}} without gaining consensus, they did so ''incorrectly'', and broke citations in the process. I've used {{tl|sfn}} and tend to prefer it with more complicated articles such as this one, but if other editors are opposed, I'm prepared to respect that; I'm not convinced Notgain is, which is another issue. (Also, the [[Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1155#User:Notgain_repeatedly_violating_WP:REFVAR|corresponding ANI thread]] on this issue ended without clear consensus and without admin closure; I'm not sure what to make of it, but it feels relevant.) '''〜''' <span style="font-family:Big Caslon;border-radius:9em;padding:0 7px;background:#437a4b">[[User:Askarion|<span style="color:#FFF">'''Askarion'''</span>]]</span> [[User talk:Askarion|<span style="color:#000000"><strong>✉</strong></span>]] 16:41, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
*:sfn was it is easier to read in source mode but I now have source highlighting so I’ve settled. I’m not going to push sfn on the great unwashed. —15:38, 14 May 2024 (UTC) [[User:Notgain|Notgain]] ([[User talk:Notgain|talk]]) 15:38, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
== Druckman & Swets 1988 ==
Before I forget, can someone who has editing rights update the reference to Druckman & Swets 1988 report? The consensus of the committee was discussed in chapter 8. Note that the DOI in the current reference to Druckman&Swets 1988 is incorrect (it points to a [https://doi.org/10.1002%2Fhrdq.3920010212 book review] of the committee's consensus report, not the report itself), please change to: <nowiki>{{cite book | title=Enhancing Human Performance: Issues, Theories, and Techniques | chapter=8: Social Processes | pages=133-166 | publisher=National Academies Press | publication-place=Washington, D.C. | date=1988-01-01 | isbn=978-0-309-03792-1 | doi=10.17226/1025 | ref={{sfnref | National Academies Press | 1988}}}}</nowiki> or if you want to include the editors: <nowiki>{{cite book | last1=Druckman | first1=Daniel | last2=Swets | first2=John A. | title=Enhancing Human Performance: Issues, Theories, and Techniques | chapter=8: Social Processes | pages=133-166 | publisher=National Academies Press | publication-place=Washington, D.C. | date=1988-01-01 | isbn=978-0-309-03792-1 | doi=10.17226/1025 | ref={{sfnref | National Academies Press | 1988}}}}</nowiki> That was a honeytrap for some researchers copy and pasting from wikipedia without checking sources. Otherwise, there's the named reference version for those who prefer that style: <nowiki><ref name="Druckman-1988">{{cite book | last1=Druckman | first1=D. | last2=Swets | first2=J. | title=Enhancing Human Performance: Issues, Theories, and Techniques | publisher=National Academies Press | publication-place=Washington, D.C. | date=1988-01-01 | isbn=978-0-309-03792-1 | doi=10.17226/1025 | pages=133-166 | chapter=8: Social Processes}}</ref></nowiki> --[[User:Notgain|Notgain]] ([[User talk:Notgain|talk]]) 04:13, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
:The use of Druckman and Swets (1988) as a reference to support the statements #1 "Numerous literature reviews and meta-analyses have failed to show evidence for NLP's assumptions or effectiveness as a therapeutic method" and #2 "Bandler led several unsuccessful efforts to exclude other parties from using NLP" is problematic. Druckman (2004) clarifies that the panel evaluated techniques like NLP for their potential in "enhancing learning, improving motor skills, altering mental states, managing stress, or improving social processes." The panel's focus was on NLP's potential for social influence, not its therapeutic applications. They found NLP's assumptions and effectiveness ''in social influence'' to be unsupported by psychological evidence. Its worth noting that the panel was "impressed with the modeling approach used to develop the technique," this interest in modeling does not directly speak to NLP's effectiveness as a therapeutic method. The fact that the planned NLP training was not implemented could suggest the type of "unsuccessful efforts" hinted at in statement 2, but this remains speculative. I couldn't find anything in the cited source to directly support statement 2. Therefore, it's recommended to remove Druckman and Swets (1988) as a supporting reference for these two statements. --[[User:Notgain|Notgain]] ([[User talk:Notgain|talk]]) 08:23, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
::'''•Denied''', while the Druckman and Swets (1988) aim is not the therapeutic effectiveness of NLP, it touches the lack of empirical evidence on representational systems, you even quoted this from the article: ''"Numerous literature reviews and meta-analyses have failed to show evidence '''for NLP's assumptions <u>OR</u> effectiveness as a therapeutic method"'''''
::The review is clearly relevant. [[User:Rodrigo IB|Rodrigo IB]] ([[User talk:Rodrigo IB|talk]]) 18:40, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
:::I think there may have been a misunderstanding here. Statement #1 was from the current article, not the source. The NRC (Druckman and Swets 1988) did not review NLP as for its therapeutic application. And you have have not addressed statement #2 which is not suppprted by the source either. If you think it is please provide page numbers to substantiate for verifiability. —[[User:Notgain|Notgain]] ([[User talk:Notgain|talk]]) 20:57, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
::::It seems you're reading statement #1 as "and/or", which would make the Druckman & Swets (1988) source relevant because it addresses the lack of empirical evidence for NLP's assumptions. However, if we interpret "or" to mean that both parts of the statement need separate supporting evidence, then a source that doesn't address NLP's therapeutic effectiveness might not be suitable for this statement. It is important to distinguish between NLP's assumptions, and its effectiveness in different areas of application - whether it be therapeutic, management or social influence, as we discussed earlier. To be clear while the NRC (Druckman & Swets 1988) provides a strong review into NLP's assumptions, it does not directly address its therapeutic effectiveness. Other reviews do. Therefore, I’d prefer to cite separate, relevant sources for each part of statement #1. This will aid in [[WP:V]]. —[[User:Notgain|Notgain]] ([[User talk:Notgain|talk]]) 21:40, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
:::::What? Where is stated that the sources for that particular case should adress both?
:::::Even you proposed a section around persuasion, which is one of the different approaches of NLP. The whole article, including that single sentence is referring to NLP '''in general.'''
:::::It gets worst when we analize your own statement: ''"However, if we interpret "or" to mean that both parts of the statement need separate supporting evidence, then a source that doesn't address NLP's therapeutic effectiveness might not be suitable for this statement."''
:::::For your own argument then a source that adresses just one aspect is still valid, because it's providing evidence for a specific claim; it would be a problem if and only if was the only source cited to sustain the lack of evidence in regards to the therapeutic approach of NLP; which is not the case.
:::::The "interpretation" (which this is '''not''' about) you highlight plays against you.
:::::I don't get it. [[User:Rodrigo IB|Rodrigo IB]] ([[User talk:Rodrigo IB|talk]]) 22:08, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
::::::I hear your point about the use of the word “or” in the statement #1 and how it could be interpreted to mean that a source addressing just one aspect is still valid. However, my premise is that for a more accurate representation of the sources, it would be ideal if each part of the statement is supported by citing relevant sources that directly address the respective claim in line with [[WP:V]].
::::::While the Druckman & Swets (1988) source does review NLP’s assumptions from a psychological perspective, it does not directly address its therapeutic effectiveness. It is not a systematic review, meta analysis or critical review of ‘’’its therapeutic’’’ effectiveness. So my suggestion was to use separate, relevant systematic review, critical review or meta analyses to substantiate each each part of the statement in line with [[WP:MEDRS]]. The textbook you mentioned (that had a section critiquing the use of NLP in influence) would not meet that criteria either but would also require page numbers for verifiability, and it is not a systematic review.
::::::Statement #1 makes specific claims about NLP’s assumptions and its therapeutic effectiveness, which are distinct aspects of NLP. Therefore, it’s crucial to ensure that the sources cited for this statement directly support the respective claims in line with [[WP:NOR]]. —[[User:Notgain|Notgain]] ([[User talk:Notgain|talk]]) 00:21, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
:::::::So we agree but we don't agree... I still don't get it.
:::::::''"It is not a systematic review, meta analysis or critical review of ‘’’its therapeutic’’’ effectiveness."'', and how is that a problem?, did you even notice that is not the only source listed in the specific note (which is the '''''k''''' one) for those affirmations right?
:::::::As i said, it would be a problem if it was the only source for such affirmations. Which is not the case. [[User:Rodrigo IB|Rodrigo IB]] ([[User talk:Rodrigo IB|talk]]) 03:13, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
::::::::The use of endnote [k] to reference Statement #1 (S1) without page numbers makes it difficult to confirm if the claims are supported. Its unclear which source supports which part of the statement raising issue of [[WP:OR]]. The statement mentions "numerous literature reviews and meta-analyses," yet none of the six references in [k] are meta-analyses, so it is misleading. Witkowski (2010) is the only more recent quantitative and qualitative literature review of the empirical evidence (there are more recent ones that could be added). Sharpley (1983/87) and Heap (1988) focuses on the contested PRS. Heap (1988) explicitly states that NLP's effectiveness in clinical settings had yet to be experimentally evaluated at that time. Von Bergen et al. (1997) is unrelated, focusing on NLP in human resources development (HRD) - there are more recent review related to HRD. So I suggest page numbers should be added, and the relevance of each source to the statement should be clarified. Modifying Statement #1 to accurately reflect the cited sources and potentially incorporating additional, relevant meta-analyses or systematic reviews. --[[User:Notgain|Notgain]] ([[User talk:Notgain|talk]]) 12:40, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::Witkowski 2010 is a meta-analysis.
:::::::::The sources themselves cite other studies and meta-analysis which aren't as accessible (the use of public access sources is something that we as editors must try to implement, there are instances in which a reliable source is behind a paywall and shouldn't be discarted. This aspect kind of limits the sources that can be used by Wikipedia, more on that here: [[WP:Reliable sources/Cost]].) [[User:Rodrigo IB|Rodrigo IB]] ([[User talk:Rodrigo IB|talk]]) 16:51, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::Witkowski 2010 is a literature review, not a [[meta-analysis]]. The paywall issue, while important, doesn’t address the relevance and accuracy of sources. Druckman & Swets (1988) doesn’t directly address therapeutic effectiveness, so it may not be the most suitable reference for that part of the statement. —[[User:Notgain|Notgain]] ([[User talk:Notgain|talk]]) 20:38, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::The wikipedia article of Meta-analysis as well: ''"Meta-analyses are often, but not always, important components of a systematic review procedure."''
:::::::::::The wikipedia article for systematic review''s: "In practice, when one is mentioned the other may often be involved, <u>'''as it takes a systematic review to assemble the information that a meta-analysis analyzes, and people sometimes refer to an instance as a systematic review even if it includes the meta-analytical component'''.</u> "'' Which is the case for Witkowski 2010 (which is not a literature review as you said), and is presented in the page 60.
:::::::::::I didn't explained myself well on the subject of accessibility, sorry for that; but i brought it to the table because we are also discussing citation problems within the article and the changes you have been trying to do. The thing is that we cannot put more and more sources for a series of affirmations. For that we need to follow certain guidelines like the mentioned [[WP:Reliable sources/Cost]], to ensure the [[Wikipedia:Verifiability|WP:V]], and [[WP:NOR]], the other issue is that the changes you did would infringe not just the previous citation style but the "orientation" sort to speak of editors of what sources are public, hard to verify (like [[Wikipedia:Offline sources|offline sources]]) or behind a paywall. This is important because it could help improve the article if an affirmation hasn't been verified.
:::::::::::The sources more than just once conclude with the fact that NLP lacks empirical evidence. There is no original research problem in such affirmations. [[User:Rodrigo IB|Rodrigo IB]] ([[User talk:Rodrigo IB|talk]]) 21:39, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::With all due respect, Witkowski 2010 is a critical analysis, not a systematic review. It lacks a pre-defined protocol, specific research question, and rigorous assessment of evidence quality, which are key characteristics of a systematic review. See [[WP:MEDRS]]—01:03, 12 May 2024 (UTC) [[User:Notgain|Notgain]] ([[User talk:Notgain|talk]]) 01:03, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::::[https://www.journals.pan.pl/dlibra/publication/114591/edition/99644/content Witkowski 2010] —[[User:Notgain|Notgain]] ([[User talk:Notgain|talk]]) 01:07, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::::If the statement #1 is claiming that “numerous literature reviews and meta-analyses have failed to show evidence for NLP’s assumptions or effectiveness as a therapeutic method,” then it should be supported by references to actual literature reviews and meta-analyses. There are no meta analyses directly cited, so either add a citation if it exists and meets [[WP:RS]], or revise the statement for accuracy. —[[User:Notgain|Notgain]] ([[User talk:Notgain|talk]]) 01:28, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::::The systematic review of Witkowski is rigorous enough in its analysis of the quality of the presented evidence. If you have any concern in such aspect then clarify it, be ''specific'' for those concerns.
:::::::::::::There is no affirmation that violates [[Wikipedia:No original research|WP:NOR]] with the cited sources. [[User:Rodrigo IB|Rodrigo IB]] ([[User talk:Rodrigo IB|talk]]) 02:40, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::::In the letter to the editor of the Polish Psychological Bulletin, Aleksandra cite Witkowski 2010 as a "systematic review" {{cite journal | last=Witkowski | first=Tomasz | last2=Luszczynska | first2=Aleksandra | title=Letters to Editor | journal=Polish Psychological Bulletin | volume=44 | issue=4 | date=2013-12-01 | issn=0079-2993 | doi=10.2478/ppb-2013-0049 | pages=462–464}} along with Sturt 2012 {{doi|10.3399/bjgp12X658287}}. So at least one third party source refer to it as a systematic review. However, it does not meet the PRISMA criteria for a systemic review and there is no statistical meta-analysis. So I still maintain it would be better described a critical review of empirical research. There are a number of systematic reviews that came after Witkowski 2010 as we discussed earlier. And I think there is at least one 2015 meta-analysis, Zaharial, Reiner and Schütz 2015 {{PMID|26609647}} that has not been cited yet. --[[User:Notgain|Notgain]] ([[User talk:Notgain|talk]]) 11:24, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::The meta-analysis of Schütz et al is flawed. I'm reading it [https://hrcak.srce.hr/file/239625] and is worrying that the total of studies that were analyzed were just 12.
:::::::::::::::But there is another issue.
:::::::::::::::''"Overall, we finally included 12 studies with a total number of individuals of 658 (studies that analysed different subgroups from the <u>same population</u>). On average, the numbers of participants in each study was small, ranging between 12 and 115 subjects".''
:::::::::::::::One component of the inclusion-exclusion criteria: ''"Not the right population: studies conducted on healthy individuals with social/psychological problems (n=19)"''
:::::::::::::::Data analysis: ''"The inspection of the funnel plot was done visually."''
:::::::::::::::Jeffrey Chan and Amer Harky [https://doi.org/10.1093/ejcts/ezaa174] warn of the inclusion of non-randomized studies without risk of bias assessment (I mention it too because the small commentary also mentions the risks involved in methods that use visual inspection of heterogeneity across studies).
:::::::::::::::Schwarzer et al. [https://www.researchgate.net/publication/300339413_Small-Study_Effects_in_Meta-Analysis] give a more comprehensive picture of the risks sorrounding meta-analysis that use small studies. Like the one you cite. Im well aware that Schütz et al. conducted a publication bias analysis: ''"Begg and Majumdar's rank correlation nor Egger’s regression test was significant (p=0.73 and p=0.45, respectively), which indicates no publication bias."''
:::::::::::::::But, as Schwarzer et al. Point out other possible causes: ''"Another possible cause of small-study effects is clinical heterogeneity between patients in large and small studies; e.g., patients in smaller studies may have been selected so that a favourable outcome of the experimental treatment may be expected. In the case of a binary outcome, also a mathematical artefact arises from the fact that for the odds ratio or the risk ratio, the variance of the treatment effect estimate is not independent of the estimate itself [...] Lastly, it can never be ruled out that small-study effects result from mere coincidence [42]. Empirical studies have established evidence for these and other kinds of bias [19, 42, 53]. There is a vast range of tests for small-study effects [4, 20, 24, 38, 43, 48], most of them based on a funnel plot which will be introduced in Sect. 5.1.1"''
:::::::::::::::My concerns is that the meta-analysis you brought to the table is a false-positive, even the authors write: ''"there is a major lack of high-quality data from observational, experimental studies or randomized trials on this field, Up until now there is insufficient data to recommend this form of therapy strongly in reducing some psychosocial problems."'' Making it an inconclusive study. [[User:Rodrigo IB|Rodrigo IB]] ([[User talk:Rodrigo IB|talk]]) 20:04, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::Let’s not cherry pick. I return to the Statement #1 that currently mentions “numerous literature reviews and meta-analyses”. The limitations of these studies should be mentioned if in line with [[WP:NOR]] —[[User:Notgain|Notgain]] ([[User talk:Notgain|talk]]) 23:57, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::::Cherry pick what?
:::::::::::::::::Are you really trying to reach a consensus or not? because i don't see you actually addressing the points that emerge of the sources that you, '''you''' as a proponent of them should be considering and analyzing in a careful manner.
:::::::::::::::::You know what's the worst?, that i shouldn't have made that analysis, not only because is your responsability to at least read the sources you want to implement, but because the page talk is not for that. Neither of what is your opinion of what is or what is not a systematic review. As you said, reliable sources refer to Witkowski 2010 as a systematic review. '''End of the debate.'''
:::::::::::::::::There is no original research involved, period. [[User:Rodrigo IB|Rodrigo IB]] ([[User talk:Rodrigo IB|talk]]) 02:34, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
{{od}}That was an astute observation. The funnel plot inspection in the Schütz et al. study was done visually, which can introduce subjectivity and potential bias. While they noted this limitation and the small number of studies, this impacts the robustness of findings. This is amplified because the authors (e.g. Peter Schütz) appear to be practitioners (not academic researchers) which introduces another source of potential subjectivity bias. If it were to be cited, the limitations would need to be made clear. I maintain that Witkowski 2010 is not a systematic review or meta-analysis - it was a scathing critical review of empirical literature. It does '''NOT''' meet the PRISMA criteria for systematic review or meta-analysis as noted earlier. I encourage you to consider these points and reevaluate. If you have evidence to the contrary, I would be interested to hear it. --[[User:Notgain|Notgain]] ([[User talk:Notgain|talk]]) 09:28, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
:Why you keep insisting on the PRISMA declaration?.
:I don't know if you are aware, but the PRISMA declaration was sort of an "update" to the QUORUM declaration in 2009. Which it's main focus at the beginning was clinical meta-analysis and systematic reviews. It was not as adopted in 2010 like now, even the paper presenting the declaration was published at the beginning of 2010. [https://europepmc.org/article/med/20206945]
:Still tho, Witkowski meets the QUORUM declaration. But the declaration is not necessary in order to consider something as a meta-analysis or a systematic review. It just secures that the data analysis is not biased in certain ways. [[User:Rodrigo IB|Rodrigo IB]] ([[User talk:Rodrigo IB|talk]]) 15:03, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
== Really bad sentence ? ==
"NLP posits that consciousness can be divided into conscious and unconscious components".
Seriously?
[[User:MarmotteNZ|MarmotteiNoZ]] 04:52, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
== Criticism of "NLP is a pseudoscientific approach" in opening sentence ==
There has been some concern regarding the phrasing in the opening sentence of the article:
*"Neuro-linguistic programming (NLP) is a '''pseudoscientific approach''' to communication, personal development and psychotherapy, that first appeared in Richard Bandler and John Grinder's 1975 book The Structure of Magic I."*
While it is true that many in the scientific community have criticized NLP for lacking empirical support and regard it as pseudoscience, the sentence seems to present a definitive judgment without acknowledging the nuance in the debate. According to Wikipedia's [[WP:NPOV|Neutral Point of View]] policy, the introduction should reflect a balanced view of the topic, especially when there is significant controversy.
The phrase "NLP is a pseudoscientific approach" implies a universally accepted categorization, which may not fully represent the complexity of the discussion. There is significant disagreement in the academic and scientific communities about whether NLP should be classified as pseudoscience, with some acknowledging its popularity and use in areas like self-help, coaching, and psychotherapy.
I propose modifying the sentence to be more neutral, for example:
::Neuro-linguistic programming (NLP) is an '''approach''' to communication, personal development, and psychotherapy that originated in Richard Bandler and John Grinder's 1975 book ''The Structure of Magic I''. Although it has been criticized by many in the scientific community as '''lacking empirical support and considered pseudoscience by some''', it remains popular in certain fields, such as self-help and coaching.
This revision reflects the ongoing use and appeal of NLP, while still noting the scientific criticism it faces. Please share your thoughts on whether this revision would better adhere to Wikipedia’s NPOV guidelines.
--[[User:DiscipulusVirtutis|DiscipulusVirtutis]] ([[User talk:DiscipulusVirtutis|talk]]) 16:45, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
:If this weren't a serious proposal, it would be hilarious (but I assume it is serious). NLP can be regarded as pseudoscience by all relevant scientific disciplines while also being popular in self-help and coaching. Similar things are true in the case of Myers-Briggs personality types (for which our article currently prefers "non-scientific") and the Enneagram of personality.
:The idea that we would describe it simply as "an approach" and then FALSEBALANCE the evaluations: that {{tq|some}} consider it pseudoscientific but it remains {{tq|popular}} with others - well, that just isn't true to the best sources or compliant with enwiki policy.
:I mean, really: how many ideas presented in grimoires have ever stood up to scientific examination? I mean Keynes based [[Bretton Woods system]] on Newton's [[Philosopher's Stone]], but that's the best example I can come up with :p. [[User:Newimpartial|Newimpartial]] ([[User talk:Newimpartial|talk]]) 17:24, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
::The article currently states that NLP is considered a ''pseudoscience''. However, should we attribute the term ''pseudoscience'' as a label used by specific authors rather than as a broad scientific consensus?
::Several systematic reviews and meta-analyses have found that NLP lacks empirical support:
::* '''Sturt et al. (2012)''' conducted a systematic review of NLP’s effects on health outcomes and found little high-quality evidence supporting its effectiveness. ([https://www.researchgate.net/publication/233848067 British Journal of General Practice])
::* '''Passmore & Rowson (2019)''' reviewed NLP’s application in coaching and concluded that its unique practices are poorly supported by research. ([https://centaur.reading.ac.uk/91275/ International Coaching Psychology Review])
::* '''Tomasz Witkowski (2010)''' reviewed multiple studies and explicitly called NLP, in his own words, "''pseudoscientific rubbish''". ([https://journals.pan.pl/dlibra/publication/114591/edition/99644/content Polish Psychological Bulletin])
::While these reviews highlight the lack of scientific basis for NLP, the '''specific label''' of ''pseudoscience'' is primarily used by individual authors rather than by '''scientific organizations''' or as a direct statement from systematic reviews. If major scientific bodies (e.g., APA, WHO, Cochrane) explicitly classified NLP as ''pseudoscience'', it would strengthen the claim.
::Would it be more accurate for the article to state that '''''Multiple systematic reviews have found no scientific basis for NLP, and some researchers (such as Witowski) explicitly classify it as pseudoscience''''' rather than suggesting a broader '''scientific consensus'''?
::It may be worth noting that in 2010, when Witkowski's article was published, the '''Polish Psychological Bulletin''' was classified in '''Quartile 4 (Q4)''' according to the [https://www.scimagojr.com/journalsearch.php?clean=&q=21100200647 SCImago Journal Rank] in the field of Psychology (miscellaneous). Q4 represents journals in the bottom 25% of their field in terms of impact and citation metrics, generally indicating lower influence and visibility in the academic community.
::Looking forward to input from other editors. [[User:DiscipulusVirtutis|DiscipulusVirtutis]] ([[User talk:DiscipulusVirtutis|talk]]) 15:26, 17 February 2025 (UTC)
:::Correct link: [https://www.scimagojr.com/journalsearch.php?q=21100200647&tip=sid&clean Polish Psychological Bulletin, SCImago Journal Rank] [[User:DiscipulusVirtutis|DiscipulusVirtutis]] ([[User talk:DiscipulusVirtutis|talk]]) 15:29, 17 February 2025 (UTC)
:::@[[User:DiscipulusVirtutis|DiscipulusVirtutis]] I also look forward to input from other editors; to date, we have broad consensus on enwiki that NLP is pseudoscientific and no decent sources suggesting that it isn't. So I think the article should stay with "pseudoscience" in the lead section unless consensus changes. [[User:Newimpartial|Newimpartial]] ([[User talk:Newimpartial|talk]]) 16:01, 17 February 2025 (UTC)
::::No systematic reviews or meta-analyses published in '''high-impact journals''' in the fields of psychology or neuroscience (Q1-Q2), nor '''official statements from major scientific bodies''', have explicitly used terms like ''pseudoscientific'' to characterize NLP. If you can provide such a reference, that would be appreciated.
::::Otherwise, the immediate use of ''pseudoscience'' in the first sentence would not '''accurately reflect''' the characterization of NLP as derived from the most authoritative conclusions in the current scientific literature, but would primarily reflect the opinions of individual researchers (such as Witkowski), rather than a formal scientific consensus. [[User:DiscipulusVirtutis|DiscipulusVirtutis]] ([[User talk:DiscipulusVirtutis|talk]]) 18:35, 17 February 2025 (UTC)
:::::@[[User:DiscipulusVirtutis|DiscipulusVirtutis]] What terms are used to describe NLP in high-impact journals or official statements from scientific bodies? Do they use another term? [[User:Newimpartial|Newimpartial]] ([[User talk:Newimpartial|talk]]) 23:02, 17 February 2025 (UTC)
::::::Since no references from systematic reviews in high-impact journals—or other sources reflecting a strong scientific consensus—were provided to justify the explicit use of the term ''pseudoscientific'' in the '''very first sentence''', I will be removing it from the lead. If a reliable source explicitly supporting this '''choice of word as a consensus view''' is found, it can be reconsidered. [[User:DiscipulusVirtutis|DiscipulusVirtutis]] ([[User talk:DiscipulusVirtutis|talk]]) 14:00, 19 February 2025 (UTC)
:::::::@[[User:DiscipulusVirtutis|DiscipulusVirtutis]] that seems rather meta and unsupported by policy. The term "pseudoscientific" is supported by sources given in the article body. [[User:Newimpartial|Newimpartial]] ([[User talk:Newimpartial|talk]]) 14:12, 19 February 2025 (UTC)
::::::::Quite. Sources that consider the question call this pseudoscience, and Wikipedia policy requires that such knowledge be prominent. So what we have is good. [[User:Bon courage|Bon courage]] ([[User talk:Bon courage|talk]]) 14:36, 19 February 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::@[[User:Bon courage|Bon courage]] Which scientific sources, besides Wiktowski's paper, are you referring to? If you can cite '''several reputable scientific papers that explicitly classify NLP as ''pseudoscientific''''', the subject will be closed. [[User:DiscipulusVirtutis|DiscipulusVirtutis]] ([[User talk:DiscipulusVirtutis|talk]]) 23:50, 19 February 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::That's not how it works. You need one or more sources which actually consider the pseudoscience designation. This, we have. End of story. [[User:Bon courage|Bon courage]] ([[User talk:Bon courage|talk]]) 01:19, 20 February 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::The first sentence is a SUMMARY, and as such will not be able to be as precise and accurate as the entire third lead paragraph, which properly explains the nuance. To remove the word pseudoscience would be giving the blatantly false statement that this approach is valid. And "discredited" wouldn't work, because it was NEVER accepted by the scientific community. ---'''[[User:Avatar317|<span style="background:#8A2BE2; color:white; padding:2px;">Avatar317</span>]][[User talk:Avatar317|<sup><span style="background:#7B68EE; color:white; padding:2px;">(talk)</span></sup>]]''' 02:24, 20 February 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::::First, it would be fair to say that there is a difference between a '''fair-balanced''' summary and an '''oversimplified''' one.
:::::::::::Are we applying consistent standards across disciplines?
:::::::::::Consider [[positive psychology]]—a field widely practiced in academia, yet also criticized for overgeneralized claims and methodological weaknesses.
:::::::::::While positive psychology has '''empirical support''' in some areas (e.g., gratitude, resilience), it also faces serious critiques:
:::::::::::* '''Overgeneralization''' – Some interventions (e.g., "Three Good Things") show weak or inconsistent effects. ([https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s41042-024-00166-1 ''International Journal of Applied Positive Psychology''])
:::::::::::* '''Theoretical gaps''' – The field lacks a unifying metatheory, making results difficult to interpret. ([https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/17439760.2023.2178956 ''The Journal of Positive Psychology''])
:::::::::::* '''Cultural bias''' – Well-being models are often Western-centric. ([https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9196264/ ''Frontiers in Psychology''])
:::::::::::Yet, Wikipedia does not '''''summarize''''' Positive Psychology as being '''pseudoscientific''' in the first sentence, despite including statements such as:
:::::::::::* ''"It has been suggested that positive psychology [was] seen as a pseudoscience that lacks evidence and had poor replication[.]"''
:::::::::::If '''some empirical support''' is found within research, shouldn’t '''aspects of NLP''' (like in [[English as a second or foreign language|EFL education]]) be considered in a more nuanced way?
:::::::::::For example, a '''2021 study''' published in [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9891138/ ''Frontiers in Psychology'']—a high-impact psychology journal—found that '''NLP-based strategies''' improved '''critical thinking, academic achievement, and emotional intelligence''' among advanced [[English as a second or foreign language|EFL]] learners after '''12 training sessions'''. While NLP lacks empirical validation in health-related areas, this study suggests that '''some cognitive and emotional skill-building techniques within NLP may have practical applications in education'''.
:::::::::::Now some reflections:
:::::::::::* Are we rejecting NLP outright because of its '''''speculative framework''''', while accepting similar limitations in other evolving fields?
:::::::::::* If some NLP techniques show promise in '''coaching or education''', should they be distinguished from the broader framework?
:::::::::::* Where do we draw the line between a '''scientifically disputed field''' and outright pseudoscience?
:::::::::::Science is a process, and many fields contain both '''validated and speculative elements'''. Are we being consistent in how we apply the pseudoscience label, or are some disciplines given more leniency than others? [[User:DiscipulusVirtutis|DiscipulusVirtutis]] ([[User talk:DiscipulusVirtutis|talk]]) 11:07, 20 February 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::::Articles are based on the [[WP:PAG]]s, not on what other articles do. If other articles have problems, raise an issue on their Talk pages. This one however, is fine wrt pseudoscience. [[User:Bon courage|Bon courage]] ([[User talk:Bon courage|talk]]) 02:58, 22 February 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::::::However, this argument does not refute the claim that there is evidence supporting the potential of NLP in enhancing EFL education.
:::::::::::::Are there any points raised in the discussion that we might agree on? [[User:DiscipulusVirtutis|DiscipulusVirtutis]] ([[User talk:DiscipulusVirtutis|talk]]) 13:24, 22 February 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::::::Can you at least suggest a constructive proposal to address the current concern? [[User:DiscipulusVirtutis|DiscipulusVirtutis]] ([[User talk:DiscipulusVirtutis|talk]]) 13:26, 22 February 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::::::Yes. If you want more coverage of the pseudoscience (or not) aspect of NLP, produce quality sources which explicitly discuss that aspect. Such sources might be usable to alter the article. Otherwise, we are done and the way forward is for you to accept consensus. [[User:Bon courage|Bon courage]] ([[User talk:Bon courage|talk]]) 03:08, 23 February 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::I already provided the source: ''The effect of neurolinguistic programming on academic achievement, emotional intelligence, and critical thinking of EFL learners'', [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9891138/ Frontiers in Psychology] [[User:DiscipulusVirtutis|DiscipulusVirtutis]] ([[User talk:DiscipulusVirtutis|talk]]) 14:02, 23 February 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::I wrote "quality sources" and in any case that editorial does not discuss the pseudoscience aspect. [[User:Bon courage|Bon courage]] ([[User talk:Bon courage|talk]]) 14:09, 23 February 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::::I will wait for another argument or for someone else to join the discussion, as [[Frontiers in Psychology]] remains a high-impact journal in the field of psychology, despite past criticisms. [[User:DiscipulusVirtutis|DiscipulusVirtutis]] ([[User talk:DiscipulusVirtutis|talk]]) 19:42, 25 February 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::::AFAIK ''Frontiers'' is a predatory publisher. [[User:tgeorgescu|tgeorgescu]] ([[User talk:tgeorgescu|talk]]) 22:00, 25 February 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::::::Yes. Obviously, we will wait for a better source. (Which will likely never come.) --[[User:Hob Gadling|Hob Gadling]] ([[User talk:Hob Gadling|talk]]) 11:19, 26 February 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::::::{{tq|Which will likely never come.}} I don't see how this type of comment could be constructive to any discussion. [[User:DiscipulusVirtutis|DiscipulusVirtutis]] ([[User talk:DiscipulusVirtutis|talk]]) 16:12, 26 February 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::::::::It's true: even on a principal level NLP is so convoluted that one cannot do meaningful psychological research with it. It is like what K.R. Popper said about psychoanalysis: even on principle, it is not falsifiable. [[User:tgeorgescu|tgeorgescu]] ([[User talk:tgeorgescu|talk]]) 16:45, 26 February 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::::::::Then, what kind of evidence would you need to be convinced that NPL provides pedagogical benefits in [[English as a second or foreign language | EFL education]]? [[User:DiscipulusVirtutis|DiscipulusVirtutis]] ([[User talk:DiscipulusVirtutis|talk]]) 19:16, 26 February 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::::::::::For me, it'd be a new set of the Ten Commandments handed down indisputably from the big guy, supporting you. - [[User:Roxy the dog|'''Roxy''' ]]the [[User talk:Roxy the dog|'''dog''']] 19:33, 26 February 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::::::::::@[[User:Roxy the dog|Roxy the dog]] I see that you're using humor and sarcasm as a way to dodge my question. A true skeptic would have just answered sincerely. [[User:DiscipulusVirtutis|DiscipulusVirtutis]] ([[User talk:DiscipulusVirtutis|talk]]) 19:46, 26 February 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::::::::::::Are you suggesting I'm not being sincere? That's a horrible accusation. - [[User:Roxy the dog|'''Roxy''' ]]the [[User talk:Roxy the dog|'''dog''']] 20:13, 26 February 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::::::::It would have been constructive if you had taken the hint, gone away and stopped wasting everybody's time. But you stayed here and continued talking about irrelevant stuff. Can we stop all this [[WP:FORUM|forum]]ing? --[[User:Hob Gadling|Hob Gadling]] ([[User talk:Hob Gadling|talk]]) 20:19, 26 February 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::::Good and important points raised. I believe I might be able to help out a bit. Bruce Ecker has founded "Coherence therapy". According to Wikipedia, Coherence therapy "has been considered among the most well respected postmodern/constructivist therapies". Ecker et al has written the book "Unlocking the Emotional Brain" [2012]. I quote:
:::::::::::"Psychotherapy that regularly yields liberating, lasting change was, in the last century, a futuristic vision, but it has now become reality, thanks to a convergence of remarkable advances in clinical knowledge and brain science. In ''Unlocking the Emotional Brain,'' authors Ecker, Ticic and Hulley equip readers to carry out focused, empathic therapy using the process found by researchers to induce memory reconsolidation, the recently discovered and only known process for actually unlocking emotional memory at the synaptic level."
:::::::::::In the book, these authors list "Focused, experiential, in-depth psychotherapies that are congenial to fulfilling the therapeutic reconsolidation process if the therapist applies them to do so". On this short list of therapies, including AEDP and ISTDP, Neuro-linguistic progrmaming (NLP) is mentioned (p. 27). [[User:RockMarden|RockMarden]] ([[User talk:RockMarden|talk]]) 16:58, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::::Actually there is a warning in the wikipedia entry of [[Coherence therapy]] that the article may infringe wikipedia's guidelines. So, that's not a good sign... [[User:Rodrigo IB|Rodrigo IB]] ([[User talk:Rodrigo IB|talk]]) 15:02, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::::"actually unlocking emotional memory at the synaptic level" seems to be jabberwocky. [[User:tgeorgescu|tgeorgescu]] ([[User talk:tgeorgescu|talk]]) 18:43, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::::::Sounds like General Semantics... Other fringe theory. [[User:Rodrigo IB|Rodrigo IB]] ([[User talk:Rodrigo IB|talk]]) 20:29, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::::The point is not the article. The point is the sources mentioned.
::::::::::::Robert A. Neimeyer, Ph.D., is a Professor in the Department of Psychology, University of Memphis. He has written on Postmodern therapy in two books:
::::::::::::a) Essential Psychotherapies. Theory and practice [2003]
::::::::::::b) Constructivist psychotherapy: distinctive features" [2009]
::::::::::::In both of these works, Coherence therapy is given in-depth explanation. It is well respected among postmodern therapies within the scientific community. In other words: Bruce Ecker should be taken seriously by any skeptic. His voucing for NLP should make people think twice about its merits, if they want to be fair-minded and consider the available evidence. [[Special:Contributions/149.7.162.21|149.7.162.21]] ([[User talk:149.7.162.21|talk]]) 21:39, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::::::The point is that a source which peddles jabberwocky is not reliable. [[User:tgeorgescu|tgeorgescu]] ([[User talk:tgeorgescu|talk]]) 22:06, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::::::They apparently distinguish between "unlocking emotional memory at the synaptic level" and unlocking emotional memory which does not happen at the synaptic level. How do they make the difference? How do they know what they purport to know? If there is no meaningful difference, then the statement is jabberwocky. [[User:tgeorgescu|tgeorgescu]] ([[User talk:tgeorgescu|talk]]) 22:16, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::::::That's your opinion. The book (Unlocking the Emotional brain) is published on Routledge, a reputable publisher of academic works. [[Special:Contributions/149.7.162.21|149.7.162.21]] ([[User talk:149.7.162.21|talk]]) 10:31, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::::::Routledge published a 2nd edition in 2024. [[Special:Contributions/149.7.162.21|149.7.162.21]] ([[User talk:149.7.162.21|talk]]) 10:35, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::Routledge also published a book by Paula Hall, who peddles the diagnosis of porn addiction. Conclusion: Routledge would publish anything that sounds scholarish.
:::::::::::::::If you seek to deny that, take it to [[WP:RSN]]. [[User:tgeorgescu|tgeorgescu]] ([[User talk:tgeorgescu|talk]]) 16:21, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::Routledge is still a reputable publisher - enough to warrant a more in-depth consideration of the books that are discussed, rather than a blanket dismissal. And it's not just Routledge. Robert A. Neimeyer, Ph.D., is a Professor who is reputable. He has treated Coherence therapy seriously, and given it in-depth treatment in his works on postmodern therapy. These things combined (Routledge + Neimeyer) are together sufficiant to warrant a more in-depth consideration of Coherence therapy, rather than a superficial dismissal.
::::::::::::::::It's also worth mentioning that Coherence therapy started out as Depth Oriented Brief therapy, without the focus on neuroscience. By implication one should not merely judge its merit based on the neuroscience, but by clinical effectiveness. And the same goes for its recommended therapies. [[Special:Contributions/194.69.213.204|194.69.213.204]] ([[User talk:194.69.213.204|talk]]) 11:13, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::::We are entering our third month of this thread and the article is the exact same as it was when it opened. What changes, ''precisely'', are being proposed here? Is it just to remove the word "pseudoscientific" from the first sentence of the lead? Or are you proposing that Ecker's "[[coherence therapy]]" should be mentioned in this article? Or should this article be overhauled to give equal weight to both critics and proponents of NLP in possible violation of [[WP:FALSEBALANCE]]? '''〜''' <span style="font-family:Big Caslon;border-radius:9em;padding:0 7px;background:#437a4b">[[User:Askarion|<span style="color:#FFF">'''Askarion'''</span>]]</span> [[User talk:Askarion|<span style="color:#000000"><strong>✉</strong></span>]] 11:54, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::::Agree, this is a giant waste of time. If any editor wants a change could they please make a precise proposal? [[User:Bon courage|Bon courage]] ([[User talk:Bon courage|talk]]) 12:13, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::::@DiscipulusVirtutis (talk) Wrote that "The phrase "NLP is a pseudoscientific approach" implies a universally accepted categorization, which may not fully represent the complexity of the discussion". I agree With his sentiment. The first sentence gives the impression that NLP is universally dismissed in the academia, or even that this categorization is an objective fact. I agree that his proposed revision is an improvement. Alternatively, this revised version:
::::::::::::::::::"Neuro-linguistic programming (NLP) is an approach to communication, personal development, and psychotherapy that originated in Richard Bandler and John Grinder's 1975 book The Structure of Magic I. Although it has been criticized by many in the scientific community as lacking empirical support and considered pseudoscience by some, some reputable scholars claim its effectiveness[1], and it remains popular in certain fields, such as self-help and coaching."
::::::::::::::::::[1] One such example being Bruce Ecker. He is co-founder of Coherence therapy, a postmodern therapy respected within its segment [Neimeyer 2003, 2009]. He lists NLP among the few therapies that regularly "yields liberating, lasting change", in his book "Unlocking the Emotional brain" [2012], p. 27. [[Special:Contributions/194.69.213.204|194.69.213.204]] ([[User talk:194.69.213.204|talk]]) 16:55, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::::::I accept this proposal. [[User:DiscipulusVirtutis|DiscipulusVirtutis]] ([[User talk:DiscipulusVirtutis|talk]]) 00:26, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::::::I just found an article by Ecker from 2015 where the use of NLP for memory reconsolidation is discussed more in-depth. It also links reviews on the neuroscience he proposes. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/281571777_Using_NLP_for_Memory_Reconsolidation_A_Glimpse_of_Integrating_the_Panoply_of_Psychotherapies [[Special:Contributions/149.7.162.21|149.7.162.21]] ([[User talk:149.7.162.21|talk]]) 10:38, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::::::A [[WP:FRINGE]] peddler supports a [[WP:FRINGE]] therapy. I don't know why newbies have the feeling that they can win against the well-oiled machinery of Wikipedia.
:::::::::::::::::::And, as I said, take that source to [[WP:RSN]] and we'll see what comes out of there. [[User:tgeorgescu|tgeorgescu]] ([[User talk:tgeorgescu|talk]]) 18:10, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::::::Brucke Ecker a "fringe peddler"? Let's look at what the research says:
::::::::::::::::::::"In 2015, four prestigious (with a total of 500 published research articles between them) psychologists published a BBS target article, Memory reconsolidation, emotional arousal, and the process of change in psychotherapy: New insights from brain science (Lane et al. 2015). While the exact model that they outline has a number of differences from the UtEB model, the core idea is the same: that therapeutic change from a wide variety of therapeutic approaches, “including behavioral therapy, cognitive-behavioral therapy, emotion-focused therapy, and psychodynamic psychotherapy, results from the updating of prior emotional memories through a process of reconsolidation that incorporates new emotional experiences.”
::::::::::::::::::::...
::::::::::::::::::::"One significant difference which needs to be noted is that Lane et al.’s model of memory reconsolidation does not mention the requirement for a prediction mismatch before reconsolidation can happen. This was remarked on in the response from UtEB’s authors. In their counter-response, Lane et al. noted UtEB’s model to be highly compatible with theirs, and remarked that further research is needed to nail down the conditions which make reconsolidation the most effective."
::::::::::::::::::::http://sequentialpsychotherapy.com/assets/bbs_lane-et-al.pdf [[Special:Contributions/149.7.162.172|149.7.162.172]] ([[User talk:149.7.162.172|talk]]) 20:19, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::::::::See [[WP:RSN#Bruce Ecker]]. [[User:tgeorgescu|tgeorgescu]] ([[User talk:tgeorgescu|talk]]) 23:05, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::::::@[[User:Tgeorgescu|Tgeorgescu]], I’d like to remind you that while it’s important to uphold Wikipedia’s content policies like WP:FRINGE and WP:RS, it’s equally essential to maintain a respectful tone when engaging with other editors. Comments like 'peddler' and disparaging remarks about 'newbies' can discourage productive discussion and violate [[WP:CIVIL]]. If you believe a source is unreliable, please focus on policy-based reasoning rather than personal insinuations. Let’s keep the conversation collaborative and welcoming for all contributors. [[User:DiscipulusVirtutis|DiscipulusVirtutis]] ([[User talk:DiscipulusVirtutis|talk]]) 00:31, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::::::::"peddler" was about Ecker. Not about the editor.
:::::::::::::::::::::Also "peddler" means "someone who deals in or promotes something intangible (such as a personal asset or an idea)" (Merriam-Webster).
:::::::::::::::::::::About Ecker and [[WP:FRINGE]]: two quotes have been provided at [[WP:RSN]], and Ecker seems to passingly endorse various [[WP:FRINGE]] therapies. That might not be the subject of the book, but the fact he did that does not inspire much confidence. In those two short quotes, he has endorsed too many disparate fringe views to remain credible.
:::::::::::::::::::::Anyway, the verdict of [[WP:RSN]] is that those are passing remarks, rather than the result of profound scholarly study. I.e. inside the book NLP does not get much attention, just two brief remarks. [[User:tgeorgescu|tgeorgescu]] ([[User talk:tgeorgescu|talk]]) 02:13, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
| |||