Talk:Neuro-linguistic programming/ longterm abuser discussion Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Neuro-linguistic_programming/_longterm_abuser_discussion

This page is to archive discussion from or about permabanned sockpuppet. This will avoid troll posts within the article discussion that distract from article development; also avoiding this sockpuppet's technique of sucking in unwary editors with manipulative posts.

Happy new year. After taking another good look at the NPOV sections and tutorial again it seems pretty clear that certain views have persistently been suppressed [1] – mostly on the critical side so as to marginalize criticism. See Information Suppression on the NPOV Tutorial. Its not sufficient to simply say that there is a controversy. The controversy has to be clearly stated so the reader knows what its about. This includes the lead section which is supposed to be a standalone summary of the main article. I'll present a fairly in depth account of the actual controversy just for the sake of collaboration. It can be made concise - but should be kept as clear as possible as per WP lead section - NPOV presentation.

NLP is based upon how the brain works(neuro), on how language works (linguistic), and how the mind can be programmed(programming).

Opposing view

NLP is in error concerning neurology (neuro), is not based upon sound linguistics, and it cannot be used to program anyone (its not useful for the purposes of influence according to NRC research). NLP is a pseudoscientific (Drenth/Devilly) Because NLP proponents make changeable claims and NLP is untestable Because it failed tests and continues to be promoted in the guise of science

NLP is powerful for self development and makes you more successful; is powerful for therapy; is powerful for management; Because testimonials say so.

Opposing view.

NLP should not be adopted by individuals or bodies because it spreads misconceptions about how the brain works (grossly misleading) (Lilienfeld/Beyerstein/Eisner). NLP is potentially harmful as a therapy or self therapy (can cause mental problems (guilt) and can lead others to forgo proper therapy). The testimonials may sound convincing except that according to controlled testing NLP is not effective for management.

NLP is powerful because it uses models derived from brilliant people. Because NLP developers say so.

opposing view:

It is unethical for any educational or psychological intervention to be promoted without proper validation and according to Beyerstein NLP has failed to provide such validation.

I suggest that the controversies be properly presented now. The proponent view should be presented as nicely as possible - and the critic view should be presented as clearly as possible just as it says in NPOV policy and tutorial. Represent each view completely and clearly. No supression of views or marginalization of criticism. AlanBarnet 03:55, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AlanBarnet 03:43, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of having to restore this relatively balanced lead section I present it here so in order to collaborate with other editors.

Neuro-linguistic programming (NLP) is a set of techniques, axioms and beliefs, that adherents use primarily as an approach to personal development human potential and self improvement. Critics consider NLP to be pseudoscientific, potentially harmful and misleading as the principles and procedures of NLP have failed to be supported by controlled studies.

The initial ideas of NLP were developed around 1973 by Richard Bandler, a student, and John Grinder, then a professor of linguistics, in association with the social scientist Gregory Bateson. Proponents believe that by modeling language and behavior from one person, they can affect belief and behavior changes in another person to improve their functioning. NLP teaches that if someone excels in some activity, we can learn specifically how they do it by observing certain important details of their behaviour.^[1] NLP uses several techniques to effect changes in the way we think, learn and communicate.^[2]

NLP adherents variably state that NLP is “theoretically rooted in principles of neurology, psychophysiology, linguistics, cybernetics and communication theory” and that “NLP is not based on theory” (Singer 1996)(Dilts 1983) and that NLP is based on the idea that a person's language and behaviors (whether functional or dysfunctional) are highly structured ^[3], and that this underlying structure can be modeled into a reproducible form.

Scientists such as Drenth (1999) and Devilly (2005) consider NLP to be pseudoscientific. According to early reviews Sharpley (1987) stated that there is "conclusive data from the research on NLP, and the conclusion is that the principles and procedures of NLP have failed to be supported by those data".^[4] Emphasizing the recent fads in psychotherapy, Devilly (2005) states; "by the late 1980s a host of controlled trials had shed such a poor light on the practice, and those promoting the intervention made such extreme and changeable claims, that researchers began to question the wisdom of researching the area further and even suggested that NLP was an untestable theory".^[4][5] Evidence-based psychologists such as Beyerstein (1999) and Lilienfeld (2003) state that they are concerned about NLP being adopted by psychology associations and the public at large as they consider it an unvalidated new age therapy that can lead individuals to forgo effective treatments and spread myths about how the mind works.^[6].

It seems to me to pretty much cover the controviersies. I presented it in quotes so as to reduce any conflict over wording. Open to discussion. Please refer to WP:NPOV [2] NPOV tutorial [3] and WP guide on lead sections[4]AlanBarnet 04:01, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a useful passage in NPOV policy "Debates are described, represented, and characterized, but not engaged in. Background is provided on who believes what and why, and which view is more popular. Detailed articles might also contain the mutual evaluations of each viewpoint, but studiously refrain from stating which is better. One can think of unbiased writing as the cold, fair, analytical description of all relevant sides of a debate. When bias towards one particular point of view can be detected, the article needs to be fixed."

Well I've been removing argumentation from the article on a regular basis. The article is biased in the lead as I stated and needs fixing. (eg Proponents state NLP works on how the brain works, on language, and programing - science says it does not work in any of those ways) Clear controversy that should be presented in the lead. AlanBarnet 05:39, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Fainites. You missed a bit. Salerno says - NLP turns up in many places inside and outside of SHAM. A straight quote will be fine. Nice and brief!AlanBarnet 02:59, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree - to make the view more concise and reduce redundancy its best to place the Salerno view together with other related views. The issue is that NLP as a self help system presents "phantom" illnesses that NLP is supposed to cure. This is also the view of Devilly 2005. A brief line of two with the supporting sources of Salerno and Devilly (and perhaps Singer) on this particular view will do fine. AlanBarnet 03:34, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

58.178.134.120 you stated in your edit summary that this interpretation is erroneous[5]. Are you saying that nobody states NLP is a science? - are you saying nobody says NLP is a technology? What exactly are you trying to remove? AlanBarnet 06:51, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi all. The feedback from Cleanuptaskforce is helpful and I’m happy to get some more support for efforts to present the views clearly. The article is frustrating. I’ve been removing argumentative phrasing from the article on a very regular basis – but its clearly not sufficient. Just the way the article is organized – it looks like an argument or debate. It seems to me that the main facts are still being very much obscured - by making the issues unclear or vague – by arranging the article as if it is an argument or essay – and by presenting lots of speculative discussion from articles without focusing on the basic view (the conclusion of the source). For example – about half of the Sharpley 87 article has been pasted in when in fact all the recent reliable researchers agree that Sharpley found NLP to have failed controlled studies on its tenets and procedures. This also agrees with Druckman 88 and other later reviews. There’s no need for any of Sharpley’s long winded speculative discussion. Clear conclusions of sources are necessary to make the article readable.

Solutions: NPOV seems to me to be very clear on this matter. The controversies should be presented as best as the proponent of each view can express them.

NPOV policy[6] specifically Policy on Information Suppression [7]"It is important that the various views and the subject as a whole are presented in a balanced manner and that each is summarized as if by its proponents to their best ability.”

The views have been obscured and some editors have tried to make sure the lead section is pretty much devoid of any explanation of the controversies. The controversies have to be presented but not as a debate. They should be described in neutral terms.

I know NLP is all about vague writing but that doesn’t mean this article should have vague writing and unexplained jargon all over the place. There are some very clear lines from the more reliable sources that could be used concisely eg “According to Lilienfeld et al (2003) NLP is an unvalidated therapeutic method that purports to "program" brain functioning through a variety of techniques, including mirroring the postures and nonverbal behaviors of clients.” I have already tried to present clear material in an introduction but it was deleted several times over already.

I realize proponent editors have been presenting criticism – but the way its presented tends to obscure the main view of the source or separates the issues in an obscure way. Better organization will solve the problem. Clearly more civil discussion is necessary to iron out the problem.AlanBarnet 06:22, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Headleydown/AlanBarnet "knows nlp" The idiosyncrasies of language Part II

"I know NLP lit is a bit obscure, but lets face it, its a pretty obscure fringe development anyway." Bookmain(Confirmed banned Headleydown Sock) 01:57, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"I know NLP gives people a kind of brain damage, but I didn't realise it was this bad. A diet of pseudoscience doesn't help the braincells at all." DaveRight (Confirmed banned Headleydown Sock)01:26, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"I know NLP does not want to be seen as a cult that converts people using belief change strategies, but it is criticised as such." AliceDeGrey(Confirmed banned Headleydown Sock)09:27, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Can we get a block here? Doc Pato 16:42, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. A block please. You cannot negotiate with this person. Fainites 16:49, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I concur. His trolling and sledging is also getting worse. 58.178.186.213 22:47, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Doc, Fainties, and user 58. Just some perspective - An ouside view would see things very differently. The admin assessment I have seen seems to show that my edits and conduct have been fine. I don't do sockpuppeting or meatpuppeting - I am encouraging for each view to be presented concisely and to the best a proponent of each view can present it. There are problems with the article and I've referred to the proper policies (NPOV, Lead section, and Suppression of Information) to work on the solutions. I've asked for discussion on those points and so far you havn't even attempted a discussion. I believe you would only seem reasonable if you engaged in that constructive discussion. The policies above are provide solutions for the recent assessment of admin and cleanup taskforce. They recommend summaries of each view. That doesn't mean promoting one view by removing - minimising - or obscuring parts of the other one. It means presenting concisely and clearly. I started the improvement by working on the most concise section of all - the lead - by presenting the main views. There is a lot of potential for improvement. Civil collaboration is encouraged. AlanBarnet 03:14, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Concise lead section: In accordance with both admin and cleanuptaskforce I presented the beginnings of a concise lead. The second paragraph shows basically what NLP is about in terms of how the reader will understand it. Its just a suggestion and other words or descriptions may suit other editors better. I also added something of how the science view sees the actual structure of NLP (VAKOG and brains). I've been requesting collaboration on this and it would probably look good for editors to actually collaborate without simply deleting positive editing out of hand. AlanBarnet 07:03, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi all. After presenting the beginnings of a concise lead section and suggestions for collaboration as per NPOV and lead section recommendations – all that’s come back so far is deletion with no discussion from anyone. This has been happening on a regular basis and confirms very much what both admin and cleanup taskforce have been complaining about. For example: Suppression of information in the lead section by:

[8] [9],[10] [11] [12] [13], [14] [15]

[16],[17],[18]

Here are some main points that will help direct constructive editing –

• Admin assessment says there is promotional obscuring of views – and cleanup taskforce says the article is full of redundancy and debate –

• WP policy on suppression of information states “It is important that the various views and the subject as a whole are presented in a balanced manner and that each is summarized as if by its proponents to their best ability.”

• Made concise but not obscured: The NLP proponent side should be presented well and concisely (summarized well) and the criticisms should also be summarized well and concisely and should not be marginalized

• Concise does not mean minimized so much that the view is obscured from the lead or body of the article. (the various views and the subject as a whole are presented in a balanced manner and that each is summarized as if by its proponents to their best ability.”)

• Presenting the proponent view does not entail persistently removing or obscuring the views of critics.

• Presenting the proponent view should not entail jamming the article up with jargon - speculation – argument – or editorializing in order to obscure critical views.

Moving forward with a reasonable adherence to NPOV policies will help solve problems with this article. Discussion is welcome. AlanBarnet 03:56, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the section I presented. Discussion and suggestions are welcome also:

Neuro-linguistic programming (NLP) is a set of techniques, axioms and beliefs, that adherents use primarily as an approach to personal development human potential and self improvement.

NLP methods include the use of visualization, trance states, hypnosis, and specific body language such as posture and eye movements. These methods are based upon the assumption that the structure of language and neurology involves the use of visual, auditory, kinesthetic, olfactory and gustatory internal perceptions and that these correspond with the functions of the left and right sides of the brain.

The initial ideas of NLP were developed around 1973 by Richard Bandler, a student, and John Grinder, then a professor of linguistics, in association with the social scientist Gregory Bateson. Proponents believe that by modeling language and behavior from one person, they can affect belief and behavior changes in another person to improve their functioning. NLP teaches that if someone excels in some activity, we can learn specifically how they do it by observing certain important details of their behaviour.^[1] NLP uses several techniques to effect changes in the way we think, learn and communicate.^[2]

Critics consider NLP to be pseudoscientific because they believe NLP proponents make exaggerated claims about the effectiveness of NLP, its theories are conceptually faulty and NLP is consider to be untestable. Core theories and procedures of NLP have failed to be supported by controlled studies. Evidence-based psychologists such as Beyerstein (1999) and Lilienfeld (2003) state that they are concerned about NLP being promoted in clinical psychology and self help as it may mislead individuals to forgo effective treatments and they are concerned about the spread of pseudoscientific ideas about human functioning.^[6].

If anyone has any particular problems with this section - please specify which lines and issues and we can discuss. Thank you. AlanBarnet 04:00, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please be on the lookout to fix up distortions put into the article by Long Term Abuser HeadleyBarnet. Brown is generally quite supportive for the effectiveness of NLP. In picking out a hens tooth from the book AlanBarnet inserted a major distortion of Brown's overall opinion. Sure, it's technically true that Brown said that, but you'd have to desperately want to distort the truth to insert that quote as a representative citation from the book. The sooner this sock is banned the better. 202.67.114.30 14:03, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just ignore him and revert bent edits.Fainites 17:12, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi user 202.67.114.30. I believe I’m being very reasonable here. I added the stated view of Brown using a concise conclusive statement of his. It doesn’t matter at all to me how his view is presented as long as its accurate and fits NPOV policy. I presented his view that involves his particular understanding of scientific verification. You removed it and replaced it with some broken and vague lines about “these signals”. Clearly Brown has a good idea of the pseudoscientific or inconsistent nature of NLP. He says he’s using some unspecified bits of it for his show but “there is really no substantial support for the specific claims that NLP makes and much of it can be dismissed as vacuous nonsense". There’s nothing “bent” or “distorted” about the line I added. Its the straightest line in the passage - including page number and date. If you want to talk about representing the line in a different way or adding extra material then the Wikipedia recommendation is to make the appropriate change or engage in civil discussion. I’m well reassured by admin that I’m working constructively using NPOV policy to present all views properly – engaging in discussion – encouraging collaboration – actively removing undue argumentation –vocally discouraging sockpuppeting of any sort – and actively notifying admin of any conflict of interest in NLP promotion. I realize some don’t seem too keen on the idea – but I’ll continue with civil and constructive NPOV improvement and maintenance nevertheless. I believe the situation has a lot of potential for improvement. Theres a lot more work to do to present controversies properly though [19] [20] [21]. AlanBarnet 06:38, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Long Term Abuser HeadleyDown initially acts as the "sweet voice of a reasonable editor", claiming to have a scientific or neutral interest, seeking minor improvements, POV fixes, balance, or a legitimate "scientific/neutral" viewpoint in an otherwise not-bad article. However in practice long-term he is a virulent and destructive subtle POV warrior who ignores bona fide research (sometimes calling it "promotion") and gradually over time using multiple socks forces a massive POV slant until articles end up attacking their own subjects, or twisted to a very one-sided POV, rather than explaining them." From http://en.wikipedia.orghttps://demo.azizisearch.com/lite/wikipedia/page/Wikipedia:Long_term_abuse/HeadleyDown Doc Pato 16:54, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again Doc pato. Again - your assessment seems to be quite inconsistent. The admin assessment shows there is a problem of editors with a conflict of interest working on the article. Admin assessment says there is a promotional obscuring of views (suppression of information policy). You present a picture of the above (virulent destructive) editor. In stark contrast - I am working collaboratively with both editors and admin. Its obvious I'm not doing any sockpuppeting of any sort and I vocally discourage it and discourage editing with known conflict of interest. I reiterate the message I posted above. According to the Suppression of Information policy - all views should be allowed to be presented concisely (concise doesn't mean obscuring it) and to the best that each proponent of the view can do. This policy goes a long way to solve the recent problems with the article. It presents a win-win solution (unless one is only interested in obscuring views). Civil discussion is highly recommended. AlanBarnet 03:30, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi all. I removed these words to avoid (Howevers) because they seem to make the passages argumentative. Cleanup taskforce has expressed a need to remove undue debate. They were both restored and insisted upon by user 58.178.186.213 [22] and user Comaze [23]. The word seems to me to be unecessary. Removing the word doesn't seem to harm any of the presentation at all and only serves to make it more neutral. If they are quotes - then quotation marks should be added. If not - they simply serve to make the article more like a debate. I'm open to civil discussions and suggestions on this as always. AlanBarnet 06:33, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well if there's not going to be discussion on this point then I guess there's nothing to say. I'll remove the argumentative words again. AlanBarnet 03:01, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why is Carbonell and Figley relevant? Its and inconclusive study with no particular view on NLP. It seems to just be stuffing. Any idea why its in the article? AlanBarnet 03:06, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again. Here is an open discussion on how best to approach presenting all views concisely and to the best of each view according to NPOV policies. Clearly this will need to take into account all the latest from Cleanuptaskforce and obviously must be done within NPOV policies.

• Firstly I think clear statements on describing NLP will be useful. Making them concise and readable are important.

• Getting all the related views together will be helpful also.

• We need to determine what NLP authors view actually is on NLP

• We need to determine the other views and group them according to the issue (eg science, psychotherapy, HRM,....)

Civil discussion is encouraged. AlanBarnet 08:56, 5 January 2007 (UTC) [edit][reply]

Hi again. Here is an open discussion on how best to approach presenting all views concisely and to the best of each view according to NPOV policies. Clearly this will need to take into account all the latest from Cleanuptaskforce and obviously must be done within NPOV policies.

• Firstly I think clear statements on describing NLP will be useful. Making them concise and readable are important.

• Getting all the related views together will be helpful also.

• We need to determine what NLP authors view actually is on NLP

• We need to determine the other views and group them according to the issue (eg science, psychotherapy, HRM,....)

Civil discussion is encouraged. AlanBarnet 03:44, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting a concise and useful point to this piece of unsourced debate and commentary Hi all. I noticed this very large piece of commentary has been added to the article:

"The weakness of Langone's argument is that he makes various invalid assumptions. For example:

The way in which groups and individuals use various NLP techniques does not provide a valid link between NLP and any other person or group, any more than the fact that a hammer can be used to attack and even kill someone means that everyone who owns a hammer is a (potential) murder. Moreover Langone [i]appears[/i] to ignore the fact that many of the most aggressive and infamous cult techniques were already in widespread use in the 1960s and earlier - before NLP came into existence.

More specifically, Langone ignores the fact that the term [i]illusion[/i] is used differently in TM and in Scientology or est (the first being based on conventional Hindu beliefs, the second being the product of a sci-fi-type account of the universe devised by L. Ron Hubbard in the early 1950s). NLP is different again in that it does not claim that the pecieved world is an illusion at all. It says that our perceptions are constrained by our individual physiology and experience and that therefore the [i]accuracy[/i] of our perceptions is irrevocably subjective at a person-by-person level.

By the same token, at no point in authentic NLP literature is there any claim that "your mind is your enemy", especially not in the sense that the phrase is used in TM or in Scientology or est (which are respectively derived from the sources mentioned above) and consequently does not attempt to teach people "techniques for escaping from the mind's grasp". On the contrary, authentic NLP is designed to teach people how to understand and work more effectively within the restraints of subjectivity. In this respect the NLP viewpoint is closer (though NOT the same as) to that of the school of philosophy known as Logical Positivism than TM, Scientology or est (the latter being a variation on Scientology."

I'm not saying that there is absolutely no view within this large piece of commentary. What we need to do is try to identify if this is actually a view or fact - and to present it if it exists - in a concise way. Right now it just looks like an unsourced argument or debate. What are we going to do with it? AlanBarnet 06:00, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.orghttps://demo.azizisearch.com/lite/wikipedia/page/Talk:Neuro-linguistic_programming"

Hi all. As per ANI [24]I have presented the lead section with a proper concise account of the science and critical views [25]. If you feel it does not quite capture all of the critical views then discuss here. Thanks AlanBarnet 04:23, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again. It was deleted before but here is the link to suppression of information policy [26]. I'm sure admin will be happy if this is discussed and applied to the article properly. Feel free to discuss below. AlanBarnet 04:27, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Comaze. The ACS article is not encyclopedic and certainly doesn't comply with NPOV policy or Suppression of Information policy - [27]"It is important that the various views and the subject as a whole are presented in a balanced manner and that each is summarized as if by its proponents to its best ability. This is because neutrality requires much more than simply citing verifiable sources or proving a point -- it requires using credible sources to accurately represent a broad range of views and a balanced overview. I think the structure may be appropriate though. AlanBarnet 02:00, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi 58.178.199.92. I encourage you to be calm. You have no authority to remove my discussion from this talkpage. There have been no blocks from admin and I have repeatedly requested for admin to comment if I am doing anything that is not constructive. No complaints have been forthcoming. I've added your action to the ANI article again as you don't seem to have a userpage. Respond there if you wish. My main objective is to calmly discuss the points of suppression of information directive that is required to fulfill NPOV policy. Discussing that point will be beneficial for all editors who want to see a good article - and will be especially helpful for the reader. AlanBarnet 08:05, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The concepts and methods section can be well summarized with reference to the research conducted on NLP - using the more reliable sources. That way we don't have to deal with all the vagueness and jargon that NLP authors use. AlanBarnet 07:11, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi all. I added this to the ANI noticeboard just in case it gets dismissed or deleted here. Further to outside/authority assessments from the ANI and Cleanuptaskforce: Again here is a back to basics solution: The NPOV tutorial: [28].

• The suggestion from ANI is that there tends to be too much promotional obscuring of science views.

• The Cleanup taskforce looks at this from the view that editors are putting criticism diffusively all over the place and then defending it as if it is some sort of debate – thus obscuring lots of views and never really getting round to saying what NLP is or does.

• Writing what NLP is should be done in as neutral language as possible without adding any pro or con argument directly to it. Straight reporting of what NLP is and does on terms that a reader will understand – without promotional language – without confounding jargon – and without any unattributed promotional claims such as “Modeling' another person can effect belief and behavior changes to improve functioning” or defensive statements such as “Neuro-linguistic Programming is an eclectic field, and”…. Sentences should be written in neutral language with proper attributions of who says what (eg scientist (name date) says…. or NLP author (name date) says…..

• Prioritize information according to the most reliable sources. Prioritizing will help reduce the overload and help editors in choosing what to include or exclude and to determine weight. We need to look at how the most reliable sources describe what NLP is and does - and what NLP proponents do with NLP specifically. The most concise and clear descriptions will make the article encyclopedic and accessible to the reader.

• Regarding controversies: The NPOV solution is to summarize each view “as if by its proponents to their best ability” [29]. This can be done throughout – or if it disturbs flow (which right now it seems to) – it can be confined into sections.

• We can practically negotiate weight and neutrality using the evidence we have [30]. Part of the reason for problems with the article is that too much evidence has been added to the article through exessive daily edits - when it should have just been placed in the talk page and properly discussed before summarizing each view “as if by its proponents to their best ability”.

• There has been a problem with un-neutral language in the article at times (for example - argumentative howevers and nonsequiturs). Again – the NPOV tutorial and WP words to avoid are useful guides

So – feel free to discuss any of these points. Constructive suggestions are welcome. AlanBarnet 08:33, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User 58.178.142.37. Assessments have already been given in ANI. There has been no identification of any sockpuppeting - trolling - or disinformation. The ANI assessment has identified the above editors as either having a known conflict of interest - or being on the promotional side of obscuring relevant science views.

The solution here I believe - is to summarized the view as best as if to the best of the proponents ability. So a simple summary of NLP's implication in cults will suffice. Probably no more than a sentence or two to qualify the relevant view that NLP is akin to a cult or has cult status and so on. AlanBarnet 07:08, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi 58.178.199.92 and Fainites. I encourage you to be calm and to stop throwing accusations. You could instead be constructive and accept NPOV policy and the edits of those who do not hold your worldview. You have no authority to remove my discussion from this talkpage. There have been no blocks from admin and I have repeatedly requested for admin to comment if I am doing anything that is not constructive. No complaints have been forthcoming. I've added your action to the ANI article again as you don't seem to have a userpage. Respond there if you wish. My main objective is to calmly discuss the points of suppression of information directive that is required to fulfill NPOV policy. Discussing that point will be beneficial for all editors who want to see a good article - and will be especially helpful for the reader.

I added this to the ANI noticeboard just in case it gets dismissed or deleted here. Further to outside/authority assessments from the ANI and Cleanuptaskforce: Again here is a back to basics solution: The NPOV tutorial: [31].

• The suggestion from ANI is that there tends to be too much promotional obscuring of science views.

• The Cleanup taskforce looks at this from the view that editors are putting criticism diffusively all over the place and then defending it as if it is some sort of debate – thus obscuring lots of views and never really getting round to saying what NLP is or does.

• Writing what NLP is should be done in as neutral language as possible without adding any pro or con argument directly to it. Straight reporting of what NLP is and does on terms that a reader will understand – without promotional language – without confounding jargon – and without any unattributed promotional claims such as “Modeling' another person can effect belief and behavior changes to improve functioning” or defensive statements such as “Neuro-linguistic Programming is an eclectic field, and”…. Sentences should be written in neutral language with proper attributions of who says what (eg scientist (name date) says…. or NLP author (name date) says…..

• Prioritize information according to the most reliable sources. Prioritizing will help reduce the overload and help editors in choosing what to include or exclude and to determine weight. We need to look at how the most reliable sources describe what NLP is and does - and what NLP proponents do with NLP specifically. The most concise and clear descriptions will make the article encyclopedic and accessible to the reader.

• Regarding controversies: The NPOV solution is to summarize each view “as if by its proponents to their best ability” [32]. This can be done throughout – or if it disturbs flow (which right now it seems to) – it can be confined into sections.

• We can practically negotiate weight and neutrality using the evidence we have [33]. Part of the reason for problems with the article is that too much evidence has been added to the article through exessive daily edits - when it should have just been placed in the talk page and properly discussed before summarizing each view “as if by its proponents to their best ability”.

• There has been a problem with un-neutral language in the article at times (for example - argumentative howevers and nonsequiturs). Again – the NPOV tutorial and WP words to avoid are useful guides

So – feel free to discuss any of these points. Constructive suggestions are welcome. AlanBarnet 08:33, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It still doesn't deal with Cleanup taskforce suggestion to put the history later on. Whats needed more than anything is a clear concise statement of what NLP is or does that a reader can understand. AlanBarnet 10:43, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi all. There still seems to me to be a clear reluctance to comply with Cleanuptaskforce recommendations. Instead of moving the history section away from the opening - editors are trying to fasten it there instead of making a clear statement of what NLP is or does. Mixing NLP concepts up with history does not help. So far nobody has provided any evidence of any part of NLP being discarded over the last 30 years.

Also there is clearly selective editing going on. Its already been explained that the Sharpley conclusion is conclusive and here is his conclusion:

"There are conclusive data from the research on NLP, and the conclusion is that the principles and procedures of NLP have failed to be supported by those data. On the other hand, Einspruch and Forman (1985) implied that NLP is far more complex than presumed by researchers, and thus, the data are not true evaluations of NLP. Perhaps this is so, and perhaps NLP procedures are not amenable to research evaluation. This does not necessarily reduce NLP to worthlessness for counseling practice. Rather it puts it in the same category as psychoanalysis, that is, with principles not easily demonstrated in laboratory settings but, nevertheless, strongly supported by clinicians in the field. Not every therapy has to undergo the rigorous testing that is characteristic of the more behavioural approaches to counseling to be of use to the therapeutic community, but failure to produce data that support a particular theory from controlled studies does relegate that theory to questionable status in terms of professional accountability."

Once again the current Sharpley 87 information has the beginning of the paragraph missing and the end missing (removed by user 58.178.156.249 [34] who also removed the view of Eisner on the common view that NLP makes misleading claims). Removing the last sentence of the paragraph is clearly selective editing and is not at all allowed according to NPOV writing.

I'm not suggesting adding all of Sharpleys comments to the research reviews section. The reader should not have to wade through lots of research reviews just to hear the conclusive view of scientists who tend to agree each other. It can be summarized easily especially as so many of them hold the same view (NLP failed controlled studies. The chronological format is ok - but it can be easily pared down with a succinct statement (preferably quoted) under the title. Right now it looks like conclusions are being obscured. I urge civil discussion on getting views summarized as if by the proponents to their best ability. Concise and encyclopedic straight reporting. AlanBarnet 10:43, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi 58.178.199.92. I encourage you to be calm. You have no authority to remove my discussion from this talkpage. There have been no blocks from admin and I have repeatedly requested for admin to comment if I am doing anything that is not constructive. No complaints have been forthcoming. My main objective is to calmly discuss the points of suppression of information directive that is required to fulfill NPOV policy as is writ clear on the NPOV tutorial [35]. Discussing that point will be beneficial for all editors who want to see a good article - and will be especially helpful for the reader. AlanBarnet 08:05, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There still seems to me to be a clear reluctance to comply with Cleanuptaskforce recommendations. Instead of moving the history section away from the opening - editors are trying to fasten it there instead of making a clear statement of what NLP is or does. Mixing NLP concepts up with history does not help. So far nobody has provided any evidence of any part of NLP being discarded over the last 30 years.

Also there is clearly selective editing going on. Its already been explained that the Sharpley conclusion is conclusive and here is his conclusion:

"There are conclusive data from the research on NLP, and the conclusion is that the principles and procedures of NLP have failed to be supported by those data. On the other hand, Einspruch and Forman (1985) implied that NLP is far more complex than presumed by researchers, and thus, the data are not true evaluations of NLP. Perhaps this is so, and perhaps NLP procedures are not amenable to research evaluation. This does not necessarily reduce NLP to worthlessness for counseling practice. Rather it puts it in the same category as psychoanalysis, that is, with principles not easily demonstrated in laboratory settings but, nevertheless, strongly supported by clinicians in the field. Not every therapy has to undergo the rigorous testing that is characteristic of the more behavioural approaches to counseling to be of use to the therapeutic community, but failure to produce data that support a particular theory from controlled studies does relegate that theory to questionable status in terms of professional accountability."

Once again the current Sharpley 87 information has the beginning of the paragraph missing and the end missing (removed by user 58.178.156.249 [36] who also removed the view of Eisner on the common view that NLP makes misleading claims). Removing the last sentence of the paragraph is clearly selective editing and is not at all allowed according to NPOV writing.

I'm not suggesting adding all of Sharpleys comments to the research reviews section. The reader should not have to wade through lots of research reviews just to hear the conclusive view of scientists who tend to agree each other. It can be summarized easily especially as so many of them hold the same view (NLP failed controlled studies. The chronological format is ok - but it can be easily pared down with a succinct statement (preferably quoted) under the title. Right now it looks like conclusions are being obscured. I urge civil discussion on getting views summarized as if by the proponents to their best ability. Concise and encyclopedic straight reporting. AlanBarnet 10:43, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not suggesting adding all of Sharpleys comments to the research reviews section. The reader should not have to wade through lots of research reviews just to hear the conclusive view of scientists who tend to agree each other. It can be summarized easily especially as so many of them hold the same view (NLP failed controlled studies. The chronological format is ok - but it can be easily pared down with a succinct statement (preferably quoted) under the title. Right now it looks like conclusions are being obscured. I urge civil discussion on getting views summarized as if by the proponents to their best ability. Concise and encyclopedic straight reporting. AlanBarnet 10:43, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Fainites. I added the information about Singer's view. Admittedly its my interpretation of what she thinks and I substituted it for the previously erronious line that she considers NLP a cult. I think its fine to leave it out. Her actual categorization of NLP is a crazy therapy or more specifically an alphabet therapy. Power therapy is a synonym according to Devilly. I believe her contribution could be towards corroborating the Druckman view that there is no evidence for efficacy. She could simply be added as a source in agreement with Druckman as that is her main view with a subview of NLP making wild claims. Also as a reliable academic source she gives a very good account of what actually goes on in a session - the mirroring therapist account. The Cleanup taskforce asked for just such an account.

Nice to see the history section moved away from the lead. You've made quite a few changes without discussion though. I recommend discussing sufficiently with each section first before going on with any more odd changes. I see you have subdivided the lead section. I think thats ok though smaller font would be more appropriate. Also the lead is currently devoid of criticism. The last line is a simple statement of the scientific finding. Criticism needs to be added according to WP on lead section and the article as a whole. Here's the NPOV tutorial again with a useful reminder in the Information Suppression section [37] AlanBarnet 07:08, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Fainites. I added the information about Singer's view. Admittedly its my interpretation of what she thinks and I substituted it for the previously erronious line that she considers NLP a cult. I think its fine to leave it out. Her actual categorization of NLP is a crazy therapy or more specifically an alphabet therapy. Power therapy is a synonym according to Devilly. I believe her contribution could be towards corroborating the Druckman view that there is no evidence for efficacy. She could simply be added as a source in agreement with Druckman as that is her main view with a subview of NLP making wild claims. Also as a reliable academic source she gives a very good account of what actually goes on in a session - the mirroring therapist account. The Cleanup taskforce asked for just such an account.

Nice to see the history section moved away from the lead. You've made quite a few changes without discussion though. I recommend discussing sufficiently with each section first before going on with any more odd changes. I see you have subdivided the lead section. I think thats ok though smaller font would be more appropriate. Also the lead is currently devoid of criticism. The last line is a simple statement of the scientific finding. Criticism needs to be added according to WP on lead section and the article as a whole. Here's the NPOV tutorial again with a useful reminder in the Information Suppression section [38] AlanBarnet 07:08, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes - more input is welcome but it already looks obvious to me that there is much more summarizing to do though. I have improved the lead section using direct reference to the literature: [39]. Criticism needs to be made less redundant though. It should not look like a big debate from beginning to end. Summarizing in key areas is recommended (eg- lead section and at beginnings of larger sections). AlanBarnet 07:36, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello user 210.50.223.207/ 211.27.105.172/58.179.187.226. Whenever corrections are made in order to remove argumentative phrasing from the article you revert them ;eg[40]. Your actions seem to me to be highly unconstructive. We've already had complaints from Cleanup taskforce about unrestricted debate. It does not help when you persistently restore biased writing. Those edits I made comply with WP words to avoid recommendations. It doesn't matter how many times you call me a troll or a banned sockpuppet - your actions are still against NPOV recommendations. This has already been put to admin on ANI and the result is clear. They don't think I'm sockpuppeting and they are not going to block me. There was a specific set of complaints though and it was not directed at me. There is too much promotional obscuring of views on this article and that needs remedying. There is a problem of editors with a known conflict of interest editing here which also doesn't help matters. ...remove personal attack... Wikipedia recommendations state that editors are to work collaboratively and bias and differences of opinion are to be accepted and taken into account using civil discourse. Please be civil and we can get on with collaboratively making sensible improvements to the article. Thank you AlanBarnet 08:17, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello user 202.67.116.135. Yesterday you reverted this incontrovertible fact and stated it was not appropriate[41]. Please discuss civilly. In what way do you think it is not appropriate? The main criticisms of NLP come from books such as by Lilienfeld, Singer, Eisner and others and published articles by Drenth - Beyerstein and Devilly ...... They are all concerned with the spread of misconceptions about the brain and the use of dubious and pseudoscientific interventions in psychology and pop psychology. Its a fact. Lead sections are to summarize the article as a whole. By referring to the literature that criticizes NLP a perfectly good NPOV compliant summary is presented. So again - could you please civilly explain why you deem it inappropriate? Thank you. AlanBarnet 06:17, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi all. I noticed the lead has some information claiming to be criticism. Actually its devoid of substantial criticism. Its a basic fact that NLP is unsupported. The criticism comes where NLP is pseudoscientific and promoted as a scientific therapy - potentially harmpful - fraudulent ...... The line I placed yesterday is an undeniable fact:

NLP is criticized in literature concerned with the spread of misconceptions about the brain and the adoption of dubious and pseudoscientific interventions in psychotherapy, popular psychology, and human resources management ^{[7][8][9][10]}.

Removing it is another example of promotional obscuring of views. Its inevitable at some point that you are going to have to present the obvious and most reliable science views and facts so they are accessible to the reader up front. Its also inevitable that you are going to have to discuss civilly with editors who hold different views from you. The longer you postpone the worse it will look. Feel free to discuss the line civilly. AlanBarnet 05:57, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think some readers will understand self development as being derived from therapy but NLP is often used for therapy per se by fringe practitioners. So it should probably best be mentioned somewhere in the first line. AlanBarnet 07:30, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi all. I made the lead more concise [42]. This way the main criticism is not suppressed. I am still not sure about the "Despite its popularity" part though. The only actual survey I have seen in peer reviewed published sources concludes that NLP is "possibly discredited". I'm open to discussion on that part. AlanBarnet 04:54, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Doc Pato. Classifying NLP as a title seems to me to be quite inappropriate. Cleanup taskforce has asked us to make concise and contain criticisms so that any debate is not spread throughout the article. It would be very easy to keep the latter part of the article as criticisms and work on making it less redundant and more summarized. I'll start working on that. Collaboration is welcome. AlanBarnet 04:42, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi all. The article seems to me to need a lot more work if we are going to satisfy the recommendations of Cleanuptaskforce and NPOV on Information Suppression [43]. Firstly the lead section on criticisms has not spelt out the actual controversy. As is clear from the main body of the article – NLP is criticized for being pseudoscientific and misleading. That’s the main criticism so it should be stated clearly in the lead. All any criticism should be stated it should be that one. According to NPOV and NPOV tutorial [44] - that information should not be suppressed.

There’s a section on Humanistic Psychology that seems largely to be original research. I don’t see any of those references calling NLP humanistic psych. Also its defensive. Cleanuptaskforce complained about this and it needs remedying.

The criticisms on the whole seem to have been diffused and obscured. It is not clear who gives what criticism about NLP. The solution to Cleanuptaskforce problems is to have a simple section on criticisms. It can be reduced down. All the other claims about different types of science can be placed in descriptions of NLP above. This should also satisfy the NPOV recommendations in the NPOV tutorial on Information Suppression [45]. Instead of marginalizing criticism by crowding it out – it should be “summarized as if by its proponents to their best ability”. Again collaboration is welcome. AlanBarnet 04:42, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi all. I'm looking for suggestions in the area of making criticisms more concise. From what I see of the status of this article and from Cleanupguys it seems that adding criticism throughout the article will disrupt flow. - So it seems fairly intuitive to keep all criticisms in one area.

• Firstly instead of having to discuss how to reduce the size of things it may be easier to just place basic views in their own particular paragraph/section. There are some unruly sources also. The views of Sharpley for example seem to have been dispersed and presented in the wrong order. For now it may be a good idea to simply take his 87 publication quotes and put them in proper order in one place. This would go to the basic fact that NLP is scientifically unsupported. It can be placed with others (eg Druckman) who show the same result - and all those who agree in latter sources (Singer - Devilly and so on). That way we can simply state that NLP is considered unsupported by --- list of sources.

• Then there are the key critical views:

• The view that NLP is pseudoscientific and misleading

Authors writing about this issue are: Lilienfeld (2003;2002), Beyerstein (1990), Drenth (2003, 1999), Devilly (2005), Corballis (1999).

• The concern over NLP as an unvalidated therapy being used in psychotherapy/self development/hrm

Lilienfeld (2003;2002), Beyerstein (1990), Drenth (2003, 1999), Devilly (2005), Singer and Lalich (1996)

HRM - Von Bergen

• Ethical concerns

Perhaps this isn't an issue needing a particular section - I can't find any particular authors writing about this.

These all need properly stating using the relevant sources. When they are presented together it should be easier to present shared views and thus use less text.

So any suggestions on who has which view? AlanBarnet 06:42, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi all. I have asked on repeated occasions on the ANI for admin to tell me if I'm not being constructive, and ANI have not blocked me for anything because I'm clearly being constructive and I'm certainly not sockuppetting.

ANI has already replied to this issue [46]. That is the answer.

...personal attack removed...

I made some changes to the article to start off the concision process [47]. Summary style is Wikipedia style so I removed debate- defensive writing and OR from the article. Its still open for discussion though. Carbonel and Figley may well be relevant, but only as to the view that NLP is a power therapy (I believe) - I'm open to discussion on that though. I removed argumentative Howevers from the article again. Hopefully editors (eg 58) will stop putting argumentative debate back into the article.

The criticisms can be made more concise I believe. There is still too much repeat redundancy. Remember that concise does not mean editors can remove views. It means that views are to be presented well in concise form. So lets just get on and work with NPOV policies as best as Wikipedia editors can. AlanBarnet 05:30, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello 58 and Doc pato. You restored argumentative writing into the article [48]. This is unacceptable according to Cleanup taskforce and it goes against NPOV on summarizing all relevant views also. It includes information suppression.

According to ANI reports, there is abundant evidence that you are dominating the article [49]. Conflict of interest is also a major and pressing problem in this article. Continued suppression of information and ignoring ANI assessments will only make it more abundantly clear that there are conflicts of interest and domination going on.

The solution is to be civil, take into account those who don't hold the same world view as yourselves, and to try to get on with all constructive editors. Feel free to join in the spirit of Wikipedia and follow NPOV policies. AlanBarnet 07:38, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again. In order to encourage civil and constructive editing I will continue to inform ANI and specific admins about the status of this article. Civil editing is again encouraged. Thanks AlanBarnet 10:00, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes make some space. I havn't seen any recent trolling - could you be more specific? There's some incivility you could archive though. There's definitely a need to move forward and get along [50]. AlanBarnet 03:47, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi all. The ANI notifications seem to be constructive so I added another. [51] Feel free to respond. AlanBarnet 06:47, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello user 58.178.144.161 and all. This post is relevant to how to restructure the article and the addition of lists to the article. Objectives first: I would first like to remind everyone about civility and acceptance of all views and how it can help maintain productive discussion [52] [53] Here is the ANI assessment of the latest situation on this article. [54] and the helpful suggestions of admin on my talkpage [55]. It is also important to consider the Cleanuptaskforce urging to remove undue debate (or at least restructure in order to remove the debate style) There are information suppression and summarizing issues to deal with here and they require that all views be taken into account. Therefore - awsome lists may not actually be so useful - or is there a way of making them concise? To stay focused on constructive discussion I suggest we focus on restructuring the article with the goal of summarizing the article as per NPOV - and also making sure we deal with the pressing information suppression issues. So it would be helpful to hear particular suggestions for how best to go about making the article more concise. Suggestions from all are welcome. AlanBarnet 04:52, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Fainites. I started sorting the Sharpley 87 finding as per his own account. [56]. I agree that the finding is not wholly critical (or a criticism). The way its presented now is fairly neutral though it can be improved. Collaboration is encouraged here. There do seem to be some critical parts of that review section though. Which ones are you interested in moving from reviews to a criticism section/paragraph? AlanBarnet 04:34, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi all. As a first step to restructuring - I have removed some argumentative (debate) language [57]. The article needs to follow NPOV and all relevant views are to be presented [58] "in a balanced manner and that each is summarized as if by its proponents to their best ability". Presently the criticisms have been suppressed by bad structure. Straight reporting of facts is necessary. So instead of presenting argument - the article should have critical views seperated from straight reporting of science fact. User 58. You have mixed up the view of Sharpley and placed it in a manner which makes discussion seem like conclusion [59]. That is a form of selective editing and is certainly non-sequitur. Could you please explain why you call my version "bloating". It is a simple report of Sharpley's article. Also could you refrain from incivility (stop calling me a long term abuser). I am Alan Barnet and I am clearly not sockpuppeting. Do not remove my posts on the talkpage also. You have no regular talkpage of your own so I have to post messages to you here. Thank you AlanBarnet 03:34, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi all. I rescued this information from archives. It is inspired by Woohookitty's suggestions on my talkpage. This is only one way to organize criticisms. Your suggestions are welcome. Looking for suggestions in the area of making criticisms more concise. From what I see of the status of this article and from Cleanupguys it seems that adding criticism throughout the article will disrupt flow. - So it seems fairly intuitive to keep all criticisms in one area.

• Firstly instead of having to discuss how to reduce the size of things it may be easier to just place basic views in their own particular paragraph/section. There are some unruly sources also. The views of Sharpley for example seem to have been dispersed and presented in the wrong order. For now it may be a good idea to simply take his 87 publication quotes and put them in proper order in one place. This would go to the basic fact that NLP is scientifically unsupported. It can be placed with others (eg Druckman) who show the same result - and all those who agree in latter sources (Singer - Devilly and so on). That way we can simply state that NLP is considered unsupported by --- list of sources. Then there are the key critical views:
• The view that NLP is pseudoscientific and misleading. Authors writing about this issue are: Lilienfeld (2003;2002), Beyerstein (1990), Drenth (2003, 1999), Devilly (2005), Corballis (1999).
• The concern over NLP as an unvalidated therapy being used in psychotherapy/self development/hrm Lilienfeld (2003;2002), Beyerstein (1990), Drenth (2003, 1999), Devilly (2005), Singer and Lalich (1996)
• HRM - Von Bergen
• Ethical concerns: Perhaps this isn't an issue needing a particular section - I can't find any particular authors writing about this. These all need properly stating using the relevant sources. When they are presented together it should be easier to present shared views and thus use less text. So any suggestions on who has which view? AlanBarnet 06:42, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi all. Here is another reminder to look at the NPOV tutorial [60]. It seems clear to me that the first step should be to organize all the facts and views in their own paragraphs. So state the basic fact that NLP is unsupported using the large and disparate parts of Sharpley and Druckman. In the same section I believe it should be easy just to list in a single sentence some researchers who agree. The criticisms do rely on the unsupported finding fact to some extent. So where there is a critical view - those sources can be presented in full and made concise later. The main findings from ANI was that there is suppression of information going on here. So [61]"It is important that the various views and the subject as a whole are presented in a balanced manner and that each is summarized as if by its proponents to their best ability.". Woohookitty informed me that the article needs more summarizing as above. Together with the Cleanuptaskforce information we seem to have been given a very clear idea of the situation. So stating a collection of agreeing views at least in the same paragraph would seem to be the way to go. If its conflated with promotional arguments (eg such as in the lead section) then its just going to be more debate. Lets try to show Admin and Cleanuptaskforce that suppression of information is being dealt with. Suggestions are welcome. AlanBarnet 03:53, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In response to the clear information suppression issues and in order to move forward with correctly presenting all relevant views I have added the actual criticisms to the lead section [62]. I realize that some editors here may not like to have the main criticism presented concisely but we have to deal with this somehow. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and "verifiability, proper citation and neutral phrasing are necessary but not sufficient to ensure NPOV. It is important that the various views and the subject as a whole are presented in a balanced manner and that each is summarized as if by its proponents to their best ability." as per Suppression of Information within the NPOV tutorial [63]. It is not enough to present a minor criticism of an NLP proponent (a weak link). The criticisms of peer reviewed and other reliable sources must be presented. Collaboration is welcome. AlanBarnet 04:46, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Comaze. Yes I believe they need summarizing. Now we can consider how to do that. We can talk simple steps. Consider how this is going to happen according to NPOV policies. Suggestions are welcome but I suggest (reiterate) these steps: 1 place all similar views together. 2 state the most prominent proponent of that view if any 3 summarize using the corroboration of the other sources holding those views. AlanBarnet 07:50, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sure Fainites. Such distinctions will help the article. Which do you think are the most obvious candidates? AlanBarnet 05:21, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Fainites. I started sorting the Sharpley 87 finding as per his own account. [64]. I agree that the finding is not wholly critical (or a criticism). The way its presented now is fairly neutral though it can be improved. Collaboration is encouraged here. There do seem to be some critical parts of that review section though. Which ones are you interested in moving from reviews to a criticism section/paragraph? AlanBarnet 04:34, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Proposed change: Paraphrase Sharpley (1984; 1987) in date order; summarize it later as proposed by Fainites. --Comaze 05:26, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Status: Change was reverted. --Comaze 09:54, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi all. As a first step to restructuring - I have removed some argumentative (debate) language [65]. The article needs to follow NPOV and all relevant views are to be presented [66] "in a balanced manner and that each is summarized as if by its proponents to their best ability". Presently the criticisms have been suppressed by bad structure. Straight reporting of facts is necessary. So instead of presenting argument - the article should have critical views seperated from straight reporting of science fact. User 58. You have mixed up the view of Sharpley and placed it in a manner which makes discussion seem like conclusion [67]. That is a form of selective editing and is certainly non-sequitur. Could you please explain why you call my version "bloating". It is a simple report of Sharpley's article. Also could you refrain from incivility (stop calling me a long term abuser). I am Alan Barnet and I am clearly not sockpuppeting. Do not remove my posts on the talkpage also. You have no regular talkpage of your own so I have to post messages to you here. Thank you AlanBarnet 03:34, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Current Status 2: Devilly, Druckman, Sharpley and Singer are already cited in the two opening paragraphs. The views of the all the above mentioned names are fully set out in the appropriate sections. Summaries with due distinctions for peer reviewed research and commentary are under consideration.Fainites 20:41, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]