Talk:Paul McKenna

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Style note[edit]

AFAIK, neither NLP practitioners nor hypnotists like to refer to their services as "therapy," in that they will often try to help people improve, rather than fix a problem. Yakuman 00:34, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Censorship[edit]

Winston Smith you should call it what it is. Not 'edit wars'. The question is. Unwitting dupe or? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.197.206.174 (talk) 14:00, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edit wars[edit]

This article is constantly in edit wars with anonymous user(s). I ask that this page be semi-protected, so that editing by unregistered or newly registered users is disabled. Can anyone help with this? Yakuman 04:33, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To Admins[edit]

The 209.218.163.2 IP address may to belong to a hotel -- the Sunset Marquis Hotel in Los Angeles -- so a permanent block may not be advisable. Yakuman 05:57, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Paul McKenna PhD[edit]

Is it Wikipedia style to introduce someone with their degree in the first line? There's a lot about McKenna's PhD in the text, but is it correct to style him Paul McKenna PhD in the first line? I don't see anyone else with a PhD credited in this way - there's no "Richard Dawkins PhD", for example. What's the consensus here? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Martin S Taylor (talk • contribs) 22:23, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I've looked at other biographical articles and it is not customary to use the PhD in the first line. The article does state he has the degree in a later paragraph, which works for me. Absentis 19:05, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't agree. It's relevant to know about Ph.D.'s from the outset. John Grinder has his up there at the top in the first line. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rockerseasalt (talk • contribs) 15:53, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
From what I've seen, consensus is that a person's degrees are not mentioned in the first line. Unless someone can point me to some kind of precedent, a single example doesn't cut it. Absentis 19:28, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why are people so tied up over this issue? Is there a certain amount of jealousy going on? Paul McKenna has attained a PhD, why do people feel it necessary to take this title away from him here in Wikipedia? Also, in regards to Martin S Taylor. Is this the Same Martin Taylor who lectures on hypnosis and is therefore a commercial competitor to McKenna?
No one is saying it's necessary to take his title away - the article clearly mentions it. We're just trying to apply a consistent style across Wikipedia. Most scientists don't have 'Ph.D' listed after their names, so why should those outside mainstream science such as McKenna and Grinder?
Whether it's the hypnotist Martin S Taylor who edits Wikipedia articles is irrelevant; this is purely a question of Wikipedia house style. As it happens, it is the same Martin S Taylor, though since I work at schools and universities where they could never afford McKenna and since I don't do any NLP, McKenna and I are hardly competitors. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Martin S Taylor (talk • contribs) 11:58, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, John Grinder is described as 'Ph.D' and Phil McGraw as 'Dr Phil'. I see no reason why McKenna should not be described in this way. Many only know McKenna's television shows and books, people do not realise McKenna's academic credentials. If Wikipedia is to be as accurate as possible it is important to have all the information about somebody and not let petty rivalaries comtaminate accuracy.

Well that's exactly the reason it's in there. It's an attempt to justify his professionalism because he's regularly thought of (fairly or not) as something below a "proper" scientist. With individuals whose scientific reputation is unchallenged - Stephen Hawking, Albert Einstein, Nils Bohr etc. - nobody bothers to put "PhD" next to their name. In fact, I've just made a concerted effort to look at the pages for a number of the most important scientists in the 20th century and I couldn't find a single one that had PhD next to their name. The only page I've seen which does that so far is John Grinder's page - I don't think Phil McGraw is particularly relevant because "Dr Phil" is the name he's adopted as a trademark on TV shows.
Personally, on the grounds of standardisation and also on the basis that it existed more for reasons of self promotion than objective accuracy, I think the proposal to remove it was correct. Blankfrackis (talk) 22:34, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Meaningless or bogus PhD degree?[edit]

But Mckenna's Ph.d is not from an accredited university, as stated in the article - to quote the IMCA website: "the programmes offered, and awards granted, from IMCA and Revans University are conducted under the Education Reform Act's provisions for foreign universities to operate in the UK. They are deliberately action learning programmes, i.e. not following traditional academic pedagogical paradigms. As such they are not intended to and as such do not lead to degrees that are Listed by the UK's Department of Education. However, they have been widely accepted since 1982 by industry and universities as appropriate for action learning in some 44 countries across the world. Any potential students contemplating an IMCA and Revans University programme with a view to using the awards as the basis for further academic or career development/ salary increments etc. should satisfy themselves that the action learning approach is appropriate for such further aspirations."

IMCA and Revans University is not even accredited in its "home country" of Vanuatu - http://online.degree.net/archive/index.php/t-1451.html . The PH.d is meaningless.Ikayess (talk) 06:34, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First, Paul McKenna doesn't have a PhD, he (maybe) has a DPhil degree.
Secondly, if it's correct what you are writing, than it should be added in the text about the docorate Paul McKenna! This is really relevant information. Demophon (talk) 10:01, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The following comment was written at the website 'The Quackometer' as reply on the column Quack Word #3: 'Doctor':
As far as I can tell, Paul Mckenna went on to obtain a second PhD from the International Management Centres Association (IMCA) which, it is claimed, is a "fully accredited UK PhD". Now the IMCA does not have any powers to award recognised UK degrees nor is it affiliated with any colleges that do (it is not a recognised or listed body according to the UK authorities). The IMCA is accredited by the British Accreditation Council (BAC), but that is simply an independant body that awards colleges with accreditation for achieving satisfactory student welfare and teaching standards. Application is voluntary and no established universities do it. It does not provide accreditation for degrees. The power to award degrees in the UK can only be granted by an Act of Parliament or a Royal Charter. Which begs the question of what is meant by a "fully accredited UK PhD". The PhD itself is not accredited and cannot be a UK recognised degree. While I would not question the validity of the work that went in to obtaining it, you do have to question what "PhD" means in this context. It is essentially self-styled by the college issuing it, and the title itself has no real substance outside of the college that awarded it.
I really have my doubts if Paul McKenna does have a real PhD and whether we should mention it like that. Demophon (talk) 09:31, 26 June 2008 (UT
You can think what you like. It was decided in the British high courts that McKenna's PhD is legitimate by the leading legal minds in the land.
What is this, above? Read the judgement, the Judge was of the opinion that McKenna "thought" he had a Phd but that opinions may differ as to it's worth. The crux of the case was Mckenna's honest belief not the validity of the doctorate. To say that some of the finest leagl minds in the country agreed is simply a distortion. I have been reading through the main article and it's clear that the whole thrust of it is to mislead, there is no impartiality. I notice, too, that edits get amended pdq! Is Mckenna keeping someone on his payrol to guard over this lot?
Do I detect a note of jelousy in your postings?
No one should be jealous of a charlatan and a bogus

The legally correct position is that Paul McKenna was awarded a DPhil degree by IMCA, not a PhD, although it amounts to the same thing. Whilst the Latin roots for both abreviations are identical (Doctor Philosophiae or Philosophiae Doctor), the abbreviation PhD has over the years come to stand for a pure research doctorate, typically completed by young scientists with a purely academic career orientation. At the time, IMCA introduced its doctoral program it was felt that the designation DPhil (which is also used by a smaller number of mainstream academic institutions) was more appropriate due to the action learning focus of IMCA's work which means the outputs are not necessarily as formalised as one would expect under university laboratory conditions.

All IMCA awards are made under the provisions of the British Education Reform Act 1988.
Paul McKenna's DPhil may be a genuine degree, but it cannot be a UK degree since IMCA does not have the power to confer UK degrees. It could - and presumably does - offer degrees from elsewhere. The High Court was not explicitly asked to consider whether Paul McKenna's second DPhil was a British degree. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.6.8.182 (talk) 20:48, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Irregardless such comments are in violation of WP:SYN . -- The Red Pen of Doom 20:52, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When I made my edits I did not draw this conclusion. I merely deleted the erroneous statement that McKenna's degree is a UK degree and noted that IMCA is not on UK Government's list of institutions approved to award degrees. That is not original research. Please do not revert this edit again without further discussion. I have not suggested that Mr McKenna's degree is bogus.
The sources are solely placed in the artcile to advance a particular perception about McKenna that is not made in the sources themselves - WP:SYN - DO NOT continue to make such violations by returning the material. -- The Red Pen of Doom 12:55, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Are you happy with the latest version? This does not risk advancing any perceptions that McKenna's PhD is in any way bogus, makes it clear that IMCA itself is accredited by BAC (BAC accredits institutions, not courses), does not question whether McKenna's degree is genuine, and not make any comment about McKenna's degree being a 'UK degree'. If you're not happy, what is your precise objection, and can you find a way to move the article forwards in a way that you are happy with but that is more precise? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.6.8.182 (talk) 18:09, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Unless the sources are talking about MCKENNA's degree, placing them in this article is only to make readers come to a conclusion about McKenna's degree that are not made explicitely in the sources, thus it is counter to our WP:OR (sub WP:SYN) policy. -- The Red Pen of Doom 18:20, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Article still carries the inference that this man holds an academic doctorate accredited by UK authorities.The references to NLP also attempt to create an air of academic credibility for this pseudo-science.As this article appears to be written and policed/modified by apologists for this man,should it not be withdrawn and replaced with a stub stating that 'Paul McKenna is a Britiah hypnotist'? Alternatively,could the broad content of this discussion be incorporated into the article under a heading such as 'Controversy surrounding Paul McKenna',or similar? This issue could easily be resolved by Mr McKenna himself - all he has to do is submit his 'thesis' for examination by a reputable and established UK university, thereby exposing his work to the same rigorous intellectual and academic scrutiny that all of us who hold academic doctorates, from established and credible universities, have had to undertake. As it stands,this is the sort of article that draws Wiki into disrepute. Outraged Doctorate,November 21st 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.239.159.6 (talk) 15:08, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please read our policies, particularly: verifiability and no original research and WP:SOAP - and we can begin working to bring the article to be a better represention our policies.-- The Red Pen of Doom 17:17, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Pointing to the official list ([1]) of universities which are permitted to award degrees in the UK is not "original research". The article misleadingly states that the DPhil is from a "UK accredited" institution - implying that it was gained from a fully accredited British institution - when the institution cannot award degrees in the UK. What it actually should say is that the degree comes from a foreign institution which has been recognised as conforming with the academic regulations in a foreign country (in this case Vanuatu). That is the role the BAC plays - it makes sure that degrees acquired outside the UK comply with the standards in the country where they were awarded.
What the IMCA and similar organisations actually do is one rung above mail order degree firms. They are a British organisation which has not acquired the right to confer degrees in the UK, so they contract third parties from other countries with lax academic standards (Vanuatu in this case), award the degree in accordance with the foreign standards and then present it as a "recognised British degree" because it has been accredited by the BAC. This is a well known practice and wikipedia should not allow someone to present a degree acquired in this manner as a "UK accredited" degree. Nor does a source have to mention Paul McKenna given that the issue here is the statement about the IMCA's status and has nothing to do with McKenna himself. Blankfrackis (talk) 23:17, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

LaSalle[edit]

I added back the bit about McKenna's libel suit. It is relevant to the section it was in, since it's about libel litigation. And it's relevant to the article as a whole, because it shows that he was stupid enough to pay for a degree from LaSalle University (Louisiana), whose operator, according to Assistant US Attorney General William Moschella, pleaded guilty to conspiracy for falsely claiming it was accredited. He later realized that he had been duped, applied for compensation, and got another degree somewhere else.

Please don't remove it without a discussion. Novalis 21:06, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category: Social psychology?[edit]

Have I missed something out? Why is the article categorized in Category:Social psychology? --Ibn Battuta 13:08, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Needs a complete revamp[edit]

Gosh, what a mess! You can see the vandalism problems, but: the images were messing up the article (does it need the NLP tag? He's not mentioned, so I am not sure it does); the trivia section is out of control; and the references all mucked up! I am not going to start thinking about editing this, as personally I'd have POV issues with the subject - there's much to commend, but too much else as well, and this one needs a good balance edit between fact, referenced hype and removal of the fiction. Good Luck to whoever attempts it, but he does deserve better than this. Rgds, - Trident13 (talk) 01:29, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Its a good start but I still think this article reads like a press release. Perhaps the middle section could be toned down and various views ascribed to sources. ----Action potential t c 02:01, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What about the page is written in an overly promotional tone so it can be looked at?
(moved comment to end of page where this topic coincidentally was already under discussion) -- The Red Pen of Doom 10:23, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Much of the pimping of products and shows has been toned down. You may wish to contact User talk:Demophon who recently moved the tag to the top of the article or User talk:Action potential based on the comment above (or User talk:Orangemike is also someone who is interested in this type of cleanup of articles.) I personally would not have serious objections if it came off at this time.-- The Red Pen of Doom 10:31, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But also, if you are Mr. MckKenna or working on his behalf, please remember wikipedia's conflict of interest guidelines-- The Red Pen of Doom 10:34, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I don't work or had/have any association with Mr McKenna, and my only conflict of interest is - in the most human and neutral point of view that I can find - is that I don't think he's not entirely or exactly the best at what he does! OK? In such cases, its best left to others - and they are doing a pretty good job. Rgds, - Trident13 (talk) 01:51, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Link pharm[edit]

I removed these from the article's external link section intending to incorporate them as references into the article. However upon reviewing the content I am not sure that there is a way to properly include the information within the article under WP:UNDUE - if someone else has other references or is better able than I am to create appropriate context, please feel free to use as sources:

Legal Coverage[edit]

1998 Case Against Christopher Gates

Family and personal life[edit]

There is nothing on the article about his family or personal life; a major omission for a biographical article about a celebrity. Does anyone know any information about it. Werdnawerdna (talk) 04:57, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing in the article because no editor has included information that has been published in a reliable source. If you know of a source that has such material, add it to the article or leave a note/link here and request that someone else add it. -- The Red Pen of Doom 13:27, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There was some info about a girl, but it vanished. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.139.164.103 (talk) 15:03, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently, the girl dumped him on television. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.139.164.103 (talk) 15:11, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Celebs[edit]

McKenna and celebs. Not enough discussion of his working with celebs, sports stars and boxers. They include DeGeneres and Bandler. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.82.116.138 (talk) 12:53, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Under construction[edit]

The site www.officialpaulmckenna.com has been "under construction" for a long time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.160.130.236 (talk) 13:55, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It has been "under construction" for years. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.139.184.183 (talk) 12:15, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You now get an error message. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.171.217.231 (talk) 16:00, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
All three sites of McKenna's now give error messages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.171.217.231 (talk) 16:24, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Grinder[edit]

Apparently, Grinder prefers the German pronunciation of his name. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.139.184.183 (talk) 12:10, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

PhD Accreditation[edit]

I've removed the following text from the Education section:

"which is accredited by the British Accreditation Council (BAC)."

The original sentence stated that the IMCA (where McKenna has received his PhD) is accredited by the BAC; however the reference for this (http://www.the-bac.org) points directly to the homepage of the BAC and doesn't directly provide evidence that the IMCA is accredited by them. I know this is a controversial issue so it should have a direct reference or it's going to cause another argument. Bandanamerchant (talk) 19:20, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Moreover, there are some fundamental problems with how the sentence is constructed. It implies that the BAC has the power to accredit the awarding of degrees in the UK. This is not what the BAC does, the BAC is an organisation that provides an accreditation of student welfare, standards of teaching (and other practical, logistical matters) not the right to award recognised degrees. The list of institutions which are allowed to award recognised degrees in the UK is made freely available by the UK government here and here. The IMCA is not on either list. Bandanamerchant (talk) 19:38, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ultimately I propose that the section should read:
"In 2004, McKenna completed an APEL (Accreditation for Prior Experiential Learning) and subsequently gained a doctoral degree DPhil from the business school International Management Centres Association (IMCA). The title of his thesis was "The Effects of Fixed Action Patterns and Neuro-Linguistic Programming in Determining Outcomes in Human Behaviour". Although the IMCA's teaching and student welfare standards have been accredited by the British Accreditation Council, the organisation is not recognised as a degree awarding body by the UK government." Bandanamerchant (talk) 19:46, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Short stay at East Hertfordshire[edit]

McKenna's stay at East Hertfordshire College must have been short. He seems to have left school at 16 and started work at 16. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anti-McK (talk • contribs) 09:32, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

14,000[edit]

McKenna charges £14,000 Sterling for a life transformation course. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.241.65.4 (talk) 17:27, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Paul McKenna has produced an app called "Ultimate Golf Success". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.153.143.31 (talk) 14:53, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment comment[edit]

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Paul McKenna/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

== Article Bias ==

In my opinion this article is biased.

It appears to claim that Mr McKenna has been sued and has always been successful in defending his 'profession' and 'standing'.

In fact - some time ago I offered some information, backed by the details of the case about him losing a case and having to pay damages and costs.

[2]

[3]

I have submitted this information twice and have yet to see it displayed.

Why have my offers to represent an alternative view of this man (who appears to have an abnormally strong drive to appear 'squeaky clean')not been taken up??

Ivywall

Last edited at 12:49, 26 April 2008 (UTC). Substituted at 02:28, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Repetition[edit]

Repetition is appearing in this article. Ellen and David are mentioned twice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.54.201.183 (talk) 06:45, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hypnotic World of Paul McKenna[edit]

This article mentions "The Hypnotic World of Paul McKenna" but does not say what this programme was (it was an attempt to use hypnosis as a form of entertainment).Vorbee (talk) 16:54, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Edit/consensus request[edit]

I am editing on behalf of Paul McKenna and will follow all rules and guidelines concerning editors with a conflict of interest.

For over a decade there has been convoluted debate between editors on the accreditation of McKenna’s academic credentials. The most recent edits of this nature were in August 2022. The structure of the Education section seems to have evolved from these discussions rather than a common-sense encyclopaedic approach. As such, this section is bogged down in detail when it could be improved by editing it down.

Currently, this section places more weight on the nature of the institutions rather than McKenna’s actual degrees. Going back as far as 2008 on this Talk page, TheRedPenOfDoom has emphasised that this smacks of WP:OR or WP:SYNTH. The sheer amount of detail explaining the rather technical accreditation status of the degrees is a bit disproportionate and certainly unwieldy, though some details will need to be preserved if we are to reach a final consensus.

On the DPhil, the TES citation quoted (https://web.archive.org/web/20140202190634/http://www.tes.co.uk/article.aspx?storycode=6003546) confirms that the IMCA was DETC accredited until this was removed in 2005, two years after McKenna had completed his work. Before this time the university was still accredited to “grant foreign degrees on British soil”; after 2005 this was no longer the case. Considering the dates of the matter, leading this paragraph with “Unaccredited” definitely contravenes WP:SYNTH.

1. I propose the section is written into one narrative as follows (strikethrough is remove, underline is add):

Education
McKenna attended St Ignatius' College in London, and East Hertfordshire College, now part of Hertford Regional College.
Unaccredited PhD from LaSalle University
In 1996, McKenna was granted a PhD from LaSalle University. It was legally licensed by the state, but it falsely claimed to be an accredited institution.
In July 1996 LaSalle was shut down after an FBI investigation revealed that the founder had lied about the accreditation of the institution. In 2006, McKenna successfully sued the Daily Mirror for libel over claims made by former Mirror TV critic Victor Lewis-Smith that McKenna's degree from LaSalle was merely a purchased "bogus degree" bought with the intention of deliberately defrauding the public.[18][19] McKenna won the case, and the newspaper was ordered to pay £75,000 in costs. Mr. Justice Eady (the judge), stated that while the scholarly characterisation of the degree was "another matter", McKenna did not believe the degree was "bogus or that he [had] misled anyone in allowing himself to be referred to as a PhD."[20][21]

Unaccredited DPhil from IMCA
In 2003, McKenna gained a "Doctor of Philosophy by Explication" from the accredited International Management Centres Association (IMCA).[21] His work was reviewed by Dr Robert Parkinson (London Guildhall University) and Dr Brian Edwards CBE (Sheffield University).[22] The title of his thesis was "The Effects of Fixed Action Patterns and Neuro-Linguistic Programming in Determining Outcomes in Human Behaviour".[23] The IMCA was accredited through Oxford Brookes University at the time of McKenna’s study, though this was removed two years later in 2005.[24 (https://web.archive.org/web/20140202190634/http://www.tes.co.uk/article.aspx?storycode=6003546)]
The material in McKenna's first degree was published as Change Your Life in Seven Days.https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/repeat-after-me-i-am-not-dodgy-tdx5frcth07
While the IMCA were accredited by the US Distance Education and Training Council (DETC) and Oxford Brookes University in the UK at the time of McKenna's study, the DETC removed this accreditation in 2005. Neither the IMCA nor Revans University, its US-based degree-awarding unit, was recognised as a UK degree-awarding body or course provider during McKenna's time, according to The Times Educational Supplement.

2. As a further note, this article is tagged with multiple issues. It seems like there has been a lot of tidying over the years, but I have made some changes to the article further neutralising the tone, so I wonder if the advert and encyclopaedic tone tags might now be considered for removal.

3. I have some suggested online sources which might address a few citation needed tags but I will post these later if requested to keep things short.

Please do weigh in and thank you in advance for your thoughts! Memereese (talk) 17:20, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]


I agree that the section is problematic. The subheadings are not neutrally worded , but seem tailored to undermine the subject and impugn his reputation. The TES reference does not mention McKenna at all, so even if it's 100% true, it doesn't belong in McKenna's biography. True but misleading statements should not be juxtaposed to imply wrongdoing: Note that in 2006 The Guardian wrote: "All parties accept that a second PhD in 2003 is legitimate." --Animalparty! (talk) 20:53, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Animalparty!, I hope you had a lovely holiday season and a great new year! Thank you for your time and being so fair and helpful with resolving the BLP issues in this article.
I can see that the following wording has subsequently been removed: "In 2003, McKenna gained a "Doctor of Philosophy by Explication" from the accredited International Management Centres Association (IMCA)."
According to Morbidthoughts, this is because the source, a legal transcript, was not in line with WP:BLPPRIMARY, which makes sense. However, this creates a bit of a problem as it leaves a reader with an incorrect understanding of the timeline and nature of McKenna's credentials, and implies that the thesis title applies to the LaSalle degree.
Could the explanatory sentence be returned for clarity, using the Sunday Times source or the Guardian source which you identified as also supporting the 2003 degree, if you and Morbidthoughts agree that this satisfies both BLP guidelines and accuracy goals?
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/repeat-after-me-i-am-not-dodgy-tdx5frcth07
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2006/jul/12/estheraddley.uknews2
Thanks again! Memereese (talk) 18:13, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Edit re: publications and citation[edit]

I've put the publications at the end, which is normal Wikipedia style. I've also removed a citation which did not do what it said on the tin (i.e. no evidence of publication of papers in the cited ST article). I am very sceptical of reference 23 as the new article stands (it is claimed to be evidence of published PhD thesis but it's really just a kind of stub on WayBackMachine which in no way looks like a PhD abstract). I may edit that out too but I'd prefer to wait to see if any other Wikipedians feel differently about it. I've read the references above to the PhD and I'm not weighing in on that stuff, except to say that the court case was obviously not about whether the first PhD was bogus or not but rather about whether McKenna had behaved fraudulently in his presentation of it. It's clear he didn't behave fraudulently. As far as the second degree ('DPhil') is concerned, it seems there's simply no public evidence that it exists so it probaby shouldn't be there. In any case, the subject is an extraordinarily successful person and it seems odd that he intervened to keep the PhD stuff in play; it seems a fairly insignificant detail in an otherwise highly notable life. Surely it's better all round for it not to be mentioned at all? Anyway, all the best, Emmentalist (talk) 21:53, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Emmentalist, I have some answers to your questions. Just in case the paywall is blocking the applicable part of the Sunday Times source, the line which indicates that the material of McKenna’s first degree was published is “He worked for more than 500 hours on a 70,000-word thesis that subsequently became a bestselling book, Change Your Life in 7 Days.”
The text should be restored but with the clarification that it was the first degree that was later published as this book.
The evidence that he attained a second PhD from an accredited institution is from the same ST article, in this line: “McKenna, 43, went on to get another, absolutely legitimate, PhD in 2003. It has an impressively academic title: “The effect of fixed action patterns and neuro- linguistic programming in determining outcomes in human behaviour”.” This indicates that the second PhD was verifiable by the Times in 2006 when the article was written, so this source should be restored. I agree, reference 23 is not ideal for demonstrating this point as effectively, so I would replace this with the Times piece, which is much more compliant with WP:RS. I’ll do this if there’s no objection? Memereese (talk) 09:36, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks @Memereese. I have no objection at all; just a thought. It's highly unlikely that the Sunday Times verified anything - it was just an interview. I also don't know of a PhD as recent as the last few decades which can't be found with a quick search, but of course there are very likely exceptions particularly from the earlier part of the century. That said, I do think the article should reflect both McKenna's wider success and the fact he's never sought to mislead anyone. Thanks for your detailed note and best wishes (and, of course, season's greetings. If you celebrate Christmas, I hope you find this first post-Covid one mesmerising...). Emmentalist (talk) 12:20, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Emmentalist I will replace that citation now then, and thank you for your input! Agree with your logic in terms of early 00s archiving. I have sought some extra feedback on my proposed re-phrasing for the Education section itself so with any luck that subject won't continue to cause back and forth in days to come. Thank you for your kind thoughts, a very merry post-Covid Christmas to you too! Memereese (talk) 16:53, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"never sought to mislead" Whaaaaat? He's using NLP for goodness sake. - Roxy the dog 12:26, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Roxy the dog the article should comply with the standards outlined at WP:PSCI regarding how to properly mention study/practice of NLP while avoiding undue weight (though I'm still looking to improve the objective accuracy of the Education section itself). Wishing you a happy festive season as well! Memereese (talk) 16:53, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Education[edit]

I have edited this section to reflect the subject's Doctor of Philosophy degree. I have removed references to a court case around a previous non-accredited degree as that was not a matter of the subject's education but rather his integrity: It does not seem notable enough, to me, to be in this article but other editers may feel a new section should be created. The subject's 2003 doctorate is not disputed. One citation is a primary source (which was already within the article): The source includes a quotation from an article not now available and I think on balance it is acceptable in context. I see that reference to the 2003 degree was removed on 20 Dec 2022 the basis of WP:synth but this was, in my opinion, incorrect. The 2003 degree is material in describing the subject's education. In any case, WP:synth does not now apply as I have removed the earlier reference. Please do not edit without consensus. All the best, Emmentalist (talk) 10:37, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Notability does not determine content per WP:NNC. Your removal of the controversy about the validity of his education and the resultant lawsuit is improper since it satisfies WP:PUBLICFIGURE. Multiple editors have reviewed this article and thought it was proper enough to stay. Further the edits you replaced them with violates WP:BLPPRIMARY without the appropriate secondary citations. Morbidthoughts (talk) 23:48, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, @Morbidthoughts. Thanks for this. Bold edits as per WP:BRD cannot be incorrect per se or they wouldn't happen at all and the policy wouldn't exist. Moreover, none of my actions were 'improper', since that connotes bad faith (I don't think you were implying bad faith): Whether they were incorrect is a different matter. I see that the policy specifically excludes court transcripts so I think you are likely correct re: the source. I am not sure why such transcripts are not acceptable as carefully selected primary sources but there it is. As it happens, the element of the transcript where the judge reports what has been agreed and reported elsewhere (but sadly without citations of course) has the characteristics of a secondary source. In any event, it is clear that McKenna acquired a legitimate doctorate after the disputed one and the lack of a reference to that in this article seems perverse: The policy has in this case produced a perverse outcome in my opinion. You have also, for some reason, removed the reference to McKenna's early education; that seems an error. I was just doing a minor improvement job on an article which needs much more work. Perhaps you'd like to put a few hours in? ;-) All the best, Emmentalist (talk) 09:04, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have returned the sentence “In 2003, McKenna gained a "Doctor of Philosophy by Explication" from the accredited International Management Centres Association (IMCA)” with an appropriate source that doesn’t violate WP:BLPPRIMARY, so that the following sentence does not refer to the wrong degree course (see my note above). Please do not remove this sentence again or the paragraph will read inaccurately and misleadingly. Memereese (talk) 12:01, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed details that are not supported by the citations you gave. I'm also not sure how the second PhD and thesis name are pertinent to his lawsuit (which is what that section is really about) but I left that degree in there. Morbidthoughts (talk) 19:10, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The section was previously titled “Education”, so it doesn’t necessarily follow that the section has to focus entirely on the lawsuit’s concerns, but I take your point. That said, considering the whole libel case hinged upon the Mirror denigrating McKenna’s academic credentials, the details of the degrees themselves are definitely relevant to the litigation. Given that this section is now where all detail surrounding the degrees lives, I think it would make sense to restore the title of the second degree’s thesis (as quoted in the Times source) as the final sentence of the first paragraph, especially as the details of the first degree’s dissertation are noted. We could probably move information about the second PhD into a new, separate “Education” section, but given how interlinked the subject matter is now, I think that might not be the most efficient response.
Similarly, both the Times and Guardian references confirm that the second degree was considered legitimate. Not mentioning this could cause readers to assume that the Mirror had included this second degree in its claims, especially as the school cannot be explicitly mentioned with current available sourcing. In order to avoid this assumption, I would suggest quoting (or paraphrasing) from the Guardian to clarify that “All parties accept that McKenna’s second degree was legitimate.” This could be inserted between the first and second sentences of the second paragraph. Memereese (talk) 17:25, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well I disagree. The introduction of the second PhD may introduce confusion, but the current paragraph about the lawsuit points at the claims made over "McKenna's degree from LaSalle". We can add a sentence that both parties considered the second degree to be "legitimate" but that could have been avoided by not even mentioning the second PhD in the first place, much less the title of his thesis. Morbidthoughts (talk) 19:08, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Edit Request[edit]

I am editing on behalf of Paul McKenna and will follow all rules and guidelines concerning editors with a conflict of interest.

I would like to put forward the following text for inclusion in the Research section of the article.

Previously, there was an Education section on this article, which has since been subsumed into the Libel lawsuits section. As the degrees were obtained in adult rather than early life and are arguably more research-based than taught in any case, I would like to suggest adding McKenna’s degrees into the existing Research section rather than re-creating an Education section. I’ve also suggested moving some of the information from the Libel lawsuits section to avoid repetition, but they could be repeated if deemed necessary. I have also suggested an explanatory note on accreditation, which is not strictly relevant to McKenna as Animalparty noted in December 2022, but has been a point of contention on this article for over a decade.

Text to be moved from first paragraph of Libel lawsuits section to become first/second paragraph of the Research section indicated in italics:

Research
In 1996, McKenna was granted a PhD from LaSalle University in Louisiana. It was legally licensed by the state, but it falsely claimed to be an accredited institution.[1]The school exempted McKenna from coursework based on his prior work, and his dissertation was producing a series of self-help tapes that eventually became a book, Change Your Life in Seven Days.[2]
Discovery of this lack of accreditation prompted McKenna to obtain another PhD from Revans University in 2003.[2][3] The title of his thesis was "The Effects of Fixed Action Patterns and Neuro-Linguistic Programming in Determining Outcomes in Human Behaviour".[4][a]
McKenna specialises in post-traumatic stress disorder, severe trauma, pain control and emotional overwhelm ... [remaining content from the Research section]

As a further point of news, McKenna has published a new book this year, Success for Life. Could this be added to the List of Published Works?

  • Success For Life: The Secret to Achieving Your True Potential, Headline Publishing Group: 2024. ISBN 9781802797886

Notes

  1. ^ The IMCA was accredited at the time of McKenna’s study through the Distance Education and Training Council (DETC) and British Accreditation Council. As of 2005 it no longer has either status, affecting degrees awarded from 2005 onwards.[5]

References

  1. ^ "Hypnotist McKenna sues over degree claim". The Scotsman. 11 July 2006. Archived from the original on 19 July 2012. Retrieved 12 January 2024.
  2. ^ a b Addley, Esther (2006-07-11). "McKenna sues journalist over 'bogus' PhD claim". The Guardian. ISSN 0261-3077. Retrieved 2023-02-10.
  3. ^ Blau, Rosie (16 November 2007). "I'm not a guru, I'm not a Svengali". Financial Times. Retrieved 20 February 2023.
  4. ^ Flintoff, John-Paul (30 July 2006). "Repeat after me . . . I am not dodgy". The Times. Retrieved 24 April 2024.
  5. ^ "Cyber university's credibility in question - News - TES". tes.co.uk. 10 October 2008. Archived from the original on 2 February 2014. Retrieved 24 April 2024.

Many thanks! Memereese (talk) 16:36, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Encoded  Talk 💬 07:31, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Encoded Thank you so much for answering and so quickly! I have made some quick changes to the live text (deleting duplicate section title, moving it to the existing section and removing the "... [remaining content from the Research section] note") which I hope are uncontroversial but any issues please step in. Thanks again for you response and have a lovely day! Memereese (talk) 08:35, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Paul_McKenna&oldid=1221670208"