User talk:Jeannmb

Hello, Jeannmb, and Welcome to Wikipedia!

Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or or by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement.

Happy editing! Snowded ^TALK 14:32, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Getting started
Introduction The five pillars of Wikipedia How to edit a page Intuitive guide to Wikipedia
Finding your way around
Table of contents Department directory
Editing articles
How to develop an article Manual of Style

Getting help
Frequently asked questions Cheatsheet Where to ask a question Help pages New contributors' help page Article Wizard - a Wizard to help you create articles
How you can help
Contributing to Wikipedia Community Portal Follow Wikipedia etiquette Practice civility

NLP[edit]

Please read WP:BRD NLP is highly controversial in its claims - see the criticism section It is also used as an exemplar of a pseudoscience on MIT courses which is another label that will go in there as soon as the full source is tracked down. Also to satisfy another editor I sourced "controversial" from an NLP site so its not seen as implying that its dubious --Snowded ^TALK 20:30, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also, a question given you are an SPA. Do you have any commercial interest in NLP? For example are you an NLP practitioner or trainer? That would not stop you from editing but it should be declared. --Snowded ^TALK 21:00, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Above question still stands, you have a potential conflict of interest here. --Snowded ^TALK 22:47, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am not a trainner and have not any comercial interest in NLP. By the same token, have you actually been trained or have you practiced NLP in order to be able to argue definitions?

I have not practiced NLP and I would not waste money on being trained. Ditto Spiral Dynamics and a dozen other self-improvement pseudo/psychological practices that have emerged over the last few decades. I regard such practices for good reason as encouraging self-deception at best and manipulative (in the unethical sense of the word) at best. That view is based on the fact that I have talked extensively with trained practitioners and am aware of the literature. Now those are my opinions and I would not impose them on the article, neither should you as a practitioner attempt the contrary. Controversial is a factual statement and it is evidentially (from the sources) seen as positive in some NLP circles. Accordingly I don't see how it is NPOV to say that. We could make much stronger negative statements supported by sources in the lede. You might like to look at this and this.

It is clearly identified as a pseudo-science in reliable sources and in some cases exhibits cult like qualities. I have provided one reference from an NLP source that says it is controversial and the extensive criticism later in the article makes that controversy clear and none of those references are weak. Remember the lede summarises the article and that lede is already compromised enough. We might want to put pseudo-science in the opening sentence and/or the MIT point as those are relevant to a new reader. Your point about it being a collection of tools not a science is not supported by NLP's scientific claims in the original book and latter work including training. --Snowded ^TALK 22:36, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Snowded, you just proved my point. If we had an argument about F1 engines and you have never touched, repaired, optimized an F1 engine and had no training nor experience in mechanics, engineering or F1 driving what is the point? Yes, many people watch F1 on Sundays, even go to Silverstone and might have even talked to drivers or their teams. But this does not make them knowledgeable. The same goes for disciplines like Karate or Aikido. You can talk to and read as much as you want, but unless you get yourself on to the training mat and try practice what you are talking about, you are offering empty words. Please do go and edit articles were you have actual experience and knowledge. User:Jeannmb 22:00, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are unlikely to get any changes to this article - Snowded does not have a NPOV and will revert anything you do to make the article more neutral. I've tried to make changes in the past but, in the end I've got better things to do with my time than argue with a person who doesn't get what NPOV. The mere fact that he describes getting trained in NLP as 'wasting money' shows, I think, that he does not approach this topic with an open mind.

I tried to open a discussion with him via his talk page but he deleted it and did not respond. Ho hum...

There is a lot of rubbish talked about NLP - and maybe the article would be better if it differentiated between NLP as a tool and NLP as a belief system (which is how some people talk about it) and the stupid '300 to a room' training sessions that some dreadful trainers run do nothing to help this. I understand what B&G were doing in the first place - they started it all off by making it clear that NLP wasn't necessarily true, just useful. The other big issue I have with it is that the three core parts of NLP - pillars, presuppositions and modelling (which are rather key to understanding what it's all about) don't get a mention...

(BTW - I'll declare an interest - I have learned about the subject and, at it's core, find it a useful tool. When I learned, the group included three psychologists and a GP, all of who continue to use NLP as I do, as a useful tool. We don't 'believe in it' - the cult status problem - we just use bits of it when it's useful.)

Anyhow - if you want to make changes, find he is blocking you, I'll be happy to support you in any dispute.

Tattooed Librarian (talk) 18:56, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Tattooed Librarian. My intention is certainly not to get into a dispute but it seems like Snowded does not want to compromise, as I did earlier. My suggestion was to leave the controversy for later down the article and we can both be right. I am stunned that there are editors who insist on putting forward their opinion on a subject they do not have knowledge of. I also asked for more clarification on the reference cited and did not get an answer. I am not trying to make NLP look perfect, it isn't, but the word "controversial" as used in the opening seems to reflect more of a personal opinion (as you said) than a fact. I vote for a as neutral as possible definition in the beginning. User:Jeannmb 01:33 6 March 2011 (UTC)

March 2011[edit]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Neuro-linguistic programming. Users are expected to collaborate with others and avoid editing disruptively.

In particular, the three-revert rule states that:

Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you continue to edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. --Snowded ^TALK 23:20, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Neuro-Linguistic Programming Article[edit]

Hi Nicholas,

Thank you for your contribution to the article. IMHO in looks much better now and the definition, fist section, is a lot more balanced than it was previously. --Jeannmb (talk) 13:54, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Jeannmb. I'm glad. There is still, however, much to be done; that the entire subject of NLP itself is glossed over is quite bizarre. There is actually no description whatsoever of NLP techniques and approaches. The article discusses in effect the diaspora around NLP, but not the actual subject. Whether more discussion of NLP methods and models should go in the main article or in a fork, I am not sure. At bare minimum, however, there should be some sort of summary, at least, to provide some context. For what it's worth, I know only quite little about NLP (except having once gone to an NLP practitioner with whom I had an extremely negative experience); but when it comes to the article, I accept nothing less than neutrality for both sides. Your expertise is extremely valuable and I look forward to your assistance in making further improvements. --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 14:56, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]