Changes

Replying to the argument that NLP is more like mysticism or religion, he argues that NLP makes claims and posits explanations regarding learning, memory, thinking, mental illness, motivation, neurology and physiology, and so its ''domain'' is the same as that of science. NLP is offering competing theories and therapies to established scientific disciplines. By contrast, the doctrine of the Holy Trinity is exclusively concerned with theology, it is entirely a religious matter and is hence entirely outside of the scope of scientific inquiry. During the 14th century when the Roman Church did stray outside its proper domain of discourse and opine on matters of astronomy and medicine -- subjects of science -- it was plainly in error. The Roman Catholic Church was not offering a legitimate Christian perspective on astronomy or medicine. What the NLP industry is doing is akin to the medieval Christian Church competing with science on matters outside of its authority.

Replying to the argument that NLP is more like mysticism or religion, he argues that NLP makes claims and posits explanations regarding learning, memory, thinking, mental illness, motivation, neurology and physiology, and so its ''domain'' is the same as that of science. NLP is offering competing theories and therapies to established scientific disciplines. By contrast, the doctrine of the Holy Trinity is exclusively concerned with theology, it is entirely a religious matter and is hence entirely outside of the scope of scientific inquiry. During the 14th century when the Roman Church did stray outside its proper domain of discourse and opine on matters of astronomy and medicine -- subjects of science -- it was plainly in error. The Roman Catholic Church was not offering a legitimate Christian perspective on astronomy or medicine. What the NLP industry is doing is akin to the medieval Christian Church competing with science on matters outside of its authority.

=== Abuse of NPOV ===

A crucial part of the dispute (misunderstanding of which clearly lead to Flavius being banned) is whether the NPOV policy requires that each side of the dispute has an equal say in the article.  Flavius has a clear understanding of what this policy is.  It does not require, for example, that all sides of a dispute get equally represented by Wikipedia - the policy [[WP:WEIGHT]] has much to say on this.  But Flavius is bullied by a succession of editors.  For example, FT2 argues that 'An encyclopedia is a collation of multiple perspectives and views'.  Flavius replies that if so, equal coverage should be given to the view that the Earth is flat.  "That is not to say that there are not people that contend that the Earth is flat ... or that the Earth is hollow ... or that the earth was colonised by space aliens. If what you were contending were true we would find the Wikipedia Earth article giving coverage to not only every nutty idea about the earth but equal coverage to every nutty idea and the scientific view".  FT2 replies "There is a lot to say about earth. There probably isn't much to say about it being round, either. Its shape is noted in passing, and gets little space regardless".  Flavius wittily retorts "That is incorrect. The implications of the Earth being flat are profound and widespread."  This did not endear him to such an important person.

The crucial part of the dispute (misunderstanding of which clearly lead to Flavius being banned) is whether the NPOV policy requires that each side of the dispute has an equal say in the article.  Flavius has a clear understanding of what this policy is. It does not require, for example, that all sides of a dispute get equally represented by Wikipedia - the policy [[WP:WEIGHT]] has a lot to say on this.  But Flavius is bullied by a succession of editors.  FT2 argues that 'An encyclopedia is a collation of multiple perspectives and views'.  Flavius replies that if so, equal coverage should be given to the view that the Earth is flat:

Another editor tries to make the same point, arguing (wrongly) that Wikipedia should not suggest that only one side is 'correct'.  "Please familiarize yourself with wikipedia's policy on Neutral Point of View. It says, for example, to fairly represent all sides of a dispute by not making articles state, imply, or insinuate that only one side is correct. [13]. What you continue to call "neutrally attributed sources" has absolutely nothing to do with "Neutral Point Of View policy". (User:FuelWagon|FuelWagon).  Flavius replies, correctly, that the neutrality policy requires that weight to be given to authoritative, and particularly properly peer-reviewed sources.  He mentions MEDLINE, which indexes journals as they carry weight or not, as determined by a specially-employed panel of experts.  He points out

:That is not to say that there are not people that contend that the Earth is flat ... or that the Earth is hollow ... or that the earth was colonised by space aliens. If what you were contending were true we would find the Wikipedia Earth article giving coverage to not only every nutty idea about the earth but equal coverage to every nutty idea and the scientific view.  

:There are less than 10 studies that are written up in MEDLINE indexed journals that make favourable conclusions regarding NLP (or some part thereof) (refer to my MEDLINE search). Further, these studies are offset by the 7 or so studies in MEDLINE that contain no obvious methodological flaws and make unfavourable conclusions regarding NLP (or some part therof) and the studies themselves contain obvious methodological deficiencies (see my MEDLINE search). Further to that there are numerous books -- authored by scientists -- that are cited in the NLP article (eg. Singer (1999), Lilienfeld (2003)) that arrive at a negative evalutaion of NLP. What is there left to weigh as assess? Anecdote? Testimonials? Unpublished research results? Research results published in Anchor Point and obscure journals that for all we know were founded and edited by some fruitcake? Articles in obscure journals that pseudoscience topics routinely? I'm eager to know. The consensus of scientific and clinical opinion is that NLP is bunkum.

FT2 replies

An administrator argues that Flavius is not being constructive.  "I'm not getting into the specifics of NLP, because I don't know, and I don't care. But we have to conform with NPOV, and right now it's not happening. Domination of this article will lead only to revert wars like the one that got this page locked. This is what we're trying to avoid here. Instead of being defensive, we need to be constructive and reach a compromise here.  Flavius correctly replies that this is nonsense.

:There is a lot to say about earth. There probably isn't much to say about it being round, either. Its shape is noted in passing, and gets little space regardless.

:Swatjester, NPOV conformity doesn't entail passing bullshit off as fact and privileging pseudocience such that it speaks as loud as science in the article. If it did then the half of the Earth article would be devoted to flat-earth theory. flavius 05:21, 6 February 2006 (UTC) [80]

Flavius wittily retorts

Flavius' position perfectly reflects Wikipedia's neutrality policy.  He argues that

#The view that NLP is efficacious and theoretically sound is a minority view not unlike "flat earth" theory. Hence it should be treated in the NLP article and in Wikipedia generally as a minority view.   

#The view that NLP is efficacious and theoretically sound is a minority view not unlike "flat earth" theory. Hence it should be treated in the NLP article and in Wikipedia generally as a minority view.   

#The scientists cited in the article are representative of the majority view of psychologists, psychiatrists, linguists, neurologists, nueropsychologists and sociologists and hence should be presented as such.  

#The scientists cited in the article are representative of the majority view of psychologists, psychiatrists, linguists, neurologists, nueropsychologists and sociologists and hence should be presented as such.  

#The texts cited in criticism of NLP are authroritative and many are peer-reviewed.  

#The texts cited in criticism of NLP are authroritative and many are peer-reviewed.  

He correctly identifies the source of the conflict as the unwillingness of pro-NLP editors to have NLP represented as a minority view, or to have the view that NLP is ineffective and withour theoretical basis presented as the majority view.

:The obverse of the above points.

:The conflict arises because

#The pro-NLP editors are unwilling to have NLP presented as a minority view.

#The pro-NLP editors are unwilling to have the view that NLP is ineffective and withour theoretical basis presented as the majority view.  

    

    

:The extensive, expansive and heated discussion occured because these positions were argued for by each side in an attempt to establish the righness of their position regarding the representativess and authority of the sources ''not the righness or wrongness of NLP''. The bulk of the conflict turns around the application [[WP:NPOVUW]], NPOV:Pseudoscience, and NPOV:Giving "equal validity". The ''real'' issues have not been addressed by any mediators, arbitrarors and mentors and addressing these would not be "more of the same". It is well within your remit to adjudicate these matters. Have I explained myself clearly? Do you understand? [[User:Flavius vanillus|flavius]] 03:27, 16 February 2006 (UTC) [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Flavius_vanillus&diff=prev&oldid=39828314]

:The extensive, expansive and heated discussion occured because these positions were argued for by each side in an attempt to establish the righness of their position regarding the representativess and authority of the sources ''not the righness or wrongness of NLP''. The bulk of the conflict turns around the application WP:UNDUE, NPOV:Pseudoscience, and NPOV:Giving "equal validity". The ''real'' issues have not been addressed by any mediators, arbitrarors and mentors and addressing these would not be "more of the same". It is well within your remit to adjudicate these matters. Have I explained myself clearly? Do you understand?  

This is entirely correct, but the problem with Wikipedia is that administrators are merely policemen, not lawyers or judges, and have no understanding whatever of the content disputes.  They require only a limited concept of 'civility', which Flavius could not understand.

Flavius is entirely correct, but the problem with Wikipedia is that administrators are merely policemen, not lawyers or judges, and have no understanding whatever of the content disputes.  They require only a limited concept of 'civility', which Flavius could not understand.

=== The ban ===

=== The ban ===