Changes

=== Abuse of NPOV ===

=== Abuse of NPOV ===

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:

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.

: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.  

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

: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.  

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.

:That is incorrect. The implications of the Earth being flat are profound and widespread.

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.  

:'''Pro NLP'''

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 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?  

: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]

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 ===

:Who will be the arbiter of whether I "belong here"? I've been complying with your blocks without any fuss. There is no way to keep a determined person off Wikipedia and I haven't resorted to any of these means (which are entirely legal, easy and unstoppable) so I don't understand why you are antagonising and threatening me. flavius 12:21, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

:Who will be the arbiter of whether I "belong here"? I've been complying with your blocks without any fuss. There is no way to keep a determined person off Wikipedia and I haven't resorted to any of these means (which are entirely legal, easy and unstoppable) so I don't understand why you are antagonising and threatening me. flavius 12:21, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

==References and links==

==References and links==

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Neuro-linguistic_programming Request for arbitration] on Neurlinguistic Programming (November 2005).

* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Neuro-linguistic_programming Request for arbitration] on Neurolinguistic Programming (November 2005).

 

== Comments on FT2's sourcing (13 November 2005)==

== Comments on FT2's sourcing (13 November 2005)==

That was me Comaze before I created an account, I point that out below for the sake of transparency. In one of his seminars Bandler claimed he submitted a doctoral thesis at the USF and was an awarded a PhD from their. He said that we had difficulty finding where to submit his dissertation because he had cut soe many classes. This sent alarm bells ringing in my head -- any one that knows anything about postgraduate study knows that the amount of classes fall the higher you progress. There are classes when you undertsake a PhD, there are only occassional meetings with your supervisor. So I wrote an email to the USF Alumni Society to ask them if a they had ever awarded a doctorate -- honorary or earned -- to a Richard Wayne Bandler. The officer replied that they had no such record. I then went to Proquest\UMI dissertation index -- I found Grinder, he did submit a thesis titled "On Deletion Phenomena" IIRC and he was awarded a doctorate. Bandler does not appear in the Proquest\UMI dissertation index. The email counts as original research and although I can supply the response complete with headers to anyone that's interested it's not suitable for Wikipedia verification puproses. A link to the Proquest\UMI dissertation index -- which I have included in the Bandler article -- should be ok. If Bandler has a doctorate it is neither from a North American university nor is it earned. I could no detail about Bandler's honrary doctorate except rumour that t came from a Continetal European university. Any attempt to solicit detail on alt.psychology.nlp is met with an avalanche of abusive replies. Attempting to verify any of Bandler's claims is strictly ''verboten'' -- the worshippers don't like their idols being tarnished. Regarding Bandler's undergraduate and graduate qualification IIRC he attempted to submit the manuscript of Magic I to the psychology department of USC as his master's thesis. It was rejected because it wasn't entirely his work. He re-worked it and submitted it and was awarded an MA in "Theoretical Psychology". The marketing angle that B&G pursued in promoting NLP wasn't compatible with one of the inventors being a psychology graduate since NLP was touted as a revolutionary breakthrough something altogether different that came from ''outside'' of psychology by two people that supposedly knew nothing of the fields. In his early seminars I have heard Bandler refer to himself as a physicist, an information scientist, a computer programmer, and a mathematician. In "Bandler Doing Bandler" I think he's an "information scientist", in one of his NHR recordings he's physicist (with a special interest in optics, which is the leadin to his pontifications about holographic memoey) and in one of his DHE recordings (IIRC) he's a computer programmer. Can we remove the reference to him as being a mathematician, he is no such thing and their is no evidence that he even took a single unit in math at university. [[User:Flavius vanillus|flavius]] 04:13, 17 December 2005 (UTC) [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Neuro-linguistic_programming&diff=prev&oldid=31695516]

That was me Comaze before I created an account, I point that out below for the sake of transparency. In one of his seminars Bandler claimed he submitted a doctoral thesis at the USF and was an awarded a PhD from their. He said that we had difficulty finding where to submit his dissertation because he had cut soe many classes. This sent alarm bells ringing in my head -- any one that knows anything about postgraduate study knows that the amount of classes fall the higher you progress. There are classes when you undertsake a PhD, there are only occassional meetings with your supervisor. So I wrote an email to the USF Alumni Society to ask them if a they had ever awarded a doctorate -- honorary or earned -- to a Richard Wayne Bandler. The officer replied that they had no such record. I then went to Proquest\UMI dissertation index -- I found Grinder, he did submit a thesis titled "On Deletion Phenomena" IIRC and he was awarded a doctorate. Bandler does not appear in the Proquest\UMI dissertation index. The email counts as original research and although I can supply the response complete with headers to anyone that's interested it's not suitable for Wikipedia verification puproses. A link to the Proquest\UMI dissertation index -- which I have included in the Bandler article -- should be ok. If Bandler has a doctorate it is neither from a North American university nor is it earned. I could no detail about Bandler's honrary doctorate except rumour that t came from a Continetal European university. Any attempt to solicit detail on alt.psychology.nlp is met with an avalanche of abusive replies. Attempting to verify any of Bandler's claims is strictly ''verboten'' -- the worshippers don't like their idols being tarnished. Regarding Bandler's undergraduate and graduate qualification IIRC he attempted to submit the manuscript of Magic I to the psychology department of USC as his master's thesis. It was rejected because it wasn't entirely his work. He re-worked it and submitted it and was awarded an MA in "Theoretical Psychology". The marketing angle that B&G pursued in promoting NLP wasn't compatible with one of the inventors being a psychology graduate since NLP was touted as a revolutionary breakthrough something altogether different that came from ''outside'' of psychology by two people that supposedly knew nothing of the fields. In his early seminars I have heard Bandler refer to himself as a physicist, an information scientist, a computer programmer, and a mathematician. In "Bandler Doing Bandler" I think he's an "information scientist", in one of his NHR recordings he's physicist (with a special interest in optics, which is the leadin to his pontifications about holographic memoey) and in one of his DHE recordings (IIRC) he's a computer programmer. Can we remove the reference to him as being a mathematician, he is no such thing and their is no evidence that he even took a single unit in math at university. [[User:Flavius vanillus|flavius]] 04:13, 17 December 2005 (UTC) [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Neuro-linguistic_programming&diff=prev&oldid=31695516]

== Is NLP a cult? ==

== Is NLP a cult? ==

''You have been blocked for 2 weeks For this. This is your 6th block, Flavius. Any further disruption is going to lead to an indefinite block. Last chance''. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 12:57, 1 April 2006 (UTC) [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Flavius_vanillus&diff=prev&oldid=46452261]

''You have been blocked for 2 weeks For this. This is your 6th block, Flavius. Any further disruption is going to lead to an indefinite block. Last chance''. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 12:57, 1 April 2006 (UTC) [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Flavius_vanillus&diff=prev&oldid=46452261]

What is wrong with that edit? How is it disruptive? flavius 13:01, 1 April 2006 (UTC)  

'''Flavius''': What is wrong with that edit? How is it disruptive? flavius 13:01, 1 April 2006 (UTC)  

It is a personal attack from start to finish. I had to remove the entire thing because I couldn't even refactor it to something keepable. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 13:11, 1 April 2006 (UTC)  

'''Admin''': It is a personal attack from start to finish. I had to remove the entire thing because I couldn't even refactor it to something keepable. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 13:11, 1 April 2006 (UTC)  

The whole thing? Even the bit where I refer to Wikipedia policy? The third point could be construed as a personal attack but the first two aren't. Can you at least reinstate the first two points? flavius 13:38, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

'''Flavius''': The whole thing? Even the bit where I refer to Wikipedia policy? The third point could be construed as a personal attack but the first two aren't. Can you at least reinstate the first two points? flavius 13:38, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

== In which Flavius gets banned ==

== In which Flavius gets banned ==

[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:Flavius_vanillus '''FLAVIUS IS BANNED''']

[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:Flavius_vanillus '''FLAVIUS IS BANNED''']

<br><br><br>

<br><br><br>