This is an old revision of this page, as edited by AliceDeGrey (talk | contribs) at 06:31, 4 November 2005 (→Mediation). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 06:31, 4 November 2005 by AliceDeGrey (talk | contribs) (→Mediation)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff) | An editor has expressed a concern that this account may be a sockpuppet of HeadleyDown (talk · contribs · logs). Please refer to Talk:Neuro-linguistic Programming for evidence. Account information: block log – contribs – logs – abuse log – CentralAuth |
Hello I'm Alice
I am NPOV committed.
Here is my email strictly for wiki discussion. alicedegrey@yahoo.co.uk
I do have biases,
Mostly towards science and scientific proof
I will accept all views though
Welcome to Misplaced Pages!
What is your objection to having "Neuro-linguistic programming (NLP) is currently the most widely used definition of NLP is "the study of the structure of subjective experience". " as the first paragraph? --Comaze 05:58, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
My understanding is that a neutral explanation or definition is preferable. eg a kind of mind programming.
Reversion to GregA contribution
AliceDeGrey, please visit talk page before making reversions. I acknowledge that you may not yet understand wikipedia conventions so I will not shout or anything. best regards, --Comaze 06:11, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
The only reason I felt compelled to help the wikipage was because I am committed to reverting your unjustified deletions of the points of view of other non wikipedians and stated facts. If somebody keeps doing that for months on end, there is absolutely no need to discuss. Unjustified deletion has already been discussed and is simply against NPOV.AliceDeGrey 03:06, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
You reverted and added this statement "NLP teachings state that the mind can be programmed, and that we all tend to be mis-programmed by negative input in some way. " Do you really think statement is NPOV? --Comaze 03:39, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
I have read this statement myself from NLP books. I will cite the source when I have the time. Until then, I can cite the link.AliceDeGrey 09:39, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
This statement "NLP teachings state that the mind can be programmed, and that we all tend to be mis-programmed by negative input in some way." is far from scholarly or logical. It sounds more like New Age than NLP. What do you think? --Comaze 09:57, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
That's not my fault, and its not my view. But it stays in because it is somebody's view.AliceDeGrey 10:45, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
With regard to the NLP article, maybe check out Talk:Neuro-linguistic programming/FT2 for a possible proposed approach to the loggerheads and flames? FT2 08:29, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
Laso 2001 (NCAHF News, July/Aug 2001)
Please stop adding this Laso 2001 reference. Barrett is just a summary of Heap 1988 so only Heap can be cited (under wikipedia policy), I checked the references and provide you with URLs here so you can check for yourself...
- (NCAHF News, July/Aug 2001, cited as Laso 2001)
- Sorting out Junk Science, Raso 2001 (as cited in Laso 2001) - Note that this refernce does NOT mention NLP rendering the NCAHF News (laso 2001) false and invalid.
- (Quackwatch/Barrett 2003 -> cites Heap 1988) - should really only cite the original researcher (the primary source as per wikipedia cite your sources policy)
- Best regards, --Comaze 10:34, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
No Comaze, there is extra commentary and info in the article. It is a reputable article and was published because the publication itself agrees with the finding. It stays. AliceDeGrey 07:56, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
- I noticed that you have reverted this a few times, saying that you have checked the references. Let's group these together for mediation. see below. --Comaze 10:32, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
Mediation
IMO, this is also very questionable. Firstly Bandler, Grinder and O'Connor has never used the concept of engram, so that is completely misleading. Anyone can submit articles to media13, I think the article was written by one of the editors here to proper up the engram case. The Overdurf ref does not support the attributed statement. Would you like to get mediation on this? --Comaze 10:31, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
Hello Comaze. Mediation has already mediated on this point. VoiceOfAll says its fine. AliceDeGrey 06:31, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
Category: