Wikipedia:Peer review/Neuro-linguistic programming/archive3

Neuro-linguistic programming edit

We have made adjustments to the page based on feedback from peer review and cleanup taskforce. We would like some suggestions on how to take this closer to GA or FA standard. Otherwise, how we could encourage experienced wikipedians to assist us in the process. --Comaze 22:30, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APR _t 02:27, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A medical (or quasi) article must have the highest-quality sources, which are usually indicated by the presence of a PMID, indicating peer-reviewed research. I don't see any. If this article came to FAC, I'd be checking every source for credibility, self-publication, etcetera, and objecting on grounds of lack of peer-reviewed, journal-published sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:51, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've started a list of articles related to NLP that have been indexed in pubmed: Talk:Neuro-linguistic programming/Peer reviewed sources. I've also added AAT for dissertation and DOI for those indexed by psychinfo, etc. --Comaze 22:07, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are still quite a few improvement tags requesting clean up, expansion, checking imbalance. These should be actioned. The Criticism part is pretty mild. (my POV would be this NLP is a pseudoscience) and could be strengthened somewhat. The article size is about right, anybigger and you would think about splitting into more topics. GB 09:30, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Of the peer-reviewed articles indexed in psychinfo, only a very small percentage hold the view that NLP is a pseudoscience. On the contrary most authors argue strongly for further research. Would you characterise your POV as positivist? Are you referring to a specific applications of NLP, for example, to the mental health profession? --Comaze 11:43, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks SandyGeorgia for the timely 'hint'! So far our biggest job has been checking that the sources were remotely accurate or even existed at all. Now we need to attend to weight.Fainites 20:51, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arguing that NLP is not "scientific" nor is accepted by the "establishment" are not necessarily arguments that objectively invalidate the study and practice of NLP. The simple fact is that some, indeed I argue too much, of what is referred to as "scientific study" is either biased, flawed or for whatever reason fails in it's pursuit of absolute fact and unbiased truth. There's a lot at stake, people, powerful people, have created a reputation and an industry that they want to protect at all costs, even if it is less effective than an alternative like NLP, indeed especially in this case. I will not delve into the supporting evidence for NLP here, merely to note that there are vested interests at play that seek to discredit any modality that threatens their income and status. Absence of so called 'evidence' is not and never will be evidence of absence. NLP continues to grow not because it is a fad but because it works and often does so more quickly, effectively and cheaply than conventional psychotherapy. The proof as they say is in the pudding. There are always going to be nay sayers and skeptics, most of whom have their own hidden agendas. For the record I profess no allegiance to NLP, only to truth, and that my friends is ever changing as our understanding and perception of reality expands and becomes more refined. "Is the world flat or round? Go have a look" --STS