Talk:Richard Bandler

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Richard Bandler article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.

If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to pseudoscience and fringe science, which has been designated as a contentious topic.

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

Arbitration Ruling on the Treatment of Pseudoscience

In December of 2006 the Arbitration Committee ruled on guidelines for the presentation of topics as pseudoscience in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience. The final decision was as follows:

Neutral point of view as applied to science: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, a fundamental policy, requires fair representation of significant alternatives to scientific orthodoxy. Significant alternatives, in this case, refers to legitimate scientific disagreement, as opposed to pseudoscience.
Serious encyclopedias: Serious and respected encyclopedias and reference works are generally expected to provide overviews of scientific topics that are in line with respected scientific thought. Wikipedia aspires to be such a respected work.
Obvious pseudoscience: Theories which, while purporting to be scientific, are obviously bogus, such as Time Cube, may be so labeled and categorized as such without more justification.
Generally considered pseudoscience: Theories which have a following, such as astrology, but which are generally considered pseudoscience by the scientific community may properly contain that information and may be categorized as pseudoscience.
Questionable science: Theories which have a substantial following, such as psychoanalysis, but which some critics allege to be pseudoscience, may contain information to that effect, but generally should not be so characterized.
Alternative theoretical formulations: Alternative theoretical formulations which have a following within the scientific community are not pseudoscience, but part of the scientific process.

Untitled

As of October 14, 2009 I made several edits to the article:

Moved mention of the other notable person with the same name to the top of the article, since this other person's work is not "other work" by the co-creator of NLP.
Moved "contributions" section (of only one line) into the co-creation of NLP section.
Added a biographical line indicating Bandler's career continuing to promote NLP and related concepts.
Left in the mention of the dollar amount of Bandler's initial success, but removed the "opulent lifestyle" comment. A lawsuit about this amount of money in a business venture is understandable, while "opulent lifestyle" is editorializing and irrelevant.
Added an explanation that Bandler's reference to "technologies" in NLP refers to concepts and techniques.
Added a one line summary of NLP.
For claims only presented in the Mother Jones article, grouped them together and indicated their source in the article. If multiple notable sources support these claims, only then would it be encyclopedic to sprinkle those references throughout the Wikipedia article. Absence of a lawsuit is not proof that claims from uncited sources are valid.
Removed claim of "very recent Bandler at his funniest" from seminar audio listing

I also edited this talk page:

Removed discussion of Bandler's honorary doctorate since it is not referenced in the article. If citations in context from multiple NLP and Bandler works indicate his use of the term Dr., and a citation can be found to the honorary doctorate, only then would it be encyclopedic to mention those points in Wikipedia.
Removed all material by or about the opinions of Flavius, except for comment about potential influences on the formation of NLP, as these comments are now four years old and seem to have resulted in a user ban of Flavius from this article.
Removed discussion about inclusion of marketing material for Bandler or NLP in general, since all such material was already gone from the article before I arrived.
Removed the discussion about whether or not NLP is scientific, because that is not relevant to the biography of Bandler, although it would be apropros for an article about NLP rather than its co-creator.
I agree that further discussion of the influences upon NLP's creation would be interesting, but I question whether the Bandler biography, rather than an overall history of NLP article, is the appropriate location.
Added the request for the book section to be consistently formatted.

Murder Case/ Cocaine Use

Why was all the information about his involvment with a major murder case removed??? Why was all the information about his cocaine use in the late 1970's and 1980's removed???

This information needs to be public and need to be known.

Wouldn't you like to know if your doctor or a therapist abused drugs at one time or was linked to a murder. This is no different. He is working with the public. In the public realm he has a major influence on people, especially in a field as NLP. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.165.129.231 (talk) 20:55, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone confirm that he is indeed a PhD?

If he is a PhD then his education bit should state where he got it from shouldn't it? I did a quick google and I couldn't seem to find him refering to himself as Richard Bandler, PhD. Cheers. 125.238.84.111 (talk) 22:05, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

EDIT: Okay, so he has an honourary doctorate. We should either remove the PhD title from the first line or add in references to his doctorate. 125.238.84.111 (talk) 22:07, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bandler, or at least his publicist or publisher refers to him as "Dr Bandler" in the "About the author" section of at least one of his books, namely "Magic in Action" (see http://www.amazon.com/Magic-Action-Richard-Bandler/dp/0916990141/). He is also referred to as "Dr Bandler" in the Foreword of a book on NLP and autism that he wrote a foreword for. You can also find references to "Dr Bandler" here http://www.neuroing.com/english/index.htm, a site that Bandler is affiliated with. Bandler's highest academic achievement is MA. He has no PhD. I have heard rumours that some university awarded him an honorary doctorate but I have been unable to confirm this. 216.18.216.66 (talk) 06:06, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Book listing is inconsistently formatted

The listing of Bandler's books includes multiple, inconsistent formatting styles for the book references. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.193.12.228 (talk) 03:02, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Incomplete discussion of influences on the creation of NLP

Perhaps more can be added regarding Bandler's influences eg. Robert Anton Wilson, Aleister Crowley, Timothy Leary, Moshe Felendekrais. Also, Frank Farelly and Moshe Felendehrais did not appear to influence any of the work jointly undertaken by Bandler and Grinder. flavius 05:22, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bandler's co-creator of NLP, John Grinder, provided an extensive discussion of his own influences and his recollection of the collaborative process of creating NLP, in Grinder's 2001 book Whispering in the Wind. In the book, Grinder states, "I invite Bandler to explicate his own experience in this matter," however as of 2009 Bandler's work has been about Bandler's newer extensions of NLP rather than a retrospective look at NLP's creation process and influences. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.193.12.228 (talk) 05:23, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Murder Case

I've added a section with significant details. Every fact is cited and verifiable. I did not use the Mother Jones article when writing it. Yakuman 23:08, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The version of the article I found in October 2009 seemed to be primarily based on the Mother Jones article. I wrote a brief summary paragraph of the facts of the case obtainable in the public record, and the allegations from the Mother Jones article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.193.12.228 (talk) 02:21, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Audio and Video Publications

I added two sections - Audio Publications, and Video Publications. I refrained from adding much under the selections for now because there are so many. Some of Bandler's most notable publications have been in audio or video format only, so they are as worthy of being mentioned as the books. However, there are so many in terms of quantity that a full listing would probably be too much. Also, many of them are fairly redundant with others. For this reason, I think the goal should be a summary of publications that is representative of various ideas and stages of his career.Romperroom

Users blocked from editing this article

209.218.163.2 is removing from the Bandler article material that puts Bandler in a poor light, such as the "Mother Jones" article. We hear of 20 minutes but no proof whatsoever is produced showing that Bandler is innocent. The smell of lemon on Bandler's gun is not mentioned. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.143.6.89 (talk) 11:16, 20 March 2007 (UTC). 209.218.163.2 has now been blocked.[reply]

209.218.163.2 seems to have been blocked permanently.

209.218.163.2 has been blocked again.

This post is just for the record in case anyone here has had issues with the named editor or others editing similarly. The following editors are as of June 5 2006, blocked indefinitely under any name:

HeadleyDown editing as "Camridge (talk · contribs)"
HeadleyDown editing as "AliceDeGrey (talk · contribs)"
HeadleyDown editing as "HansAntel (talk · contribs)"
HeadleyDown editing as "Bookmain (talk · contribs)"
HeadleyDown editing as "HeadleyDown (talk · contribs)".
Also identified as sockpuppets and indefinitely blocked: "JPLogan (talk · contribs)", "DaveRight (talk · contribs)", and 4 or so "single-use" sockpuppets.

Finally, "Flavius vanillus (talk · contribs)" was also blocked, for breach of multiple policies (not a sock of HeadleyDown, but repeated major conduct and editorship issues)

It is not confirmed whether other editors are also in the same sockpuppet/meatpuppet group. They may be. It may also help to be alert in general, to new editors and repeat behavior. Reversion of heavy duty POV editing and forged cites added over many months (back to May 2005) has been needed in cleaning up that article.

Please see Talk:Neuro-linguistic programming for more, including summary of reasons and behaviors related to this.

Formal ban and block documentation at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Neuro-linguistic_programming#Documentation_of_bans.

FT2 (Talk) 14:02, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Repair broken links / Replace false citations

The link to an edition of Anchorpoint is dead and the edition it refers to although it contains a history of NLP does not describe Richard Bandler's qualifications. The only non-commercial site on the web that describes Bandler's qualification is the Mother Jones article on him so I will use that. There is no evidence that Bandler has a PhD -- honorary or otherwise -- even though sites that promote him refer to him as "Dr Bandler" and some of them list qualifications beyond his BA (Psychology and Philosopgy) MA (Psychology). AnotherPseudonym (talk) 13:53, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Senseless and non-grammatical

This material is unreadable and makes no sense and seriously needs to be rewritten:

"Bandler rented accommodation to Gregory Bateson. Bateson taught at UCSC, Kresge College as did Grinder, and had moved to a community on Alba Road near the Santa Cruz mountains community of Ben Lomond. Lomond would have a profound influence on Bandler's future, introducing him and Grinder to Milton Erickson; together, the three of them formed some of the foundational models for Neuro-linguistic programming."

A small community near a community introduced a man to another man? Seriously? And, folks, the name of the town is Ben Lomond. Like Morgan Hill or Royal Oak, it is a town with two names. You cannot call it "Lomond" on second usage as if it were a person! And what's with the novelistic "would have" -- the events took place in the past. Use the simple past tense.

Sheesh! 70.36.137.217 (talk) 15:43, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pseudoscience POV?

NLP is a pseudoscience, as per the main article. Reverted edit accordingly. Ambitus (talk) 07:30, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Now getting my contributions on talk pages reverted. NLP is not psychology OnlyJob otherwise it would be classed as part of a science Ambitus (talk) 11:01, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]