Talk:Richard Bandler

Doctorate

The education section at the head of the article cites evidence suggesting that Bandler's doctorate is not genuine. Why, then, does the article proceed to refer to him elsewhere as "Doctor"? Surely, if it's not a bona fide title then Wikipedia shouldn't be using it. --172.159.216.128 15:40, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

This article has read at times like an attempt to discredit Bandler. It's clear that there is a lot of animosity in different sectors of the NLP arena, but all Wikipedia articles should be neutral, biographical articles, and should keep all areas within the context of each other.

In the future can you add commentary to the bottom of the document and sign it with three tildes [~]. The article was/is neutral. Fact makes for neutrality, opinion makes for bias. The article is (as it curretnly stands) entirely consistent with Wikipedia NPOV policy. There is no attempt to discredit Bandler, it is nothing more than a presentation of his most salient biographical details. Unless you can demonstrate the falsity of the contents please don't expurgate them. flavius 01:10, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Clearly Bandler is a controversial figure, but this biography covers almost every negative thing he's ever been acused of and doesn't discuss his contributions to NLP, nor any of the reasons he would be an important figure in this field. Many of the items here are not worth inclusion, and are strung together to give a very one sided perspective of him, where as Wikipedia prides itself on objectivity and it's encyclopedic nature.

---

I don't know about anyone else, but I don't like this biography entry very much. Many months back I originally expanded the stub and people made some nice cleanups afterwords. It was a pretty neutral article. I haven't checked back in quite a while but this new version doesn't very much resemble the old. While everything is properly referenced, it's definitely not neutral. Negative points are given much more light then positive, of which there are plenty. I don't have the time now to fix this, but I hope someone will put in the effort to restore this page to neutrality.

In the future can you add commentary to the bottom of the document and sign it with three tildes [~]. So then add the positive points (properly referenced) whilst retaining the negative. The article is factual, it has no normative content hence it is neutral and consistent with Wikipedia's NPOV policy. If you or anyone else puts up a sanitised or fictitious account of Bandler's life or reduce the article to something that looks like it was issued by Bandler's marketing consultants I will revert it. Wikipedia is not the place for commercial promotion or the dissemination of propaganda. By all means extend the article but please retain the existing content. The existing content is factual and entirely relevant to a biographical entry so there is no reason to expurgate it. flavius 01:10, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

I very much disagree. It's clearly biased on one side even though it uses facts. I never said anything needs to be removed. Just more balanced facts from both sides need to be preseted.

Can you bring yourself to at least sign you brilliant insights with four tildes [~] so that they are readily visible. No it isn't biased. Unless you believe the shit that Bandler spouts in his seminars about his biography (eg. he produced a holographic storage system thirty years ago and it didn't go to market because it was too good and too cheap) then the article covers the most salient features of his life to date. Bandler hasn't ever done anything other than teach NLP, write NLP books and "treat" people using NLP -- he started teaching and practising NLP after his Bachelors degree (in Psychology and Philosophy). What else has he accomplished? You're not going to tell me that he invented the light bulb or the internal combustion engine or that he's a great philanthropist? The skeleton of Bandler's life is represented, the only thing missing is some of the details. If you can add some more biographical details -- not hyperbole, ass kissing or outright bullshit -- then please do so and make sure they are referenced. Comaze has some detail about Bandler re Farrelly which hopefully he'll incorporate into the article. Given that Bandler has surrounded much of his life with myth and lies an informative article would dispel the nonsense and set the record straight (that is what any impartial biographer would do). The bias is apparent (rather than real) -- Bandler has lived a sordid life and he's a seedy character. It is instructive to compare Grinder's recent interview at inspiritive.com.au and Bandler's at nlpmp3.com. Grinder repeatedly emphasizes that NLP was a collaborative discovery and he says "we worked like brothers" (doing the intertwined fingers gesture). If I'm not mistaken there is a tone of lament in Grinder's voice, as if the bitter split did upset him. Cut to Bandler. He doesn't even mention John Grinder -- only John La Valle, one of his lackeys -- and he keeps on saying "when I invented NLP", "when I came up with NLP". This is sordid behaviour. The article looks biased because Bandler's "karmic balance sheet" is in the red. You have to invent stuff to create balance in Bandler's biography and that's exactly what he and his PR machine do. That however is not the function of Wikipedia. flavius 04:50, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

---

This page has identical content to John Grinder. Which is it? Did they both invent NLP? -- Wapcaplet 02:31 26 May 2003 (UTC)

Yes they both invented NLP, working together as described in their book 'The Structure of Magic' - however they have now fallen out which has caused tensions within the NLP community.

Presumably, Neuro-Linguistic Programming (as you apparently just found out) since that is the NLP that was linked by 62.21.99.104 to the pseudoscience article. -- Wapcaplet 02:39 26 May 2003 (UTC)

---

"They might argue that they were concerned with what works rather than scientific validity - and that they were developing models not scientific theories."

I removed the above sentence, which is meaningless, since scientific theories are models. You can't escape the demands of scientific rigour just by calling your theory a "model". Whether it's a theory, or a model, or a flooble, it still has to stand up to scrutiny. -- Heron

"Model" as used in NLP is not the same as "model" as used in science. NLP is not a science (even though some NLP practicioners may erroneously try to claim it is.) In NLP, modeling refers to "the process of observing and replicating the successful actions and behaviors of others; the process of discerning the sequence of [Internal Representations] and behaviors that enable someone to accomplish a task." (The User's Manual For The Brain, Bodenhamer and Hall, p395) Modeling in NLP is something like mimicry and adopting another's beliefs in order to perform the same way. 74.64.83.193

---

This article seems somewhat balanced, but a few sentances such as "He discovered that he could achieve the same results as" and "Many new questionable NLP schools and companies opened up and greatly altered the field." and "Certainly, he is acknowledged as being remarkably effective at working with a wide range of problems," just don't seem neutral to me. They're making claims about NLP in general, and Bandler's version of NLP in particular that are unsubstantiated.

The final sentance "Proponents point out that theory is not where Bandler's interests lie -- he is interested in what works." is almost identical to the one Heron removed. Perhaps we could get a few more direct quotes in there so that it's not the article making the claims, it's Bandler himself. -- MarkTAW

Ph.D or not?

This line added by HeadleyDown seems out of place: "Richard Bandler is often addressed as Dr. Bandler, although he does not have a PhD." I think he has an honorary doctorate. This needs to be checked. --Comaze 06:12, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Bandler does not have a real doctorate. He has a BA and an MA. He was awarded an honourary doctorate from a continental European university. However, references to Richard Bandler as 'Dr Bandler' predate his honourary award and by convention honourary PhD holders are not to use the title 'Doctor' (especially not for commercial promotion). 60.240.178.243 02:44, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Bandler Advertisement

I removed the advertisement copy that was tacked to the article. Promotion and marketing copy is inappropriate for what is supposed to be a biographical article. 60.240.178.243 01:33, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

I removed the purely promotional URLs from the External Links section and added some useful URLs for those that want to learn more. 60.240.178.243 03:50, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Biased, Incomplete and Poorly Executed

This article requires a complete rewrite. It reads as a promotional piece -- full of spin and presenting a highly selective and incomplete account of Bandler's life thus far -- and it contains spelling and grammatical errors. 60.240.178.243 02:52, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

I re-wrote most of the article. It is now more complete and stripped of POV specifically promotion and marketing. 60.240.178.243 08:03, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

I am 60.240.178.243 and 202.7.176.134. I decided to create an account when I saw how many times these IP addresses had been used to make edits. I have added more material regarding Bandler's litigation. I think the entry now reads as a potted biography (which it should). 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)

80.136.253.13

80.136.253.13. Your edits are out of line. Whether a biographical detail is considered gossip or substantive is largely a matter of POV. Please familiarise yourself with Wikipedia policy before editing artcicle.

All biographical details supplied are verifiable and the article is devoid of POV. What you are attempting to do is censor the article. If you want to contribute then then augment it by adding in more detail about Bandler, his influences his, early life, his health etc.

Hall's DHE artcile is a critique of DHE.

Also, it would indicate civility if you entered into some discussion before/after (prefereably before) editing rather than launch into a censorhip campaign.

If you edit the artcicle such that you omit details of Bandler's life that have been substantiated I will revert them.

flavius 05:26, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

This article suffers from too much influence of the mother jones article

- just count the number of references from it. this article tries to make a certain point of bandlers past and his motives to create a method like NLP. this is however gossip. e.g. is there really proof of his cocaine use? (i personally believe that gossip, but proof?

What you believe is irrelevant and inconsequential. Bandler has not sued MJ for the article hence the content is acceptable as a historical record. flavius 00:58, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

- it is difficult to quote bandler / grinder from books / seminars, because part of NLP is telling (arbitrary) stories, if they are useful in a context.

Really? So when he says he earned a PhD from USF when the University has no record of him he's not just lying, he's "elicit state", "using homomorphic metaphor", blah blah blah? flavius 00:58, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

- one simple line regarding his doctorate would have sufficed.

Says who? This is a recurrent concern, it appears repeatedly on NLP newsgroups. The matter need to be set straight and in a definitive fashion. flavius 00:58, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

- is it really of public interest if bandler lived an "opulent" livestyle?

Yes, it's a biographical detail. Bandler's article should present a potted biography. Any biography would mention the subjects lifestyle. It is "human interest" and moreover it is verifiable.

- a one-liner with reference to the mother jones article regarding the murder case would have sufficed. he was aquitted and (until further proof) not guilty. how is really interested in the name of the lawyer?

Reducing such a major catacylysm to one line would be propagandist. The article is entirely factual, no where did I state that he was guilty or that he wasn't acquitted. The lawyers name is of interest, again it's a "human interest" matter. flavius 00:58, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

- it's good to summarize the different lawsuits bandler tried, because with this he severely damaged the NLP field. it prevented the establishment of a unified quality standards. so he co-invented the field, but damaged it like no one else.

So why did you butcher my contribution? It is not my concern whether he did or din't damage NLP, that is POV. My article is entirely factual and devoid of any POV. flavius 00:58, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

- i doubt that michael hall (whom i actually admire for his meta-state model) would agree to be quoted here as a DHE critique. read the summary of the artikel you quoted.

I've read it. It is a critique, he queastions the assumptions underlying DHE and the absence of demonstrable results. That is a critique. flavius 00:58, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

- bandlers life is only important as he is co-inventor of NLP.

Not in a biographical entry. All aspects of his life -- that are verifiable and hence not libellous -- are "fair game". flavius 00:58, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

what do you think? did bandler more damage to NLP or more good? maybe both in the same amount - and that should be reflected by an article about him.

That is an irrelevant concern. The purpose of the article should be to present a potted biography not to weigh his life on some hypothetical scale. flavius 00:58, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

The recent edits are entirely unacceptable. They seek only to present a sanitized biography of Bandler. The MJ article is a citable reference. It has not been withdrawn or amended as consequence of a successful defamation case brought by Bandler. Hence it stands as a historical record. The number of references to this article is irrelevant, all that matter is that it serves as a verifiable source. The doctorate matter is siginificant. Not only did I check the UMI index I also wrote a letter to the USF Alumni Society. I was informed that Bandler did not receive a doctorate from USF -- honorary or earned. I cannot cite the letter from USC as this would constitute original research (which is prohibited by Wikipedia policy). Inthe interests of verification it was necessary to provide a link to the UMI site. As a biographical entry, all aspects of Bandlers life are relevant and permissable as content if they are verifiable. For these reasons, I am reverting my edits. I won't allow Wikipedia to be used as a point of marketing for Bandler. flavius 00:39, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

I ask all editors to extend the article with verifiable facts about Bandler rather than expurgate it of parts they deem unpleasant. The article should be neither pro or anti Bandler it should be factual. I will revert any edits that censor details from Bandler's life, seeking to present some mythical idealised conception of the man. flavius 00:58, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

NOTICE

Please familiarise yourself with Wikipedia's NPOV policy before editing this article. Also, all content must be verifiable. This is non-negotiable. This policy precludes "legend" about the origin of NLP. There is absolutely no evidence that Bandler has an earned doctorate, that he was a mathematician, computer programmer, musician, etc. etc. etc. Also, there is absolutely no evidence that Bandler named NLP on the basis of three books that were in his car. This is nonsense and is inconsistent with Grinder's history of NLP and even Bandler's own account in other seminars. Please refrain from adding Bandler's fairy tales told during his seminars as facts. flavius 01:38, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Verification

Two additions to the article require verification: (1) the details of Bandler's two honourary doctorates; and (2) the assessment of Bandler's tapes as "revolutionary". Unless someone can provide the details of the awarding university(ies) and year of award in a verifiable form I will remove this addition. Who regards Bandler's tapes as revolutionary? Bandler? Grinder? Those cognitively dissonant individuals that have have paid US$800.00 for a set? Unless this details is made verifiable I will remove it also. flavius 01:29, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Article Quality

Flavius, it's enough! You don't "own" this article. As indicated by the history, there are a lot participants whose content you delete/censor under obvious influence of dubious sources as alt.psychology.nlp, etc. What of Bandlers life is of public interest, except his contributions for NLP? Your modifications try to build a biased personal picture of Bandler which is a) not of public interest, b) keeps the quality of this article low. Your sole "information" seem to be chit-chat from the newsgroup and an article in Mother Jones, which gives no sources for its various claims about Bandlers person/personal life and/or motivations. You practice the same censorship as you accuse in the section 80.136.253.13 for, e.g. title changes with minimal comments, deletions without comment at all, etc.

80.136.253.13. Firstly, get a Wikipedia account which will give you an (anonymous) handle. No, I don't "own" the article but I am the only one that is apparently willing to produce an article in conformance with Wikipedia policy. You and the other editors keep turning what is supposed to be a NPOV biography into a promotional "puff" piece for Bandler. Why have you removed the reference to ProQuest that demonstrates that Bandler has no doctorate. I have independently verified that Bandler has no doctorate from UCSC or USF and that his university education is in (humanistic) psychology. I will re-instate the ProQuest link and I will remove any commercial external links as per Wikipedia policy. It appears that you intend to present a sanitised and idealised "changed personal history" of Bandler. Haven't you ever read a biography or a biographical entry in Wikipedia? See the [Bill Gates] article in Wiki. Does it only include a collection of sterile facts about Microsoft? Is it a PR piece for Gates? NO, on both counts. I don't need to "own" the article to apply Wikipedia policy and standards to the article. The MJ article is a verifiable and legitimate source. If it were defamatory the then hyperlitigious Bandler would have sued. He didn't therefore the use of the contents of the article is legitimate and non-defamatory. Bandler's history is sordid and it stands as a huge incongruity between the promises of NLP and the results -- for this reasom it is entirely relevant. Isn't it ironic that Bandler and Grinder -- two indivduals that claim "exquisite" persuasion, rapport, and state management skills got into an ugly dispute in the first place and couldn't bring any of their presumably highly developed NLP skills to bear to resolve the dispute but instead had to resort to litigation, lawyers and courts? Isn't it curious that Bandler who teaches the "drug of choice" pattern, claims he has a dial on one of his DHE control panels to produce ecstasy and arousal resorted to the more traditional means of cocaine and gin to get into the desired state? How was it that Bandler, who claims to have "exquisite" sensory accuity claimed in his murder trial that he was set-up? How did a pimp/drug dealer deceive the "brilliant" Bandler? The details of Bandler's life are entirely relevant in that they are pertinent to NLP and the rhetoric and hyperbole associated with that psycho-cult. flavius 11:56, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

The article is basically quite good. I'd like to thank you for your contributions. It would be nice to know though, what kind of artistic background Richard Bandler has. Maybe he isn't the perfect son-in-law, but he is funny and his seminars are easy listening.

Verfifiability is An Essential Part of Wikipedia Contributions

The recent additions are relevant but they lack citations. They must each be augmented with an online or offline reference.

The bit about Spritzer -- in addition to being unattributed -- reads like an apology. If the recent edits aren't soon properly referenced I will remove them. flavius 03:51, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Commercial Promotion

Including links to glowing reviews of Bandler's seminars is commercial promotion and in breach of Wikipedia policy. Wikipedia is not a forum for the promotion of products and services. flavius 03:51, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Ambiguous wording

"Bandler met Grinder when he was a student at UCSC" Could someone rewrite this as "When A and B met, A was a student and B was a ... " —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 192.18.42.11 (talk • contribs) .

I've made the adjustment to that line. ---=-C-=- 04:45, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Bandler trial

I removed some unverified text about personal habbits of Bandler and reworded text for NPOV [1]. I've made it clear that Bandler was acquitted - before tacked onto the end as if it were secondary. ---=-C-=- 01:52, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I was a resident in Santa Cruz, CA, Fall 1987 through early Spring 1988. Bandler's trial for the alleged murder of CC was ongoing at that time and I read articles in the local paper. Do not remember the verdict, but time period was very specific.

General info: Flavius vanillus, HeadleyDown, and about 14 sockpuppets blocked on similar article to this

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)

Help please

Why would an exact photocopy of a magazine article in a respected newspaper of this important aspect of Mr. Bandler's life be against Wikipedia policy? The removal of this article [2] which gives the history surrounding his murder trial is confusing to meAny help would be appreciated. Thank you. Ilena (chat) 17:12, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand why the link to this article about the murder trial has been removed, nor why the information that no one else was charged with this murder has also been removed. Can someone please explain? Thank you so much. Ilena (chat) 06:40, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

1988

Bandler was actually acquitted in 1988. Miss Christensen died in 1986.
 Part of the trial was in 1987.

Corrected. Several errors were introduced by a succession of POV edirs. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.91.228.175 (talk) 01:40, 18 March 2007 (UTC).

Dr.

Bandler's web site calls him "Dr."

So do his PR and marketing people. There is no evidence that he has any sort

of doctorate.

If memory serves, I believe he received an honorary doctorate degree given that his fairly original contributions, publications, and other work amount to much more work and time than the work done for a doctoral dissertation. Can anyone verify this (what school etc.)? I realize calling yourself 'doctor' because you've received an honorary degree is a longstanding controversy in itself though. Since he's in psychological field which is a bit 'ambiguous' anyway, it doesn't bother me like it would if someone were giving medical or nutritional advice and trying to imply they were a licensed M.D. I'm not on board with some of Bandler's methods, but objectively speaking he's done a lot of work that's been very influencial (in both positive and negative ways) so it wouldn't be shocking if a university recognized this and gave him legitimate honorary doctorate. I suspect this is a topic that will largely be split between those that find some value in Bandler's work and those that already disliked him anyway. Personally, I see it as marketing and given the amount of work he's done, I overlook it -wheras someone who was using "Dr."in their name without having done much in the way of original work and contributions, it would bother me a lot. Romperroom

Short studies

 It has been said that Bandler has studied maths. If so, his studies

must have been very short, as his qualifications are all in non-mathematical subjects. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 217.42.21.124 (talk) 16:42, 19 March 2007 (UTC).

209.218.163.2

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.

 209.218.163.2 seems to have been blocked permanently.
 209.218.163.2 has been blocked again.

Not

Bandler has not sued anyone over the article. This suggests that his usage of

c*caine, L*D, h*shish and gin is real.

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)

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