Talk:Charles Linden

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or if there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]

Contents 1 Linden Method Criticism 2 "Research" 3 Protection 4 Policies 5 You Tube 6 The core issue with the Linden Method 7 Explanation 8 Quote by Claire Bolton 9 New section 9.1 Moving forward 10 Updates 11 Clarification 12 New section 13 Quote 14 Archiving 15 Unsourced Statements 16 Innacurate Content 17 Description of Linden Method 17.1 Section break 18 Passage removed

[edit] Linden Method Criticism

Super Saddle, if you wish to have a mention of the linden method in this article, then criticism is justified and neutral. You cannot remove criticism simply because you do not like it. Absentis 02:14, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I understand. However, you will need to link to any criticism. Super Saddle 07:29, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

It is properly cited, and does not need an online link to be valid. Stop removing it. Your removal borders on vandalism. Absentis 11:04, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

The Dr's review is legally defamatory and actionable. At the time of writing the review he was working under instruction from a business competitor. A complaint is being made legally to withdraw the statements. The Linden Method is NOT a cult, it is a practical methodology which works. Why do you delete comments by qualified medical professionals who have positive reviews and yet leave this nonsense on the page? Do you work for the Dr? It is very unfair and one sided... Wikipedia SHOULD be impartial! The medical references are from licensed medical practitioners. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.152.97.44 (talk) 08:26, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I haven't deleted a single statement, properly cited from a credible source, made by a qualified professional. I have, however, included verifiable information from a very qualified and respectable expert. I do not work for either party involved (as opposed to you apparently)... I only want to make verifiable information available, and not to let pseudoscience masquerade as truth on WP. As a heads up, its quite important not to make legal threats on WP. Absentis 20:15, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Absentis, you hide behind a veil of anonymity and defend a man who openly defames others having NEVER received data or notes from the practicing psychologists at The Linden Center. Please refrain from posting references to such nonsensical material based on an insufficient review of only 1/4 of Linden Method material and information. Either that or contact us directly to discuss. Your acts are cowardly and abusive. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.152.97.44 (talk) 17:20, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, this is a little awkward, considering that I have a username and you're editing anonymously... Anyways, if you had actually read the review, it does not defame Charles Linden in any way, only his method. If you have any properly published positive reviews, I'd love to include them. Original research isn't allowed on WP, even if it comes from a psychologist. Absentis 20:15, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

The review is defamatory in law, this has been confirmed by solicitors. It is defamatory of Charles Linden. Please refrain from putting off those people who may benefit from The Linden Method, as so many have, by making reference to one of the only negative reviews available about this programme. The testimonials and positive comments far outweigh the professor's review which was made without him having access to all of the programme material and psychologist/counselor support.

Sounds like someone needs to get a new solicitor. And secondly, this is an encyclopedia, not an advertisement for the Linden Method. Call me crazy, but I'm going to trust someone with a Ph.D over someone who has a BA in... something that isn't psychology or medicine. Absentis 21:05, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

How many has the professor treated and CURED? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.152.179.74 (talk) 15:36, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

If the Linden Method can "cure" people, then why hasn't this information been published in a peer-reviewed academic journal? Absentis 17:10, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Look, The Linden Method works, thousands of clients will confirm this. The reason it hasn't been reviewed by peers is simple, Charles Linden is a layman and the psychological fraternity refuse to accept his successes. The fact is that The Linden Method is a practical solution which works for the majority of its users and focusing on the one and only negative review, creating a purpose built section for it within the Charles Linden website and disallowing other psychologists, counselors and Linden Method clients to have their say is nothing short of unfair, biased and ridiculous. Wikipedia exists as a source of ideas, views, facts and findings, not as a soap box for people to steer folks away from things which just might help them. Charles Linden isn't looking for an infomercial, he just wants a fair and balanced group of comments. Where is the 'Criticisms' section on other people's pages? No, it's just on Charles Linden's because someone has chosen to target him... it's just not fair to him or the thousands of people he has and could help. Just allow a fair group of opinions to be expressed on the page and allow the visitor to decide what he/she wishes to do with it. Your views about TLM or psychology in general may vary but forcing them on people who just want to know more is short sighted and damaging. TLM carries a 100% money back guarantee... how fair can that be? Ask the professor to issue refunds to the folks he has helped without success.... yeh right! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.152.179.74 (talk) 18:29, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't know much about this, bu according to Wikipedia policy, I think the section should remain. And there are many many criticism in Wikipedia, you just have to search. Look at : Criticism of Wikipedia << that's cool :) Elmao 18:38, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Dear annonymous editor. You need to read a few wikipedia policies, then you'll understand why the criticism is justified, and why your continuous vandalism will not succeed. First, Wikipedia:Verifiability. The information you are trying to add do not come from credible sources. Secondly, Wikipedia:Original Research. As it stands, we cannot verify any of the claims you are attempting to add to the page. Secondly, until Mr. Linden's research is published, it remains original research, and thus we cannot add it to the page. I'm glad you brought up how WP is not a soap box. This is exactly what you are trying to do here, and you can stop at any time. Absentis 21:02, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Please then explain why the comments offered by Jennifer Saunders (BSc, MSc), Dr Claire Bolton (MBChB) I an Northcott (BA (Hons) DHyp MHF FASC MHS MHRS MANLP ) and Dr Allan Norris, a consultant clinical psychologist and member of the British Psychological Society, who works at Birmingham’s Nuffield Hospital, are invalid but that of a man hired to criticise are... just a simple explanation is enough. Where does it say in Wiki rules that positive comments aren't allowed? I think you are just making up policy. Surely a measured and neutral viewpoint is required not one biased to one person's views. If we worked on your premis, the pages of very eminent psychologists would be blitzed by oposing views and opinions and they are not. This is a personal attack on Charles Linden and unfortunately, the nature of wiki and its ability to be abused by the enemy, creates this situation. IF the comments from the professor are to be allowed, then so can those form the above mentioned professionals too, unless your motives are to undermine Charles Linden and not provide balance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.152.176.147 (talk) 07:26, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

The ditor stated that IF The Linden Method is not mentioned on the page, a criticism of it cannot be entered. Please refrain from adding it back. This page is about Charles LInden and not reviews of his works. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.152.176.147 (talk) 08:58, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Just some personal comments i would like to include:

I just wish to say that i have suffered from anxiety for many many years, now if this where to be an brain damage and not true anxiety, Would this mean that psychiatrists all over the world have "fooled" me the last 17 years? Charles Linden or any "professional anxiety treater" could be doing a mistake. These are my points/questions/views. 1: Are some of your guys stating that a psychiatrist etc can not give wrong diagnosis? 2: would that person be fooling us or doing a very humane mistake? 3: Pro or not they still require money in most states. 4: Do any of you know how usual it is to give anxiety sufferers wrong diagnosis? I mean come on! For about 100 years ago we where kept in "cages" (certainly someone can find out more of what i mean, perhaps on wiki itself) I am not elevating Lindens status here, i am just saying that he as any one else do mistakes. Now if anyone can post proof that psychiatrists etc that have never done mistakes, or any treatment that is not pseudo-based i would really like to see that. And while not proven scientifically yet i am certain that someone can find statements/answers to my next question: How many of those that have suffered decades with overwhelming anxiety and CBT for do become psychiatrists? How many psychiatrists have never, ever had anxiety? Now while many of you found some reasonable answers i know very well that we need proof here, but we should all know that many, many things stated (and not only about this matter)are theories, now if this Linden has experienced anxiety himself we are obviously forgetting a major point here: Most things are learned by experience, and if Linden knows how anxiety feels then he probably knows what he is talking about. Let us not mistake anxiety as fear the very same thing, yes must of us have experienced fear, but anxiety? They are given different names for a reason (as i hope you all understand), so how can you treat someone of something you have never experienced? All things are learned from experience and the texts that psychologists teach from are learned from the patients they treat, and then stated as a fact. Problem is that that many of us experience things like numbness "tingling sensation" etc yes this things are stated as facts, but how do you prove things like that? I can state that i feel very numb right now, but does a nice title allow me to prove this as a fact? I hope this is not immediately deleted as i believe some of my statements are true and forgive me for spelling errors and etc as i suffer from panic attacks and such about constantly these days. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.71.156.79 (talk) 20:27, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

While I can sympathize with you, your comment is off-topic, as this page is for discussing how to improve this specific Wikipedia article, not to discuss anxiety disorders, treatments, or the effectiveness of treatment/therapy. Currently the article simply needs more verifialbe, reliable, third-party sources such as newspaper articles, valid periodical articles, etc. Ariel♥Gold 21:17, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

since when does the discussion page need such? The rest does not concern me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Noobmember (talk • contribs) 00:09, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Research"

I cannot find any of his research in non self-published sources. I'm hesitant to put in that he has a working methodology unless its backed by credible sources. Absentis 22:18, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

As another note, any information from panic-anxiety.com cannot be included in Wikipedia. It is a self-published website purely to advertise the Linden Method, and does not qualify as a source. As well, Jenny Saunders is definitely not an independent reviewer - she works for the Linden Centres! Absentis 20:15, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Jennifer Saunders is NOT an employee of The Linden Centers, she is an independent qualified psychologist who was consulted to review the programme. Please prove otherwise or leave the material in place. The website and magazine in which the professor's defamatory comments are posted are also self published and belong to a competitor who employed the professor to write the 'review'. Please prove otherwise or leave his comments out. Some of his comments are legally defamatory. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.152.97.44 (talk) 20:40, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

The Salkovskis review was not self-published.

Direct from the panic-anxiety.com website: Jenny is support manager for The Linden Centers overseeing support services for each and every case and client. You can contact Jenny directly at The Linden Center at support@panic-anxiety.com. Yup, that definitely sounds like she works for the Linden Center. Absentis 20:49, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Salkovskis was employed by an organisation to write the review, the organisation is a 'fee paying members' business who have a vested interest in undermining competitors work. The review has been studied by a solicitor who has confirmed that elements are legally defamatory. In addition, he never received the full Linden Method material or spoke to the support specialists, therefore his review is flawed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.152.97.44 (talk) 20:51, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I repeat. Jennifer Saunders is not an employee, she is a support specialist and advisor to Charles Linden and his clients. She is not an employee. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.152.97.44 (talk) 20:55, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I repeat, according to Mr. Linden's own website, it states that J. Saunders works for the Linden Center. Plus, she's not even a psychologist. She only has a Master's, and I highly doubt she's licensed to practice. Unless you can provide a credible source that says otherwise, I'm going to keep her "review" out of the article. Absentis 21:11, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I will pass on your information to Psychologist Jennifer Saunders who, I am sure would take action against you IF you didn't hide behind your username. Why can't you allow positive comments on this page? Why restrict it to negative comments and criticism? Competitor methinks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.152.179.74 (talk) 12:02, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Dear User:82.152.179.74, I direct you to read the policies of Wikipedia that have previously been given to you: Neutrality is a core policy. verifiability is an official policy, and the biography of living persons policy is not negotiable. All statements for living people must be properly sourced and cited per these policies. If you are not happy with the way Wikipedia does things, there are a great number of other "wiki" type sites that do not have such strict guidelines, where original research and commentary is allowed. But these things are not allowed on Wikipedia. Additionally, the article is not about this Jennifer Saunders person, and unless it is integral to the article's content and context, mentioning her is not necessary. Biographies do not mention every employee or consultant of the subject, but only those with direct relevance to the article in question. I would really encourage you to review the policies listed above, thanks! ^Ariel♥Gold 09:32, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

IMPORTANT: To all those who refuse to understand that this page is a bigraphical page for Charles Linden and NOT an oportunity to criticise his material, methods or teachings. Neither profanity nor personal insults will be tolerated. Please refrain from adding criticisms of Linden's work to this page, it is irrelevant and will be viewed as sabotage. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.76.63.95 (talk) 14:54, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Protection

Can this page be protected or something, please? Some idiot keeps repeatedly adding very, very POV nonsense with broken grammar and spelling to the article and editing out most negative stuff. Charlycrash 19:03, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Policies

I would like to remind editors of this article of several core policies of Wikipedia: neutrality, verifiability, biographies of living persons, as well as having reliable sources that must be cited with living persons biographies, and no original research. I'm not really sure what the contentions are about, but this article read very much like an advertisement, and as such, I have renamed sections, and wiki-fied the article to be more in line with biographical articles here. I encourage people to remember that Linden's personal website is not a neutral, third-party source and thus, can't be used as a reference. Additionally, opinion, commentary, and editorial comments should be removed, unless they are specifically attributed to a third-party news source. Thanks! ^Ariel♥Gold 09:25, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you so much for creating a page which is neutral, informative and fair. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.152.176.147 (talk) 09:40, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I have been digging for two hours, and I've found one semi-valid reference, which I added just to source the statement that he's an author. I also moved the icBirmingham link from External links, to be a reference for the statement that Linden suffered from anxiety himself in the past, as that is a valid source. However, the simple fact is, that despite whatever success this person's program may have, it has not been covered by any major news service, NY Times, LA Times, Reuters, USA Today, MSNBC, CNN, AP, BBC, etc., and thus, this article is going to be pretty difficult to source, from what I see. 90 News results for Charles Linden, none of them relating to this person. 2 million hits on general Google searches for Charles Linden, 99% of them being either sales spam, fan blogs, non-neutral e-zines, or other "help" sites that aren't WP:RS. I'm sorry, and it may not be what enthusiasts of this person's "method" want to hear, but it does not appear to be a well-known or published program. ^Ariel♥Gold 10:10, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

First, thank you for your comments and assistance in building a fair resource.

The programme has been published, issued with ISBN numbers and sold on Amazon, in high street bookstores and numerous websites for years.

Again, self-published books are not resources. I've added that book to his bibliography, however. ^Ariel♥Gold 03:26, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Channel 4 TV in the UK link to it as a resource for anxiety elimination at: http://www.channel4.com/health/microsites/0-9/4health/mind/wwr_panic.html

In addition, please go to: http://www.panic-anxiety.com/testimonials/press/ to view newspaper articles about Charles Linden and his Methods. All of these are 'published' newspapers and magazines. Scans of the actual articles can be supplied if required. There is a lot more newspaper and magazine material available but too much to put on one or two pages.

Go to: http://www.panic-anxiety.com/testimonials/radio/ to hear recordings of BBC and other radio programmes with Charles as guest speaker/expert.

Go to: http://www.panic-anxiety.com/testimonials/reviews/ to read amazon reviews (just a select few). These can also be found on the amazon websites.

Charles video material can also be found on myspace and youtube.

Yet again, I must point you out to WP:RS. panic-anxiety.com is a self-published website, and thus cannot be cited as a reference. Absentis 18:29, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

As stated, unless those sources listed can be found to verify those reviews do exist, they are not verifiable. While I can appreciate the frustration, we must adhere to policy. ^Ariel♥Gold 03:26, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

QUESTION: Can the above mentioned links be added to the page as references as they are newspaper and BBC radio recordings and scans? They are verifiable sources and standalone media releases, independent of Linden. They are displayed on Linden's pages but independent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.153.192.46 (talk) 06:14, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Can you just drop the links here? I think that would help those involved to review them. If they're valid, then not only can they be added, but they should be used as references, and I for one would be more than happy to add them into citation templates if that's the case. So feel free to drop valid links here, and we'll go from there, sound good? ^Ariel♥Gold 06:31, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Let me just point out one other thing, the external links section has the link to both of Linden's official sites, panic-anxiety, and lindenmethod.com, so those only need to be added once, and any user who wishes to go browse the various areas may do so, but the sub pages shouldn't be linked, except in the case of his bio. Also, regarding the URL to the Channel four list, I don't think a list of "resources" by a TV station's website could qualify as a third-party source of information, because all it basically says is that the program is expensive, but supposedly "well-reviewed" (But it provides no verification for any reviews). I'd hesitate to put that in as a reference, unless it were specifically stated as to being simply a list from that TV station, one link among many. I'd be willing to consider the wording of that addition if others agree. ^Ariel♥Gold 06:35, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

These are the resources:

BBC radio interviews: Go to: http://www.panic-anxiety.com/testimonials/radio/ to hear recordings of BBC and other radio programmes with Charles as guest speaker/expert.

Newspaper articles: http://www.panic-anxiety.com/testimonials/press/

Go to: http://www.panic-anxiety.com/testimonials/reviews/ to read amazon reviews (just a select few). These can also be found on the amazon websites.

Is it also possible to add his 5 DVD titles to the bibliography? They have individual ISBN numbers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.153.192.46 (talk) 09:54, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.153.192.46 (talk) 09:42, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm really not sure how to say this any differently, and please do not think I'm trying to be difficult, or mean, because honestly I am not, I'd like to help improve this article, and find some valid references. Indeed, I spent a good portion of my time yesterday doing just that, combing the web, news archives, obscure sites that may have something, anything, and only found the two I added. When something is put on a personal (or company) website associated with the subject of the article, with no way to verify it, that's not a third party reliable source. For example: I could say on my personal website that I've been written up by 1000 different publications, from the New York Times, to Time magazine, but if I do not provide links for others to prove it true, then it is not verifiable. I hope you can appreciate how that's possible for people to do, and how diligence is needed to verify information. As for recordings from the BBC, users should not be expected to have to go to a third-party site they aren't familiar with, and possibly have to download software that is required to listen to a recording, just to hear an interview to verify a reference. Not everyone has audio or video software, please review the external links guideline for more information about that type of thing. If you can find these articles on the BBC site, or other news sites, then they can be added. Please, don't misunderstand me, I am not saying that these reviews or articles did not happen, but only that they are not verifiable simply by existing on this person's personal site. His book was added via ISBN, but Amazon.com customer reviews are also not reliable sources and cannot be added. I'm sorry this is not what you'd like to hear, but I hope you understand the differences between other sites, and Wikipedia. This is an encyclopedia; a compilation of fact-based, neutral, verifiable articles containing information, not opinion or commentary. ^Ariel♥Gold 10:18, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Why do people insist on making reference to an obscure and defamatory review of the linden method on the charles linden page. This page is about Charles Linden as an autobiography, NOT about The Linden Method. On this page too, these people are adding reviews and opinions about The Linden Method. Thiese pages are biographical not intended to write amazon style reviews. Someone please advise. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.76.63.95 (talk) 14:23, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

This reference (to the anxious times review) is the only acceptable source of information that I can find on Charles Linden that meets the WP:RS criteria. It is not obscure, nor is it defamatory to Mr. Linden. It was written by an expert in the field. It criticizes his work, not the person. Biographical articles contain criticisms and reviews of a person and their work, as long as they can be properly referenced. (See Henry H. Goddard and Sigmund Freud for prominent examples. The criticism that I insist on including meets all the criteria. Absentis 19:09, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Absentis, this is Charles Linden. The article to which you refer was written by a gentleman acting for a competitor and contains very unfair comments, including the claim that my Method is some kind of cult. Please understand that the work we do, contrary to claims within these pages, is done ligitimately to help sufferers recover, those we do not help receive a full and immediate refund of ALL monies within a 12 month period. How many cults operate in that way? The gentleman may think my claims are bullish, however, if you could spend one day in my center and personally witness the good done by my psychologists and counselors, you would refrain from undermining our work. We truly help and in some cases, save lives from certain ruin or worse by providing a friendly, supportive and safe environment for our clients. If people don't like it, tough! I rest assured at night that the many dozens of people we have interacted with on each day have benefitted massively and positively and ultimately get well with our support. Absentis, we have helped over 85,000 people from around the world and have only ever received a handful of complaints, most to do with late package delivereis but NEVER for the treatment our clients have received. We love what we do and we do it well and I can say with absolute conviction that we certainly have no intention of making our clients do anything they do not wish to do. If people perceive elements of my Method to be a certain way, they need to spend a day with us and see exactly what we do before criticising us. I may be the instigator, but now I am just the band leader of a group of the finest, qualified and professional 'friends' and confidents my clients could wish for.

Please help me have this drivel removed from wikipedia.

Regards

Charles Linden —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.64.213.240 (talk) 20:31, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Anonymous Editor, this is Absentis. The review in question does not call the Linden Method a cult. He uses the adjective 'cultic', to my knowledge, to describe the advice not to seek out information on anxiety disorders, nor to undergo pharmacotherapy or traditional psychotherapy (See pillars 1-7). This serves to keep the client within the auspices of a Linden Centre. As for the bullish claims, I believe he refers to the majority of the untested, unpublished claims of the Linden Method. You must understand that any mainstream psychologist will react negatively to information that does not mesh with their extensive training, or does not conform to the scientific method. Of course, I may be misinterpreting Dr. Salkovskis or Mr. Linden's work, so I apologize if I'm incorrect. This exemplifies perfectly why wikipedia needs to rely upon reliable third party sources. You must also remember that the reviewer in question, Dr. Salkovskis, is a well qualified, and quite knowledgeable person regarding anxiety disorders. He is, after all, the clinical director of the Maudsley Hospital Centre for Anxiety Disorders and Trauma. His criticism was published in a reliable source, which meets WP's policy. One does not need to be involved before justifiably criticizing. As I've said before, I would be happy to include any information that meets the wikipedia policy criteria for WP:RS. This does not include self-published material such as books or websites, no matter whose they are (Mr. Linden's or a competitor).

I can understand that the people at the Linden Centre's truly believe in their work. This kind of information, however, violates the policy on original research. Of course, the easiest way to disprove one's critics is to publish one's work in a peer-reviewed scientific journal. This gives credibility to anyone's ideas and theories. (I'll also mention again that its easiest to work with editors if they have a username.) Absentis 21:03, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] You Tube

OK thank you. Can we add the link to Charles Linden's youtube videos please. I really appreciate your help with this page... Charles saved my life... I owe him big time. This is the link to his Youtube: http://www.youtube.com/user/CharlesLinden —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.153.192.46 (talk) 15:23, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but again, those are not generally allowed. Unless the article were about a specific You Tube video, per external links guideline, those, and photobucket.com type links, are not allowed. The main reason is possible copyright issues, which is the case with these. I realize that again this is going to come across as another thing you "can't" add, and I would really just like to encourage you to review the policies and guidelines, while realizing this isn't a matter of us just saying "no" all the time, but of the desire to follow these policies and guidelines. I hope you understand. And please, remember to sign your comments with four tildes in a row ( ~ ) see your talk page (look up at the top, where it says "my talk" for more information.) Cheers! ^Ariel♥Gold 15:31, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Wow, this isn't POV pushing at all! Absentis 15:43, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

How does Anthony Robbins link to his Google video page then? Those videos are all copyright Charles Linden... produced, directed and presented by him. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.153.192.46 (talk) 19:35, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

1. The google video on Anthony Robbins' page is not self-published. 2. It contains bibliographical information about AB not found in other sources. 3. The youtube videos you wish to link to advertise the Linden Method, and do not deal directly with Charles Linden, the subject of this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Absentis (talk • contribs) 21:43, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The core issue with the Linden Method

(Non-caps items posted by —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.105.70.23 (talk) The Linden Method (TLM) is pretty much pseudoscience. It does have some elements of truth, but they are distorted by a person bent on making money... not helping anyone. This is legally defamatory and untrue—Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.105.70.23 (talk)

As with any pseudo-scientific therapy or treatment, there are several main dangers. 1. Misdiagnoses. Charles Linden himself admits he has no medical or psychiatric training. He may believe a person has an anxiety disorder, which in fact this individual has a more serious psychological or even medical condition. 2. This individual will not be properly treated, and will delay seeking proper medical treatment.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.105.70.23 (talk)

THIS IS UNTRUE. NONE OF THE LINDEN CENTRE STAFF WILL MAKE A DIAGNOSIS. THE CLIENTS ARE INFORMED IN THE PACK AND VERBALLY THAT IN ORDER TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THE PROGRAMME, THEY MUST FIRST OF ALL SEEK A MEDICAL DIAGNOSIS. PLEASE SEE THE PROGRAMME DISCLAIMER AND GUIDELINES.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.240.175.165 (talk)

Take for example a person who seems to be suffering from generalized anxiety, and chronic depersonalization. To a layman, this person appears to have an anxiety disorder. On the other hand, this person may have sustained a traumatic brain injury without realizing it, and is fooled by Charles Linden into believing he suffers from amygdala dysfunction. Does anyone think this is a good idea? I certainly don't.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.105.70.23 (talk)

WHAT NONSENSE. IF THE PERSON HAS ANXIETY DISORDER WITH DEPERSONALISATION, THEN THAT IS WHAT THEY HAVE... IF THEY HAVE SUSTAINED BRAIN TRAUMA, THEY HAVEN'T GOT ANXIETY DISORDER WITH DEPERSONALISATION! WHAT AN IDIOTIC ARGUMENT—Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.240.175.165 (talk)

Linden provides no process to distinguish one condition from the other. His self-published material is sufficiently vague and encompassing to fool many people into believing they suffer from an anxiety disorder, especially one that CL claims to be able to cure. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.105.70.23 (talk)

LEGALLY DEFAMATORY, IT SUGGEST LINDEN IS A CON MAN, WHICH HE IS NOT!—Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.240.175.165 (talk)

I'll admit that once a person is properly diagnosed with an anxiety disorder, with no co-morbid psychiatric or medical conditions, TLM may work. But it also might not. We simply won't know until his claims have been subjected to the rigors of scientific testing. Yes, Charles Linden may claim to have done "research", but I have a sneaky suspicion this only means "using google". Don't be fooled, this isn't real research. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.105.70.23 (talk)

LEGALLY DEFAMATORY, IT MAKES ASSUMPTIONS THAT LINDEN IS DEFRAUDING THE PUBLIC BY PLAGIARISING MATERIAL FROM THE WEB. RESEARCH HAS BEEN CARRIED OUT WITHIN THE ORGANISATION, AS TLM DOES NOT FALL INTO THE CATEGORY OF 'PSYCHOLOGY' IT DOES NOT HAVE TO CONFORM TO OR PROVE ANY SUCCESS OR JUSTIFY ITSELF TO ANYONE. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.240.175.165 (talk)

Even if the Linden Method works, it's probably because he took existing psychological therapies and repackaged them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.105.70.23 (talk)

LEGALLY DEFAMATORY, IT SUGGESTS PLAGIARISM. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.240.175.165 (talk)

He talks a lot about changing one's behavior. Does this sound at all like behavior modification to you? He also talks about changing your thoughts. Sound at all like cognitive behavioral therapy? I certainly think so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.105.70.23 (talk)

WHAT? OF COURSE IT DOES, LINDEN HAS NEVER CLAIMED TO REINVENT THE WHEEL, IT'S HOW HE SAYS IT, NOT WHAT HE SAYS THAT IS SO POWERFUL. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.240.175.165 (talk)

If Charles Linden truly cared about people, then he would release his method to the world for free. DEFAMATORY. This is the usual method of the scientific community. All their data is available by being published in academic journals. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.105.70.23 (talk)

LINDEN IS NOT ASSOCIATED WITH THE ACADEMIC COMMUNITY, HE JUST WROTE A BOOK!—Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.240.175.165 (talk)

Many college libraries contain these journals, and they are freely available to the public. Instead, Mr. Linden demands money for his flaky "life coaching" bullshit theories, making money hand-over-fist from vulnerable anxiety sufferers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.105.70.23 (talk)

THIS IS MASSIVELY DEFAMATORY AND OFFENSIVE. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.240.175.165 (talk)

Charles Linden's neurological knowledge is flawed and/or lacking. It would be too time consuming to systematically address each time the truth has been distorted. He is mostly right, but is incorrect on several key points, and dead wrong on the conclusions he reaches. This is a core element of a pseudoscience. The absolute worst misrepresentation, which cannot go without being corrected, is when he states that the scientific community agrees that the amygdala is "100% responsible for anxiety". First off, no respectable scientist would ever make that kind of absolute statement. Secondly, that statement is simply false. But don't blindly take my word for it. Unlike Charles Linden, who believes you shouldn't consult with any profession medical doctor or mental health expert, I encourage you to do your own learning. Go pick up an introductory textbook on medicine, psychology, or phyisiology and read about anxiety. You'll quickly find that Linden is quite simply wrong.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.105.70.23 (talk)

PROVE IT! SHOW US WHERE IT SAYS THAT HE IS WRONG AND OTHERS ARE 100% RIGHT. WHO CARES ANYWAY, LINDEN GETS PEOPLE WELL, I HAVE SEEN IT WITH MY OWN EYES HUNDREDS OF TIMES. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.240.175.165 (talk)

Charles Linden never claimed he suffered from delusions or hubris... Perhaps he should attach them to his impossibly long list of disorders from which he claims he's suffered? (Which raises another question, how can he reject the medical community's treatment, while simultaneously accepting their diagnoses, labels, and neurological research? Two-faced methinks.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.105.70.23 (talk)

TRUST ME, HE SUFFERED FROM THESE DISORDERS BUT THE MEDICAL COMMUNITY NEVER HELPED IN HIS RECOVERY OR DIAGNOSIS. FOR YEARS HE, LIKE MANY MILLIONS OF OTHER SUFFERERS, WAS PUSHED FROM PILLAR TO POST... WAKE UP AND SMELL THE COFFEE PSYCHOLOGISTS. YOU DON'T HELP ANYONE. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.240.175.165 (talk)

Does the Linden Method work? Maybe. But we simply won't know until the proper clinical trials are performed. His claims are outlandish, which makes me believe the scientific community will properly reject them out of hand. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.105.70.23 (talk)

THEY REJECT THEM BECAUSE IT SCARES THEM IF ONLY YOU KNEW HOW MANY PSYCHOLOGISTS HAVE LOST CLIENTS BECAUSE OF THE FAST RECOVERIES THEY HAVE MADE WITH TLM. DELETE THIS AS MUCH AS YOU LIKE, UNDRMINE TLM, CL AND HIS WORK, THE FACT STILL REMAINS THAT THE PSYCHOLOGICAL DEVICES AND RESOURCES AVAILABLE WITHIN MAINSTREAM MEDICINE AND HEALTH SERVICES IS FLAWED AND MOSTLY RUN BY PRACTITIONERS WHO DON'T KNOW THEIR ASS FROM THEIR ELBOW. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.240.175.165 (talk)

ACTUAL RELIEF AND SOLUTIONS ARE REQUIRED AND AS FAR AS THE RESEARCH AND EVIDENCE SHOWS, LINDEN SEEMS TO BE ABLE TO ACHIEVE JUST THAT. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.240.175.165 (talk)

Okay, it looks like we have an anonymous edit war going. I reverted the deletion of the above text, not because I agree with it, but because wholesale deletion of information on a talk page is vandalism. As for the editor who wrote the above text, you also need to read a few wikipedia policies. WP:OR springs to mind, as you also need to maintain WP:RS and WP:V. And read WP:NPOV for good measure.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Absentis (talk • contribs)

PLEASE REMOVE THE ABOVE, IT IS ILLEGAL, DEFAMATORY AND ACTIONABLE IN ACOURT OF LAW. HAS WIKIPEDIA REALLY STOOPED SO LOW. IT'S PATHETIC. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.240.175.165 (talk) 19:23, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Talk pages are reserved for discussing the article subject, and you strayed from it. If you're going to edit the article, please abide by the preceding policies, and stay on topic. Thanks. Absentis 18:55, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

WHO ON EARTH WROTE THIS CRAP: IT IS FALSE AND IT DOES NOT BELONG ON A BIOGRAPHICAL PAGE - DOES THAT NOT MAKE SENSE? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.240.175.165 (talk)

Linden believes anxiety disorders do not exist nor should mental disorders be subjected to the medical model of psychopathology THIS IS ALSO UNTRUE. Each Linden Centre uses the Linden Method, which has been criticized as "cultic" and making "bullish" claims: Salkovskis, Paul. "Review of "The Anxiety Disorder and Panic Attack Solution; The Linden Method"": Anxious Times. Summer 2005.

THIS REVIEW IS OF A BOOK, NOT OF CHARLES LINDEN. PLEASE REFRAIN FROM ENTERING IT INTO THIS PAGE.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.240.175.165 (talk)

WIKIPEDIA GIVES CRAZIES, COMPETITORS AND MALICIOUS PEOPLE THE SOAP BOX THEY NEED TO UNDERMINE PEOPLE - IT IS DISGRACEFUL THAT THIS KEEPS HAPPENING TO LINDEN'S PAGE. YOUR COMMENTS ARE NOT VALID. YOU ALL SERIOUSLY NEED TO GO OUT AND FIND WORK IF THIS IS ALL YOU ARE CAPABLE OF. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.240.175.165 (talk) 19:23, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your response and comments. Could I just point out the remarks which I find most disturbing:

"Each Linden Centre uses the Linden Method, which has been criticized as "cultic" and making "bullish" claims."

The word cultic has such a negative spin which is unfair, a cult is defined as: a particular system of religious worship, esp. with reference to its rites and ceremonies; and it this definition which is most used. This is clearly a very damaging insinuation by someone who has never actually been through the Method and who was employed by a competitor and IS a competitor.

"The Linden Method is a life-coaching program developed by Mr. Linden. He describes it as the "holy grail" of treatment, and believe it to be the only solution, for anxiety disorders.[1]"

This is entirely untrue, I do NOT believe The Linden Method to be the 'only cure' for anxiety disorders, however, I believe that anxiety disorders can only be irreversibly cured by behaviour modification... the writer has completely misinterpretted my beliefs.

"The Linden Method has been criticized as a reformulation of cognitive behavioral therapy. These elements of mainstream psychological therapy have been extensively tested by the psychological community, and are not exclusive to his method.[3]" What a ridiculous and obvious comments which can only have been written to degrade our work. It's nota reformulation of anything, I have no training in CBT, nor would I wish to have! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.79.174.221 (talk) 18:04, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

If anxiety disorders can be only "cured" by behaviour modification, and you don't believe in CBT... Well can't you see the contradiction? CBT includes behavioural modification... From what I've personally read in Mr. Linden's own books, he also incorporates cognitive changes in the reduction of anxiety. For example, changing a person's beliefs about anxiety disorders. Of course, its not up to me to decide what is or is can be included, as that violates WP:OR, so we must rely on third party sources.

I'd also like to point out that the 'holy grail' quote is in his e-book, and his comment about it being the only solution can be found on one of his DVDs, and forms one of his 9 pillars. I believe it is pillar #4 to be exact... As for the reformulation bit, anyone would be hard-pressed to create a new therapy without using existing work. Any new psychological theory is a reformulation of previous work... that's just how its done.

I find it curious you refer to the Maudsley Hospital as a 'competitor'. Isn't the shared goal to help people? Unless of course the goal isn't to help people, but to drive a profit margin... then yes, I could understand the use of the word 'competitor'. Absentis 21:15, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Explanation

I don't know how many times these comments have been misinterpreted, but I will attempt again, to explain what is meant. You see, because you read these things out of context, you misunderstand them, which is exactly why the professor's 'review' is so flawed. These things make sense to clients because it is them at which this is aimed and in isloation, the audio, written and video material is out of context. Please try and understand this:

I do not say that Maudsley Hospital is a competitor, however, the professor, who clearly enjoys the limelight, was acting on behalf of an organisation who have opted to make themselves a 'competitor' rather than do, as I do, which is to join ranks and fight the common cause. They sent a representative to my center who was very impressed with what he saw and made very positive noises, adding that he would go away and write his comments; what we got was a criticism by another man, the professor, who wrote the review you refer to. He had the opportunity to work with us or against us. I must say that most of our clients are referred to us by healhcare professionals who have a vested interest in getting their clients well and not try to turn them OFF to an option which may have worked... it seems short sighted to close doors on your clients based on a limited understanding of what is on offer. The review went out to many thousand memebers of an organisation directly and probably spoiled the chances of any of those long term sufferers receiving advice and support which may have helped them, that is sad.

I also am not saying that my Method doesn't include CBT techniques, it probably does... all I am trying to get across is that CBT was not used as a reference when I wrote the Method... my personal experiences and realisations about the anxiety condition was what fuelled it. It may be that I use NLP, relaxation, Tai Chi and aromatherapy within the Method, however, they are not 'The Method' in themselves. You must try and see my point. My CBT sessions, when I was anxious, involved reading photocopied texts from CBT books and leaving the session having assured teh psychologist that I had understood them... that is my experience of CBT in a nutshell. If parts of my Method resemble CBT methods, it is mostly coincidental I assure you. The majority of our clients have been long term psychotherapy, medication and other therapy 'users', they end up with us and they end up happy, not in every single case, because compliance is always a problem, but we work to ensure that the Method is applied as solidly as possible so that the things which may affect the level of recovery, (distracting external influences), are minimesed in order to give the programme the best possible chance of success. We want success, we offer a massive resource for very little money.

Last point, and please try to understand finally what I am saying here and in my CDs, websites etc. The Linden Method is THE solution to anxiety, not because I wrote it, not because I have discovered the 'philosopher's Stone' or a new psychological technique, but it outlines, in laymans terms, so that it is easy to follow, THE same root followed, in terms of reprogramming the anxious subconscious to be none anxious, as all recovered sufferers have followed. The fact that I label my technique to achieve this as TLM is irrelevant; I am simply providing a roadmap to something which is achievable without it, but is unlikely given the lives sufferers tend to lead and the frightening and overwhelming symptoms which plague them and make 'decision making' and the simple modifications required so incredibly difficult. We support them in making the decisions, support them with trained specialists and provide a framework, structure and reassurance they need to make a fast and lasting recovery... and they really do, that I assure you. Our money back guarantee is there for a reason and it certainly isn't because we are crazy enough to believe that anxious people, having used the unlimited support and got well, are mean enough to get a refund regardless. The guarantee is there purely to reassure the clients that if it doesn't work for them, they loose nothing. Our business is sound, our sentiments are pure and our hearts love the work we do and yes we make a living, but so do psychologsits, counsellors, therapists, psychiatrists refelxologists etc. Do they offera refund if their techniques fail? Do they do unmilited sessions for 12 months for under $100?

Charles

PS, I don't make anonymous edits, hence signing all posts.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.152.178.89 (talk)

You are using an anonymous IP to edit, hence, the reason you're referred to as "anonymous". Also, you are not signing the posts, by typing four tildes following what you write, (~). This means your IP address does not show up unless someone places it there for you, and that is important both to let users know who wrote the post (signing your name could be done by anyone, as I'm sure you understand) and also to link to the contributions and talk page. I hope that helps explain that issue, and I'd again encourage you to consider creating an account. Cheers, ^Ariel♥Gold 11:15, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

• Hi, please copy here the parts of the article which are not verifiable and un-encyclopedic. I don't know about the method I just want to help Elmao 10:30, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Quote by Claire Bolton

There is an (unsourced) quote from Claire Bolton MBChB in the article: "Charles has worked extremely hard and has succeeded to pull himself back from what seemed like a hopeless situation and now he shows others how to do the same." The first problem is bias, as she intimately knows Mr. Linden and currently works with him. Her degree gives me pause, because I'm not familiar with it. Does anyone know if this degree gives her the right to call herself a medical doctor? Lastly, can anyone find a good reference for it? (I certainly can't). Absentis 13:30, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

According to MedTerms, MBChB: Bachelor of Medicine and Bachelor of Surgery degrees, which are awarded in the U.K. and other countries (such as New Zealand and South Africa) after 5 years of what is analogous to a combined undergraduate-graduate course of study. As a rule, the first two years of the program leading to the MBChB are designed to provide students with the foundation knowledge and skills that are required prior to their hospital experience which occupy years 3 to 5.. So probably entitles the user to be referred to as "Dr.", but the quote is unsourced, so should not be used until it a WP:RS is found. ^Ariel♥Gold 13:38, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Dr Bolton is partener in a medical practice. She is NOT working for Charles Linden, he is her patient. What nonsense.

WHOEVER KEEPS ADDING THIS DRIVEL TO THESE PAGES SHOULD COME FORWARD AND IDENTIFY THEMSELVES SO THAT THEY CAN BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE FOR THEIR ILLEGAL COMMENTS AND ABUSE OF WIKIPEDIA, BUT OF COURSE THEY WON'T... I GUESS THEY WOULD SIMPLY PREFER TO CARRY ON TRYING TO SABOTAGE OTHERS WORK FROM THE SECURITY OF THEIR STUDENT DIGS. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.71.250.82 (talk) 17:24, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

User:84.71.250.82, I would request that you sign your posts with four tildes ( ~ ) so others can identify you when you're discussing issues. I would also request that you review the core policies of Wikipedia, one of which is neutrality. It appears that, from your continual shouting (typing in all caps) you are have some strong feelings over this issue, and may not be able to remain neutral when discussing issues with other editors who may disagree with Mr Linden's method. I would request that you stop your typing in all caps, as it is considered bad form. Other editors have every right to voice their opinions when the goal is to improve the article, and are attempting to find sources to back up their comments. Please also review civility policy, and no legal threats policy, because you are treading quite close to being in violation of both policies. Please review these policies, thank you. ^Ariel♥Gold 17:51, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Dear Ariel Gold and/or controlling Editor of this page. This is Charles Linden. I would respectfully ask that the page about me be removed from Wikipedia immediately. It is inaccurate, abusive and the topic of what seems like vandalism and defamation by a wide range of people who should know better and would probably refrain from posting such material had they been correctly informed of the complexities and costs associated with defence of litifation for defamation.

I did not ask to have a wikipedia page, but when I was first made aware of one's exostence I was pleased. Now I am very disappointed that, it seems, my activities have given rise to such a dreadful barrage of accusations, lies and misinterpretations of my beliefs, by business and my Method.

The work we do at The Linden Centers is hard enough given the subject matter and size of the 'anxiety problem' worldwide, without having to defend oneself against those who's only aim is to undrmine our work.

I may not have formal 'medical' qualifications for work with patients who require psychiatric support and assistance, however, that is not what we do here at the centers. My material serves as a conduit to the level of support, assistance and understanding required to ensure that all of our clients receive the most inclusive and productive programme of recovery and it is 100% administered by trained, qualified and highly experienced staff.

I am saddened that wikipedia have allowed this kind of abuse to go on and would therefore ask that the page, as it now stands, be removed immediately unless I am allowed to submit a true and accurate version of my own life, beliefs and references without hinderence and without others, who think they know me better than I know myself, editing my truth.

Would you please see to it that this page and the current Charles Linden BIGRAPHY page, which is exactly what it should be, be removed immediately and replaced with either NOTHING or a fair and accurate account of my life.

Thank you

Charles Linden The Linden Center Nampa, Idaho. 1-800 480 4359 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.64.213.240 (talk) 20:31, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Dear 84.64.213.240, just to let you know, there is no "editor in control" of any page on Wikipedia. This is a global community, and every editor holds the same status. There are guidelines and rules to follow, mainly in this case, those that Absentis and I have been trying to explain, biographies of living persons, reliable sources and verifiability, but also one of the core values of Wikipedia, neutrality. Also, as we'd mentioned the conflict of interest guideline may come into play if editors are employed by, related to, or otherwise overly close to the subject of an article. Now, given all of those things, if a biographical article is created with reliable, third-party sources to verify the statements and comments made, is written neutrally, and is properly cited, and if the person is notable, then that article is appropriate for Wikipedia, even if it may contain items of controversy. I have again removed and/or hidden those comments that were not backed up by references, and from what I see, the article is much improved from a few days ago with regards to neutrality, and the few negative statements have references to news articles. However, I will investigate your request, and ask if an article's subject has the right to request deletion, even when an article may follow policies and guidelines. I offer no guarantee, and I request that you give me some time to get answers. As an alternate avenue, you may wish to look into the Open Ticket Request System, using that to submit your request. I realize that there have been some controversial edits that were definitely against the BLP policy, but both Absentis and I were attempting to remove these, and keep the article neutral, and in line with policy and guidelines. I hope you can understand, and appreciate the occasional difficulties of such a global project. Thank you, ^Ariel♥Gold 09:49, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to make a suggestion to Mr. Linden. I believe it would be best if you created a username, and used it instead of making anonymous edits. This way it would be easier to address your concerns once an admin has confirmed your identity. Of course, I'm not sure what the higher-ups will decide to do, so don't take my word as gospel. ArielGold has gotten the attention of an administrator, so the issue has been looked at. Absentis 20:48, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I have not edited at all so far and when I comment here I sign my words. Why has my picture been removed? Thanks for the advice, I will do that. What do I do about profanity on this page? Charles —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.152.178.89 (talk) 10:25, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

You're not signing your posts with four tildes ( ~ ) and it would really help if, as Absentis mentioned, you create an account, so you'd have a username. Regardless, The image was removed because it was deleted due to copyright infringement, per the deletion log: ‎ (blatant copyvio. taken from http://www.panic-anxiety.com/biography/ then mirrored. this website is copyrighted all rights reserved) See Help:Images for more information. Additionally, Wikipedia is not censored, so profanity is not generally removed, unless it is directed at a specific editor in a personal attack. I am still waiting to hear back from the bureaucrat regarding your concerns, but I'd again point you to the Open Ticket Request System as another avenue for you. ^Ariel♥Gold 11:05, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New section

I have now created an account and would like to add my photograph but it is not allowing me to edit the page. There are also statements on the page which really go against what I believe. How do edit the page if I am locked out? Charles—Preceding unsigned comment added by CLinden (talk • contribs) 16:33, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for creating an account, that's very helpful. Again please remember to sign your posts when you are commenting, by typing four tildes in a row: ~~~~ This is so others can see it is you who wrote it, (not just someone signing your name), and to link to your talk page, as well as to place the time of your edit, which is important as well. If you notice your signature is added above, after your edit was posted, via an "unsigned" template that I used. Click on the word "unsigned" and it will explain this further.

The article is currently protected from editing for new users, and Wikipedia guideline suggests you refrain from editing articles about yourself, so not to have issues with the conflict of interest guideline, which basically says you should not edit or create articles about yourself, family, friends or company, as it is hard to remain neutral and unbiased. Keep in mind that articles must not contain any original research, must cite statements with sources, and are not used to promote any person or company, but just to state why this person or item is notable in the context of a historical encyclopedia. What would help is for you to list here URLs of reliable, third-party publications that have mentioned you or the program. Note that your website is not a third-party source, and items that appear there should not be used. As for your photo, you'll want to review the image guidelines, and copyright policy, that I posted above. Are you still wishing for this article to be deleted? ^Ariel♥Gold 16:33, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, that is most useful and I really do appreciate your help. As long as the comments remain unbiased and factual, I have no problem at all with this page existing, however, where I have a problem is when people reference material simply because it creates a negative spin. There is a mass of positive material about TLM on-line and we have thousands of testimonials from 'real' clients who have benefited immensely from the programme, but still, the wikipedia editors have managed to root out the only negative material available, which happened to be written by a person assigned by a competitor to do exactly that. It is just a pity that the only review that anyone seems to value is such a damning and somewhat biased one. I have tried to make reference to other material but the problem is that the newspapers who ran the articles do not have the articles live on their websites, hence copies being posted on mine. If Wiki wants to provide a true encyclopedic resource for users, it must cater for material which is not sourced solely online; the internet is providing a license to spread untruths in a way which can be perceived as actual fact, it also allows people such as Wiki users/editors, the ability to manipulate fact, biographical or historical and hide behind logins and passwords. Clearly not everyone wants to defame, undermine or damage, but those who do, hang on the shirt tales of the good folks like you who only wish to provide a service. Charles CLinden 18:50, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I would like to note that it is not the general "Wikipedian editor" who have added negative items, but a select few (some of them anonymous IP) editors who add them without references. The majority of the dedicated Wikipedia volunteers strive to uphold the WP:BLP policy and the rest of the policies, by removing these as unsourced material. However, I'd also like to point out that things like testimonials, reviews on Amazon.com, and those kinds of things are not considered reliable sources, so even though there may be significant numbers of them, they cannot be used. This is why I would be happy to see you bring some URLs of third-party sources that can help to fill out the missing parts of the article, and to source the items in need of citations. Also, it should be noted that Wikipedia does not have an "online reference only" policy, and I think you perhaps are misunderstanding me. The issue arises from the fact that other than your website, there is no way to verify that those news articles did, indeed, exist. Please note that I'm not denying they exist, nor am I saying that they aren't valid, I'm just saying that it may possibly be an issue. I give you my word that I will look into it further. There are a significant number of articles here about items that were before the "online age" with some online references, and some archived material as references. And, again I'd like to assure you that the editors who strive to uphold the policies and guidelines here do not "manipulate fact" or hide behind anything. I'm sure you can appreciate the issues that arise from this global, open project, and there are bound to be some editors who do not have the same values, and may not follow policies or guidelines as much as others. But I believe if you look at the facts here on this page, you'll see that there are several editors who strive to keep this article neutral, and conforming to the WP:BLP policy, (Absentis deserves much credit for his constant vigilance) in keeping negative, unsourced material from being placed in the article. As for the one reference of your competitor, I honestly know nothing about your program, and had never heard about you prior to being involved in the disputes going on here. I will just say that it has gotten coverage, and the internet picked up on it. I will again review this article, and I'm also awaiting the reply from the Bureaucrat as mentioned above. I do appreciate your calm, measured approach, and your understanding with what possibly seems to you, to be a very odd system. But I'd also ask you to trust that the system does work, when it is done correctly, and this is what I, and Absentis, and others, are attempting to do with this article. I hope you understand. ^Ariel♥Gold 19:07, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

A couple of weeks ago, there were comments posted on the page which were dubious to say the least. When people start misquoting me and providing their interpretation of facts gleaned from my material, rather than actual fact and quotes by me, it gets messy. In the 'Career' section of the page, this is still evident - misquotes and misunderstandings which simply won't do... they don't misquote famous figures and they shouldn't do it to me either. This would be an explanation of the same material but stated as fact; quotes by me and facts from my book. This is my rewrite and response to the claims:

Linden has worked in television as a director/producer and has also written and produced training materials, videos and websites for health authorities.[citation needed] He also worked as a photographer and videographer before developing his life coaching courses.[citation needed]

In 1999, Linden opened the first Linden Centre, which provide his resources to individuals with anxiety disorders. These centres are located in the United States, Heidelberg, Germany, Mallorca, Spain and the United Kingdom, all operating in the country's primary language. Linden has developed written, video and audio products, distributed by LifeWise Publishing worldwide, a company owned and operated by Linden and his wife Beth. Linden believes anxiety should not be classified as a disorder, as this implies a medical model of psychopathology with which he disagrees. Linden believes that anxiety disorder is solely behavioural in nature and is caused and perpetuated by anxiety fuelled compulsive behaviours which are in turn fuelled by the cycle of fear and symptoms experienced by sufferers. Linden believes that although anxiety disorders can cause chemical imbalances in the body, they are not caused by them; and for this reason, Linden advocates a drug free programme of recovery.

Each Linden Centre uses the Linden Method, which has been criticized as "cultic" and making "bullish" claims, [3] criticizm which Linden refutes in defence of his Method which, he says, “creates an environment which undermines and eliminates the subconscious anxious reaction which causes anxiety disorders, whilst providing seamless support, guidance and reassurance to every client through trained and experienced anxiety specialists.” Linden goes on to state that "The Linden Method is a simple, structured and supportive roadmap for sufferers to follow which outlines the same pathway followed by recovered sufferers which enabled them to remove inappropriate anxiety and the behaviours which fuel them. The LInden Method is not 'cultic', it has no religious context and clients are free to follow whichever recovery path they wish. If they decide to follow the Linden Method, we provide support whenever they require it and encourage them to carry on with their lives as normal, as they had before the onset of their anxiety condition. Clients are encouraged to partake in just one programme of recovery at a time; so many people confuse their conditions and their recoveries by testing a variety of medications, therapies, treatments and diets simultaneously, out of desparation, which only serves to cloak the true source of any benefits which are experienced. By engaging solutions in isolation, a more accurate measure of the benefits experienced can be documented before introducing the next in order to expedite recovery; if this is interpreted as 'cultic', if it works, who cares!"

The Linden Method The Linden Method is a life-coaching program developed by Mr. Linden. Linden believes that the structured programme of recovery and support provided by The Linden Method which includes diversion, which he describes in the Linden Method Manual as ‘The Holy Grail’ provides the same recovery path experienced by all recovered sufferers. Linden believes that diversion, implemented correctly within the structure of a recovery programme, is integral in creating a positive environment in which the subconscious anxious reaction can be reprogrammed.

The Linden Method has been criticized as a reformulation of cognitive behavioral therapy and elements of CBT can be found in his and many other ‘self help’ programmes. Linden states that “The Method may contain references to a cross section of commonly used anxiety disorder treatments, but this is purely coincidental. The body of the Linden Method provides a resource of those techniques and treatments which have proved invaluable to myself and my clients during their recoveries. Because anxiety is ‘of the mind’ of course, there will be cross-overs between and references to, a number of therapeutic practices which have the greatest benefit during recovery, however, my Method is not a reformulation of any one technique but an amalgamation of many to create the most simple and complete environment for change and recovery” CBT has been extensively tested by the psychological community, and are not exclusive to Linden’s method.[3]

Thank you again. Charles CLinden 19:27, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Moving forward

What has been posted in the past is not the current issue. We need to look at the article as it stands today, and go from there. So I'll just ask you to review it as it is now, and realize that if there is a valid publication out there that does criticize the program, if it is properly sourced, and not defamatory, and not given undue weight, it can remain in the article per policy. There are a great many articles about people that contain sections related to controversy, and when they are sourced properly, simply stating that "this source stated this view", with the source citation, they are valid. The above edition is not the current revision, so it is not the issue we must deal with here. So take a look at the article as it is now, as editors have removed the majority of that material that was unsourced, and stuck to facts, not offering opinion or editorials, or original research. And anything in the article you see now that you've got concerns with, feel free to address them here. Thanks! ^Ariel♥Gold 19:40, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you ArielGold for your excellent explanations of policy. I'd like to make one more suggestion, specifically regarding the many unsourced statements in the current article. While the currently tagged information is largely uncontroversial, it needs to be quickly sourced, or removed. CLinden, you may be in the best position to have reliable sources for these statements. I've been unsuccessful in finding them on my own. Thanks. Absentis 20:24, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for that. The section which concerns me most is:

Career Linden has worked in television as a director/producer and has also written and produced training materials, videos and websites for health authorities.[citation needed] He also worked as a photographer and videographer before developing his life coaching courses.[citation needed]

In 1999, Linden opened the first Linden Centre, which provide his resources to individuals with anxiety disorders. These centres are located in the United States, Heidelberg, Germany, Mallorca, Spain and the United Kingdom, all operating in the country's primary language. Linden has developed written, video and audio products, distributed by LifeWise Publishing worldwide, a company owned and operated by Linden. Linden believes anxiety should not be classified as a disorder, as this implies a medical model of psychopathology with which he disagrees.

The Linden Method The Linden Method is a life-coaching program developed by Mr. Linden. He describes it as the "holy grail" of treatment, and believe it to be the only solution, for anxiety disorders.[1] Mr. Linden believes that patients should not seek medical or psychological treatment for the anxiety disorder but to rely solely upon his method.[3]

The Linden Method has been criticized as a reformulation of cognitive behavioral therapy. These elements of mainstream psychological therapy have been extensively tested by the psychological community, and are not exclusive to his method.[3]

The content I posted in my last post is a rewrite of this by me to explain my position. The BOLD typeface above highlights where assumptions and mistruths are present. My rewrite corrects my position on these.

The professor's review you refer to is ONLY present on a forum and not in an editorial controlled environment. The article was only published ina newsletter which was distributed to members of The Phobic's Society, never online. If this drivel is allowed to pass through the net, it opens the floodgates for competitors, enemies and generally unfriendly folks, to defame and undermine those which they, on a whim, choose to upset.

I will hunt around for some Linden Method reviews and post them here. Regards. CLinden 07:06, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, we're unable to add the quotes you suggest because we are unable to properly attribute a source. If you could provide us a reliable source for the quotes then they could be integrated. The Salkovskis review is not only present on a forum, as you yourself point out in your next sentence: it was published in a newsletter. A source does not have to be published online for it to qualify as a source on wikipedia. Absentis 11:58, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Absentis, the newpaper articles I have provided references to our from national newspapers, how is it that they cannot be referenced in the article? You will find them at: http://www.panic-anxiety.com/testimonials/press/ These are transcripts and scans of real articles.

The quotes I suggested are quotes by me, written and posted on this website. Do they require posting on another website for them to be valid? How is it possible for me to be misquoted and also suppositions made about my beliefs on the wiki page whiclt actual fact is disregarded? Sorry for all the questions, but surely I am the most qualified source of quotes that I have made, arent I? Thanks again. Charles CLinden 12:44, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Absentis, here is an on-line source for my response comments: http://www.panic-anxiety.com/lindenmethod-ethos.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by CLinden (talk • contribs) 13:57, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Here is another review: http://searchwarp.com/swa248574.htm CLinden 14:19, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Good morning, Charles. Quotes you have on your website, we can use when we explicitly state they are quotes by you, and attributed to a self-reference. But quotes you suggest here we cannot use, because as I'm sure you understand, we cannot truly verify your identity here. I am not saying we don't believe you, but simply for verifiability, we can use quotes on your site, but not things you post here. Also, I'm not sure that the searchwarp.com link is a valid third party reliable source. I will ask about this and get back to you. I will rewrite the article to reflect your quotes. Also, in the context of the article, keep in mind this is an article about you, not about the "Linden Method", and as such, that should not be given undue weight. Let me get a cup of coffee and I'll work on this a bit and let you know when I'm through, so you can evaluate it. Also, you will need to properly source and add licensing information to the image you uploaded, or it will be deleted. The notice on your talk page will give you information regarding how to go about doing this. Click the "You have new messages" Yellow bar at the top, or "My talk" at the very top right. ^Ariel♥Gold 15:06, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Updates

Charles, I have found some issues with the page you linked: http://www.panic-anxiety.com/lindenmethod-ethos.htm This appears to be a copy of (a version of) this Wikipedia article, and while that's fine, that's not a reliable source. What I'd appreciate is if you add a page (or replace that one, whatever works for you) with something like "Statement from the founder" or something to that effect, and place what your views are, your philosophies, and any other relevant information, so we're not confusing what's either written now, or in the past of this article, with the current requests. Would that be possible? ^Ariel♥Gold 15:21, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Of course. I just don't want to be misquoted again... it reflects badly on all concerned. Thanks CLinden 15:56, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

If we get you it from your website (without it being a copy of this article, whatever revision was up there) it will be original, your words, and thus, a valid self-reference when using as a quote. ^Ariel♥Gold 15:59, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

To clarify, specifically I'm referring to this item you wrote above:

Linden states that “The Method may contain references to a cross section of commonly used anxiety disorder treatments, but this is purely coincidental. The body of the Linden Method provides a resource of those techniques and treatments which have proved invaluable to myself and my clients during their recoveries. Because anxiety is ‘of the mind’ of course, there will be cross-overs between and references to, a number of therapeutic practices which have the greatest benefit during recovery, however, my Method is not a reformulation of any one technique but an amalgamation of many to create the most simple and complete environment for change and recovery” To use that in the "Criticism" section. And leave it at that.

I've removed unsourced statements, and unnecessary comments. Additionally, would you please respond to/clarify this passage on the website page you're writing: "Mr. Linden believes that patients should not seek medical or psychological treatment for the anxiety disorder but to rely solely upon his method.". Thanks. ^Ariel♥Gold 16:05, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Also, please clarify this statement: "He believes such individuals should avoid anti-anxiety medication and psychotherapy, and rely solely on The Linden Method." (i.e. Does this mean you do not believe in medications/psychotherapy at all? Or that you think your method is a good first step for sufferers to try, but that if it is not successful, medication/therapy can help.) Also note that I have no opinion either way, but I'd like to get clear what this E-Book of yours says, since it costs money to read, and the information at http://www.ebookexplorer.com/book_296.html is not clear. Thanks, ^Ariel♥Gold 16:20, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Clarification

Clarification of:He believes such individuals should avoid anti-anxiety medication and psychotherapy, and rely solely on The Linden Method. AND "Linden believes that patients should not seek medical or psychological treatment for the anxiety disorder but to rely solely upon his method.

I believe that using multiple solutions simultaneously confuses the sufferer and more importantly the subconscious mind. Implementing one program of recovery at a time creates an environment where results can be measured more accurately and the programme of recovery more accurately tailored to the individual. Also, physical and mental balance with regards to diet, smoking, alcohol, medication, other therapies are paramount. By see-sawing drug doses and introducing and withdrawing other substances and therapies, the client and their subconscious mind becomes confused and balance is destroyed; hence the suggestion to concentrate on The Linden Method in isolation once they have committed to buying and complying to the program... otherwise, what is the point? Sufferers spin around aimlessly trying every solution in a daze of anxiety fuelled desperation... stopping this destructive behaviour at the start is vital to a successful recovery.

I believe that psychotherapy has its place in many disorders, including anxiety disorder. I also believe that medication has its place but not in the 'curative treatment' of anxiety disorders. I believe medication can offer respite from the symptoms of anxiety but offer no curative solution. I believe that psychotherapy can be productive to a point, but will not be successful in isolation without structured, supportive, informative, accessible and reassuring input which supports and guides the sufferer to a full and final recovery; it simply doesn't provide this at such a high level due to resource issues and also commonly, lack of true understanding, (1st hand experiential), which produces the trust required by sufferers to take on the psychologist's words as absolute truth in order to halt the fear.

From experience treating many tens of thousands of people worldwide, I can say with absolute conviction that without the correct combination of devices, delivered in a very distinct structure, style and method, by the right people, sufferers do not make full and lasting recoveries. If elements are omitted, recovery is impossible. Those sufferers who have recovered with little or no external intervention are lucky, their life circumstances, genetics, environments and psyche all came together to produce the effect and environment that we try to emulate through The Linden Method.

Does that explain things?

Thank you.

Charles CLinden 18:04, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

That clears things up, yes, and I request that you post this somewhere on your personal or company's site, as your comments here must be verifiable. Also, be aware that this article is not about this method, but about you, so it is likely that little of that will be in the article, I really just needed to clarify the statements that were or are currently, in the article, and if needed, contrast them with your views. If you can post something original on your website that would really help a lot. Once you have the above information on your website (omit the items that appeared in italics as quotes from the article if you would), then I give you my word that I will counter any negative statements in the article currently cited to the Anxiety Times, with quotes from your program's site, without giving negative statements undue weight. Thank you! ^Ariel♥Gold 18:09, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

To me, "He believes individuals with anxiety disorders should avoid anti-anxiety medication and psychotherapy, and rely solely on The Linden Method" sounds like an accurate, succinct, and NPOV description of his beliefs. Absentis 19:48, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Absentis, this line is worded to suggest that I disagree with psychotherapy and medication and want people to buy my Method. That is not the case. IF people decide to use The Method, I encourage them to opt for a drug free recovery to avoid the complications of potential withdrawal symptoms. I only disagree with psychotherapy as an isolated resource because anxiety disorders require so much more than 1 hour sessions once a week and a handful of notes and/or homework (or similar). If people choose TLm over other solutions, all I do is to try to create an environment which makes recovery simple and attempt to build trust and client compliance - ultimately, we just want them well again.

Also, how did this get into the article? The Linden Method has been criticized as a reformulation of cognitive behavioral therapy by Dr. Paul Salkovskis in the magazine Anxious Times. Dr. Salkovskis stated the Linden Method is not evidence based, and has flawed science.[3]

This is ludicrous - the science is flawed says who? Not evidence based? Ask all our recovered clients how they feel... over 80,000 ex clients to date. What evidence can he present which proves it's flawed? This is purely opinion based on zero knowledge!

Charles CLinden 20:13, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, don't you disagree with them? I thought it was pretty obvious based on your 9 pillars. Pillars 1-7 says to avoid any treatment methodology other than the Linden Method. Pillar #4 very clearly says to use only the Linden Method.

I believe Dr. Salkovskis is saying there is no published evidence regarding the efficacy of your method. As for the science, I completely agree with Dr. Salkovskis. I've personally looked at the Linden Method material and found scientific errors of fact. In his review he said the science is mostly right, but flawed. Those statements are in the article because they are backed by a reliable source.

For personal knowledge, what research method were employed in testing if TLM worked or not? What statistical tests were used to see if the null hypothesis could be rejected? I'm sure these things went through his mind as he reviewed the work. His word carries the weight of expert opinion. He looked at some (or all) of the written material, pamphlets, and DVDs. His review is far from based on "zero knowledge". Lastly, I truly doubt you would like to get into an argument based on the qualifications one holds. Absentis 20:46, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

(EC) As mentioned previously, that line was added by another editor, I cannot tell you who, and cited to the Anxiety Times. Since I don't have a copy of that, I can't verify it, but as you mentioned, the fact that something doesn't exist online, does not make it an invalid reference. You've stated this doctor has disagreed with your methods and criticized it. Dr. Salkovskis is a professor of a well known university, King's College of London, and clinical director of the Maudsley Hospital Centre for Anxiety Disorders and Trauma. As such, his review (which was re-published on a forum, here, but a forum is not a reliable source, so the original source is referenced) cannot simply be discounted as someone who has no knowledge of the subject. Again, the article is not about the method, but about you, the person. I am not convinced that the opposing view do not deserve at least a passing mention. No therapeutic method is without its detractors and opponents, even the most basic or popular. This article is not aiming to promote your method, nor is it aiming to disprove it, or to criticize it. But if someone who is in the same field has offered an opinion, even if it is a negative opinion, then the mention is not without some merit. Again, let me state that the article does not give an opinion, or a commentary, it is attributing that view to the person who said it, and that is valid; you admitted this person did not agree with you. So this comment does not disparaging you, the person, or your program, but simply states that someone in the field does not agree with your methods. As for all the clients you have that love the program, I do not at all doubt there are a great many, but client testimonials are not reliable sources and can't be used.

Currently in the article there is only one even remotely negative line, that states: "The Linden Method has been criticized as a reformulation of cognitive behavioral therapy by Dr. Paul Salkovskis in the magazine Anxious Times. Dr. Salkovskis stated the Linden Method is not evidence based, and has flawed science.".

This is not Wikipedia offering a view, or an opinion, nor is it overly critical. It is saying that there is a person whose view does not align with yours, and that's a valid assessment, would you not agree? This person does not agree, and he's written about it (his motives for writing about it are not the issue, and have no bearing on the facts).

Again, if you will publish on your website a "Public statement from the founder" with your views, and beliefs regarding the above issues (medication vs. therapy vs. your method), then this statement can be countered with a statement from you. If you've already done that, please post the URL here so we can get that into the article as soon as possible. And if you have a better idea of how to write the one line Absentis offered, feel free to suggest that line here, thanks! ^Ariel♥Gold 20:50, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Two quick comments. First, the original reference to the Anxious Times review was added by another editor. Since that addition the Charles Linden article has been deleted, and recreated (so we've lost the record for which editor it was). Secondly, I do own a copy of the review, and as such I have verified the original source. Absentis 21:01, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Are you a phobia sufferer or one of the professor's students Absentis? I just wsh you had been there when the National Phobics guy was playing with my kids and telling me how impressed he was with what we do, the centre and the conversations with clients he listened to. The resultant review was the complete opposite to what was said to us.

Thanks ArielGold, I understand. I think it best that I apply to have my page removed completely, that way none of us have to waste so much time going round in circles. The professor's comments are not based on a Linden Method user's experience of the recoveries we produce, therefore it is flawed, in the same way as I would not be able to or qualified to review a solution for menstruation cramps or migraines - they are not aimed at me as a none sufferer. The professor's comments are childish in places, scathing and innacurate in others where he has blatantly misunderstood or purposely misinterpreted my meaning. He even stoops so low as to criticise my spelling... it's just so petty.

The most obvious problem here is that a psychologist is reviewing a self help programme, how many of them are there out there ad how many has he reviewed? His expertise is psychology, mine is providing an experiential guide to anxiety elimination through life coaching. I have read many books with which I agree, diagree or partially agree but it would be wrong for me to comment outside of my field and certainly outside of my personal experience of the condition. I have witnessed his 'advice' on TV, much of it's not what sufferers want to hear, that I assure you. Why don't they work with me not against me - perhaps then we can provide an even better resource for sufferers.

Could you advise on page deletion please. I have so much work to do elsewhere and this is just too frustrating.

Re the qualifications issue Absentis - do you really think that academia comes anywhere near the education I received as a sufferer of 20 years who found a solution, cured himself and then helped over 80,000 people? Do you think the professor has that level of understanding? 90% of knowledge he has comes from text books written by other people - most of which were also never sufferers. Dont undermine my position please. Certificates mean squat. He has neither done The Linden Method or talked to myself or my counseling staff - if anything is flawed, it's his research of me and my work.

CLinden 21:13, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I again remind you that this article is not about the Linden Method. It is about Charles Linden, the person. Whether Absentis has suffered from any of the problems you asked, is not of any of our concern, nor should s/he feel compelled to respond to such an invasive, personal question, and it is inappropriate to ask something of that nature on a public forum such as this. As for the suggestion that Absentis is somehow associated with the person whose review was not all roses: Absentis has proved time and time again, that s/he is driven by policy and guideline, citing facts and statements, and what s/he believes is not the issue, nor has it at all entered in during these conversations. We are trying to help get this article neutral, within policies and guidelines, with sourced valid, citations. I request that you do not ask personal questions of editors here. I will look into deletion, but as I said before, will not promise anything. There are a good many articles here that perhaps the subjects would prefer not be here, but the fact is, if they're sourced, cited, neutral, and state items reported by reputable, third-party sources, they remain. ^Ariel♥Gold 21:32, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Dear ArielGold, please see: http://www.panic-anxiety.com/lindenmethod-ethos.htm Thank you.CLinden 16:27, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New section

Why is this process so one sided? I didn't ask the question to undermine Absentis, but he/she said they have a copy of the magazine which is 'membership only'. Why then, if this site is about Charles Linden, are there statements about TLM? Could we please edit the page to exclude mention of TLM, the professor's review and anything else which has nothing to do with ME. Then, this madness would end. Please just edit the page to remove references to my Method and we can all go and do other things. This process is biased and does not allow fair response to negative comments and inaccuracies. TLM is a registered trademark, wikipedia does not have the right to use its name without my permission so could you please remove all references to it from the page. Thank you. CLinden 21:41, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually Mr Linden, trademark laws do not prevent us from mentioning your trademark, but only from using it to promote a similar product with the intent of misleading people. We are clearly not promoting any form of product, nor misleading anyone, so I am afraid that we have no legal obligation to remove any references to The Linden Method, as we are not guilty of trademark infringement. In addition, it is important to note that we do not typically delete articles purely on the basis that the subject has requested it. --Deskana (talk) 21:50, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Mr. Linden, Deskana is the bureaucrat whom I asked to come review this issue, and is quite right; AIM, Disney, and Got milk? for example, are all registered trademarks, and yet the terms are used in speech, on the internet and in papers, magazines, and other places daily, when referring to the these products, campaigns, or programs in non-promotional ways. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, a collection of reported facts, neutrally written, about a variety of subjects, regardless of if they were reviewed by, or approved by the subjects. You are free to use the Open Ticket Request System that I gave you above if you wish, but Deskana's reply is based on Wikipedia policy. ^Ariel♥Gold 22:12, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I have spoken to Mr Linden on OTRS previously. I can assure him that were he to e-mail OTRS again requesting the deletion of the article simply on the basis that he is the subject of the article, it would not be deleted. OTRS volunteers are not allowed to take actions outside of Wikipedia policy; OTRS is simply a way for newer users to get in contact with more experienced ones. --Deskana (talk) 23:29, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia and the trademark office confirm that "The owner of a registered trademark may commence legal proceedings for trademark infringement to prevent unauthorised use of that trademark." I have not authorised use on Wikipedia of my trademark nor do I wish it to appear here when I have NO editorial control of how it is used. IF my page has been partially blocked, it is no longer public domain and I can no longer play an active roll in controlling content. On the one hand you insist that the page is about me and not TLM, but then you allow criticism of TLM on the page from someone who has no idea of what the programme really consists of. It all seems very unfair and biased. If your intentions are to adhere to Wikipedia policy and to respect the intellectual property ownership of my trademark, please remove the references to my Method and the criticisms of it. Otherwise, please reopen the page for public editing and allow me to edit it myself. IF I were being accused of marketing through the page, I would agree to back off, but that is not what I want. Paul McKenna and Anthony Robbins have wiki pages which are clearly marketing tools, why then do I get hauled over the stones when I just try to protect MY reputation? Wikipedia is flawed in as much as it provides the exact same soap box which makes the internet such a dangerous place and will be integral in its downfall. Anonymity to attack and defame and offend without consequences. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CLinden (talk • contribs) 06:46, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Be very careful, you're getting dangerously close to making a legal threat. Secondly, you've said that you can commence legal proceedings for trademark infringement, which is exactly what I said, but I also noted that we're not actually guilty of trademark infringement since we're not misleading people into buying some product by misusing your trademark. --Deskana (talk) 07:39, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

In addition, I'd like to note that comments can only be defamatory if they are untrue, and our policy on the biographies of living persons is very specific about potentially defamatory comments not being allowed in articles so that only true comments that are critical of a subject are included so that we comply totally with United States Copyright Law. --Deskana (talk) 16:49, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Quote

Charles, I have added a portion of your counter-argument to the article, in direct response to the sentence that reports on Dr. Salkovskis' review. Regarding your request to remove any mention of The Linden Method: While this is indeed, a biography about the person, Charles Linden, such a program(s) developed in the course of one's life and work are quite relevant to that person, and thus, are included in such biographical articles. Additionally, neither of the articles you claim are "promotional" (Anthony Robbins for example) are in fact, promotional. They are written in line with the WP:BLP policy, sourced, with references such as the Federal Trade Commission, Puget Sound Business Journal, and a variety of other news sites. As you can see, his article also contain controversy sections. I hope that helps explain this issue. Thank you for the quote that can be used as a self-reference in counter of the small section regarding the review in Anxiety Times. The article does not currently violate any policies or guidelines, and myself, Absentis, and Deskana will be keeping a close eye on it. ^Ariel♥Gold 17:04, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you ArielGold, Absentis and Deskana. This whole frustrating situation has been a real pain. I hope we can remain friends. I welcome any communications from you at any time regarding this or any other issues. Charles. CLinden 18:11, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Charles, I would personally like to extend my appreciation in the way you handled this issue. When I first came across this article, it was simply during vandalism patrol, and what I found was disturbing, with a very long history of edit warring and non-neutral information. I cleaned it up, and the article was protected temporarily from further disruption. However, having your discussions here has helped greatly, and I am glad that this article now satisfactorily explains both sides of views. I thank you for taking the time to discuss this, and for your understanding of what must seem numerous, confusing policies and guidelines here. I also extend myself as always available, should you find unsourced or other material in the article that you disagree with, feel free to drop me a note on my talk page at any time. Thank you, ^Ariel♥Gold 18:18, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks again, it looks good now. The 5 DVD titles and my Stress Free in 30 Days books are missing from the page now. I believe they were there originally. Perhaps adding those would create a better impression of the work we do... I don't want to look like a 'one trick poney'. All take care. C CLinden 21:59, 20 September 2007 (UTC) By the way. I've got some great photos (my copyright) of the drakelow tunnels complex for that page if you guys are interested. They are a pretty unique look at these secret tunnels. Be glad to contribute them.

The photo of me that I uploaded is my copyright by the way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CLinden (talk • contribs) 22:00, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but you'll still have to edit the page to place the proper {{GFDL-self}} licensing information on it, or will be deleted. I realize this seems strange, but it is the copyright policy thing. Any image you upload, you have to choose a license for (free use with rationale, public domain, self-work with specified permissions given, etc.,) so I'd urge you to take care of that matter as soon as you can. Once it is licensed I'll add it to the page. (And if you want to upload other photos you've taken for use here, feel free, that would be very helpful! They just have to have the tag placed and an explanation that you're the photographer, and you give Wikipedia permission to use the images). Additionally, I'll look into getting the ISBN for your other book and adding those DVDs back, are they available for purchase from any place other than your company/website? ^Ariel♥Gold 22:09, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

ArielGold, the DVD's and 30 day book are all available from any bookstore, high street or online. I will add the license confirmation to my photo. Thanks. CLinden 08:49, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I have just uploaded the file again with the license. Thanks. CLinden 09:11, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Thnk you ArielGold. The page looks good. Take care.CLinden 16:48, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

If you notice, I added the DVD/CD titles I could find to your bibliography, if I missed any, let me know. Amazon.com doesn't have them, so I wasn't able to get full details. I'm going from an old revision which doesn't have a reference, so if any information is not accurate, please don't hesitate to let me know. I'll (Deskana beat me to it! Hee hee) Deskana also added your image back in now that it is properly licensed. Thanks again! ^Ariel♥Gold 16:52, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi again. Thanks again for all the work you are putting into the page. The DVD titles are in Amazon at http://www.amazon.co.uk/s/ref=nb_ss_w_h_/026-8821308-1870844?initialSearch=1&url=search-alias%3Ddvd&field-keywords=charles+linden+dvd&Go.x=11&Go.y=19 for some reason, they seem to be missing from the amazon.com database. I will sort that out. CharlesCLinden 09:07, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi again. Thanks again for all the work you are putting into the page. The DVD titles are in Amazon at http://www.amazon.co.uk/s/ref=nb_ss_w_h_/026-8821308-1870844?initialSearch=1&url=search-alias%3Ddvd&field-keywords=charles+linden+dvd&Go.x=11&Go.y=19 for some reason, they seem to be missing from the amazon.com database. I will sort that out. Charles CLinden 09:09, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

ArielGold, FYI, the international portalk for all the Linden Method sites is at www.stopworry.com. That might be a good resource to mention in links. Thanks. Charles CLinden 09:11, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the website. Its a better link than the other one. Absentis 18:50, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Archiving

I would like to archive the older, heated discussions for this talk page, leaving the more recent productive discussions here for a matter of record. Does anyone have any problem with doing this? I'll do it by hand if nobody disagrees. (For anyone who may not understand, archiving them doesn't mean they'll be gone, just that they'll be in a separate page.) ^Ariel♥Gold 18:31, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I understand your intentions, but these discussions have all occurred within the last few weeks. If anyone else came along they wouldn't understand the context without reading them. I know I rarely delve into the archives without an explicit reason, (and gaining context isn't one of them). Perhaps we should leave them up for a little while longer, just in case. Absentis 18:56, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

That's fine, and whatever you feel is an appropriate time is fine as well. It just takes me so very long just to load this page, that I thought it would help. No biggie! ^Ariel♥Gold 19:05, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Unsourced Statements

There are several statements in the article that do not have sources, and they've stayed there long enough. I think this information, if notable, will have sources (other than self-published).

• Linden was born in Kidderminster, Worcestershire. He attended the University of Wolverhamptom where he gained a bachelor of arts degree in visual media, and the University of Heidelberg in Germany, where he studied German. Linden trained as a photographer and videographer, and spent time working in television as a director/producer, while working nights on research and writing which culminated in the development of his anxiety elimination material.
• Linden is a social activist, working to prevent the development of greenbelt sites, and sites of special scientific interest. He is involved in the protection of Drakelow Tunnels, important geological sites, prehistoric caves and land works from imminent development plans which could destroy the site’s ecology and ancient monuments.
• Linden has worked in television as a director/producer and has also written and produced training materials, videos and websites for health authorities.
• He also worked as a photographer and videographer before developing his life coaching courses.
• In response to these claims, Linden says, "The Linden Method has been reverse engineered over a decade of treating tens of thousands of clients including myself. The program content provides a structured programme which supports the sufferer whilst reversing the formation of the subconscious anxious 'habit' which has formed. We believe that our clients receive what it is they require to become anxiety free again." (Quote was not found on the page "sourced")\

Until third party sources are found, this information should stay on the talk page. Absentis 20:09, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Innacurate Content

Absentis, I am shocked that you entered the 'description of the linden method'. That is certainly NOT what TLM is at all and quoting from the programme in such a way is misleading to wiki users and those who may benefit from my programme. This page is about me, not my programme, please refrain from entering unnecessary and inaccurate descriptions of TLM. Clearly, you or someone you know has a copy of the programme, but this is for the client's use, not as a reference guide to take quote from and post them out of context publicly. Your description of what TLM is very misleading and is a total misrepresentation of The Linden Method. Our clients have every opportunity to discover what the programme is themselves and receive a total refund should it not suit them. I would ask you please to refrain from discussing TLM on this page. Thank you in advance. Charles CLinden 19:54, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

(I believe this following statement, regarding the Salkovskis review, was meant to be placed on the talk page, since it was signed...)

In response to these claims, Linden says, "The Linden Method has been reverse engineered over a decade of treating tens of thousands of clients including myself. The program content provides a structured programme which supports the sufferer whilst reversing the formation of the subconscious anxious 'habit' which has formed. We believe that our clients receive what it is they require to become anxiety free again." CLinden 20:07, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Edits to the article are not signed. Absentis 20:59, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry Absentis, these comments were meant to be a response to the professor's 'somments'. I will add them without the signature. Sorry. CLinden 21:02, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Absentis, the 'description you insist on adding is inaccurate, it was written by a third party and bears no similarity to actual FACT. Why do you insist on doing this? You cannot misrepresent a product or person by adding inaccurate information provided by a third party. Please get content for this from MY websites or leave it out completely. Would I go to Ford to get a description of a Ferrari? Please see sense, that article was created by a competitor to undermine me. Thank you. CLinden 21:12, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

If I wanted information on a car, I would not seek out a car manufacturer. I would instead get information from an expert on cars. In this way, Dr. Salkovskis is a third party expert. This is why I'm using information from him. Absentis 20:36, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Description of Linden Method

Charles, while I understand your frustration, I'd still urge you to not edit your own article, but to request assistance here. However, I think I would agree with you on the section you removed, and I'm unsure where it came from. The following section was removed:

The Linden Method is a behavior modification therapy, combined with visualization and Tai Chi exercises. It teachers two "powerful" elements: Diversion which re-balances the sufferer's conscious logical thinking and subconscious habits, and the second element of correct breathing and posture. The nine pillars of the Method are a series of rules to guide behaviour. The nine pillars are to stop visiting your physician and taking prescription medication. Use only the Linden method and stop looking for answers to your problems elsewhere. Do not talk to other people about how you feel, or to rely on them for help with your feelings. Get rid of memories about your anxiety, and keep busy as a distraction. Lastly, do not allow anxiety to alter your life.

If someone can explain why this was added, I'd be interested in hearing it. The source cited is the opponent to the program, so I would personally think that wouldn't be exactly an accurate (or neutral) description of the method, although I admit I have no idea what it is about or how it works. I don't think it is important in the context of the article. I think that not only is it placing undue emphasis on this method in the context of the article's subject, but it is also unnecessary, and seems to have a rather "teachy" tone. This article isn't about the 9 pillars of this method, but about Mr Linden, and this paragraph has been cited by Mr. Linden as being inaccurate.

Given that, Mr Linden, if you'd like to suggest a shorter alternative, or if you prefer it be left out altogether, please let us know here. Thanks, ^Ariel♥Gold 21:15, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I wrote and added this section, since the article needs a real description of the method. (Not just an explanation of what it purports to do.) Ariel, as you yourself say, you have no idea what it is about or how it works... this is because the article completely fails in that regard. The description is sourced from the Anxious times review, and while the overall slant of the review is negative, I believe the included description to be NPOV. Albeit, poorly written (with the frequent use of 'you'. That should probably be replaced with "clients of the method" or something to that effect.) This type of section needs to be included, although rewritten.

Without the Linden Method, I doubt the subject of the article would meet the criteria for notability. This is why the article must place quite a bit of weight on his programme. If the current paragraph is inaccurate, then I would absolutely love to find a better (NPOV) description of TLM. (I'm not being sarcastic, I truly would like to see more third-party information on this.) Absentis 21:28, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I understand the reasons, and agree, but if Mr Linden flat out states this is an inaccurate description (and indeed, he emailed me to request I remove it) then I think this source would not be the best one to use for it. Instead, I suggest that you use the third reference in the article as a source, it gives a short description of the method, and is a reliable source that can be verified online. (The Birmingham Post reference). ^Ariel♥Gold 21:46, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

We should not acquiesce to the demands of any editor, regardless if they personally email one of us. (Which I might add, is contrary to the open nature of this wiki). The problem with the Birmingham Post is that it says very little of substance about the program. Example: "right actions, lifestyle and mindset" and "simple techniques to change a sufferer’s mindset and “disempower” anxiety" are virtually meaningless. Dr. Salkovskis is not Mr. Linden's "competition, as CLinden would have you believe. Dr. Salkovskis is simply an academic who was evaluated Mr. Linden programme and written a review. Ariel, I would encourage you to keep this in mind as I'm going to keep the review as the source (which it properly is).

Lastly, if CLinden believes this description to be inaccurate, then I would encourage him to provide a better description backed by proper source(s). Until then, I will rewrite and readd this description.Absentis 22:37, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Let me be clear: I did not reply to Mr Linden's email, so obviously I did not say I would remove the section. I simply stated that he had emailed me about the section, and that he felt it was a misrepresentation of his method. I came here to take a look when I read the email. Rest assured, I fully understand the guidelines and do not circumvent them. But if you add information that Mr. Linden clearly states is incorrect, then that is an issue. I read up quite a bit on Dr. Salkovskis, there is a good amount of information on that person out there, and the term "competition" is not mine. But if his "description" of the method is done in a way that goes along with his criticism of the method, and not an accurate description, that's where the issues lie. Care should be taken when re-writing it to reflect accurately the method. I would suggest combining what is stated on the official website, (being sure to clarify that "the official site states the method is: (description)) and citing it that way, with other sources, including the Birmingham source, and Salkovskis' source. Just my suggestions, of course. ^Ariel♥Gold 22:50, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Wouls someone please see sense. The professor was 'hired' by a competing organisation, which is a business like mine, to 'review' The Method. I gave them full access to my facilties and staff. They took the opportunity to write the review which verges on defamatory and is clearly vicious in nature. The article was then banded about as 'truth'. It is inaccurate and abusive not to mention very childishly written as an attack. The description is NOT accurate. It does not describe my product, it describes a competitor's view of my product.

Remove it please. Absentis - to what end do you add this rather than a true representatio of my product from one of my websites which would be an accurate source? It really does seem like deliberate sabotage. Wikipedia does not exist so that competitor's can 'slag off' each other's products. As an individual who is paid to provide a similar service or solution to a problem as mine, Salkovskis IS a competitor... he like me, is paid for his 'service'... his qualifications are irrelevant... he is a competitor. Does this not make complete sense to you? Please REMOVE the comments immediately. CLinden 02:55, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Here is an independent review of TLM for you to add as a reference http://www.selfgrowth.com/articles/The%20Linden%20Method.html

Here is a quote from my website about what TLM is -

The Printed Linden Method Manual FREE Conquer Anxiety & Panic Attacks DVD 7 Audio CDs 1 year of 24-hour email and telephone support Access to the Download version (free) Free Delivery Our 'better than risk free' 365-day refund guarantee!

Here is a quote from www.anxman.org of what TLM is. Please use - "The Linden Method has been reverse engineered over a decade of treating tens of thousands of clients including myself. The program content provides a structured programme which supports the sufferer whilst reversing the formation of the subconscious anxious 'habit' which has formed. We believe that our clients receive what it is they require to become anxiety free again."

The Linden Method is NOT what people's opinion of iy may be - it is a product, therefore it is as above.

ArielGold. Thank you for your assistance again. Surely a product is what it is and not an opinion of the same. A programme is NOT what someone selects from the content of that programme as an example of its content, that's opinion. It IS the sum of its parts, therefore TLM is as I said: Book, CDs, DVD etc. You wouldn't describe any product as what a competitor thinks of it surely!? Charles CLinden 03:16, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Okay, Charles, what you added was basically advertisement: The Printed Linden Method Manual FREE Conquer Anxiety & Panic Attacks DVD 7 Audio CDs 1 year of 24-hour email and telephone support Access to the Download version (free) Free Delivery Our 'better than risk free' 365-day refund guarantee!. I have removed this. This does not in any way explain what the method is. Absentis, I request that you not re-add that section that was removed, until this issue is worked out here. I think that a description of the method by someone who offered negative opinions about it may possibly not be a neutral, or even correct evaluation of it. And since the source is not available online, there's no way to verify it. I've again asked Deskana to come and help out, and I will request protection again on this article if need be. Charles, I again request that you not edit the article. I understand how difficult that is, and how hard it must be to see statements that are not true in the article, but rest assured that they will be worked out if you voice your oppositions here and explain in detail what information is incorrect. We've worked hard on this, let's not slide back into problems, but instead work together rationally and calmly. I suggest leaving the article as it is now (I'm unsure why the "In response" section was removed, when we worked hard to get that section worded just right, but it is replaced now, and probably just removed by mistake), and wait until Deskana can come to offer opinion. Thanks, ^Ariel♥Gold 03:23, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. What I really find hard to swallow is that Absentis is acting impartially. It appears that he/she seems determined to add content which undermines me whilst only allowing content sourced from a competing party to be present on the page. The independent opinions on http://www.selfgrowth.com/articles/The%20Linden%20Method.html is positive, why is this not a credible synopsis/review? Surely the description of what TLM is should be a description of the product, not a review of it! Thanks. CLinden 03:32, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Let's not comment on individual editors, but simply on content, please. As for the selfgrowth.com site, I'm not sure that qualifies as a Reliable source, but I've asked Deskana to review it. Let's wait to hear back about that, and in the mean time, not change the article, it is now in the form it was before this newest problem, so let's leave it that way until Deskana can assist. Thanks! ^Ariel♥Gold 03:37, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Section break

ArielGold, why is the selfgrowth.com material or Birmingham Post article any less credible than the professor's comments which was sourced from a public forum? Charles CLinden 03:42, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

The Birmingham Post article is definitely not less credible, and nobody said it was. Absentis simply said that the article did not describe the method, so wasn't being used to source the statement. As for the selfgrowth.com material, again I'm not sure that it qualifies. Reliable sources are news publications, magazines, etc., and are distinguished from forums, general infosites, or blogs, as being known to do fact-checking and sourcing of their own statements, thus providing accurate and hopefully neutral reporting of events or items. I'd like to wait to see what Deskana says about the site as a reliable source. As far as the Anxiety Times thing, I have never seen it, so I can't comment on that as a reliable source. I realize your frustration, and I just request that you wait to hear from Deskana. It may be a day or so, and I request Absentis refrain from re-adding that material to the article until we get Deskana's opinion. Sound fair? ^Ariel♥Gold 03:55, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. The Professor's comments were not publicly available, they were in a 'members only' newsletter provided by one of my competitors by paying for it (a biased product). The reference is flawed, as I have already pointed out. It is neither accurate, credible or fair as an impartial analysis of my programme. It would be akin to me making comments on one of my competitor's products and that being used as impartial material on wikipedia... it's ludicrous. I just wish someone would see sense and remove t completely. It really is NOT a reliable reference... its only mention on line is in a CharlesCLinden 04:42, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I'd be inclined to agree with you. Having only your word, that description of this reference (as a non-public newsletter) would discount it from being a reliable source, especially if it is not available to the general public to verify. I'll look into this. The reliable sources policy doesn't forbid non-internet material, obviously, but the source still must be verifiable to someone who wishes to go to a library to look it up. Again, that source was added long before I came into involvement, but it does not sound to me as though it would fit the criteria. Give me some time to sort this out, alright? And again, please know that I do understand your frustration, and I sympathize. I just also wish to stay within the guidelines and policies here, and sometimes things are not immediate, so I apologize for not being able to instantly solve this issue. Thank you for understanding, ^Ariel♥Gold 04:47, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

As you will see here: http://www.phobics-society.org.uk/shop.php The internal newsletter was available to buy. The 'description' of TLM contained within this material is inaccurate but also biased. If you asked me to describe The TV series '24' I wouldn't say, it's about a car that crashes... whilst there may be a crashed car in the series, that is not what the series is about. TLM, similarly, is not the 9 pillars nore any other portion of the whole... it is the whole. The biased view from that material is an opinion, not fact. I sincerely thank you for your assistance. Charles CLinden 05:59, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

As a matter of record, I do own a copy of the Anxious Times review. In that way, I have verified its contents. CLinden, as you yourself so generously pointed out, the review is not available on a public forum, but online for purchase. As for sources, I cite academic journals all the time on wikipedia. The public has limited access to them, and they are not always available online. Yet they are considered one of the best sources on WP. In a broader sense, I'm not quite sure what you disagree with in the description. TLM does seek to modify behaviour, correct? And you do have Tai Chi exercises, as well as 9 pillars, correct? I'm sure there are elements of the program that I've left out, so feel free to add them. The issue here is that the article needs a description of what the method does... not what the package contains.

I've looked at the http://selfgrowth.com/ website, and it seems like nothing more than blatant self advertisement. Just take a look on the left hand side of the website, where you will see 'submit your articles' and 'submit your website' options... There's no way I'm going to allow this website to be a source in the article. Absentis 13:25, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Absentis, I hope you know that I respect you, but I believe that your reasoning here is quite flawed. Scientific, academic, and peer-review journals are indeed, highly respected and used quite often as references. But they are all widely available to the public in nearly every major library, and most larger university libraries. Second, the Anxious Times is neither an academic, nor a scientific journal, it would seem to be simply a newsletter published by the clinic that Salkovskis is part of, and is not available in libraries for verification. I think this is obviously not a reliable source. I suggest that between the two of you, you arrive at a description of the Method that is accurate, and if need be, use the Method's site as a reference, making sure you state "As described by the founder, the Method is:". The goal is not to describe the Method in detail, but simply to explain some of the basic concepts to give an idea of the method's overview. ^Ariel♥Gold 21:19, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

This is my description of what The Linden Method is:

As described by the founder Charles Linden, "The Linden Method is a structured, reassuring, informative and supportive anxiety, panic attacks, phobias and OCD self help methodology which was initially developed in order to address my own anxiety disorder. A targeted combination of educational material, reassurance, support, guidance and structure create a positive environment of recovery. The Linden Method pack provides a simple to use framework whilst the support programme provides the seamless guidance, support and reassurance required by sufferers if, or when, it is required in order to experience permanent change. The Linden Method pack includes, Charles Linden's story, The anatomy of anxiety, The Nine Pillars, dietary, breathing and exercise advice and much more advice information and practical tips for overcoming anxiety. Included in The Linden Method are a number of CDs containing a variety of audio files including, talks by Charles Linden, relaxation exercises and visualizations. Charles Linden's 'Conquer Anxiety and Panic Attacks' DVD is also included. The Linden Method provides support with trained counselors and psychologists to all clients." END

Absentis and ArielGold: What TLM is NOT, is one singled out part of the whole. The programme has developed to include every element, nothing is surplus to requirements, all elements are there for a reason and removal of a single element makes the 'whole' less effective. The Linden Method is not as the professor describes, he has never had access to some important elements, nore has he 'used' The Method as a whole or as a sufferer... you cannot review a car by studying its wheels, unless you drive around in it, you are just a wheel kicker!! This is especially relevant if you are a non-driver! If The Method is reviewed fairly by a complyant anxiety sufferer, it would be in context; if it reviewed with regard to its effectiveness by a non suffering academic with incomplete access to all material, it is a fatally flawed and biased review. I agree wholeheartedly, the review should not be a reference on this page or elsewhere, there are elements which are blatant lies, especially the sections which are supposed to be quotes by me... they are not! In addition, the titles he gives his account of the Nine Pillars are fictional, but are also quoted as fact. The whole thing is childish and monstrous.

Absentis, you ask for an explanation of what The Method does, well here it is, as my truth. "Complying clients report massive improvements in their anxiety levels within a short period of time, some within just a few days. Most complying clients report complete anxiety elimination having followed our structured programme and utilised the support programme as recommended. The combination of elements which make up The Linden Method produces dramatic changes in the perception and impact of inappropriate anxiety on the sufferer; this in turn provides the foundation on which complete and permanent recovery is built and created" CLinden 23:07, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Source? (WP:OR or primary sources won't cut it.) Absentis 00:29, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

This is where Wikipedia falls over. I am the horses mouth! And yet, I am an unreliable source for an explanation of what I am all about. IF I provide this material on one of my websites, is it unreliable as a statement by me? The concept is ludicrous. Why the abrupt questioning style? —Preceding unsigned comment added by CLinden (talk • contribs) 10:14, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Please see: http://www.anxman.org/the-linden-method.asp as source for the explanation I have provided.

Please remove any references to The professor's review for reasons outlined by ArielGold and I. Thank you. CLinden 10:23, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Passage removed

The following item was removed, and I've placed it back into the article, as it is was in the Birmingham Post article, all along:

• Linden was born in Kidderminster, Worcestershire. "Kidderminster-born Charles Linden" ^Ariel♥Gold 21:48, 3 October 2007 (UTC)