Talk:Ganas/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Major Edit

I am just finished a major edit, there was a ridiculous amount of unsubstantiated allegations that even the news papers were avoiding saying themselves See WP:NOTSCANDAL. Not to mention some major WP:SYNTH and WP:OR that were outright WP:BLPGROUP violations along with some very POV statements. We have current members here reading this right? Can some one provide a source on what happened with Gross 2007 lawsuit? I am probably going to do some more cleaning on this later. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 04:33, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

I very much object and the last section does not make sense. Will work more on it later, right now it's time for football! Eroberer (talk) 18:00, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

It's a bit confusing but I can basically follow it. Maybe clarify that the sentence that starts "She was wrongfully accused" is the opinion of Johnson's attorney. The second-to-last sentence ("Gross claimed after requesting...") should probably be split into two sentences. Are we talking about a physical newsletter or an electronic newsletter? And in general, there seem to be too many commas.

Beyond this, I guess you could consider holding off on further editing of this section, but I don't see why you couldn't work on other sections. Arguably there's no way to know whether current members are reading; I probably don't need to explain to someone with your username that different cultures are different. Taisha24 (talk) 18:45, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

We had a user who claimed to be member posting alot here till about a month ago So I am leaving that note for him/her.

I addressed a number of NPOV violations that is all. Further Clean up may occur The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 02:37, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Eroberer's Response

Resident, your conjecture that Gross left because of the shooting is unwarranted. He claims he was "booted out" in Oct 2007, before the trial or lawsuits. I'd say the booting was the cause of his departure according to his own words. The summary including allegations was agreed upon by several editors so I'm restoring it.

Also changed first para of History to include results of investigation, not fair to mention investigation without results. More to come.

Resident what do you consider substantiated? At least 3 former members have alleged sexual misconduct and (attempted) arranged green card marriages. That's all the confirmation newspapers require, what is your criteria, legal conviction? And are you willing to discuss things here, as there are several editors involved. If not I'll seek mediation, but let me just say yet again, neutrality as defined by Wikipedia means ALL major viewpoints are represented, not all controversy is eliminated! Eroberer (talk) 14:58, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I would expect some sort of investigation by Authorities. As these are mere allegations of a very serious nature, which may or may not be true. NYP even is careful to word their article so any lawsuits it come back on these individuals not the Post. Per, WP:GRAPEVINE, WP:NOTSCANDAL, WP:UNDUE it seem inappropriate to keep the drug and immigration allegations in the article. remember this a Text book case for WP:BLPGROUP and thus should treat any allegations under the WP:BLP rubric The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 19:29, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

WP:BLP scolds many times about unsourced or poorly sourced material but that's not the case here, and allegations are labeled as such. I'll agree to omit the drug allegations as only one person mentioned that, but the immigration stuff is mentioned by at least three and stays in. It's absurd to expect any investigation by authorities over that, would never happen even in current climate. Eroberer (talk) 22:17, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Properly Sourced material can be just as troubling depending on how its presented and such. We also have to be careful how the sources utilize such material. This Source seems to be the only one that mentions the accusation. The Total lack of context makes me skeptical of the claim and the way the Post is so carful in its wording it. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 23:19, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

RA, the temperature can be a bit high, but I for one think it's great that you're participating here at Ganas and Talk:Ganas. Let's continue to work on the summary. Taisha24 (talk) 18:30, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

lol, its quite low overall me thinks The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 19:29, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Sheesh, RA hangs out a lot at the Administrator's noticeboards – you have no idea, Taisha! ;) WikiDao ☯ 20:01, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Indeed ANI brought me here, this has been on my to do list for a while. A member of group raised concerns about the neutrality of this article. We have to remember unlike Walmart or Shell which are Transnational Corps. Any thing on here has a strong affect on 90 individuals member of this extended family thus proper balance is critically needed. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 23:19, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

about the Johnson trial

This isn't urgent, but I may have some info about why Johnson was acquitted so quickly. The sources are things like comments made on articles at the local Staten Island news website, so it isn't immediately obvious how to include the info in the article. Still, it seems like an interesting question and possibly worth exploring. Taisha24 (talk) 20:40, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Comments would definitely be a poor source, but maybe there are others. What is the info you have? Eroberer (talk) 21:12, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Comments by just random people at that site, you mean? Yeah, that's probably not going to do it for a WP:BLP issue. The requirement for reliable sources is stronger for controversial information about living people than for any other single issue at WP. Still, I'd be interested in seeing the comments you are referring to if you have a link to that. WikiDao ☯ 21:42, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I guess I'd probably "cite" [1], second sentence of second comment by "krypton2000". Also, I see that there is a mechanism for flagging comments as "inappropriate", and that the first sentence of the same comment includes obscene language. So I guess I'll go ahead and quote the second sentence here, lest the comment disappear: "It wouldn't matter if there was a signed confession the jury would still not believe Jeff Gross." Taisha24 (talk) 17:15, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Whoa, it really isn't urgent and I like the low temperature. RA, was that a physical newsletter or an electronic newsletter? Taisha24 (talk) 22:42, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Source didnt specify, it was implied online but I was unsure thus I kept as the source specified a Newsletter. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 23:03, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Source does specify. "He also alleges his schedule was made public on a Ganas weekly Internet newsletter, despite his protests." This puzzles me as I am not aware of online newsletter. Can anyone clarify? Taisha24 (talk) 23:08, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

my mistake then, I have no idea how its published or distributed. Though its not uncommon for such groups to have and internal news letter and even more common for them to send out news letters to associates or "friends of the movement" The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 23:22, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

To expand on this, I think I understand why there is a large (~$20 mil) case against Johnson. I could understand a "small" , say ~$1 mil case , against Ganas, if it isn't exactly clear whether he left voluntarily or was kicked out. I don't understand lumping them together, if that's what the current revision is doing. But here's what I'm really trying to understand: a previous revision suggested to me that there is a "large" (~$20 mil) case against Ganas, as if they are somehow responsible for the shooting. But what is the case? If it involves a newsletter, what newsletter? I remember a physical newsletter, but can't understand how it could have been used to broadcast Gross's whereabouts without provoking widespread outrage. Was there an e-newsletter circa 2006? Taisha24 (talk) 23:28, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

The shooting occurs, he sues them for not ensuring his safety their pertty interrelated to me. (and jumping topics) LOL in 2006 its feasible there was E-newsletter as the internet has been in widespread use for most of the past decade. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 23:36, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Gross has two suits against Ganas, one for $1 million and one for $20 million. We don't know if the newsletter really broadcast his whereabouts, that's just his claim. He's yet to prove it. Interestingly, the suit states that Gross and Ganas were in financial dispute BEFORE the shooting. Hmmmm....Eroberer (talk) 23:41, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

OK. But be careful per WP:BLP. I don't know if you realized it, but you just implied that Gross is lying. Taisha24 (talk) 23:48, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Removal of Removing negative WP:OR, WP:SYNTH, WP:NPOV violations

I have removed this from the article once again the edit summary said "See Talk" i waited twenty minutes before reverting to wait for an explanation. Lets discuss these items here shall We? The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 01:14, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Well I was busy working on it. Still am finding sources so please be patient.

I don't think I can find an exact reference for the first two sentences, but that is what allied member means. Is that negative or POV? I know that ANYONE involved with intentional community will stridently deny that it is a PC substitute for commune! And many insist on the distinction. This is a controversy section, if some of it sounds negative, well that's often the nature of controversy. Eroberer (talk) 01:33, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

So, I expanded the Controversy section. Put in a boatload of refs but will look for more later. I see no harm in noting that many people see Ganas as involved in therapy, mistakenly or otherwise. I modeled this section after an Encyclopedia Brittanica article on Scientology, which discusses controversy after a long explanation of the religion. So I think that's pretty righteous! Eroberer (talk) 02:20, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Eroberer, I've reverted an edit of yours on this very page (as part of this change). Said edit affected the meaning of your message and of my reply to it. I'm sure that wasn't your intention, and I'll go ahead and continue participating in the discussion. (Side note: I made a request for protection of the article, but maybe that was overhasty. I guess I'll cancel that request soon, if it continues to feel like it may not have been necessary.)

OK, so back to "normal talk page stuff".

First of all, it's unclear what in heaven's name do you mean by "righteous". A typical definition is "characterized by or proceeding from accepted standards of morality or justice". What does that have to do with anything we've been talking about? ?

Never mind, let's focus on the article. The critical stuff is better than I might have expected; it would be nice if you'd put similar effort and care into other sections. Let's see. I object to the way the word "communism" is used. I agree that the nice people at places like Twin Oaks care about these nuances of language. The last sentence doesn't quite scan, in my opinion. It also isn't clear to me that this section still needs expansion. Beyond this, I can't personally be sure that anything is wrong with it.

Separately, I have no violent objection to the business section's new title, but it seems highly probable to me that the Ganas Food Company is just an unrelated LLC that happens to have the same name. Taisha24 (talk) 16:25, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Ganas Food Co. has same address and people as Ganas Community, look at the source. I meant righteous in the slang sense of the word, how about a little humor? And please don't revert my talk page comments, I have no trouble getting my own self in trouble. Eroberer (talk) 21:03, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

But the real comment is practically the only thing you've ever said that sounds like normal English. It's even rather graceful. See processing fluency (specifically how it relates to truth judgments). Taisha24 (talk) 22:23, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Say what? Again, PLEASE do not alter my comments on this page! They are, after all, mine. Eroberer (talk) 22:36, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

We are making progress

We're making a lot of progress on this article lately.
Thanks for helping get things going with your edits recently, Resident.
Eroberer, you're doing fine, your contributions are generally quite good, even if they may verge at times into WP:OR territory. I'm confident that any errors you may have made recently have been in good faith. Please continue. (I mean, with your contributions -- though with preferably fewer GF "errors"! ;)
Taisha24, there is not anything like sufficient reason to protect this page, and in any case that is not done in a way that would prevent only Eroberer from editing it (re. your request for page protection). There are at least three fairly experienced editors with an eye on this article right now; rest assured we'll keep things honest here. ;) And also, again, please do not refactor others' talk-page comments.
Good job, though, folks – let's keep it going! WikiDao ☯ 02:31, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, I think we're being generous about good faith but I guess the circumstances are unusual. It would be satisfying to see the record as I remember it, but I guess anyone who really cares can look for him or herself. As I've said before, activity from people with stronger Ganas conections is always welcome. Right now I'm catching up on RA / Eroberer threads that I'd missed and which are outside my experience. I guess I'll probably take a break or work on relatively minor things. I'm still looking to add a picture of the bookstore -- just haven't been able to find one. Taisha24 (talk) 16:05, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

You can google "Every Thing Goes Book Cafe" (and variations on that), but you have to be very careful about licensing!

I have emailed the copyright holder of a good pic at Flikr to request that it be licensed for use in this article.

If you really want to, you could go take a picture yourself if you're ever in the area and upload it to commons licensed appropriately for use here, Taisha. (Doing that is one of the few things at WP that is really like permissible "original research";). WikiDao ☯ 20:09, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I got permission to use this image, just waiting for confirmation by Commons:OTRS before putting it in the article. Good idea, Taisha! :) WikiDao ☯ 21:22, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, that's a great picture. It would be nice to start cleaning up the history section at this point, and splitting out GROW as dm suggested. I'm too tired to think about it myself right now, but maybe soon. Taisha24 (talk) 23:26, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Tasks

Just thought I'd make a task list. Feel free to edit it. Taisha24 (talk) 23:58, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

1. split out GROW
2. clean up history
3. clean up culture
4. expand culture
5. clean up shooting and fallout

I am really tired though. I think I need a real break. Bye. Taisha24 (talk) 00:34, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Business Section Expansion

As Ganas operates as a non-profit I gave some details about their income, which IRS requires to be available to the public. I must say I am opposed to splitting out GROW, as the background of Ganas' founder and matriarch is of utmost relevance to the community. What say you, editors? Eroberer (talk) 01:24, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

That was just something I wrote for anyone to edit or do whatever with. Please disregard, I'm not working on this article any more. Taisha24 (talk) 02:28, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Moving on

In connection with recent events that have been disconcerting to me, I would like to issue a position statement of sorts.

1. I retract any statement that I will not be participating further here. I might continue to participate.
2. I remind everyone that no one here is known to be COI-free.
3. I recently edited a comment of WikiDao's on this page. This was done in good faith and I thought that WikiDao would not object. However, I was wrong, and WikiDao was within his or her rights to revert that edit. I apologize for my part in any misunderstanding.
4. I also recently edited a comment of Eroberer's on this page -- twice. It is my understanding that this was proper behavior per Wikipedia policies and guidelines, and I may yet seek to have my preferred version become the visible one. WikiDao seems to be objecting to these edits, but I do not understand his or her objection. I request clarification.
5. It concerns me that the image recently added by WikiDao does not appear to have an acceptable copyright status and appears to be scheduled for deletion. I request an explanation of this.
6. In my opinion, Eroberer's most recent edit is not an improvement. I seek the opinion of other editors about this.
7. I am not an experienced editor. I generally request understanding if and when I inadvertantly violate policies and guidelines. To the best of my judgment, I am editing in good faith.
8. I generally seek information about where editors think we are, and what editors see as our next steps, toward bringing this article to WP standards.

Taisha24 (talk) 08:27, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

2. I have no prior (outside-of-WP) involvement of any kind with Ganas, its affiliates, or any of its members past or present.

4. No, you may not edit anyone's talk-page comments in any way without their explicit permission to do so; please again read WP:TPOC.

5. The image I added (File:Everything Goes book cafe.jpg) is from Flickr, where it is not listed as being licensed under Creative Commons in a way that permits WP to make use of it. So, per WP:PERMISSION, I emailed the copyright holder (Dave Cook) and received email back licensing it for use here. I have forwarded that email to Commons:OTRS; once a record of that permission has been processed into the system and the image's status is thereby satisfactorily resolved, the "will soon be deleted" scare-notice will come down.

7. You're doing fine, Taisha. (Some assumption-of-good-faith on your part[2] would be appreciated, too;).

6. and 8. I still think we are making progress. The article is coming along. It's an all-volunteer workforce here, though, so please be patient with that process! I think ResidentAnthropologist may have been on a brief wikibreak; I expect there'll be more input from him/her before too long. Personally I'm okay with Eroberer's recent edits; I understand that others may have objections. That's the way WP works, though: we'll get it worked out eventually.

Cheers, WikiDao ☯ 10:13, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I look forward to RA's return and I seek his or her independent evaluation of the status of the image. Taisha24 (talk) 17:21, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I left a note[3] at RA's talk page. Concerns about the image might best be addressed at WP:MCQ. WikiDao ☯ 17:39, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

On reading WP:TPOC and WP:VAN more closely, I retract the claim that my behavior was entirely proper. Still, I am unable to reconcile your reply on 4. with the fact that WP:TPOC states "Editing – or even removing – others' comments is sometimes allowed" and furthermore "permission" is only one of a long list of examples of when such editing is appropriate. So I'd still appreciate clarification regarding your interpretation of this guideline. Taisha24 (talk) 14:57, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Okay, sure, if you run into any of those other reasons for editing others' talk page comments, you might then very politely and appropriately go ahead and do so. My advice, though, is that you should just avoid doing that until you have more experience with how things work around here. WikiDao ☯ 17:39, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

It looks like the image has cleared. My looking forward to RA's return is now a more general sentiment. You can have your cookies back. Taisha24 (talk) 18:44, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Apologies, I have had some in Real life issues come up and am limited time to contribute till the weekend. Its a vast improvement but still has issue in my opinion but none require immediate actiona and can be adressed later. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 20:17, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Revised task list

If anything about it doesn't seem right to anyone, be bold and edit it. On the other hand, if it looks reasonable, let's start figuring out the routine logistics of how these tasks will be accomplished. Taisha24 (talk) 19:09, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

1. remove out-of-date culture section
2. remove dull middle paragraph of business section
3. light editing of criticism section (e.g. styling of last sentence)
4. cleaning and update of shooting and fallout section
5. longer-term subtle neutralization, principally of history section (maybe also criticism section)
6. truly minor stuff (grammar, punctuation, spelling, and formatting)

It sounds like RA at least has no objection, so I'll go ahead and do tasks 1 and 2. Taisha24 (talk) 22:27, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not qualified to do justice to feedback learning, because by the time I observed it, MG was almost ninety years old. I hope the material receives further attention at some point. Taisha24 (talk) 22:47, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I've done the amount of routine work that I'm planning to do for now. Taisha24 (talk) 22:55, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I think task 5 at least is important, I just don't personally have time to work on it right now. Taisha24 (talk) 22:58, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I guess I'll leave the neutrality tag at the top, even if some of the sections are arguably neutral. Taisha24 (talk) 23:01, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Why can't Wikipedia articles have lots of pictures, so long as there's room for them? Taisha24 (talk) 23:05, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Whaddaya know, I write something neutral and Taisha decides it's dull! It's not dull to people interested in the financial workings of intentional communities. What a real encyclopedia does is provide important information, dull or otherwise, what is the real reason you want it out? I will do more work on the culture section, the rules are not out of date, they should be included and this is a good place for them. Do you have source that safe sex groups are no longer practiced?

Taisha I'm not sure neutrality is your main issue. Again, neutrality as defined by WP means ALL viewpoints are represented, not everything is coated in sugar! It would be great if you could wait for opinions before making changes you know are going to be controversial, boldness notwithstanding.Eroberer (talk) 23:16, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Regarding your last comment, the tricky part is that one has to make a judgment call about how long to wait. Regarding the topic, I find those financial details to be both dull and unimportant. Do you feel they are important and if so, why? Also, my impression is that safe sex groups are still practiced, if not at all widely. I have no a priori objection to this information being included in the article. However, if there's going to be a culture section, it should be more than a stub, no? What other cultural information would you like to see included? Taisha24 (talk) 23:33, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I recommend waiting 3 days rather than 3 hours. Financial details are important because people want to know how communities/non-profits get (and spend!) their money! Don't you wonder that? Especially in this case because there at least two economic populations at Ganas, a smaller communal group and larger non-communal group. Didn't you have financial questions when you were there?

We're still working on the culture section and the article as a whole, be patient. WP moves at a glacial pace sometimes but that's the nature of the beast. If it bores you try editing other articles, it will improve your editing in general and give you a better idea what WP articles sound like. Eroberer (talk) 00:07, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Please take your time. I didn't wonder about Ganas's financial minutiae and I personally find money matters to be not-very-interesting in general. But I find cultural topics to be fascinating. You've probably seen Big Love on Staten Island. It gives a good picture of pre-shooting Ganas culture, perhaps -- if not the full insider perspective.

Actually, I think I know who this "Ian" guy is, even though he's using a pseudonym here. It turns out that he and I have some mutual acquaintances / friends. One of them characterized him as often angry and sullen, but I've also heard him called a capable man and a hard worker. It must have been a strange experience to join such an unusual group at such a young age.

Also, he doesn't seem angry to me in this piece, just dissatisfied and out-of-place. It's interesting to ponder what it would be like to start living a mainstream American life after so many years at Ganas. I'm more of a counterculture type myself, as you may have guessed. Still, it's a useful exercise to imagine being in Ian's shoes. If I focus on this, I can imagine enjoying football! Taisha24 (talk) 01:28, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I moved part of history into culture section and added an explanation of safe sex group, which I think is warranted. I'm almost satisfied with this article now but will do more work later. Eroberer (talk) 01:50, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Back to GROW controversy

I've edited the first paragraph of the History section again (as IP address 24.125.33.85, sorry). The "State Finds Quacks" citation still seemed to me misused. It still doesn't mention GROW or Gordon, and it seemed, to me, to be conflated with the NYC investigation of GROW in such a way that the reader would believe the findings of the larger investigation (such as quackery and sexual misconduct) also applied to GROW. I've made it so that each sentence seems to accurately reflect the cited sources, but I still feel that put together this may be a case of WP:ORIGINAL_SYN.

In fact, it's not clear to me that any of this belongs in the Ganas article at all. I suppose the reader is supposed to draw the conclusion that, after the investigations into GROW directly and into unlicensed mental therapy in NY generally, Gordon's New York career tanked and she left for greener pastures in California, where she met the other founders of Ganas. All that seems likely to me, but without a source it's WP:ORIGINAL_SYN. The cited sources themselves don't make any link between Gordon's pre-Ganas history and the history of Ganas itself. Schneck (talk) 02:16, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Well you're wrong. State Finds Quacks source for results of investigations which included GROW and other businesses as stated. Not WP:ORIGINAL_SYN, all there in the sources if you bother to read them. Reader is free to draw whatever conclusions they want, not told what to think as you would prefer. Sources can't make any link because Ganas didn't exist yet, not a reason to exclude founder's history. Would you exclude L Ron Hubbard's history as science-fiction writer, or Manson's history as career criminal? Get real. Eroberer (talk) 02:26, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I have read the cited articles, and State Finds Quacks (the December article) doesn't mention GROW or Gordon. If I am incorrect, could you please give a relevant quotation? It's true that City Looks Into PhD Use (the July article) does mention that the Attorney General was looking into GROW, but with these cited sources it's not clear that that was at all related to the other, and in particular which findings of the larger investigation actually apply to GROW. For all I know the larger investigation was only about GROW---but in the absence of a citation it's WP:ORIGINAL_SYN to imply a connection. I find that Eroberer has reverted my edit. I still feel that my edit is an improvement. Could another editor please mediate? Schneck (talk) 02:36, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I can have a look, give me a few minutes. Taisha24 (talk) 02:41, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

As for the link between Gordon's pre-Ganas history and Ganas, of course pre-Ganas sources can't make such a link, but that doesn't prevent a journalist or author from making the link now. But has anyone? If not this may be WP:ORIGINAL_SYN. I request the opinions of other editors on this. Schneck (talk) 02:45, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Hang on, all I've had time to do far is scan "State Finds Quacks" for mentions of GROW or Gordon. To the best of my ability to scan six columns of text, there aren't any. Now I'll keep looking at your discussion. Taisha24 (talk) 02:47, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Do I have this right? You Schneck claiming that this investigation by Attorney General J. Lefkowitz may have nothing to do with GROW. And you Eroberer are claiming that it definitely does? I'd say the burden of proof is on Eroberer. (but does Eroberer accept me as a mediator? I am personally acquainted with Schneck) Taisha24 (talk) 02:54, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I've restored Schneck's version per burden-of-proof and pending further discussion. Taisha24 (talk) 03:34, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I've restored my version. No I don't accept Taisha as mediator. Look, AGAIN, the article reads "Gordon, GROW, and other businesses in the growing unlicensed mental health field were the subjects of state Attorney General and city fraud investigations...The Attorney General's investigation found..." State Finds Quacks doesn't mention the name of ANY of the businesses, it was about the RESULTS divulged at a public hearing, not an indictment of any particular business. State Finds Quacks doesn't HAVE TO mention GROW because it's a source for the results of the INVESTIGATION. And please no nonsense about how do we know it's the same investigation. C'mon, read all the sources, what do you expect them to write, "this is the same investigation that we wrote about last week and the week before that and the week before that" - again, get real. They're all written by the same writer, does that make you happy?

And who cares if a journalist hasn't linked Ganas to GROW, what difference does that make, and how is that synthesis? They don't know about Gordon's past, why should they? Gordon is the founder, her past is relevant, period. You are going to great lengths to hide Gordon's past, not surprising since your are acquaintance of Taisha and probably been to Ganas yourself. I can see I'm going to need to seek mediation, I'm really tired of this Wiki-lawyering nonsense. Eroberer (talk) 03:52, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I could find no specific mention of either GROW or Gordon in the "State Finds Quacks in Mental Therapy" ref. I also read the "City to Look into PhD Use" ref, which mentions Gordon basically only as "the wife of Mr. Smith and also involved in GROW [paraphrase]". Having read both of these, my opinion right now is leaning much more than before toward agreement with Schneck on the points now raised in this section.
WP:SYNTH or not, I'm thinking this pre-Ganas material really may in fact be getting WP:UNDUE attention in this article. It deserves about one sentence, maybe two, with internal links to the Mildred Gordon (Ganas) article for anyone further interested in her history. RA previously suggested the possibility of splitting GROW out entirely into its own article; I remain neutral about that possibility, but if so then that article could be similarly linked for those interested in that history.
Ganas is neither Scientology nor The Manson Family, Eroberer – the founders of both of which are far more notable and far more covered by RSs. There is enough controversy in the history of Ganas itself without having to do any stretching or synthesizing of sources to cover issues from the early seventies involving GROW and Gordon, too. Because that history simply is not the history of Ganas itself.
So, my position on this issue now: Ganas' "pre-history" merits at most a sentence or two; the bulk of the material in the History section of this article should be about Ganas' history, as a group-living-arrangement-etc., after it formed as such. I will support any change in that direction supported by the sources and oppose (sorry, Eroberer...) retaining most of the history of Gordon and GROW as it presently exists in that section of this article. WikiDao ☯ 03:54, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
That is not to say that I am favoring Schneck's version per se. I'm saying most of what is in the History section right now that is in fact pre-history should be condensced down to one sentence, maybe two. History of Ganas itself should be expanded if supported by sources. WikiDao ☯ 04:00, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Could you comment on any COI and its relation to your fitness as mediator? Taisha24 (talk) 03:57, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Are you talking to me? WikiDao ☯ 04:00, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't know why you're asking that, but for some reason I'm not inclined to answer. Let me simply propose that we seek an external mediator via Cabal or Committee or whatever. Any objection? Taisha24 (talk) 04:02, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I came to this article originally as a WP:3O mediator. I am now participating in my capacity as just your standard-issue friendly neighborhood WP editor. WP:3O is no longer applicable because more than two editors are involved in this dispute. You may seek input from others anywhere else you like, Taisha. And, again, I have no COI here and would have long ago acknowledged it if I did. WikiDao ☯ 04:10, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I could imagine taking issue with "standard-issue" or "friendly" but let's put it aside. I'm glad to clarify that you're not acting in any WP:3O capacity. Taisha24 (talk) 04:13, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

WikiDao the section on GROW keeps GROWING because people keep making all these complaints that have to be clarified! Taisha has done us the favor of quietly butchering the Mildred Gordon (Ganas) article and I'm tired of your humoring her. Gordon's history is very relevant because she's doing the same thing, practicing unlicensed therapy. I'm tired of arguing and I'm losing my patience, I'm seeking mediation. Eroberer (talk) 04:05, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Great! I have no wish to be humored by WikiDao if that is in fact happening. Taisha24 (talk) 04:07, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

WikiDao, when you wrote, "I have no prior (outside-of-WP) involvement of any kind with Ganas, its affiliates, or any of its members past or present", you left open the possibility that you had some on-WP but pre-3O involvement with Ganas. May I ask whether you did have some such involvement? Taisha24 (talk) 04:23, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

The first I ever heard of ganas or had anything whatsoever to do with it in any way was here, on Nov. 25 of last year. WikiDao ☯ 04:30, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

OK, and at this point you're participating just because you've become interested in the subject matter? Taisha24 (talk) 04:31, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not seeing us at [4], am I looking in the wrong place? Taisha24 (talk) 04:50, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, I started to fill out a request for mediation myself, but it turns out Eroberer and Schneck would need to "sign" it, not surprisingly. Here's some text that might be useful for that. "Primary issue: A circa-1972 Attorney General investigation of unlicensed group therapy. User:Eroberer says that an organization called GROW was among the organizations being investigated, User:Schneck does not see sourced evidence of this." Taisha24 (talk) 05:01, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

It got quiet in here. Schneck, are you still here? Taisha24 (talk) 05:05, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, I guess I'll take the lead and restore Schneck's version per WikiDao's research and pending further discussion. Taisha24 (talk) 05:08, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I've also gone ahead and deleted the prehistory paragraph pending further discussion. This makes the beginning of the section a bit abrupt, but that can be fixed later. Taisha24 (talk) 05:21, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Newly revised History section

There you go folks, a "pre-history" in only two sentences! Sweeet!

I also slightly expanded post-GROW history, let's try to keep expanding that instead of cutting back pre-history to be in proportion - diggit?! Eroberer (talk) 00:05, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

One problem I see with this version is "got its start when...left [NYC]...due to Gordon's founding of GROW". No source that I've looked at so far supports "due to", i.e. I don't see a direct quote from Gordon saying "I left NYC because of...". We can only include simple facts (this happened, then the other happened, with DUE weight on what to include) or conclusions reached by others. I don't see support for any "because" wording, and I'm rather disturbed that the word "fraudulent" shows up when (as it seems) no actual fraud charges were proven in court. Notable allegations should be mentioned, but in the proper context. Franamax (talk) 00:30, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Franamax the "due to" refers to the investigations, not the reason for leaving NY. Do you find it worded awkwardly? This is the problem I run into when so many restrictions are loaded onto me. "Fraudulent" was the Attorney General's word, not mine. It was, in fact, a fraud investigation, which is a legal term - what would you suggest is the proper context? Have you been following the ongoing disputes we've been having here? Eroberer (talk) 01:05, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi Franamax, nice to see you looking in on this one -- we could use some input from more experienced Wikipedians about the content of this article (not to mention maybe the occasional authoritative word re. conduct from a Sysop, too...;).

Eroberer, I have not read your recent changes too closely. And right now I have to go out in the woods and build a fire. So, hopefully, you'll get more feedback about it from some of the others -- are you back around yet, ResidentAnt? dm? -- and I'll weigh in further myself later today. Regards, WikiDao ☯ 18:34, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

I was away for a bit, I commented on the points below that I felt I could add value to. imho, this article is getting closer to what I feel is its natural length. having more editors has helped the article. dm (talk) 07:06, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Criticism/Controversy section serious violations of WP:NOR and WP:NPOV

RA we've already agreed we're going to have a controversy section, it's not allright to delete the whole thing.Eroberer (talk) 20:47, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

FEC WP:OR

'"'Ganas has long been the subject of controversy, even within the intentional community movement. They are characterized as an "allied" (as opposed to full) member of the FEC[2] because they do not adhere to all FEC values, such as egalitarianism and economic communism.[28]"

This section here is a violation of Wikipedia WP:NOR as this is based off of some one comparing FEC guidelines with what they know about Ganas. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 19:32, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Agree – that is how I understand NOR, too; ie., that it applies in this specific example. And I would agree with RA's objection in any context for any article at WP; I remain, again, entirely personally neutral about this particular subject matter. WikiDao ☯ 02:53, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Agree dm (talk) 06:53, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

OK, fair enough, what about this instead: Ganas is characterized as an "allied" (as opposed to full) member of the FEC, as they have not declared any similar set of principals; rather they operate on four primary rules... and then go on to explain what those are. That's not so objectionable is it? I think the FEC has not made this clear on their website which is disingenuous of them...whatever happened to tell it like it is? The sixties ain't what they used to be. Eroberer (talk) 15:05, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with inclusion of Ganas being an allied with FEC, but to put it in the a cricitism or conterversey section as if it is a Black mark against them is improper. such material should be integrated properly with other material. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 16:02, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure it means black mark, but I think their rules are part of controversy, especially non-negativity. And this would be a great place to go into the group session vs. group therapy thing, in that it is required in situations of negativity. As to which group sessions are therapy, process, feedback or chitchat I don't want to do the work of differentiating, as my brain hurts from all the disclaiming and qualifying yadda yadda. Eroberer (talk) 16:24, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Its inclusion in criticism/controversy section implies that there is somthing wrong with it being only allied but not a part of the FEC. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 16:42, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

No that's not at all what I meant. I don't see that implication, does anyone else? Eroberer (talk) 17:59, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

This is why these things are get tricky when stuff is added in Criticism and Conterversey section. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 19:17, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Commune status

Despite that, Ganas is widely perceived by the public as a commune,[1][15][17][18] although only the core-group participates in income and property sharing.[18]

Once again We mention its an intentional community which is PC term for commune without the Hippie/free love/drug stigmatism The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 19:32, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Once again NO ONE agrees that intentional community is PC substitute for commune, you are the only one insists that. This sentence is meant to emphasize Ganas is not a complete commune, a point many have insisted on. It's not allright to just substitute intentional community because YOU say it's the same thing.Eroberer (talk) 20:47, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

I am well aware of Communal Studies, and have popped around a few I know no one like likes being called a Commune. I am also aware of the push for the prefer the term "intentional community" or even simply as a Community. Would you clarify what you mean? what separate the two? The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 01:38, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

OK you say no one wants to be called a commune. Too bad. The fact is, some arrangements are communal and some are not. However, some people are called a commune by the media and it would be well to call attention to the fact that they are not completely a commune. Intentional community is a broad category, commune is a subset of that category. Since Ganas has both communal and non-communal populations, I don't see the harm in calling attention to that fact. I don't care what Communal Studies says, or what the push for the preferred term is - communism is a small population at Ganas, and I think people should know that. It has many ramifications, not the least is the economic consequences of those not included in communism. Eroberer (talk) 02:29, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Four sources are cited right after that word "commune" RA. If the sources use it, there is no reason why we should not. The sentence is describing the "public perception" of Ganas and explains how that perception is at least partially incorrect. If you want to explain that it is in fact an "intentional community" and not a "commune" because it is not in fact "Hippie/free love/drug" and there is a source you would like to cite for that, then you should do that. But I do personally think we should mention how Ganas is publicly perceived (as a "commune") according to RSs, and then explain how it is not actually that according to RSs. WikiDao ☯ 03:01, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Agree part of the reason behind the flurry of articles on Ganas, even before the shooting was the amazement there was a commune on Staten Island. Hence the title of the various articles. I'm also ok with using Ganas's preferred title and explaining the difference. dm (talk) 06:55, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Ok riddle me this... Why is it a Criticism or Controversy? The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 15:34, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Taisha did that. I'm OK with just Controversy. Eroberer (talk) 15:53, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

But why is it either? thats what I am unclear on. If people perceive them as such what about it makes it a controversy The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 16:14, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Really don't know what you mean. It's controversial to Ganas, right? And us too obviously. Eroberer (talk) 16:27, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

I really dont care whether its included or not. I am trying to get to the bottom of what is going on here. Is it relevant that it is perceived as commune? I personally see the difference between the two terms as I have stated above trivial. I am not against that being included but what about it makes in critical or controversial to be included in the this section? Why not include it in the culture section with the other material? The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 16:54, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Wife Swapping

The media often characterizes the Ganas tradition of multiple sexual relationships as "wife swapping."[29]

This is derogatory term for what is neutrally discussed as Group marriage and safe sex groups The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 19:32, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

It's what the media says. This is (or was until you DELETED it) a controversy section, which as I said we've already agreed we're going to keep.Eroberer (talk) 20:47, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

We are not the media, we use neutral terms to describe things not loaded terms. We do not we find all sorts of derogatory terms for all sort of practices. We cover this above in a neutral way thus it is unnecessary to repeat that thing in POV fashion and call it a controversy. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 02:04, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Whatever we call it, this multiple-sexual-relationships thing seems to be a widespread and notable part of life at Ganas. It is discussed both sensationalistically and neutrally in the sources I've read. We do not have to be sensationalistic about it, but it should be in the article. Previously on this page, it was proposed that the word "polyamory" be used as fairly neutral and descriptive but there does not seem to be a source that uses that word. "Wife-swapping" seems rather antiquated and old-fashioned, and anyway it would appear to be something more like "partner swapping". But whatever wording is agreed upon, this topic belongs in the article, imo. WikiDao ☯ 03:11, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

The fluid non-pair based relationships are part of what drove the number of articles. It's worth noting in the article but I never liked the "sexual misconduct" or "wife swapping" language, not because it offends me, but because it doesnt seem accurate. Lets face it, Ganas is unusual, so we might not be able to use a single term to explain this complex social dynamic. In truth, you'd probably have to write a book to convey it, so we should settle for a sentence or two explaining what we can and then move on. dm (talk) 07:01, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

What about swingin'? Just kiddin'. But seriously, this is a good example of how this article keeps getting too long and confusing, what with having to qualify every statement with long, serpentine definitions and disclaimers and whatnot that no one can agree on and many keep deleting because it doesn't please them! I don't think we owe it to readers to explain multiple-sexual-relationships as fluid non-pair based relationships or complex social dynamics or anything else really, wouldn't that be the kind of original research or synthesis that some (ahem) keep objecting to? I know wife swapping is an odious, not to mention sexist, term to many editors here but it's the term most used by the media sources we need to reference. I don't think there is anything Ganas has written about it, let's face it they pretty much deny it exists. And I think using the term multiple-sexual-relationships to qualify what I explicitly stressed the media calls wife-swapping is pretty damn fair.

Also dm, I in no way meant to imply that sexual misconduct referred to the previous topic, rather to allegations of pressure for sex, marriages and indeed, rape. I think sexual misconduct is a pretty neutral catch-all word appropriate for the summary. IN ADDITION it appears RA wants group marriage and safe sex groups to stand in for multiple-sexual-relationships but that's not accurate, as the sources state group marriage is a thing of the distant past and I doubt readers know what safe sex clubs means. And again, I think Ganas denies they exist. Eroberer (talk) 14:56, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

I really dont care what Ganas Denies or confirms so i agree with that. But Wife swapping is a loaded term thus not a neutral term. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 15:41, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Serious allegations

Several ex-members have made serious allegations about Ganas, including that they are a cult,[30][31][7] that they pressure residents into sex and green-card marriages,[6][7][30][17][32] and that they practice unlicensed psychotherapy.[30]

This is what I have the most serious concerns about as these are unsubstantiated allegations. These are these are four year old allegations of Felonies that have never even been investigated as far as I can tell. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 19:32, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Not all allegations can be substantiated, too bad. And what are you suggesting is a felony? Serious allegations are just as relevant here as they are in Scientology article. CONTROVERSY section Eroberer (talk) 20:47, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Indeed too bad Operation Snow White is one thing where such allegations are have heavy sourcing. Random claims of Fraud are serious allegations and given BLP implications of this article mere allegations by anonmous parties that the paper makes efforts to not write themselves inline with WP:BLPGOSSIP The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 02:04, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Can you speak English please? I have no idea what you're talking about. Eroberer (talk) 02:32, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

I hope you agree, RA, that we are not going to try to whitewash any actual and notable and sourced controversies about Ganas. BLP favors consideration of "privacy" and strongly discourages rumor-mongering, but makes it clear that no matter how unflattering or negative something may be about the article's subject, if it notable, sourced, and relevant to the subject than it should go in the article. These allegations qualify for mention imo. We can balance it by calling them "unproven" allegations, or reports of denials of them by the group, but these are more than just rumors, and some mention of this should be made. WikiDao ☯ 03:22, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Two of the sources for immigration fraud dont even mention it any thing of the type. The proper thing is to properly balance and integrate such content. Review what we are saying versus what our sources actually say. We make these allegations sound like a systematic problem that dozens of ex-members have accused Ganas of. When in fact our sources trace back to the the fall out from the shooting and only it appears from one or two individuals made the accusation and one who was accused of being the shooter. With that in mind we should integrate such allegations into full context of what occurred. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 15:54, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

RA this is so tiring. The sources are for allegations about sex AND marriages, if you want to separate citations onto every exact word be my guest, but I think readers can figure it out. AND those allegations were made by THREE NAMED, not anonymous people, not simply the alleged shooter. AND no one says immigration fraud, they say pressure to make a green-card marriage. Re: context, that's why I had the shooting in the Controversy section to begin with, but YOU took it out. I'd be happy to put it back and probably will, wouldn't you agree it was the source of most of the controversy? Eroberer (talk) 16:11, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Agree. RA, the "arranged marriage" thing is notable and sourced, and again is part of the "sexual" aspect of the community culture. Also sourced. Should stay in.

Gotta go. You folks play nice, now, y'hear?  ;) I'll be back later today and will chick in to see where we're at then. WikiDao ☯ 17:04, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

My mistake, on the number of individuals named. I think removal of felony allegations that are extremely dubious would be the best but I realize that aint gonna occur at this point. I dispute their inclusion but we must focus on contextualizing if they are to remain in. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 17:20, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Your main objection to this is that the "arranged marriages" may have been (were alleged to have been) in part to do with the obtaining of green cards by some of the "arranged spouses", right? That is the "felony" part of the allegations that you are concerned about?

We could just leave it as "group-arranged marriages" as far as I'm concerned and leave out the green-card part (as we do in the lead). Even if we use the "green-card" part of that, which is sourced, I'm not sure that it was alleged that these arrangements were necessarily feloniously involved in green-card acquisition. There are finer points of the law here, I suspect, that the sources do not go into, so we should not SYNTH what is said in those sources with our own understanding of the law and assume they are "felony allegations" but just that the group was involved in "arranging marriages" for whatever reason (even if "green-cards" is the reason (one of the reasons?) given in the sources). WikiDao ☯ 02:20, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Law enforcement would decide what level of charges. From what I've seen, alot of prosecutions of this type of thing are brought in Civil court which would not involve a felony charge. I think we should keep green-card, that's what made it controversial - and true no one uses the word felony. Eroberer (talk) 13:08, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Personal Therapy

Ganas rules against non-negotiable negativity require members to participate in group process in situations of conflict.[18][5] The Ganas website states "We are not a therapeutic community" but admits that distinction is not always clear. "Ganas groups are often mistakenly thought of as personal therapy",[5] though their literature never explains that Mildred Gordon does not hold a professional license or even a degree.[11]

This again is WP:SYNTH form of WP:NOR. They Say "We are not a therapeutic community though this is common mistake" and then we add "Their literature never says he does not have a degree". IF they are do not represent themselves as such what is they relvevancy of the lack of degree? The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 19:32, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

It's relevant because people often make the mistake and Gordon has a history of misrepresenting herself.

I'm not going to say anything about your agenda RA but it would be nice if you would read the discussions we've been having on these pages before coming in and making decisions for everyone else. Eroberer (talk) 20:47, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

You are using WP:SYNTH to achieve such things. They are saying "We are not therapy even though some people think we are" than her lack degree has little bearing and is covered in extesive detail in the history section. The goal of NPOV is to integrate such material The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 02:09, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Will you integrate it then? Eroberer (talk) 03:22, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

"Ganas rules against non-negotiable negativity require members to participate in group process in situations of conflict.[18][5]" is not in dispute, correct?

Agree that the rest of the passage quoted above violates SYNTH and NOR and should not be in the article. Making sure to note that group sessions are not group-psychotherapy should be done somewhere in the article, though. WikiDao ☯ 03:32, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

No I agree that is not in dispute, and should be properly put in correct section with full context. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 15:57, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, RA, for breaking your objections down into manageable chunks like that. That helps. The same would be true of your edits to the article, though. Massive removals may easily cause misunderstanding and provoke dispute in this particular context. Please have some consideration for how heated the edits of and discussion around this article have been, and try to avoid doing anything to inflame things here unnecessarily. I would support the reversion of your large deletion, and then a point-by-point removal or alteration of the text as discussed above. WikiDao ☯ 03:32, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you WD Eroberer (talk) 03:43, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Eroberer please utilize the thread system by adjusting the margin with : as it allows for smoother discussion The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 15:57, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

GROW again

I edited the GROW paragraph once again. Two things: (1) I think "Gordon was the subject of investigations" is different from "GROW was the subject of investigations". The sources state the second. We can all assume that Gordon was involved because of her role in GROW, but that's still different from being the subject of the investigations.

(2) The investigations, which started around July 1972, didn't lead to the licensing bill, which, according to the cited source, died in committee in February 1972. I've removed the sentence. I'm not averse to including the fact that Gordon lobbied against licensing in this field, but I'm not sure it's needed, given that we already state she (co-)founded a school turning out unlicensed group therapists. Schneck (talk) 14:03, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

I disagree, but will leave it if I can't find source specifying Gordon. OK so what led to the licensing bill then? Lobbying including Gordon led to the bill that "died" led to the investigations led to the push for tougher licensing led to more lobbying including Gordon. WikiDao suggests this info take only two sentences so it is not possible to include every detailed sequence of events. You're making it unnecessarily complicated, see my note above re: excessive qualifiers etc. Much of that is due to you. The sentence including other businesses was done to pacify YOU, but I am taking that out as this article is not about the other businesses, just one and I don't think we need to tell readers every detail in the source when they can read it themselves. Diggit? Eroberer (talk) 15:21, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

He makes a good point in differentiating the two. Please be patient with people and quit yelling. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 17:24, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

As a first pass, I am mainly trying to ensure that the article accurately reflects the sources, which doesn't seem to me to be an excessive qualifier. Your most recent effort still used a source about the pre-investigation bill as the citation for calling for a bill after the investigation. And, we have, so far, no source saying that Gordon lobbied against a post-investigation bill. (In fact, we know that the bill was still being "called for" in December 1972, and that Gordon was in California in 1973, so such lobbying seems unlikely.) Furthermore, it's not at all clear how strong the link was between the GROW investigations and the calls for a new bill, because those sources talk about a general investigation and, as I have pointed out a number of times and WikiDao has confirmed, do not mention GROW at all.

I've made an effort to keep this stuff in in a way that is accurate to the cited sources. I still lean toward thinking we should omit everything after the semicolon (about the calls for a new bill and Gordon's history of lobbying), but I'll set that aside for the time being. Schneck (talk) 19:01, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Why the hell would Gordon lobby against said bill before any investigations? That was pretty dumb.

Are you suggesting that GROW and general investigations were separate? Seems pretty obvious GROW was a part of larger investigation, don't you think? Eroberer (talk) 21:01, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

All of this sounds like GROW should be its own article imho. I think a lot of the heat around this article is because we're trying to cram Ganas the commune/intentional community that surprised people by being in SI and which had various salacious tales about who was sleeping with whom, Mildred Gordon the founder and her beliefs, the shooting, and last but not least, a small non-controversial description of Ganas today all into one article. dm (talk) 01:15, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm working on a separate article but GROW still deserves a mention here. Eroberer (talk) 13:11, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

To your lobbying question: Well, GROW was a school to produce unlicensed mental therapists, so it makes sense that Gordon would have been opposed to licensing in that field.

To your question about the GROW investigations and the general investigations: The sources (generally December 1972 NYT articles) talking about the fallout of the general investigations (such as renewed calls for licensing) never mention GROW. So I'm uncomfortable with directly linking the investigations into GROW into those results. I'm sure that with the same government body investigating, in the same year, GROW in particular and unlicensed mental therapy in general, there is some interconnection. But without a source we'd be too close to WP:SYNTH to claim anything particular. Schneck (talk) 17:07, 10 January 2011 (UTC)