Talk:List of large-group awareness training organizations/Archive 2

Unreliable Sources

The Awareness Page and Mary Polaski "L" series are self-published and hence unreliable sources. I shall get to commenting them out over the next little bit, which is really quite a pity. Rorybowman 20:21, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

• Please give me a teensy bit of time to check out the Mary Polaski "L" series, and try to find more information about this particular source. I will get back to you shortly. Smee 20:24, 14 April 2007 (UTC).
  • Hrm, perhaps I can agree with you here. Let us add this as a section under External links / further readings, but remove it as a citation from the individual entries. I will go ahead and do this now. Smee 20:29, 14 April 2007 (UTC).
• Fair enough. The only place I have ever seen this citation is on Rick Ross' page, but if you think it is elsewhere that would be terrific. "L" is clearly "Landmark" if that is any help. I'm going to try and get a copy of Singer/Lalich second edition to see if the listings there are different than the first edition. Do you have an opinion about which edition to cite, if there are any differences? Do we cite more than one edition of the same book? Rorybowman 20:31, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
  • The editions are quite different indeed, and should be cited separately. Smee 20:34, 14 April 2007 (UTC).

• You are "commenting out" the citations incorrectly. Remember to use <! -- and -- --> as separate from the <ref></ref> code itself, or it will screw everything up in the "References" section. Smee 20:40, 14 April 2007 (UTC).

• • Apologies. Please credit that one to stupidity and not malice. I was not familiar with the "nowiki" tag. Rorybowman 20:43, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
    • No, it does not have to do with the "nowiki" tag. Perhaps you are still confused as to the commenting out thing? Smee 20:50, 14 April 2007 (UTC).
• Apologies again. In my own HTML I have aways tried to incorporate the comment-outs as part of the main tag so that they are easier to search for and replace but apparently that doesn't work with Wikipedia ref tags. I'll use completely separate tags going forward. The inability to make line breaks without those appearing in the code is something I have yet to get used to. Rorybowman 23:18, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Going through some of these references I am thinking that http://www.csj.org/infoserv_groups/grp_lgat/grp_lgat_index.htm is not an RS, as it seems to be a call for help in evaluating some of the named groups and the pages it links to mostly just show links to Langone's article mentioning EST and Lifespring and another article by Dr. Anita Solomon, the abstract of which does not mention any specific groups. This page seeking more information on some groups is the only reference for Hunger Project and Mankind Project that I recall aside from Rick Ross' CEF board and a single mention of their older name on "The Awareness Page." I have no idea whatsoever about the third group they mention ("The Garden Project") whose name makes it difficult to do Internet searches upon without any further identifying information. None are mentioned in Tobias & Lalich's "Captive Hearts, Captive Minds" that I can find in the index or likely places, but I'll try an Amazon "search inside" to double-check. Rorybowman 23:18, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

• This is a most reputable source, as the academic journal undergoes peer review from many varied and respected academics. Smee 02:46, 15 April 2007 (UTC).
  • I'm not talking about the published journal, but about this odd little web page, which has a misspelled title and which seems to be asking about information on these groups. From where the links go I'm not sure this page is an assertion about anything: besides the names of groups, misspelled title and boilerplate disclaimer the only text on it is "Help Needed: Research into participant experiences of Large Group Awareness Training." Whatever their printed journal may or may not be, this page contains little information and the links are to nothing which indicates that any of these three groups is an LGAT. I mean The Hunger Project? Who peer-reviewed THAT one? Rorybowman 04:12, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
    • It is an index to articles that mention the groups in question. I suppose we could individually cite each of the articles themselves, as opposed to the index page... Smee 06:13, 15 April 2007 (UTC).
      • But when one follows the links they don't have any information on the group, at least for those three. The Garden Company article points to Dr. Solomon's article and Langone's general article on EST and Landspring, as do the Mankind and Hunger Project "pages." Only the abstract of Dr Solomon's article is online, but since it is about a woman who attended an LGAT training it seems *extremely* unlikely that it is referring to the Mankind Project (which is male-only) or the Hunger Project (which does not offer trainings). CSJ may have done some good things at some point, but these pages are garbage. Perhaps they were placed as part of a search engine optimization strategy or something, but there is no substance to any of those three pages except to provide a dozen internal links to generic essays that do not have anything to do with the three groups mentioned. This matters because this is the only place that those three groups are mentioned: none of them shows up in the printed literature. Rorybowman 21:46, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
        • I see you have "commented out" some of the entries related to this particular citation. I have no strong objections to this action, though I still think the citation itself is noteworthy and reputable, as stated above. Smee 06:20, 18 April 2007 (UTC).
• The Awareness Page contains excerpts from PhD dissertations, published articles from scholarly journals, personal experiences, and links to related information. Your statement as to it being "unreliable" is completely unqualified. I created that page and spent countless hours of OCR'ing publications to get the secrets of LGATS out there on the internet. Rick Ross "borrowed" lots of the material for his pages on LGATs. -- 24.171.26.182
  • The page does not qualify under WP:RS rules. And citing Rick Ross does not add creditibility to your website. His own website is full of propaganda and rhetoric and clearly says not to use it as a Reliable Source. Lsi john 03:54, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Please feel free to fold direct references to these reliable sources into all relevant Wikipedia articles. Rorybowman 14:55, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
    • The source of articles on The Awareness Page are appropriately cited. I challenge you to cite the WP:RS rule and explain accurately. Just because you don't like the material means nothing. Again, much material on The Awareness Page is from SCHOLARLY sources like PhD dissertations. Your reasoning for deeming that unreliable is flawed. -anonymous posting by: 24.171.26.182 at 03:14, 5 May 2007

• Linking to individual articles on the awareness page, may (or not), be correctly using WP:RS, however a general link to the awareness page index, is not WP:RS, as there are a significant number of inappropriate, unverifiable articles and links on that page. Lsi john 15:07, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Double Mention of Singer Lalich

Currently there are two mentions of SingerLalich, one the book and another an "excerpt" online, the second of which has some (but not all) of the groups mentioned in the book. I'm not certain how to safely remove the redundant "intruding" reference and don't want to yank everything so will just note it here for someone else who understands that better to do so. My personal preference is to "comment out" material so that it is easily available to other editors later, but I don't want to be too aggressive in doing that for every mention of "intruding." Rorybowman 21:59, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

• We should keep both references, they are both highly reputable, and there is no problems with keeping the citations, there is plenty of room for ever more citations. Smee 06:19, 18 April 2007 (UTC).

See also

I would like to see this list reduced if not eliminated. Per one of the senior editors, 'see also' should be avoided if at all possible. This article is a LIST OF. It is not a category. It is should not be used as a dumping spot for every vague reference to any group on the list. Those SEE ALSO's should be included on the individual article pages, or on the LGAT article itself. Lsi john 01:28, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

• Stop using CAPS, especially as titles of subsections. It is inappropriate.
• I have removed the "See also" section. Smee 18:48, 18 April 2007 (UTC).

Opening Remarks

Smee, please cooperate and dont force me to repeat the same talk comments in every article.

You are a very smart individual and it is not necessary to use these tactics.

This article is a LIST OF LGAT ORGANIZATIONS. it is not necessary to REPEAT definitions already described on the LGAT article. It is also VERY unnecessary to over-emphasize who uses the term. You will not allow the fact that anti-cult watchers use the term, it is therefore EXTREMELY BIASED to cite every psychologist who has ever used the term, regardless of the context and emphasis they had when they used it.

Please STOP what appears more and more to be a crusade to justify LGAT. Lsi john 14:00, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Stop sensationalizing by including verbiage that items on the list satisfy WP:RS. They couldn't stay if they didnt meet the qualifications. Making such claims leads the reader to conclude the list is somehow more valuable than just a list. Lsi john 19:27, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

• Stop using CAPS to try to get your point across, or no one will pay attention to you. It is very rude.
• Please stop removing highly cited material from the article. It is very relevant, comes from reputable secondary sources, and does not take up much space in the article. It is most certainly not "biased" to allow for citations from reputable sources that use the term, considering there is no citations to back up your claims. Smee 18:47, 18 April 2007 (UTC).
  • I have asked for a neutral opinion on this issue. Smee 19:12, 18 April 2007 (UTC).
    • I have cited a statement from User:RogueNinja, below: Is LGAT a NPOV term? -- Given Smee (talk · contribs)'s sources, I believe this term is NPOV. -- User:RogueNinja. -- As the term is NPOV, there should be no problems with citing sources that utilize and reference the term in reputable secondary sourced citations. Smee 19:25, 18 April 2007 (UTC).
      • and I have fixed your biased verbiage in the request. You continue to twist things. I never said reliable source material shouldn't be included or couldn't be included. I said that your Lead is biased, pejorative and leaves the reader with a feeling that somehow this list is something valuable. It is not necessary to state that items on the list meet WP:RS, that is implied by the rules of wiki. It is not necessary to cite how important LGAT is to psychologists and authors and researchers and academics.. this information can easily be found by clicking on the LGAT link and reading the relevant article. This is a LIST, it is only a LIST, it is similar to a CATEGORY. Lsi john 19:27, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
• Please also see opinion from neutral uninvolved editor, below: As I see it the request is specifically for more input on whether a definition with sources is allowable on the lead section or not. My opinion is that they are most certainly allowed, and is in fact to be encouraged. Please see WP:LIST, specifically the section titled "Lead section". Even if it seems that it ought to be obvious what the list is, a definition to inform the reader is appropriate to clear up any confusion. Adding sources to that definition is appropriate, as well - even if those sources and definition exist on an article elswhere, it never hurts to make sure that information is clear and available in this article as well. - User:Arkyan.
  • I have no objection to a lead. My objection is with the wording that Smee continues to inject which leads the readers to a desired conclusion. I am attempting to get neutral wording which does not over emphasize the importance or usage of the LGAT language. I believe this is a back-door attempt to legitimize the other pejorative articles on wiki which are written to attack companies that have been targeted by anti-cult activists. Lsi john 20:08, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Third opinion

• Talk:List of Large Group Awareness Training organizations -- Should citations from reputable secondary sources be allowed in the Lead section, to show usage of the term "Large Group Awareness Training", in the article List of Large Group Awareness Training organizations ? 18:50, 18 April 2007 (UTC).
• Please see statement by neutral mediator User:RogueNinja, at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-04-10 Large Group Awareness Training. Is LGAT a NPOV term? -- Given Smee (talk · contribs)'s sources, I believe this term is NPOV. -- User:RogueNinja.
  • I do not understand the mediator's conclusion, given the fact that so many of Smee's references give so many different definitions for LGAT. The definition of LGAT is entirely dependent on the point of view of the source being cited. I respectfully request the neutral mediator to explain how he arrived at the conclusion. Lsi john 19:37, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hello, I'm here from the listing on Third Opinion page. As I see it the request is specifically for more input on whether a definition with sources is allowable on the lead section or not. My opinion is that they are most certainly allowed, and is in fact to be encouraged. Please see WP:LIST, specifically the section titled "Lead section". Even if it seems that it ought to be obvious what the list is, a definition to inform the reader is appropriate to clear up any confusion. Adding sources to that definition is appropriate, as well - even if those sources and definition exist on an article elswhere, it never hurts to make sure that information is clear and available in this article as well.

Hope that helps, and good luck to the both of you with this article! Arkyan &#149; ^(talk) 19:25, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

• Thank you User:Arkyan, for providing your opinion from a neutral uninvolved editor, this clears up the confusion. Smee 19:29, 18 April 2007 (UTC).

It does not help and it does not clear up any confusion. Her request on whether or not 'cited info' should be used, was not the real issue. The issue is whether or not this LIST article requires or needs an opening lead which overstates the case and overemphasizes the importance of entries on the list. This is simply a LIST, not a descriptive article. There is an entire article on the LGAT term.

Notice how she repeated that you were a neutral uninvolved editor and stated clearly that no the confusion is cleared up. She asked the question she wanted answered to get the answer she wanted to be able to write what she wanted in the article. And now she has documented that she is permitted to write pejorative and misleading article paragraphs in order to push WP:SPA views. Lsi john 19:28, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I am, for the record, a neutral editor - I've not commented or edited on this matter at all. In any case, have you looked at the WP:LIST guideline? It states "All articles should include a lead section, and stand-alone lists are no exception". Whether or not it is a list has no bearing on whether a lead section is required - it is more than appropriate to have it in a list article. Creating a sourced definition and using it as a lead section is indeed appropriate. If you have issues with the wording of the definition that is another matter, but as you state, if the "real issue" is "whether or not this LIST article requires or needs an opening lead" that answer is unequivocally yes. Arkyan &#149; ^(talk) 19:38, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Arkyan, thank you. I hope I did not suggest that you were not neutral. That was certainly not my intention. And, perhaps I did not state the case very well. The real issue is whether or not these articles are biased and slanted and intended to lead the reader in a desired direction and to a desired conclusion. The lead that Smee is trying to put in, overly emphasizes the use of LGAT. She seems, based on her history of edits and the way she conducts them, to be WP:SPA pushing an adjenda. I am attempting to bring a balance to these articles and do not have the history or wiki-education to know how to properly ask the questions or get the help needed. I believe she is overstating and over documenting them with only one-sided facts in order to bias the articles and thus lead the reader to her conclusions. Lsi john 20:02, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Looks like there was a miscommunication as to what was meant by lead then. I'm also not sure what you're aiming for with the WP:SPA, I think you may be referring to WP:POV - SPA is for single purpose accounts and Smee has many, many diverse edits and is clearly not single purpose. Arkyan &#149; ^(talk)

I agree that WP:SPA might not apply to her account, however, a combination of WP:SPA and WP:POV applies to her edits on this subject chain. She only adds things which show LGAT companies in a bad light and she ties every company possible to LGAT, with or without sources and forces others to remove her un-sourced edits and articles. Lsi john 22:08, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Please refer to the deleted articles Klemmer & Associates and PSI World where she made numerous un-cited edits which were exclusively LGAT related about wiki-insignificant companies. During the delete process, she plead to keep PSI World so that she could document the LGAT claims against the company. The article was 3 months old and the only thing in it was the unsourced LGAT propaganda. The only place I know of, where PSI World has been termed LGAT is on the anti-cult Rick Ross forum. Given the edits made to the article and the age of it, and the fact that not one single WP:RS citation was made, it is clear (at least to me) that the article was WP:POV and is a reliable sample of her work in this series of articles. Lsi john 22:25, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

May I suggest a compromise? For example, citing the 1989 award won by reseachers on the subject does little to illuminate the question "What is a Large Group Awareness Training organization?" I can also see how someone might view it as being overly promotional in this context. Striking that line but leaving intact the other citations that it is, indeed, a term in use in various circles helps the reader to better understand what is meant by the term without seeming overly self-congratulatory on the subject. Arkyan &#149; ^(talk) 20:22, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Arkyan, that is a perfect example to choose. If you look back through the edit history, I believe you will find that I have removed this verbiage at least once before (and if not in this particular article, then it was in another) (She complies with decisions in one article, but forces the other contributors to obtain the same decision in other articles - another example of using wiki rules to push her personal pov). She keeps reverting this and similar wording and I believe it psychologically leads the reader to a conclusion about the subject. This is a great example of how she legally inserts WP:RS material into articles in order to assist the reader to form an opinion about a) the subject and b) the validity of the cited sources. The unsuspecting reader is left to assume "After all, if it won an award, it must be valid, right?" This is the WP:SPA and WP:POV that I see her injecting into this series of articles. Lsi john 22:14, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Then, if you will please go back to her original version of the third-party request, you will see that she basically asked a question which she already knew the answer to.. Yes - sourced material should be included in an article. But that was not really the issue and she knew it. The issue is with the way she presents it and whether or not she is slanting the material and over emphasizing the source's credentials in order to shore up her opinion on the subject material (refer to all of her edits and see if you can find any which say something good about LGAT or any company which has been labeled LGAT). Lsi john 22:19, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Refer to Evaluating a Large Group Awareness Training (and others) where she has the same biased verbiage even though it has been contested before. Lsi john 23:06, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Just to jump into the fray here: I agree with Arkyan - a lead is needed. But the current lead does read as a bit over refenced - 10 citations for 2 paragraphs. I would cut that down by about half, and leave add a main article link to thge main LGAT article. -- Pastordavid 21:10, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Pastordavid, thank you. Cutting down the references is one thing. However, the credentials cited tend to lead the reader to the conclusion that all usage of LGAT is somehow legitimate. In fact the term LGAT is most often today used on the Rick Ross anti-cult forum, which cannot be sited here (even as an example of usage), due to WP:OR and WP:RS. Yet that is the primary source of LGAT usage, and the basis for most of the articles written in this subject series. The term LGAT is very vaguely defined, and there is no universally accepted scientific definition. Do you think it is appropriate to word the first paragraph in such a way as to make the term appear more legitimate than it actually is and thus hide behind wiki rules to effectively push a pov on unsuspecting readers? (yes I worded that question based on my views, you are welcome to rephrase the question in a neutral way) Lsi john 22:57, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Outdent: Thank you for your input(s). My concern is that listing those citations as schollars and psychologists does not accurately reveal their field of study (several are anti-cult). It also does not recognize or acknowledge that the primary usage of LGAT in todays world, is on unusable references like the rickross.com forum. By citing the credentials it adds a greater air of legitimacy to the term than is deserved and the underlying abusive/pejorative nature of the term remains legally masked by WP:OR and WP:RS. Lsi john 22:08, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to take so long to get back with you again. It sounds to me like you are concerned that only one point of view is being supported by these statements, and that may indeed be the case. I have to admit I am not quite as knowledgable about the subject of LGAT as the two of you, so I can't really say one way or another, but if indeed there is another "side" of the story, so to speak, there is nothing wrong with presenting both views (ie. an alternate definition) so long as it is sourced and attributed, as well.

Unfortunately I think this is about as far as I can go in terms of just offering a third opinion. As I understand you both have a moderator assisting you in the more general issue and I will leave the broader issues to that moderation attempt. Again, it is just my opinion/viewpoint being offered here, but I'll summarize by saying: Yes, a sourced definition is suitable at the lead section of a list; Yes, it is appropriate to give alternative, sourced definitions to support an alternate point of view; Finally, yes, it is important to ensure that the definition of a list is kept as simple and succinct as possible and attempts be made by editors on both sides of the equation to be as neutral about it as possible.

I hope that I've been able to help in some small way by providing a bit of insight, and hope that you're both able to clear this matter up in a way acceptable to all parties involved. Good luck with the editing! Arkyan &#149; ^(talk) 16:09, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

added verbiage to clarify what can be on the list

I believe it is important to identify that any group can be on this list, provided a WP:RS can be found which identifies the group as LGAT. Since inclusion on the list is not scientifically defined, I believe it is important to make the reader aware that any reliable source can contribute to being on this list. Lsi john 04:56, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

• Though that verbiage is somewhat redundant, it is acceptable... Smee 05:35, 19 April 2007 (UTC).

With the new intro, for clarity, the article title probably should be:

List of Large Group Awareness Training Organizations and Methods

Lsi john 19:11, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

• Good idea. It has been done. Smee 19:16, 21 April 2007 (UTC).

Existing:

The following list contains groups, methodologies and organizations which have been referred to as "Large Group Awareness Training" in documented sources. Any group or organization can be listed here, provided a citation from a reputable source can be found which identifies the organization as LGAT.

Proposed:

The following list contains groups, organizations and methodologies, which have been referred to as "Large Group Awareness Training" in documented sources.

Any group, organization or methodology can be listed here, provided a citation from a reputable source can be found which identifies it as LGAT.

Lsi john 23:40, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

• Done. Smee 01:20, 22 April 2007 (UTC).

• Actually I had changed the verbiage a bit, to include methodology. Lsi john 02:33, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

• Okay. Smee 05:08, 22 April 2007 (UTC).

Organizations and methods

I'm not certain I see the utility of including LGAT methods here for a variety of reasons: What is an "LGAT method?" Is it a method used at one time by one LGAT? Any method ever used by an LGAT? A method used by all LGATs? Who defines LGAT methods and how are they verified? Is the goal in changing this simply to include NLP on the list? Given that NLP has morphed out into general advertising and political propaganda, where does this leakage stop? Other than a few commonalities such as (1) being commercial trainings (2) generally run by non-psychologists (3) as "education" and (4) lasting for a predetermined sort of time with (5) certain techniques from group therapy or encounter groups, what is gained by this expansion of the article's subject? Rorybowman 22:24, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

LGAT seems to have two connotations. One is to describe a training methodology. The other is used to label an organization, presumably identifying it as an organization which uses the LGAT training methodology.

Smee created the category, it would certainly seem reasonable that she is permitted to define what qualifes to be listed in it. Lsi john 22:27, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

As long as we remain tight to the inclusion criteria of reputable referenced citations, this should be okay. If not, we can always modify it later. Smee 02:43, 23 April 2007 (UTC).

I'm not sure I agree with that. Smee are you open to anyone else changing it? I think once we establish the criteria for being listed here, it should be set in stone.

It seems that being able to change it later, leaves a huge hole for someone to claim that we are planning to make it read however we want it to read to include whatever we want to include here and I'm not comfortable with that idea. Lsi john 03:23, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I am not comfortable with it either, perse. But it is not up to us, after all, this is "the encyclopedia that anyone can edit"... Smee 03:27, 23 April 2007 (UTC).

Yes, however, I respectfully request that you consider your reaction, if someone changed the requirements for the category. What would you do? How would you feel? Take just a minute to imagine coming onto wiki and finding that someone had significantly adjusted the requirements for inclusion which allowed or removed something on the list which you personally opposed (Say the change included religious groups of some particular type). Just take a minute to imagine it happened.

If your reaction would be to revert the change as inappropriate, because that was not your intention for the category, then I submit that leaving the door open for us to later modify the category in order to include or exclude some article at a later date, would be inappropriate. The rules for inclusion should be cast in stone other than correcting mis-spellings and typographical errors and grammar.

Otherwise, we run the risk of not being neutral, and skewing the category to include what we want. And that come close to a biased catagory that singles out desired groups, rather than a neutral category with a specific definition.

Changing the definition to include what we want is bad. Affixing a permenant definition, and getting what we defined is good. Lsi john 12:40, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

My concern is that I understand what an LGAT organization is, but am not sure what is an LGAT method. Having spent so much time narrowing things down to specifics, I fear that we may be opening this up to become an untidy laundry list again. Is tightly regulating restroom breaks an "LGAT method?" Training past midnight? NLP is used in a lot of places other than LGAT's, for example. Why include that here? Some LGAT's encourage high-pressure sales and network marketing, but others don't. I don't mean to be a pill, but it seems to perhaps open the category wide open again and I would raise the question now rather than let it become an issue later, with attendant heartbreak. Rorybowman 04:09, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

• Hrm, you do raise some interesting points, but my feeling is that if we keep the inclusion criteria tight to reputable citations, it should be okay. Opinions from others? Smee 04:59, 23 April 2007 (UTC).

• Rorybowman, the definition of LGAT should be clear. I do not believe it actually is, but that is not something we can control. If a cited source says a method meets the definition of LGAT then it can be included in this list. So, yes, if a reliable source says regulating restroom breaks meets the definition of LGAT, then it meets the definition, and that methodology should be included here.

In my opinion, the requirements for inclusion on this list should be very strictly defined, so that the reader understands exactly what (s)he is viewing when they see the list.

Seemingly in contrast to your comment, I believe that reducing the requirements, opens the list up to a laundry list of unverifiable entries with no specific meaning or conclusion. -Peace in God. Lsi john 12:46, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

-Peace in God. Lsi john 12:46, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

• Hrm, I was more thinking of only including organizations, and strictly speaking, other forms of methodologies that have been referred to as LGAT, not the methods that LGATs employ. A strict interpretation of the inclusion criteria shows this, as referred to as LGAT, and not referred to as techniques used by LGATs... Smee 13:40, 23 April 2007 (UTC).

• As the category was initially created by you, I think it is entirely appropriate that you be permitted specify exactly what you intended in the category. I have no objection to tweaking the criteria so that it clarifies exactly what you intended. This illustrates the reason for discussion. What seems clear to one person, when they wrote it, could be very confusing or misleading to another when they read it. After discussion, all views are collected and a good and unambiguous description/criteria can be reached, which should then be set in stone. -Peace in God. Lsi john 14:49, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

• Sounds good. Smee 14:50, 23 April 2007 (UTC).

2nd name change "methodologies"

Changed to List of Large Group Awareness Training organizations and methodologies - notice word change from "methods" to "methodologies". This should make things a bit more clear and also tighten the inclusion criteria, inherently. Smee 14:53, 23 April 2007 (UTC).

Opening paragraph

Needs more tuning. I combined two separate paragraphs, with overlapping language, into 1 paragraph. It now needs to be rewritten to a more concise and accurate sentence. Lsi john 23:25, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Seems to be better. Any other thoughts or suggestions? Lsi john 23:38, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Material removed without discussion.

Please do not remove material from this article that has been backed up by reputable citations from secondary sources without discussion. Smee 05:40, 28 April 2007 (UTC).

Let us just stick to "organizations"

After careful reflection, it seems this will be much simpler in the long run of this article if we only stick to "organizations", and not methodologies. I will remove the "methodologies" from the list. Smee 06:03, 28 April 2007 (UTC).

Now we are back to a definition conflict for the Category, which requires compliance with the definition for entry on the LIST. Lsi john 14:02, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Some comments

I will mainly restrict myself to the Large Group Awareness Training page, but here are some things for this list:

• It is not needed to repeat the lead section of Large Group Awareness Training here. A simple example: the lead section of List of Nintendo 64 games (a featured list) does not describe the Nintendo 64 at all, it simply describes the contents of the list, and highlights a few especially notable list entries (the launch games). Here, one might highlight Mind Dynamics as the first organization.
• Stick to the organizations. Methodologies belong in the techniques section of the main article, and when that section is too large, make a seperate list.

--User:Krator (t c) 15:30, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I am agreeable to either leaving the current text intact or removing it all entirely. Lsi john 19:12, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Unbalanced

I object to items being included as comments, because either the items belong here or they dont. I don't believe that comments should not be used as a holding place until more research can be done to justify inclusion.

The csj link is broken: http://www.csj.org/infoserv_groups/grp_lgat/grp_lgat_index.htm The new forward link appears to be an article and does not appear to have a list.

However, I did repair the link, which redirects people here: http://www.icsahome.com/infoserv_articles/langone_michael_lgat.htm

As a show of respect for other editors, I have not simply deleted these entries. However, someone does need to go through the csj references and remove them, if they are no longer justified.

Based on the current version of the page, I have removed the unbalanced tag.

I believe I was the one who initially put it there. If that is incorrect or if anyone feels it the page is still unbalanced, then it can be put back.

I am agreeable to removing the entire top two paragraphs which describe LGAT, per Krator's 3O comments.

Lsi john 19:24, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I have re-added the unbalanced tag. By making such an exteme case for how much credibility there is for putting items on this list, it is now biased and prejudicial again.

The suggestion was to remove the top two paragraphs. It is unnecessary to cite all those academic journals and other references. In my opinion it is now unbalanced again.

Lsi john 05:00, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion:

"This is a list of organizations referred to as Large Group Awareness Training by sources which meet Reliable Source criteria"

Lsi john 05:03, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

major reconstruction

It would be nice to know before a major reconstruction takes place. Other editors, like myself, would like to feel we have input into these articles. Lsi john 05:33, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

• Please let me know what you think of the changes. I removed virtually the entire introduction paragraph, as per Krator's suggested featured list model, and then moved the various citations to the appropriate referenced entries. Smee 05:40, 29 April 2007 (UTC).

• The intro looks good, thank you.

May I suggest that under Criteria: the following is redundant and could be deleted:

The following list contains groups and organizations which have been referred to as "Large Group Awareness Training" in documented sources.

Lsi john 13:25, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I made a small edit for structure (all in one paragraph) and Wikipedia style. (the introduction was written for editors, not readers) --User:Krator (t c) 16:42, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

• That looks good, thank you. Smee 01:00, 30 April 2007 (UTC).

Proposal

I suggest, in order to prevent a diluted and questionable list, that we require two citations in order to include an organization on this list.

• If the organization is truly using LGAT, it should not be hard to find two citations.
• This will help prevent false-positives from making their way onto the list due to an obscure reference.

I believe this will help prevent this list from becomming anything resembling a hit-list where anyone can find 1 questionable source and get their favorite group listed here.

thoughts? Lsi john 02:15, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

If the source is questionable, it shouldn't be listed. One reliable source is enough per Wikipedia policy. When the reliability of a source is questioned, go to 3O or RfC and ask for an opinion. --User:Krator (t c) 10:21, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Krator. We have stated that the list will only contain organizations, this already cuts down greatly on potential dilution. One 'reliable source should be enough per Wikipedia policies. Smee 04:46, 2 May 2007 (UTC).

Template:LGAT and POV

I notice that there is now a new Template:LGAT and I would question the usefulness and potential POV concerns this brings up. In my judgement there are a variety of templates which are by design not NPOV but political or partisan statements, such as Template:Bloodsports. Is this relatively minor eddy in the psychological literature notable enough to warrant a template? I would respectfully assert that it is not. A template that addresses the "children of est" or something (which would almost completely overlap this same set of groups) would be more straightforward and less NPOV, but still not notable. I have personally never attended any of these trainings, but assert that attention to these groups outside of very minor psychological literature is largely an ideological axe, ground fine by the anti-cult and Christian_countercult_movements who sometimes like to spell the word "cult" "L-G-A-T" for rhetorical reasons and in legal self-defense. Rorybowman 14:05, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Most of the articles on the template are not part of any series, and have very few to none internal internal links outside of the topic. This template allows easy navigation between them. In the article Large Group Awareness Training, it is made clear that these trainings are a topic addressed specifically by scholars, not only by the anti-cult movement.

Note that I have removed Cults in our Midst from the list, as it does not specifically deal with LGAT. --User:Krator (t c) 14:59, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Template is listed for Deletion. See Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2007_May_28#Template:LGAT ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:28, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for this notification. I have notified the two associated WikiProjects, using the exact same neutral language that you have used to notify us here. Smee 01:34, 28 May 2007 (UTC).

"List of Training Programs Considered to be LGATs" is a good source

• Polaski, Mary., 2000, List of Training Programs Considered to be LGATs.

This is a good source. The source is backed up with good references throughout the paper. Identity kept confidential most likely to avoid reprisals from members, and I think she even mentions this concern in her well-researched paper. Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 05:10, 9 October 2007 (UTC).

Under what criteria of WP:RS do you assert this? An excellent article written under a pseudonym on a self-published source seems to violate WP:RS#Self-published_sources. Given that you have previously deleted a blog entry on Mankind Project as violating WP:RS how is it consistent to use this, which is fundamentally the same under WP:RS? And please note that repeating yourself is not an argument. The Margaret Polaski series has already been addressed in the discussion above. Rorybowman 06:56, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Given the general tenor of Rick Ross (consultant), perhaps this reference would be more approriate at List_of_groups_referred_to_as_cults#M-O Rorybowman 07:22, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

• I will check out WP:RS and look for more information on the Mary Polaski piece, in the meantime I will remove it. It is unfortunate that some individuals are too scared by reprisal from LGATs, to speak out in a more public setting, or source that satisfies "WP:RS". Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 19:54, 9 October 2007 (UTC).

WP:EL clearly indicates that external links should comply with WP:RS so yes, please do. Also, while groups such as Synanon and Movement of Spiritual Inner Awareness have WP:RS sources which assert intimidation, the LGAT portion of MSIA (Impact Trainings) has no such accusations that I am familiar with. The Mary Polaski material specifically refers to Landmark Education (an outgrowth of Werner Erhard's est) but do you have WP:RS that asserts Landmark has threatened anyone? They are famous for suing people, including folks who would confound LGAT's and cults (such as Margaret Singer and Rick Ross (consultant)) but please understand that LGAT is being used in the clear social science sense for this article, not the pejorative sense employed by the anti-cult movement. At the time that Polaski's article was published I believe there was a single page on the Cultic Studies Journal web site which asserted Mankind Project was an LGAT but that page was long-neglected and riddled with errors, removed within the last year or so. User:Smee is a very good researcher who was trying to track down the Mary Polaski article and you may wish to check with hir as to its status and if it was ever supported by a WP:RS. Hope this helps! Rorybowman 20:41, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

• WP:EL#Links_to_be_considered -- Number 4 -- Sites which fail to meet criteria for reliable sources yet still contain information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources. So while we wait for people to check the research and references used by the Polaski source, we can keep it in the External Links section. Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 21:40, 9 October 2007 (UTC).

Polaski may be a knowledgeable source as regards Landmark Education but this list is culled from an abandoned Cultic Studies Journal page which has apparently been pulled by Michael Langone but vestiges of which are still visible at [[1]]. Other than pulling this name from an abandoned source, Polaski has nothing on Mankind Project. Rick Ross (consultant) is pretty much the last person to assert that MKP is an LGAT and this is not supported by more reputable sources. In the interests of WP:COI I will note that I am a member of MKP and think that Ross is a blowhard who likes to spell cult "L-G-A-T" when it serves his own interests (such as one of the longest and most populous threads on his message board), but do not believe this changes the mainstream literature on what is and is not an LGAT. Rorybowman 21:02, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

• Okay, so I think we can agree to disagree about whether or not to use Polaski, Mary., 2000, List of Training Programs Considered to be LGATs. as a WP:RS, and just leave it instead as a WP:EL, per the "Links to be considered" language I had cited, above. Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 21:03, 21 October 2007 (UTC).

Absolutely. I just wanted to record the issue for future editors. Thanks for posting your rationale! (and for archiving old talk). Rorybowman 21:10, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Okay, sounds good. Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 21:27, 21 October 2007 (UTC).

Wikipedia:Citation templates

Looks like all the references now fit WP:RS, and are formatted according to Wikipedia:Citation templates. Let's keep it that way, it's starting to look nice. Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 17:15, 25 October 2007 (UTC).

Note

Going to remove some empty spaces from cites. Cirt (talk) 19:55, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Unsourced listing

• I was not able to find any reliable source that characterizes Human Awareness Institute as an lgat, so i removed it. but, i put this here to spur research. There is no question the organization runs large group seminars, but LGAT is generally considered a derogatory term (though it sounds neutral), thus we need refs to include it here. also removed:
• New Era Trainings
• Inspirator As
• Byron Katie.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 16:23, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Phoenix Arising

What happened to the Phoenix 200 or Phoenix Arising organization. It was listed with many groups in the prior Lifespring posting several years ago. db — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.81.140.49 (talk) 18:23, 23 January 2013 (UTC)