Category talk:Large-group awareness training

message: Please stop reverting my edits simply because you do not like them.
SEE ALSO: is a link to related material and is relevant. Lsi john 15:32, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is not the purpose of a category.  Keep it to the article, please.  Smee 18:10, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Removed, as no 3rd party opinion was requested, I have assumed there is no objection to removing it.
*:I further believe that the category itself serves no useful purpose and should be removed. Lsi john 04:48, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Purpose of category 

message: Smee is correct, we don't really do "see also" sections in categories. (Generally, they should be avoided even in articles, if something's related that should be worked into the prose rather than dumped into a laundry list). Seraphimblade Talk to me 21:32, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please also note the highly reputable citations that refer to this term, such as textbooks on psychology.  Smee 21:49, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Highly reputable is POV, unless you have a citation, qualified to make such declaration, which declares the sources as 'highly reputable'. POV has no business in these articles. Lsi john 23:13, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The "highly reputable" sources are significantly documented in the main article, see for example the psychology textbook INTRODUCTION TO PSYCHOLOGY, which discusses LGAT.  Smee 17:56, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There are "reputable" and there are "unreputable", I am unaware of any wiki classification for "highly reputable". Therefore "highly reputable" is POV. Lsi john 04:53, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Third opinion

message: The text on this article states that organizations listed here should also be listed on the list of LGAT. However the LIST of LGAT requires that the organization be cited by a reputable source. This is a serious contradiction and possibly indicates WP:BOX Lsi john 04:59, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you want to suggest an alternate here, then that is acceptable and proper. But simply reverting is inappropriate and shows disrespect for the mediation we are currently in. Lsi john 13:34, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If either Primary or Secondary apply then the article may be included in this category.
Lsi john 13:34, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Problem with text 

message: Smee, per your own words, we need to make it clear how a group or article is eligible for this category. You have repeatedly re-included articles in this category and cited that they reference a group already on this list and that qualifed the article to be included in this category. That makes it very easy to be included in this category and that fact needs to be stated very clearly. If you can include articles here because they mention or reference an item here, then that must be made clear. Lsi john 13:02, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A person cannot qualify to be listed at the List of LGAT organizations.
LIST: Any group or organization can be listed here, provided a citation from a reputable source can be found which identifies the organization as LGAT.
I think you will need to add another method of being qualified to be here. Lsi john 23:02, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

text: *I don't see LGAT referenced in either the Bonyan or the Silva article. Lsi john 23:43, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Qualification for Category