Talk:Mind Dynamics

message: The term Large Group Awareness Training has been used mostly by scholars, psychologists, psychiatrists and other academics in academic journals and even defined in psychology textbooks.  It is therefore appropriate in the lead.  Smee 17:35, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: LGAT is generally used by POV authors that are opposed to such groups and "human potential training" is used more generally by NPOV sources. We use the NPOV, please. --Justanother 17:43, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How have you come to this conclusion?  Is this your personal opinion, or did you peruse the sources in secondary reputable sourced citations, from academic journal articles written by psychiatrists and psychologists and other academics on the subject?  Because I did, and the term is supported and defined in those journals and in scholarly studies, one that won an award from the American Psychiatric Association, and even in psychology textbooks.  Smee 17:50, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Discussion of the biased use of the LGAT term is recent on the LGAT talk page. You know that. The fact that NPOV sources use "human potential training" is borne out by my experience reading reliable 3rd-party material. --Justanother 18:06, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Quick Google test: "large group awareness"+training = 21,800 () vs. "human potential"+training = 709,000 (). Google tests are not the best but are good indicators. You can also run the test as "large group awareness training" = 19,700 vs. "human potential movement" = 82,500. Let's look at books. "Large group awareness training" = 49 () vs. "human potential movement" = 709 (). So the fact that you cite a few books proves little. --Justanother 18:48, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please see Talk:Holiday Magic for a more detailed discussion.  Google tests are generally discouraged in AFDs, in favor of citing reputable secondary sourced citations.  Smee 18:57, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Large Group Awareness Training is an NPOV term 

message: The opening paragraph seemed to lead the reader to a conclusion and did not stick to short and concise relevant facts.
The fluffy and opinion items about what led to what and who created what and who had to do what, was moved to the relevant sections of the main article.
Please keep the 'leading' (and potentially misleading) details in the main article and allow the opening remarks to be a clean snippet.
LGAT and HPM and other tags and labels are opinions of individuals and are not strictly factual. It is relevant to include them in the main article but not in the opening remarks. Lsi john 21:33, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Popped in from afar, have to say you're restoring my faith in WP.  You should be commended for leaving "embroiled" and the legal mention in the lead.  This is such a nice "dispute",  as your both such reasonable people!  Be back Wed. or Thurs. Joevanisland 04:25, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

text: The current lead is good. Good job. --User:Krator (t c) 08:59, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you!!!  Smee 18:33, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Got busy IRL, sorry can't help much right now.  Smee does not like CAP SHOUTING, and as we are all entitled to pet peeves, she has mentioned this many times, and it's so easy to avoid, perhaps we can all pledge to keep fingers off that pesky Shift button unless unavoidable. I for one will resist my tendency toward excessive mark-up. Joevanisland 20:27, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you.  Smee 22:11, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Opening Statement / Paragraph 

message: *I have added the work in progress tag, and have begun to paraphrase quotations, obviously leaving the highly reputabe secondary sourced citations that still back up the now paraphrased information.  Please respect the tag.  Smee 07:22, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ...and please communicate what the seminars are about in the inital sentences.  Saying it "led" to capitalized terms not defined in the lead still leaves a neutral reader lost.  Clicking links is great for further perspective, but an encylopedic article should be self-contained insofaras what the heck it's about and I, at least, still have no idea (well, I do, but not from the words of that lead yet). As to above disagreement, I might be missing a step but it looks like Lsi John was bold, Smee reverted, so now we discuss.  The bold wasn't wrong, the revert wasn't wrong, further reverts would be.  Agree, not agree? Joevanisland 20:42, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Then you know more than I do - I've given numerous opinions on the behaviour of editors and the outlook of the article in this case, but the information is completely unclear. Remember, Wikipedia is first and foremost about writing a good informative article. An NPOV article is not automatically informative. --User:Krator (t c) 21:31, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Work in progress tag 

message: The unbalanced tag is asking other editors to help contribute towards balancing the tag.
Please do not remove it until the article contains a balance.
Thanks.
Lsi john 19:37, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The tag is a request for other contributors to help provide other material to help balance the article. Please do not drag your fights with Jossi into this article. Lsi john 19:41, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Who's tag was unbalanced in that article? Yours? Just a guess. Your unbalance tag was forced off. And now you are going to try using that logic here, and pick a fight with me. Lsi john 19:51, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Jumping yet again to a 3O. Without even trying to compromise or work this out. Its either your way, or 3O. We didn't even discuss a 3O. Lsi john 19:45, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you have any objections to the way that I phrased the request for 3O?  Are you not glad that I asked for 3O, instead of restoring the tag?  Use of "Unbalanced" tag, at article Mind Dynamics.  I do not know how I could have worded this any more neutrally.  Smee 19:48, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I object to your constant repeated use of 3O instead of working WITH other editors, regardless of how you word it. We have 1 or 2 statements each where we disagree, and you jump straight to 3O without even trying to work it out. Lsi john 19:52, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

text: First you try edit warring, and then you jump to 3O. That is NOT evidence of a cooperative editor. Lsi john 19:53, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, I am not using 3O to avoid edit warring.  I am using 3O to avoid conflict with an editor that has used impolite language in the past.  I would much rather hear comment, even if it is against my viewpoints, from a neutral editor in a polite manner, than comments, even if they are in support at times of my viewpoints, in an impolite manner.  Smee 19:57, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

text: In essence, I am also asking for a clarification here from a neutral editor, and that the exact same logic and reasoning regarding the placement of "Unbalanced" tags, be applied to both articles, and at that, to all articles.  In this instance, either I can put an "Unbalanced" tag at the article The New Believers, because I feel that that article is unbalanced and does not have enough criticism, or I cannot, because I have not stated specifically why, and not provided any citations to back up my claims there, which I admit I did not.  The same exact reasoning should be applied here.  And as the editor in question has been given due time and not provided citations on what he believes to be a neglected viewpoint, the tag should not remain just because an editor feels that something is unbalanced, without clarifying how with citations.  Smee 19:55, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  An  tag is added when an editor considers that the article is unbalanced. If that editor cannot find counterpoints to balance the article within a reasonable period of time, then the tag should be removed as it is only an unsubstantiated opinion of the editor. This would apply to other dispute tags as well, such as , for example.  ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:16, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you, Jossi.  As a reasonable period of time has elapsed with the tag in place, namely, nearly 20 days, I will remove the tag.  Smee 20:20, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you also, Jossi, for providing this clarification in a straightforward and polite manner, discussing content, instead of any particular individual contributors.  This behaviour is much appreciated.  Smee 20:21, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Although there are not firm rules on this, I would argue that an article that is actively being edited, one month wait-period may be excessive. In these cases, a week or so would be sufficient. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:08, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds good.  And in this case the article had not been edited at all for (16) days before I removed the tag.  Smee 03:42, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Unbalanced Tag

message: Please see comments by User:Jossi, at Talk:The New Believers.  Per Jossi's comments, even if one editor believes an article to be "Unbalanced", it is the burden of that editor to add citations from reputable sources on what that editor believes to be the neglected viewpoints.  Barring that, if no citations on that viewpoint exist, and as the burden is on the editor who placed the tag, the tag should not remain on the article.  Smee 19:44, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In essence, I am also asking for a clarification here from a neutral editor, and that the exact same logic and reasoning regarding the placement of "Unbalanced" tags, be applied to both articles, and at that, to all articles.  In this instance, either I can put an "Unbalanced" tag at the article The New Believers, because I feel that that article is unbalanced and does not have enough criticism, or I cannot, because I have not stated specifically why, and not provided any citations to back up my claims there, which I admit I did not.  The same exact reasoning should be applied here.  And as the editor in question has been given due time and not provided citations on what he believes to be a neglected viewpoint, the tag should not remain just because an editor feels that something is unbalanced, without clarifying how with citations.  Smee 19:55, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  An  tag is added when an editor considers that the article is unbalanced. If that editor cannot find counterpoints to balance the article within a reasonable period of time, then the tag should be removed as it is only an unsubstantiated opinion of the editor. This would apply to other dispute tags as well, such as , for example.  ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:16, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you, Jossi.  As a reasonable period of time has elapsed with the tag in place, namely, nearly 20 days, I will remove the tag.  Smee 20:20, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you also, Jossi, for providing this clarification in a straightforward and polite manner, discussing content, instead of any particular individual contributors.  This behaviour is much appreciated.  Smee 20:21, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Although there are not firm rules on this, I would argue that an article that is actively being edited, one month wait-period may be excessive. In these cases, a week or so would be sufficient. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:08, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds good.  And in this case the article had not been edited at all for (16) days before I removed the tag.  Smee 03:42, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comments by [[User:Smee|Smee]] 

message: *User:Lsi john, please put back the highly sourced information that you removed, from this DIFF.  This is highly notable information, and belongs in the lead, and it is backed up by multiple citations within the article.  Smee 02:08, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *Again, sir, I'm programming and trying to earn a living. Unfortunately I do not have 24 hours per day free time, as it appears that you do. Your judgments about what I am or am not doing are rude and unfair. Please do not judge what I am or am not doing. Thank you. AGF remember? Lsi john 00:18, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *You do not like it when I conclude that you are only googling and not verifying sources, I request that you do not conclude whether or not I am refusing. Unless you want to be clear about both my refusal and your lack of fact checking??? your call, smee. You decide how we play this. Lsi john 00:19, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

text: *You did not ask a question. You made a statement. *Okay, you are refusing to discuss the issues I have raised above, just so we are clear, most interesting.  Smee 00:05, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *My apologies.  Notice the first part was a question, and then no response for 24 hours.  I will strike out that remark, I am sorry, it was inappropriate.  Smee 00:26, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *I am currently working on a big project and my schedule for the next few days will be quite hectic. I would appreciate if you would wait. I don't think this is a life and death crisis. However, if you can't wait, then I reserve the right to address it in a few days. Lsi john 03:49, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *Understandable, I will try to wait, unless I find a bunch more reputable secondary sourced citations.  Smee 04:54, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  LGAT / Human Potential movement