Talk:List of large-group awareness training organizations/Archive 1

message: I am going to swing through and try to document the trail for some of these groups. It would help if folks would include a link to the source that calls them an LGAT, a wikilink to the best article on them (if any) and a link to the group alleged (so it is explicitly clear which group is meant). Given that participants in such groups see labels such as "cult" as pejorative, this only seems fair, and will make it obvious who is saying what. Rick Ross is not Margaret Singer is not the American Family Foundation, etcetera. Please try to be rigorous. Thank you! Rorybowman 20:31, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it is inappropriate to link externally to the individual groups themselves.  And any links citing sources should use the  formatting, and not just put links next to the entries.  That way, the entries themselves will be all that is visible in the list, and unobstructed.  Smee 20:38, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I will try. I'm not really familiar with the reference format but will look for a tutorial. Thanks for your skill with this. Rorybowman 22:34, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Try out Wikipedia:Citing sources.  Note that I have created a term for each citation as sort of a master citation, so as not to type the whole thing out each time.  The master citations is placed in the first appearance of the cite in the article page.  Smee 15:51, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Good job with use of citations.  Smee 02:25, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please provide links 

message: Please provide me with a citation/reputable source that indicates that this is a pejorative classification associated with cults and the like.  Some of these organizations have actually even embraced or publicly acknowledged this terminology, so I do not see it as pejorative whatsoever.  Smee 20:41, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Landmark Education sued Margaret Singer into submission and has also sued magazines. I suspect that this is the reason Rick Ross constantly goes out of his way in his own fora to repeatedly deny he has called any group a "cult." MKP and WII have heard this enough to explicitly address it in a variety of places    and one of the biggest quarrels I've seen around the various "anti-cult" movements is around words such as "religion" versus "cult" and terms such as "apostate" and "apologist" to identify one partisan or another. Who has publicly embraced the term "cult?" While recognizing that it has its origins in the same words that bring us "cultivate" and "culture" this is an academic point and in common usage implies oddness or freakishness. While phrases such as "the cult of Mary" or "the cult of Jesus" may be common among scholars, I suspect they could get one punched at a revival meeting. For a general discussion of the term check out the extensive article at cult and compare that to Cult (religious practice) and Cult (disambiguation). Like "nigger" or "papist" or "faggot" the term is inherently "loaded" and almost never used by any group to describe itself. Rorybowman 22:21, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps, but to my knowledge no one has ever been sued or sued anyone else for claiming a pejorative use of the term "Large Group Awareness Training".  In fact, Werner Erhard and his company themselves actually commissioned a study of their own company by academics, and the study was titled: "An evaluation of a Large Group Awareness Training".  Truly, the only people that have ever suggested that this is a pejorative term - are editors on Wikipedia.  That is, unless you can provide me with citations from reputable secondary sources that suggest this?  Most curious.  Smee 15:49, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Ah! My apologies. I was referring to the word cult, not LGAT. Singer's book title was clearly sensationalistic for marketing purpose as are Ross' various flirtations. You are correct, in that I am not familiar with any group suing over the phrase "LGAT" but self-styled critics flirt with the distinction between cult and LGAT as clearly as LGAT's flirt with education and therapy. I stand corrected for my imprecise use of language. Although "LGAT" is often used as a codeword for "cult" it is not, so far as I know, actionable. Thank you. Rorybowman 16:15, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am curious, what reputable secondary sources can you cite that state that "LGAT" is often used as a codeword for "cult" ??  I have never heard of this usage.  Smee 17:46, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Rick Ross' "Cult Education Forum" is probably the most active anti-cult board around and clearly confounds cults with all sorts of things. A quick google search of "lgat cult" brings up numerous conflations and why do you think Singer didn't title her book LGAT's in our Midst. I assert that it is opportunistic marketing. Just as it is in the political interests of GWB to conflate all issues with "the war on terror" it is in the interests of anti-cult activists (especially non-Christians sucha s Ross) to conflate as much as possible with cults. I think it is less of a racket than Landmark, but it's a racket nonetheless. These are tricks picked up from neuro-linguistic programming and used by all rhetorical combatants. Rorybowman 22:43, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting assumptions, but again, assumptions based on material that is not from reputable secondary sources, and therefore not for Wikipedia.  Smee 02:26, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pejorative classification? 

message: I swung through this morning and commented out various listings without citations. My hope is that this retains the work that has been done so far in compiling the list but keeps the article above-board. When adding an LGAT, please be familiar with the definition and provide a source. Thanks! Rorybowman 17:03, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no problem with this.  Endeavours should be made to find citations, however.  Smee 20:26, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Commenting out listings without citations. 

message: *The term "Large Group Awareness Training" itself was not rejected as a result of the DIMPAC report, and is in fact still used by Scientists and Psychologists to this day.  Smee 03:48, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You are incorrect.  Please provide reputable sources for these allegations.  Smee 04:18, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Extensive searching of the American Psychological Association fails to yield a definition or results. All references provided for LGAT trace back to anti-cult activists. If it is used by the American Psychological Association and other reputable sources, then the challenge is on you to provide those sources.Lsi john 04:25, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay then, I will.  Thanks for this impetus.  References abound, actually.  Did you not check the references cited above?  Are you saying that the term "Large Group Awareness Training", as utilized in each of the 48 books linked to above, are only by what you call "anti-cult activists"???  Smee 04:27, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Clarification: 'jew-list', as used in this context, was intended to compare the LGAT list to a 'Nazi list of jews for termination' or a 'witch hunt'. It was not intended to be offensive to any person or religion. If anyone is/was offended, please accept my sincere apology.Lsi john 18:23, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The term "LGAT" 

message: I read one of the sources "Intruding into the Workplace" and only six groups are perhaps called LGATs there. The chapter is about the workplace, not about LGATs only. I made corrections based on that one read. It would behoove interested partie to review all the references. Not to mention that the entire list is POV as in what groups name-callers call this one name. Be that as it may. --Justanother 19:29, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You use the process WP:AFD. You want to hold off and participate in other AfD's on that page for a while to get a feel of how they work. Do that for a good while (I am thinking like a month, or more) as if you fail to get it deleted on your first try then you will do even worse if you bring it again later. Don't waste your trip to the well, make sure that you understand how things work here before taking the drastic step of trying to remove an existing article. Meanwhile read the policies and make all the regular edits that you like, the other editors will help you out, and mistakes are easily undone and do not particularly count against you provided that you learn from them. Do not make my mistake of losing your cool. Once you do that you have to reprove yourself to some extent and that is a waste of time that you really do not need to go through. Happy Editing! --Justanother 20:28, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clean-up 

message: With no clear defintion for LGAT, adding groups, companies or organizations to this list is strictly the POV of the person doing the adding. Without being 100% familiar with wiki policy, does citing an author's POV qualify as citing reputable published sources?
With no clear defintion, inclusion in the list cannot be disputed or refuted, again because it is a POV issue. This would make it a one-sided term, with only the ability to be added to the list, and no method to be removed.
Even if one were to concede legitimacy to the LGAT term, with a broad and generic definition, seemingly intended to allow virtually anyone to be labeled LGAT, is the term of any significant value?
Though I am expressing this here, perhaps the issue lies with the problematic LGAT article itself. In order to avoid POV charges, I believe that a precise, concise and specific defintion of LGAT is needed. Lsi john 20:46, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That is why new entries require citations.  Smee 21:34, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV 

message: Stop reverting. The same references you use to claim "psychologists and academics" also show anti-cult activists use the term. This must stay. STOP REVERTING. By "repeatedly" removing valid references, you are effectively VANDALIZING Wikipedia:Vandalism this page and compromising the integrity of wikipedia. This is against the rules. Please STOP it. Lsi john 15:22, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Lsi john, please step back, take a moment, and calm down.  Your use of CAPS and exclamation points is not conducive to a constructive conversation.  Now, I was adding the category to articles already listed and sourced here with multiple citations.  Smee 19:02, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Please show me the reputable sources that state the above 2 pieces of info.  Smee 21:15, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: per the rules on edit conflict, please answer my question related to 'compromise' and 'assisting with wording. Lsi john 21:17, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "anti-cult activist sources" 

message: If a specific person said something, we attribute to that specific person, not to a group of people based on that. If this "Margaret Singer" said something, we state that "Margaret Singer said..." not "(insert group of people that Margaret Singer may belong to) said...". As a side note, it was also asked whether this is usable as a source. The answer is that it appears to be self-published and biased, and I see no indication that it undergoes editorial control, so the short answer is "no". Seraphimblade Talk to me 21:25, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Third opinion

message: Smee ? First you ask for third party arbitration and now you summarily tag the page as major-rewrite in progress?
This qualifies as a unilateral decision by one editor without the concensus of the group and is against the wiki rules. Lsi john 21:21, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Major work in progress