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

message: 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)
replies: text: *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)
thread_title:  Unreliable Sources 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Double Mention of Singer Lalich 

message: 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)
thread_title:  See also 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Opening Remarks 

message: 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)
thread_title: 2nd name change "methodologies" 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Opening paragraph 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Material removed without discussion. 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Let us just stick to "organizations" 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Some comments 

message: 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)
replies: text: "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)
thread_title:  Unbalanced 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Proposal 

message: *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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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 []. 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: Okay, sounds good.  Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 21:27, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "List of Training Programs Considered to be LGATs" is a good source 

message: 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)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Citation templates]] 

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

message: *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)
thread_title: Unsourced listing

message: 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)
thread_title:  Phoenix Arising