Talk:Large-group awareness training/Archive 4

message: This article failed good article nomination. This is how the article, as of May 13, 2007, compares against the six good article criteria:
1. Well written?: Yes.
2. Factually accurate?: Apparently.
3. Broad in coverage?: Yes.
4. Neutral point of view?: Generally.
5. Article stability? No. Article has an ongoing edit/flame war that should die and stay dead for some time before resubmitting.
6. Images?: Yes.
If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it to a GA review. Thank you for your work so far.
Wryspy 18:04, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: GA fail criteria

message: *The article quotes too many sources instead of paraphrasing them.
*Reduce the number of quotes to less than one per paragraph, or one per section preferably, then remove quotefarm tag.
*The subject of the article is not one that requires a lot of quotes. (A "reception" section about a video game requires a lot of quotes, for example)
*Wikipedia is not Wikiquote.
--User:Krator (t c) 14:12, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have written some further explanation at Talk:Mind Dynamics. --User:Krator (t c) 21:12, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you.  I will strive to implement your suggestions.  Smee 21:18, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Justification for Quotefarm tag 

message: Some things I noticed while reading the current state of the article:
Note, when replying, please make a subsection here instead of inserting your comment with colons into this note.
*The order of sections is illogical. Techniques should be first, because the layman reader will want to know first what it is, then what others think about it. Write for the layman.
*The "Finkelstein, et. al. (1982)" section should be linked to the rest of the article.
*Quotes. The article still is a quotefarm.
*The term "LGAT". When I read some of the references, I first noticed that the abbreviation LGAT is not very common. It is not easy to pronounce, and all caps. In some places, where the article reads LGAT, it could state "the trainings" or a similar phrase.
*Some of the references appear both in the 'articles' and specific references section (Langone's article for one).
*See also is chaotic, and often already present in the templates below.
*Perhaps the lower psychology template should be removed, as one is already present at the top of the article, and LGAT itself is not on that very template.
*Categories. Numerous unrelated categories were included. 21:19, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Things to work/think with

message: Though it has a ways to go to deal with some of the remarks (above), I feel the article is already much improved.
Krator, thank you for the time you are spending to help with this article. Lsi john 21:34, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: On the way to FA. Some actual images of a LGAT are needed though. None are on the web. --User:Krator (t c) 21:38, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed. And lifespring may not be the most neutral image. Given that it had some legal issues with its particular methods and practices, not necessarily directly related to LGAT. I believe that Lifespring is often used as one of the primary examples of LGAT, specifically because it allows a link to other unpleasantness. I have no experience finding usable images. Lsi john 22:06, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you know anyone who participates in such trainings, taking a picture yourself or obtaining one first hand should be possible. This also eliminates licensing issues. --User:Krator (t c) 22:40, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Come a long way

message: Some ideas for new content occured to me:
*Rename the evolution section to History, and provide the following information:
:*Who started with Large Group Awareness Trainings?
:*Why did LGAT attain some degree of success?
::*Why did demand exist for such trainings?
::*Who attended Large Group Awareness Trainings? (Social class, education background, industry, or even location.)
::*What did the trainings provide that regular trainings/psychologists at the time could not?
:*In what way do the Large Group Awareness Trainings now differ from those in the past? Why did they change? And when?
*Are there any notable people who have attended a LGAT? It is inevitable that some CEOs of large companies attended one.
Feel free to add more.
--User:Krator (t c) 17:10, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Ideas for content

message: ...looks great, thanks!  Smee 01:04, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *And perhaps some success stories to help balance the criticism of the psychologists. Or some psychologists that support the trainging? With over 1 million LGAT graduates, there must be some success stories that have been published. Lsi john 02:12, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *It would be best to keep this info to reputable secondary sourced citations, and preferably from academic published sources.  Smee 04:39, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *I never suggested otherwise. Would you be willing to help me locate some positive academic reviews of LGAT material? Thanks in advance!. Lsi john 15:43, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *I will try.  Remind me in a while if I don't.  Smee 06:54, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Krator's re-work of the LEAD... 

message: *Suggestions for the techniques section?  If someone already commented on this, I may have missed it, apologies...  Smee 02:31, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Langone book seems to contain information relevant to techniques. I think there is difference of opinion there also. There are older ideas of thought control in the sense of brainwashing, and newer more generally accepted ideas surrounding simple adoption of pseudoscientific ideas that are based in solid social psychology concepts. Both could be presented I think. Here is something that goes some way to explain the techniques by modern psychology standards. I think its interesting reading for anyone researching the LGAT area. []. Jeffrire 05:28, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes its recovery from cults. There is an account of how NLP is used as an emotional pain inducing technique for increasing dependence on the cult. Thats Langone's view. Though other more recent views would probably say NLP is more about an abuse of social psychology rather than any power in itself. Less about mind control and more about unethical sales and client manipulation. Jeffrire 02:56, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Well NLP is a LGAT as the literature shows (e.g. the Carroll skeptics book), but I'm not interested in talking about NLP specifically, though now you mention it perhaps it is relevant. I am explaining what goes on in terms of techniques that use dissociation. They are used in LGATs. There are a range of techniques that are not directly related to NLP also. For example, marathon chanting, exhalation and so on in order to make the suject dissociate are also used such as with Tony Robbins NLP based LGATs. Do you want to prevent this article from mentioning NLP simply because its not mentionioned within the same sentence as LGAT in one particular book? What I want to know is, do you have a particular WP rule that helps you prevent NLP being mentioned here in this case? Jeffrire 11:06, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we've had this same discussion before. --User:Krator (t c) 11:43, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the prompting Krator. I've gone ahead and made an edit. Jeffrire 12:22, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Prediction: revert war. I thought I made it quite clear above that any comparison between the two is comparing apples with oranges, regardless of what any source states. I will leave it up to the others though. --User:Krator (t c) 13:10, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No problem Krator, this is a discussion page and I'm discussing. If I describe oranges in the article I'll include refs that talk about oranges. And if someone wants to state that "no major commentator writes" about a particular subject then they'll have to include references to support that statement also. Thanks for the preemption all the same. Its most likely helpful. Jeffrire 13:57, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes history will repeat most likely. Decent sources will be presented, and questioned, and they'll end up getting admitted because they are decent sources that comply with WP:RS . By the way, why did you attach original research to the Partridge ref on this article? Jeffrire 16:21, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Well first we have to determine who is a reliable/trustworthy researcher or commentator. LGAT is not a subject of study in itself. Its a subject related to New Alternative Religions, cults, psychology and psychological abuses, pseudoscience, new age, skepticism, consumer protection and so on. So who is a published commentator on those subjects? Just a  minute, if we take a representative sample of all of those people who comment on those subjects I wonder if there will be any who consider NLP to be delivered in LGAT/new age trainings/mass marathon trainings form? If you want to make the assertion that no other commentators say NLP is related to LGATs according to wishful thinking and your lack of research, then perhaps there is some WP rule somewhere that'll let you sign your own username after the assertion and date it. Otherwise I suggest you leave the commentary to reliable sources. Jeffrire 00:16, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Good. In the meantime, this might help you out . Jeffrire 00:48, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Hello Fainites. I believe I should be more careful to doublecheck my discussion for anything close to sarcastic. I'll assume you've misunderstood my last 2 comments. If you wish to introduce an entry based on your own pov then it would be a good idea to back up the statement with sources. Otherwise it can be considered OR. Again, its not just riveting, its crucial policy . If you present that no other major commentator says NLP is a LGAT, then there should be a source that states that view. Right now we have substantial research views that NLP is a LGAT or is presented in LGAT form. Jeffrire 10:59, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. Jeffrire 03:02, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Techniques section 

message: This is the LGAT page Jeffrire. I don't see any mention of LGATs in Recovery from Cults. His statement about the use of NLP by aggressive cults is already included in the NLP article with a link to the book. Fainites 09:06, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well NLP is a LGAT as the literature shows (e.g. the Carroll skeptics book), but I'm not interested in talking about NLP specifically, though now you mention it perhaps it is relevant. I am explaining what goes on in terms of techniques that use dissociation. They are used in LGATs. There are a range of techniques that are not directly related to NLP also. For example, marathon chanting, exhalation and so on in order to make the suject dissociate are also used such as with Tony Robbins NLP based LGATs. Do you want to prevent this article from mentioning NLP simply because its not mentionioned within the same sentence as LGAT in one particular book? What I want to know is, do you have a particular WP rule that helps you prevent NLP being mentioned here in this case? Jeffrire 11:06, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we've had this same discussion before. --User:Krator (t c) 11:43, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the prompting Krator. I've gone ahead and made an edit. Jeffrire 12:22, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Prediction: revert war. I thought I made it quite clear above that any comparison between the two is comparing apples with oranges, regardless of what any source states. I will leave it up to the others though. --User:Krator (t c) 13:10, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No problem Krator, this is a discussion page and I'm discussing. If I describe oranges in the article I'll include refs that talk about oranges. And if someone wants to state that "no major commentator writes" about a particular subject then they'll have to include references to support that statement also. Thanks for the preemption all the same. Its most likely helpful. Jeffrire 13:57, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes history will repeat most likely. Decent sources will be presented, and questioned, and they'll end up getting admitted because they are decent sources that comply with WP:RS . By the way, why did you attach original research to the Partridge ref on this article? Jeffrire 16:21, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Well first we have to determine who is a reliable/trustworthy researcher or commentator. LGAT is not a subject of study in itself. Its a subject related to New Alternative Religions, cults, psychology and psychological abuses, pseudoscience, new age, skepticism, consumer protection and so on. So who is a published commentator on those subjects? Just a  minute, if we take a representative sample of all of those people who comment on those subjects I wonder if there will be any who consider NLP to be delivered in LGAT/new age trainings/mass marathon trainings form? If you want to make the assertion that no other commentators say NLP is related to LGATs according to wishful thinking and your lack of research, then perhaps there is some WP rule somewhere that'll let you sign your own username after the assertion and date it. Otherwise I suggest you leave the commentary to reliable sources. Jeffrire 00:16, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Good. In the meantime, this might help you out . Jeffrire 00:48, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Hello Fainites. I believe I should be more careful to doublecheck my discussion for anything close to sarcastic. I'll assume you've misunderstood my last 2 comments. If you wish to introduce an entry based on your own pov then it would be a good idea to back up the statement with sources. Otherwise it can be considered OR. Again, its not just riveting, its crucial policy . If you present that no other major commentator says NLP is a LGAT, then there should be a source that states that view. Right now we have substantial research views that NLP is a LGAT or is presented in LGAT form. Jeffrire 10:59, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  NLP sub discussion 

message: You two have been discussing this subject for ages now, and are both not being productive. I propose the following:
*Keep the current mention of neuro-linguistic programming as is, which is: "Specific techniques used in Large Group Awareness Trainings include [..] neuro-linguistic programming [...]". This is a direct paraphrased quote from Singer. Note that this does not state "NLP is a LGAT", the contested sentence.
*Stop the discussion/flame war now.
*Only start the discussion again when new sources presenting new information (not new sources presenting the same information) are found.
Do not worry about the other party editing the information on the subject unilaterally. A large number of active editors is watching this article, and will revert such a change swiftly.
--User:Krator (t c) 22:17, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. Jeffrire 03:02, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Halt the discussion. 

message: Per the ongoing controversy as is plainly visible on this talk page, the article failed its good article review. See summary posted toward the top of this page. Wryspy 18:15, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Good article review

message: I have renominated this article, there has been no issues regarding any content disputes for five days.  In addition, both editors involved in the prior dispute, which only basically involved one sentence of the entire article, have agreed to take a break from that issue.  Smee 02:54, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Renominated GA 

message: I don't think the article needs to be on hold perhaps for what i'm asking, but i'm not getting the idea from this article of what exactly LGAT is actually for. It just says in the lead that its used in group therapy and stuff like that, without saying whether or not its just used in therapy for almost anything and everything, or more prominently for specific things. I might not be reading it right, (it's a bit late where I am right now) but while the article seems pretty good at describing what LGAT is, I don't really like how it doesn't seem to say specifically what LGAT is used for, group therapy could mean many things. Homestarmy 02:36, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I find the lead section quite elaborative on the subject of what LGAT actually is: commercial trainings for large groups, using techniques from group therapy and the human potential movement. In fact, the word group therapy only appears twice in the article. --User:Krator (t c) 08:22, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You know what, you are correct, the article does do a good job of that in the lead.  Thank you for pointing this out.  Smee 08:23, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, i'm not the expert, I just saw it on the GAC page, so i'll take your word for it that it isn't supposed to be specific. I'll look at the rest of the article then, it shouldn't take too long, I hope.... Homestarmy 18:57, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We all thank you for your time.  Smee 18:58, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: GA Question

message: I've come across a few problems in this article, and though I don't think any of them are hard to fix, i'd probably get it wrong if I tried fixing some of the stuff myself. (Psycology isn't something i'm big on...) I'm putting the article on hold for now, here's the problems as I see them:
*"Large Group Awareness Training (or LGAT) is a term used to describe commercial trainings..." What makes trainings commercial? I think this could be worded better, perhaps "psycological training sessions" or something like that. -- , wikilinked "commercial", to connotate for-profit.  Smee 22:09, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We need a bibliography section for the notability of books and authors. The current "Books" subsection in references could be renamed to Bibliography. The specific citations of these books could be either Harvard references or footnotes with "Last name (Date). Page." as format, or similar. This Bibliography section would only include books that are specifically about Large Group Awareness Training, and leave out books that only mention it. It is 1am here now, but I will make an attempt tomorrow. --User:Krator (t c) 22:53, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, in that case, there would only be one book, because there has only been one book written that was directly about Large Group Awareness Training, and that is Evaluating a Large Group Awareness Training.  As to your formatting idea, I agree, but I do think it is useful to list the other books that discuss and cite LGAT as a group/organization/methodology.  Smee 02:54, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: On Hold

message: ... for formatting the "books" section.  It looks better.  Yours, Smee 10:35, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No problem. --User:Krator (t c) 11:53, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Thank you to Krator... 

message: :Template is listed for Deletion. See Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2007_May_28#Template:LGAT.  Smee 01:30, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Template:LGAT]] has been listed for deletion. 

message: *Cults template is not a category, but a template with related links. Smee 17:54, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure. But you are categorizing LGATs as cults by adding the template. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:58, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nope.  I am adding relevant links to the "see also" section.  That is all.  Smee 19:59, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Not really. You can add relevant links to the see also section if not already linked from the article if you wish. Adding the psychology and the cult template are not appropriate. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:31, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I am not suggesting such a thing, and I am surprised by your response. Please re-read my commen. I was attempting to explain how we can better the article by providing readers with a suitable shortlist of relevant Wikipedia articles rather than by a discriminate list of articles in templates, most of which have nothing to do with the subject of this article. I would appreciate that you consider the advantages of such an approach. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:35, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Neither of those templates are formatted as per Template:Navbox generic, and set to collapsed.  If they were, I would say that the education template actually could be considered somewhat relevant, and an argument could be made for its inclusion.  The emotions template is too broad, and a stretch.  Smee 21:36, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I am asking a very simple question:  Is a good and concise "See also" section a better way? I certainly think so. See WP:LAYOUT#See_also and WP:MOS≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:40, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Again, these two templates are highly correlated to the article, and relevant.  They do not disrupt the article space, as they are defaulted to collapsed.  And they are not categorizing the article, as they are templates, not categories.  Let us now please both stop this back and forth, going in circles thread, and wait to see what uninvolved neutral editors think, coming from the RFC.  This is not a request or demand, simply a helpful suggestion in the nicest possible terms for us to both stop this back and forth.  Thanks.  Smee 21:42, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sure. I just thought that it could be useful to explore alternatives to templates. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:14, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay.  Now let's see what neutral uninvolved editors coming from the RFC have to say.  Smee 22:20, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cults template is ''not'' a category, but a ''template'' with related links. 

message: Dispute about the appropriateness to add to this article two templates  and 
; Comment by 
* The use of these templates is not appropriate:  is asserting that these organizations are cults, when that is disputed;  is unnecessary as it is unrelated: not all articles that are have a psychology  component need to carry this template. That is what "See also" sections are for: to add appropriate articles that can be useful to our readers, rather than using so many templates which contain articles that are unrelated and that can be construed as POV pushing in a certain direction (that LGATs are cults, and that LGATs are all about psychology). ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:48, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: These group trainings have also been referred to as new age trainings,[1] mass marathon trainings[2] and white collar cults.[3] 
is talking about the companies using LGAT methods, not the LGAT methods themselves and is not appropriate in this article. Our article is confusing LGAT as a methodology with LGAT as a label (like cult).
Lsi john 22:56, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  RFC Summary 

message: ;Comment by GlassFET
I don't think either template is appropriate to the article. Selective use of see also entries is preferable per Jossi. GlassFET 15:26, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comments by RFC respondents

message: Smee, could you please explain why it is appropriate for you to edit another editor's comments but not appropriate for anyone else? When I do exactly the same thing you do, you revert my edits and complain. Two people (three including myself) have suggested you take a wiki break. You have already acknowledged that it is good advice. Perhaps you should take it. Lsi john 00:28, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Clarification

message: The idea that we would list where a term is referenced in other books and articles is unencyclopedic, adds nothing, and I will stop just short of saying it is silly. I am referring to:The phrase Large Group Awareness Training has been used by psychologists,[8] psychiatrists and academics in academic journal peer reviewed articles[9][10] and psychology books and textbooks.[6][11][4][12][13]Large Group Awareness Training is discussed and explained by psychologists in the textbook, Introduction to Psychology: Gateways to Mind and Behavior[14], in the Handbook of Group Psychotherapy[15] and in the book: Evaluating a Large Group Awareness Training.[16]As an analogy I went over to redox to see where it informed me that the term was really truly used in chemistry TEXTBOOKS. The inclusion of that bit is just so much dross and links for links sake (dare I say "sources for sources sake"?) Make it go away. Please. It is unprofessional and amateurish (and that is redundant again). --Justanother 00:36, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *The fact that terms coined by psychologists and psychiatrists are used by them is very unnotable indeed and the fact that the term got some traction in popular media is equally unnotable. We are not writing an article here about a term, we are writing about a thing; that thing being a poorly-defined collection of techniques for personal growth (or personal doom, if you prefer) that have some common characteristics. You, Smee, are confused if you think we write encyclopedic articles about terms. --Justanother 01:08, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *The article is about both, and the studies and writings about it by psychologists, psychiatrists, and academics.  Description in psychology textbooks is notable, in this regard, as a definitional analysis.  Smee 01:13, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Justanother. If LGAT is a legitimate phrase, then it is unnecessary to FLUFF it by giving a laundry list of every googled source/usage we can find. And, the claim borders on Original Research by providing empirical evidence to support itself. It is unnecessary and needs to be deleted. Lsi john 03:47, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Odd inclusion 

message: LGAT is not mentioned in the article regarding white-collar-cults. Please do not reinclude this source. Lsi john 02:58, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Our article is about the methodology. The article you cite describes a group. The citation in the LEAD says LGAT has been referred to as white-collar cults, which is incorrect. Furthermore, making the association between the group and LGAT is Original Research. And you know better than edit warring anyway. Lsi john 03:10, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: LGAT not mentioned

message: Smee, you know better than that. This is an article about LGAT (a methodology), which covers a large number of companies. Singling out ONE company, just to mention CULT is unacceptable and is not encyclopedic. Someone needs to please remove that. I can't right now, as I believe I'm close to 3 reverts here and do not want to edit war. Lsi john 03:56, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *Exactly. A GROUP was called a white-collar cult. NOT LGAT. LGAT is a methodology. If you want to include white-collar cults, put it in the landmark article, not this one. Lsi john 04:04, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *And then that term was again used in a different secondary source.  Smee 04:08, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *And you were in such a hurry to make your edits, your Landmark sentence isn't even clear about which term was used. Lsi john 05:11, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Landmark in LEAD

message: This is not a psychological term. Simply because a psychologist used it, does not make it a psychological term. This is not only Original Research, but is incorrect. Lsi john 04:11, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Psychological Term

message: #Defined in an article called "Large Group Awareness Training", in Annual Review of Psychology 
#Further explained in detail in the book called Evaluating a Large Group Awareness Training - the book was part of the "Research in Psychology" series.
#Explained further in textbooks on psychology, like Introduction to Psychology
Nuff said.  Smee 04:16, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *Simply provide a source which lists LGAT as a psychological term. Lsi john 05:06, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Large Group Awareness Training is a psychological term 

message: Is there anything I can edit here that you won't revert? Even my templates get reverted? That  template needs to be there. All you had to do was point out that it needed |section added. You just want to revert everything and it grows old. Lsi john 04:27, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *Um, Smee, you reverted my template out of the article and changed my previous edit. You are edit warring. You are editing just to be contentious. Lsi john 04:31, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *I changed your template which tagged the entire article as OR, to the one word you had a problem with.  As I can see that you think this was a revert of your tag, I will self revert and allow you the opportunity to change it back, to only the one word that you thought was OR.  Unless you feel the entire article really is OR.  Smee 04:32, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *I feel the template needed |section added, which I had forgotten and which you reverted out before I could blink. You are at 7RR and I believe I am at 2RR. I will not edit war with you, but it is clear that you intend to revert every change I make. Lsi john 04:31, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *I have stated that I will not revert you on this article, though you may continue to edit war, I will not revert anymore.  I am surprised that you intended to tag the entire article as OR, but I have self-reverted.  Smee 04:37, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, thats a theme with you too. Revert until you get reported, then self revert and promise not to edit war any more. That puts you at 6RR instead of 7RR and you started edit warring with me in Who Is Guru Maharaj Ji? (book) too, so I had to stop editing there as well. 05:08, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Page has been protected for a duration of 48 hours. Please discuss the issues here and edit the article after the protection has expired. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 05:14, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Must you revert Everything? 

message: ;Comment from Smee
#Defined in an article called "Large Group Awareness Training", in Annual Review of Psychology (Finkelstein 1982)
#Further explained in detail in the book called Evaluating a Large Group Awareness Training - the book was part of the "Research in Psychology" series. (Fisher 1990)
#Explained further in textbooks on psychology, like Annotated Instructor's Edition, Psychology an Introduction (Pettijohn 1988), Handbook of Group Psychotherapy (Burlingame 1994), Group Processes: Blackwell Handbook of Social Psychology (Tindale 2001), Introduction to Psychology (Coon 2003), Psychology: A Journey (Coon 2004).  These are but a few, the author and year is listed here, but I can give the full citation and page numbers, which are all already listed in the article.  Smee 05:22, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comments from previously involved editors 

message: ;Comment from DaveApter
To me it's clear that the attempt to attach the descriptor "psychological" is no more than a ploy to confer a veneer of respectability to a bunch of confused thinking and fractured logic which has no serious claim to scientific credibility.
Is there even a succinct, unambiguous, generally agreed definition?
The "Definition" section of the article tells us:
:Large Group Awareness Training has been described as teaching simple, but often overlooked education, which takes place over the period of a few days, in which individuals receive intense, emotionally-focused instruction...
Great! So anything that meets these criteria is an LGAT then?  And conversely the only conclusions that we can reliably draw about anything that is so categorised is that it teaches simple things that are often overlooked, and that it takes place over several days?
:Large Group Awareness Training has been compared to certain principles of cognitive therapy, such as the idea that people can change their lives by interpreting the way they view external circumstances.
Quite apart from the tortured grammar, what does this even mean? How can "a psychological term used to describe trainings" be "compared to certain principles"? And is the "idea that people can change their lives by interpreting the way they view external circumstances." an essential feature, or one that only applies to some of them? And if not essential, why is this in the 'Definition' section?
:Large Group Awareness Trainings often take place in relatively enclosed locations.
So what? And if one of the trainings that met the above criteria were held on a campsite it wouldn't count?
:Academic writings... described Large Group Awareness Training as focusing on "philosophical, psychological and ethical issues", as related to a desire to increase personal effectiveness in people's lives.
Sounds entirely commendable to me, but what's the connection with the defining characteristics above? Or is this an additional requirement? Or do these "issues related to a desire" follow automatically from learning "simple, often overlooked" things?
:... defined the term as referring to: "programs that claim to increase self-awareness and facilitate constructive personal change."
Again seems reasonable, but what's the relationship to previous definitions?
:The textbook cites Lifespring, Actualizations, and the Forum as definitional examples of LGAT methods.
So how does this help us who haven't done any of these programs (and now can't since they haven't been running for decades)? And which characteristics of them are definitive, and which incidental?
:Coon further defines Large Group Awareness Training in his book Introduction to Psychology.
Good! So what did he say?
Later on in the article we find an entire section entitled 'Compared to Cults'.  ???  Excuse me, but what's the connection between the definitions above and cults? Or might this give a clue to an agenda being pursued here? DaveApter 10:30, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comments from previously uninvolved editors 

message: Since this version, the article's already gone down from (44) citations to (39).  Most intriguing.  Smee 05:41, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Smee, the idea that we are going to list every time a term appears somewhere is ludicrous. This is an article not an inventory. ps I wrote you a letter - did you see it? --Justanother 06:55, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removing citations like there's no tomorrow... 

message: The exact text:
Training seminars are a fixture of modern business. Sales motivation "congresses" and other seminars are used to build communication skills and success techniques. Some of these fall into a category known as Large Group Awareness Training (LGAT) using a methodology which some label that of a white-collar cult. Fortune 500 companies and individuals shell out millions each year to motivational gurus who use a tested five day formula to guide them to higher performance and personal power. While some attendees become lifelong disciples for the method, others object to the highly confrontational and disturbing tactics that they are asked to endure. highly experienced facilitators use crowd dynamics as social prof that the "life changing" tactics are valid, but some delegates have found themselves needing psychiatric care by the fourth day.
First, his claim related to white-collar cults is unclear, at best. It appears that he is saying that some group(s), that use a methodology (unspecified), which places them in a category (LGAT) (undefined), have been referred to as white-collar-cults by some persons (unknown). He then, later on the next page, cites the skeptic's dictionary for a definition of LGAT programs. But there is no indication that the persons (unknown) that he cites as using the term white-collar-cults used the same definition.
Second, his entire paragraph is clearly POV and biased. Saying 'some attendees become lifelong disciples for the method' is a bit suggestive. Then 'others object to the highly confrontational and disturbing tactics' is over the top. Others might object to 'what they perceive as...', but declaring that 'all LGATS use highly confrontational and disturbing tactics that members are asked to endure' is an unsupported opinion of this author.
Therefore, I will not object to some form of this being included, but I cannot accept it as it was worded recently. And, I'm not sure what wording I would accept, given the vague, leading, prejudicial POV and invalid nature of the paragraph being cited. If I could have come up with something to include in our article, as a compromise, I would have.
And, equally important, he does not provide a definition for a "white-collar-cult" and he doesn't provide references or sources for a definition or who has used the term. Including the word 'cult' in any article, without a good (and restrictive) definition, is unacceptable.
Lsi john 12:08, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *Your statement is original research. I will not revert war with you. Lsi john 04:19, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *Inappropriate use of OR tag.  This is a direct quote from a reputable source, and cited appropriately.  Smee 04:22, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not the quote that is original research. Its your additional commentary. Lsi john 04:25, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *I have adjusted the wording a bit more, to attribute the quote directly to the WP:RS, and the authors themselves.  Smee 04:25, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Based on your edits. I'm about to conclude that you haven't read this source either. I'm trying to AGF here, I really am. Lsi john 04:27, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have adjusted the wording to clearly attribute it to the authors and the WP:RS.  And how would you adjust the wording further?  Smee 04:28, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't know what your crusade against Landmark (est) is all about. And I am not going to edit war with you, no matter how much POV you stick in this article. However, the list of your mis-cited facts is growing. No offense intended. Lsi john 04:29, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  White-Collar-Cult 

message: If you wish to continue removing NPOV sourced material, I will not revert that either. Your pov pushing is going strong tonight. I will now stop editing at wiki and take a break, as you seem intent on edit warring again. As you say "happy editing". Lsi john 05:07, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Smee! Respond thusly: those LGAT proponents are very apt to interpret your feelings (and they do a very bad job of it), not to express nor reveal their feelings. They're trying to mob you, but that's one of their techniques they're taught, c.f. section Techniques of the article. Said: Rursus ☺ ★ 08:45, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've never attended any Landmark trainings (I assume thats where you got the 'mob' technique, though its also interesting that I do not see 'mob' in the article). However, I believe that Smee has attended an LE course, and thus should have a good working knowledge of their training. Given Smee's training with Landmark (est), I'm puzzled why you feel the need to explain it to him. Rursus ★, I'm also curious, how much Landmark experience do you have? Lsi john 14:02, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I'll make a push for enhancements of the codex of behavior. Said: Rursus ☺ ★ 08:50, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Removal of NPOV sourced material

message: This one edit removed (4) reputable citations from the article.  The lead/intro before this was much better.  It was worked on initially not by myself, but primarily was reworked by User:Krator.  See Talk:Large_Group_Awareness_Training#Krator.27s_re-work_of_the_LEAD....  Smee 13:41, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Dear Smee. We were having a discussion above on the lead and three editors were in consensus. Hey Smee, I can edit here too. We do not need a laundry list in the lead of where you managed to find the term used. That is not the purpose of "reputable citations".  --Justanother 13:44, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is not a "laundry list" - but it most certainly shows that the use of the term and discussion and analysis of the methodology is used by many psychologists and psychiatrists in academic journals and psychology textbooks, not "some."  Smee 13:46, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Smee, I can go to any article on any academic subject and be assured that I will NOT find a laundry list of "reputable citations" in the lead that serve no other purpose than to point out that someone used the term to describe the phenomenon. No-one is arguing that the term has not been used and WP:NOT a battleground anyway. The term is used by some, let's move on, please. --Justanother 13:49, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

text: *Smee, the fact that a neutral editor worked on the article, is not a guarantee of endorsement from that editor for all citations in the article. Perhaps he was assuming good faith that your citations were appropriate. I, too, did that, until evidence to the contrary repeatedly surfaced. Lsi john 14:38, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

text: *Smee, in your "notes to self" you should promise to never use that "stable version" line again. That is a crock and if you believed it yourself you would do a lot less editing (you wouldn't want to disturb a "stable version", would you?) --Justanother 14:08, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

text: *I am not being impolite. BTW, you are on WP:AN3 --Justanother 14:32, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not a better lead... 

message: Although there is a brief mention of psychotic episodes connected to LGATS that problem is not explored. Those episodes are the most important outcome to explain what actually happens to cause the effects from LGATS. 
The life changing outcomes are achieved through the accidental, subliminal, application of operant conditioning 
Landmark Education now warns potential participants about the psychotic outcomes of their seminar, The Forum. They don't understand the cause. They blame previous mental illness problems but admit there are cases where there had been no previous mental problems. 
What the LGATS are doing to achieve the psychiatric symptoms as well as the 'believed to be positive' outcomes is replicating the "special circumstances" for Subliminal Distraction exposure. -- If they turned off the lights in the lecture room there would be no beneficial outcome from the seminar and no psychotic episodes. 
There have been investigations and papers’ written going back to 1977 attempting to find the cause of these mental breaks. Every one performing that research has been missing a small piece of information. That is the accidental 1960’s discovery of a 'conflict in the physiology of sight' capable of causing a mental break. 
Office workers using the first prototypes of close-spaced workstations had the same mental breaks in the 1960's. Psychologists called in to solve the problem found that constant triggering of the Startle Reflex caused the effect. The Cubicle was designed to deal with a normal feature of physiology and the mental breaks stopped after 1968.
The office Cubicle has been used for forty years to prevent these events in business offices. 
http://visionandpsychosis.net/a_demonstration_you_can_do.htm 
http://visionandpsychosis.net/Brainwashing_Mindcontrol.htm 
http://visionandpsychosis.net/EST_Werner_Erhard.htm 
I am the copyright holder for this material. 
L K Tucker68.158.193.172 00:05, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:   Article Fails to Consider Psychotic Episodes 

message: The article contains the claim "Controversial tactics sometimes used by LGAT groups have included physical violence, isolation, entrapment, brainwashing, and sexual experiences.[25]".  In this case, the cite does not substantiate the claim in the article.  Thus the cite should be removed, as it doesn't support the claim.  And subsequently, the claim itself should be removed as unsupported and misleading.
The cited work is: Weir, D., An Odyssey of Sexual/Gender Evolution: An Autoethnographical Study of the United States from the 1950s to the Present, April 2002.    It's a PhD Dissertation written in 2002.  The abstract of the work describes the work as "an autoethnographical narrative and historical review of the changes in the associations with the concepts of femininity and masculinity" which "examines the question of there being a sexual/gender revolution in the United States during the past fifty years" (page 5).  The only mention of LGATs in the work occurs on page 47, which discusses LGATs (and specifically EST) in the context of the broader Human Potential Movement of the 1970s.  The paragraph in question reads: "Although Erhard adamantly denied that the est enlightenment was associated with any religious intent, many of the other therapy programs of the 1970s did evolve into religions and cults “under the authoritarian control of the charismatic founder” (Anthony et al, p. 13), such as Synanon, Scientology, and psychosynthesis. (pp. 11-17.) The groups’ activities sometimes involved physical violence, isolation, entrapment, brainwashing, and sexual experiences."  From this sentence, EST is explicitly excluded, and the 3 examples provided were not LGATs at all, but rather simply part of the broader discussion of the "Human Potential Movement" at large.  Furthermore, this work fails to provide any additional detail or evidence to support the claim of physical violence, sexual experiences, etc..  One possible reason for the lack of evidence is the fact that the claim wasn't the main focus of the work, or even of the paragraph itself.  Because the cite does not actually support the claim in the article, it should be removed.
Based on this finding, I'm removing the cite as it doesn't support the claim, and removing the claim itself from the article as unsupported and misleading.  Anyone wishing to reinsert the claim should provide a cite which more directly supports the assertions made.
Dougbateman (talk) 00:22, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:   Dubious Claim: physical violence, isolation, entrapment, brainwashing, and sexual experiences 

message: In the section Singer there's this sentence with what looks like a quotation mark that shouldn't be there (second last paragraph): The book mentions Erhard Seminars Training and its derivatives such as the Forum, "Lifespring, Actualizations, MSIA/Insight and PSI Seminars.[33]
Also, the very last section, ICSA, with its one sentence seems slightly unclear to me. The sentence goes like this: "The International Cultic Studies Association has grouped some Large Group Awareness Training organizations together with research about them."
Anyway, this article was highly interesting to read. Thanks for putting it together, all you who put it together! :-) Contributions/62.16.190.104 (talk) 08:34, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  minor comment on two sentences 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Large-group awareness training. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20090724113754/http://www.bu.edu/arion/paglia_cults.pdf to http://www.bu.edu/arion/paglia_cults.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 22:15, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Reading this article and looking at the sources, it seems like a great deal of it if not most come from anti-cult group literature. Aside from being rather difficult to read, it seems to be a bit of a coat rack for the critical point of view. Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 21:55, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anti-Cult Theme? 

message: It's hard to believe the most important criticism of LGAT is left out: That after the participants stops, most experience the whole thing to fade away. Almost all insider articles end with this at the end. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.182.178.9  (talk) 20:43, 27 April 2015‎ 
------
This may be biased by the fact that "insiders who write articles" are of a particular stripe.   I "stopped" an LGAT that participated only very briefly in, and have benefited from, primarily, recognizing and being more skillful at the art of social manipulation.   This is not an "side effect".   At the particular LGAT I was in, it was the intended effect.  And in my career as an independent businessman, and as a marketing consultant, it has been extremely valuable.    Indeed, I suspect that the modern trend of cult-like corporate culture was inspired by LGAT techniques.
This article is extremely negative.   Many LGATs are far less aggressive in their manipulation, needing no deprivation of food, or hypnosis to succeed in their message.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.172.169.86 (talk) 13:23, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Large-group awareness training. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060901094743/http://religiousmovements.lib.virginia.edu/cultsect/mdtaskforce/bserp_loomis.htm to http://religiousmovements.lib.virginia.edu/cultsect/mdtaskforce/bserp_loomis.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:03, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: it is located in the "Definitions of LGAT" section and does not seem to be connected in any way to the text preceeding it, nor the text following it. i think it is a piece of garbage/noise, not being relevant, completely devoid of information. unless it is possible to expand it with something that connects it to the rest of the article and puts it in context, it should be deleted.
"In Consumer Research: Postcards from the edge, discussing behavioral and economic studies, the authors contrasted the "enclosed locations" used with Large Group Awareness Trainings with the "relatively open" environment of a "variety store".[6]"
89.134.199.32 (talk) 12:34, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  i dont think this paragraph is a useful definition - propose to delete it