Talk:Large Group Awareness Training/Archive 4

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
← Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 →

Contents

GA fail criteria

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)

Justification for Quotefarm tag

  • 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)

PS: My intention with the quotefarm tag is not related to neutrality or (N)POV, or alleged bias. It has to do with the fact that it is a badly written article that doesn't read like an encyclopaedia article.

  • Thank you for your opinion. I will work on paraphrasing some of the quotes, at least half, as you suggested in your edit summary. Smee 19:43, 15 April 2007 (UTC).
I have written some further explanation at Talk:Mind Dynamics. --User:Krator (t c) 21:12, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
Thank you. I will strive to implement your suggestions. Smee 21:18, 15 April 2007 (UTC).
  • I have paraphrased quotations in certain areas and shortened the length of quotations in others, as per suggestions above by User:Krator. Smee 07:50, 19 April 2007 (UTC).

Work in progress tag

The work in progress tag has been added, and I will paraphrase some of the quotations as suggested above. Please respect. Smee 07:55, 18 April 2007 (UTC).

Please participate HERE before you simply re-write sections. Lets obtain a concensus so that we do not end up constantly reverting things. Please participate in group discussions and planning. Lets collaberate on the articles instead of making unilateral edits. Lsi john 15:39, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Please do not use CAPS. It is highly inappropriate, especially as headings of your subsections on discussion pages, it is very distracting and rude. I am participating, as can be seen from perusal of the talk pages. Not only that, I have been implementing the changes suggested from non-involved neutral parties, as suggested by them above. And then I reported my progress on the talk pages. Actually, a neutral editor recently commented that my work made an article look better, after I had commented on the change on the talk page, DIFF. Smee 18:56, 18 April 2007 (UTC).
I checked your changes Smee and they look to be positive to me. I added some links that though they are pretty reputable, they may have overloaded the line. If you think the book ref is more appropriate on its own we can remove the other links. Or they may be more appropriate elsewhere on the article (refs etc). Jeffrire 05:45, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I generally like the "refs" formatting better. Thank you for providing this citation from a reputable secondary source! Smee 06:02, 20 April 2007 (UTC).
No problem Smee. I have another highly reputable source that uses agreeing citations within and relates to NLP's status as it relates to this article: Eisner (2000:159) “Both Sharpley and Elich et al. conclude that NLP is akin to a cult”. Eisner, D. (2000) The Death of Psychotherapy: From Freud to Alien Abductions. Sharpley C.F. (1987). "Research Findings on Neuro-linguistic Programming: Non supportive Data or an Untestable Theory". Communication and Cognition Journal of Counseling Psychology, 1987 Vol. 34, No. 1: 103-107,105. Elich, M., Thompson, R. W., & Miller, L. (1985). Mental imagery as revealed by eye movements and spoken predicates: A test of neurolinguistic programming. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 32(4), 622-625. p.625. Jeffrire 06:09, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Thank you for the citations, but how do they relate specifically to this article? I don't have that material handy at the moment... Smee 06:13, 20 April 2007 (UTC).
Oh, specifically only in terms of the status of NLP. Though Eisner does talk of LGATS in his book. My main reason for posting was because of the mention of cults in the subject of LGATs. Jeffrire 07:27, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
In case I cannot get ahold of the Eisner book, any specific interesting page numbers and quotes to cite? Smee 07:28, 20 April 2007 (UTC).
Hi Smee. It may be easier for you to browse electronically if the site allows you to: [1] Jeffrire 18:46, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Skeptics dictionary. It turns out that Skeptics Dictionary by Carrol is not just a website but a published book that contains all that is in the website. According to Norcross 2006 its a reputable source. Norcross et al state that Carrol, Lilienfeld, Singer and Eisner have made considerable progress in exposing pseudoscience and quackery in alternative therapy. Norcross, JC, Garofalo.A, Koocher.G. (2006) Discredited Psychological Treatments and Tests; A Delphi Poll. Professional Psychology; Research and Practice. vol37. No 5. 515-522. So definitely Skeptics dictionary is a good source for this article. Jeffrire 04:54, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Ah, thank you. I will keep that in mind. Smee 05:12, 23 April 2007 (UTC).
  • Actually, per the website forward and other pages, the website and the book are not the same. The website is updated regularly and the author acknowledges that it is a self-published work, which is not subject to peer-review or the normal formal publication process. That does not necessarily exclude it from being used as a WP:RS, but it is important to note that the website and the book are not the same. I have solicited the author's opinion as to whether or not he would consider it a citable resource for encyclopedia entries. -Peace in God. Lsi john 16:02, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Most intriguing. Of course, Self-published material may be acceptable when produced by a well-known, professional researcher (scholarly or non-scholarly) in a relevant field. (Policy) Smee 16:05, 23 April 2007 (UTC).
  • Indeed. And, here again, may be acceptable should not be interpreted as absolutely must use. May be acceptable can also mean may not be acceptable or may not be relevant. Each situation should be evaluated on its own merit, and an overall consensus of opinion reached in discussion. Lsi john 21:15, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi again. Actually the main source (the book) is not self published. Its published by John Wiley & Sons Inc (30 Aug 2003) [2] Jeffrire 06:04, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, however the reference I was referring to, was the website, not the book. Lsi john 21:16, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Interestingly enough, I don't recall Skeptics dictionary referring to NLP as a LGAT when I looked at it some months ago. It may be that my memory is at fault, or maybe he got it off Wiki. The blind leading the blind? Fainites 21:28, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Re your Eisner discussion above, actually Eisner misquoted Sharpley and Elich. Elich (who did a study which concluded that PRS was rubbish) said 'NLP has achieved something akin to cult status when it may be nothing more than a psychological fad" (p625), not was 'akin to a cult'. Sharpley quoted Elich in his major reviews in 84 and 87. Eisner has misquoted both. Sharpley and Elich are both experimental psychologists who were dealing with scientific research on NLP's theoretical underpinnings and its usefulness or otherwise in therapy. Neither scientific paper is in anyway about whether NLP is a cult or not although NLP is pretty much slated in many other ways. I can let you have the papers if you wish to see them. Sharpley is quoted extensively on the NLP page. Fainites 20:48, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

  • I will let User:Jeffrire respond on the reputable citations he provided. Smee 20:56, 26 April 2007 (UTC).

Fainties, when I quote Eisner, I am giving his view. Eisner wrote a long section on NLP and its not at all positive. He seems to be talking about NLP as if its some sort of cult and he mentions it in the same section as his discussion of LGATs. He doesn't make exhaustive lists of LGATs but he does talk about LGATs and mentions their attributes, which NLP also shares. I think its extemely obvious that NLP is taught in LGAT format and can be considered a kind of LGAT. There's information about Tony Robbins teaching a type of NLP and Tony Robbins clearly teaches in LGATs according to source. I havn't kept the sources there because they are abundant. NLP seems to be mentioned in several books about cults within the LGAT description. I'll go back to the sources and make sure that NLP is properly sourced as an LGAT. Jeffrire 02:43, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

No offense intended. But extremely obvious to one person is WP:OR to another person. We do not get to choose what is extremely obvious. Something was either specifically said, or it wasn't. If the specific claim wasn't made, we do not get to claim that what we want to see is extremely obvious. If the author didn't say NLP is LGAT then we can't "consider it a kind of LGAT". That would be WP:OR. Lsi john 03:26, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
To me its extremely obvious. I get to choose my POV and most others will be extremely likely to choose that POV when they read the information thats going to be presented here. I believe I can help editors by giving my point of view and by stating that when the normal reader reads the information in the sources they will conclude that NLP is a LGAT, and most likely conclude that NLP is some sort of a cult or relevant to cultic studies (as nearly all the sources that mention NLP are about cultic studies). Context is everything.
I am not interested in quoting "NLP is a LGAT". But since you are interested in knowing more, what I can do for you is go to the databases and sources and find any information on NLP (or any other subject you are interested in) and LGAT within any cultic studies material. I guess it'll take a few weeks, but by the nature of the subject I can see it'll probably be very fruitful. I wouldn't want to commit OR,- I am interested in representing the author within the context of the source. Thanks for the suggestion. Jeffrire 05:57, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Skeptics dictionary on the web is a reputable source. Carroll seems to me to be highly reputable as an expert. He is running that particular website so the information is reputable. When he says NLP is an LGAT I think he's stating the obvious. Just looking at the adverts for NLP is convincing enough. Carroll's website is fine even on its own. It satisfies WP:RS already, and other RS sources have been kindly supplied. Jeffrire 02:51, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Being criticised, or even being a crap therapy, (which is what the psych criticism is about) doesn't make it a cult. Eisner can't 'seem' to be calling NLP a cult or a LGAT. Either he is or he isn't. If you've finally found some reputable sources Headley, then by all means show us them. I don't buy this 'I haven't kept the sources because they're abundant'.Fainites 21:16, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Its easy, just do a web search. There are enough already. I found Elich and I was right. NLP it treated with quite some derision. Btw, who's Headley? Jeffrire 04:08, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Ypu claimed Elich said it was a cult. Give us the quote! But you won't will you. You never do. As for who's Headley, you know very well but for the attention of others see [[3]].Fainites 20:36, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Heres a full quote from Sharpley (1987) if anyones interested. "If it is true that there are data in the clinical files of proponents of NLP that support it in a way different from the experimental data reviewed, then these need to be published and examined according to the traditional methodological yardsticks of experimental and evaluative literature. Until that time the enquirer in this field may be forgiven for accepting the conclusion of Elich et al (1985) "NLP has achieved something akin to cult status when it may be nothing more than a psychological fad" (p625)". It was a literature review of a total of 44 studies on preferred representational systems, of which Elich et al's was one on eye movements as indicators of mental imagery. All very arcane I know, but this is within the field of experimental psychology, not cults and the like. Fainites 22:39, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

    • This is probably a dead fish at this point, but... saying something "has achieved something skin to cult status" and calling it a cult are two very different things. Paraphrasing the one to the other is not valid. Ratagonia 06:40, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Requested Citations

In the opening paragraph we say:

"is a phrase used to describe commercial trainings of a period of days which include various techniques from group therapy and the human potential movement but are usually run by non-psychologists"

I have several questions/issues with the wording.

  1. is this citing a single source? If so, which one?
  2. is LGAT - always commercial?
  3. as I recall, period of days, was more specifically cited as being of unusually long duration.

The way its worded now seems to violate WP:OR. If anyone has the answers to these questions, I would like to know. Thanks. Lsi john 21:37, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Please see WP:LEAD, the introduction paragraphs don't necessarily have to have the citations themselves, so long as it is a brief summary of the article itself, and that the info is cited later in the article, which in this case it is. Smee 07:02, 25 April 2007 (UTC).
  • Ok, that addresses the lack of citations. However, I am still wondering about the other questions:
  1. How can we re-write of unusually long duration as period of days? Did someone specificaly say period of days? The article says later that the seminars take place over a period of a few days, but there is also another LGAT definition that includes of unusually long duration.We should be accurate. If both definitions exist, both should be stated.
  2. usually run by non-psychologists is not mentioned later in the article.
  3. are LGAT based companies always commercial? Finkelstein said they were commercial, but that is only one opinion. Some cited companies are commercial, but I'm not sure that commercial is part of the definition. If not, it shouldn't be cited in the opening comments as part of the definition of lGAT.
  4. I thought we agreed to remove this verbiage in another article, shouldn't it be removed here for the same reason?

"In 1989 researchers from the University of Connecticut received the "National Consultants to Management Award" from the American Psychological Association, for their study: Evaluating a Large Group Awareness Training[9]."

Their award isn't relevant to the description of LGAT. It adds no significant value to this article. At the very least, it isn't significant enough to be in the article's lead.
Lsi john 21:31, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Neuro-linguistic programming

I have altered the sentence on Singer and Partidge as it could have created a misleading impression that Singer called NLP a LGAT. Fainites 16:37, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Also, the only mention of NLP in Cults in our Midst is as follows;

Aside from complaining that they were being put through programs tantamount to a forced religious conversion, employees also objected to specific techniques being used: meditation, neurolinguistic programming, biofeedback, self-hypnosis, bizarre relaxation techniques, mind control, body touching, yoga, trance induction, visualization...".

In the circumstances, the prominence given to NLP when citing Singer in your techniques section seems unjustified. Unless your cite is from some other Singer writing, but it is not clear from the ref given.Fainites 16:45, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

On further examination it seems your only Singer ref. is 'Cults in our Midst' so I have inserted a more accurate version of what is said. Fainites 20:32, 26 April 2007 (UTC)


The section comes from a chapter called Intruding into the Workplace in a book called Cults In Our Midst. It makes an in depth discussion of LGATs and calls them "training programs" then there is a section about "the problems of being transformed at work" and here it is in full:

"Problems with Being "Transformed" at Work"

"The following cases illustrate some of what has happened when employers sent employees to certain - training programs. In part of these cases, the employees sought redress because they felt they had been coerced by their employers to attend and/or had been harmed by the programs.

Aside from complaining that they were being put through programs tantamount to a forced religious conversion, employees also objected to specific techniques being used: meditation, neurolinguistic programming, biofeedback, self-hypnosis, bizarre relaxation techniques, mind control, body touching, yoga, trance inductions, visualization, and in some cases, intense confrontational sessions akin to the "attack" therapy methods that emerged in the 1960s and 1970s.

From a tire factory in Albany, Georgia, to a car dealership in Tacoma, Washington, workers began to put up resistance to the imposition of religious values and the intense influence techniques used in the workplace training programs."


This is all good information for LGAT related articles. The second section could be quoted in full. The rest of it could be put into paraphrasing, using keywords like coerced, harmed, imposition of religious values and influence techniques. Jeffrire 03:08, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I've put the list of techniques into the article. Am I right in thinking that LGATs almost invariably have some kind of religious or spiritual content? Fainites 08:20, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I think its pretty clear that all LGATs have a strongly religious or quasi content in the same way that EST, NLP, Scientology, Lifespring, Landmark, Klemmer associates, and others have a strong religious or spiritual new age association. Btw, why did you think the prior line gave the impression Singer said NLP is LGAT?. Do you think Singer in no way holds the view that NLP is often run as a LGAT? Do you think its implausible that a lot of people view NLP in all its seminars and 24 hour clappy chanting training sessions and firewalking as a LGAT? I'm just thinking in terms of how expert authors tend to group NLP. The Singer book, and the others I have read tend to put NLP in the same group as EST, Scientology, Landmark, and other such movements. If they are not strongly associated with LGAT, I don't know what is. Actually, I'm just hinting at the inevitable reliable sources that are going to appear some time or other. Jeffrire 09:01, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm perfectly happy with reliable sources appearing. But if you think Singer in Cults in Our Midst' describes or names NLP as a LGAT, then I suggest you read it again. The sentence discussed above is the only mention of NLP in the whole book. This can hardly be carelessness on Singers part. She slates NLP totally in her book 'Crazy Therapies', but not for being a LGAT or a cult. Just for being an overblown, scientifically unvalidated crap 'therapy'. Similarly Langone has written about NLP being used by cults. (You can find this on the NLP page) but nowhere does he state that in his opinion NLP is a cult. Being a LGAT and being used by some LGATs are two very different things. It is a perjorative term that should not be bandied around lightly by reference to any paragraph that happens to have the words 'NLP' and 'LGAT' in it, however peripheral the connection. Do I take it that you now propose on that basis to also call biofeedback, self hypnosis, yoga and visualization (a common techniques in many mainstream therapies) LGATs? After all, they're all in Singers list. As for the rest of your above paragraph, if you say Singer groups NLP with est, Landmark, and Scientology, then give us the full quote and context please. As for the religious association, NLP is criticsed as a New Age therapy, not religion. Again, you can see that criticism on the NLP page. Did you want to see the Sharpley and Elich papers by the way? Fainites 11:14, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

NLP is new age. That makes it religious or quasi religious just the same as est, EMIN, Scientology and the rest. I'm sure Sharpley and Elich treat NLP as lot of pseudoscientific "magical thinking" rubbish and that will be consistent with other cultlike pseudoscientific new age developments. I admit so far the Skeptics Dictionary web page needs further support but the book is bound to be the same as the website. Its such an obvious fact that NLP is a lgat. Jeffrire 13:09, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
"magical thinking rubbish" is not constructive communication. It causes division, not cooperation. Please refrain from injecting personal feelings about the subject matter. Thanks. Lsi john 20:04, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

a) New Age also refers to a culture and covers many things, not all religious b) if you're interested in what Sharpley and Elich say, I have already offered to e-mail you the papers. Or aren't you interested in what they actually say? Your supposition as to what they say is in fact quite wrong. c)The Skeptics website is not the same as the book d) if it's such an obvious fact that NLP is a LGAT, how come all the major commentators appear to have missed it? e) if you find a decent source, then good for you, but so far this looks like just a POV push. Fainites 19:59, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

From what I read on the subject, NLP seems to be a system used by some (pseudo-)psychologists. According to the definition of LGAT collaboratively written in this article, LGAT is a seminar with lots of people attending. I think we're comparing apples to oranges here. NLP may be one of the techniques used by LGAT people, but will never be one. --User:Krator (t c) 20:15, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Quite. NLP is used a huge variety of ways, undoubtedly including some LGATs and some cults. But it could never be one. It has no central spiritual or religious philosophy, no organisation, no leader and no aim. The main proponents can't even agree on it.Fainites 20:27, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Krator, this also speaks to one of my other objections. In this series of lGAT articles, we are using LGAT as both a description of methodology, and as a label to tag companies. In many articles we say "ABC is LGAT", instead of the more accurate and somehow less accusatory verbiage: "ABC is a seminar training company that uses LGAT techniques."
Your thoughts on a standard that can be used as a guide across the entire series of LGAT articles? Lsi john 20:32, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Hello Krator. We've been asked to provide evidence for the view that NLP is a LGAT. There is evidence that quite a few subjects are LGATs. There seems to be more evidence for NLP as a LGAT than many of the other subjects. We have a book by Partridge that says "Landmark can be considered as a LGAT (a category that includes NLP)". There is a published book (skeptics dictionary) by Carroll - a professor who says that says NLP is a LGAT. Singer (a psychologist writing about cults) talks of LGATs and then explains that NLP is used therein. There is a reliable cult awareness website that calls NLP a LGAT. Its as tight as a drum. There's no question by Wiki standards that NLP is considered to be delivered in LGAT form. Jeffrire 03:54, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
I have read some about neuro-linguistic programming just now, (avoid overusing the abbreviations) and I learned the following:
  1. Skepdic.com is quite clear on the subject: neuro-linguistic programming is a form of large group awarness training. According to Skepdic, neuro-linguistic programming is a single program, practised by Grinder and Bandler.
  2. The Wikipedia article on neuro-linguistic programming defines the term different than skepdic does. It writes about others using it, and local governments even certifying providers of such courses. It is defined in the lead section as a system (i.e: a tool), not a program (i.e: a company/organisation run by some people).
  3. In fact, the article on Large Group Awareness Training (this article), already lists neuro-linguistic programming as one of its techniques.
  4. I see no reason why the article on neuro-linguistic programming cannot state that it is employed by large group awareness trainings.
  5. Alternatively, one could rewrite the whole neuro-linguistic programming article to fit skepdic's definition of a program, and not a system. I advise against this. One, it is not true (if the sources the article currently has are reliable, that is) and two, it would be misinterpreting skepdic. The focus of that website is not on the organisation and classification of pseudo-science, but on disproving the (semi-scientific) claims pseudo-scientists make.
  6. To further illustrate my point, writing "NLP is a LGAT" would be like writing "A hammer is a carpenter". I propose writing "Carpenters use hammers" and "Hammers are employed by carpenters".
Note: when responding, state the point no. you disagree with. This makes the discussion to follow.
--User:Krator (t c) 11:44, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes Krator. I don't think anyone is pushing the line that "NLP is LGAT". The main argument is around whether the sources are sufficient for the view that NLP is related to LGATs in relation to this article. The skeptics website itself may be insufficient, but the book is solid. Of course its my view that NLP is definitely run as a LGAT by the look of the providers on the web. Just my POV. I only want to present reliable sources that support the view NLP is in the category of LGAT, associated with LGATS, and used within other LGATs and cults. But right now I prefer to let things cool off and do some more solid research. I am more interested in properly sourcing LGAT information as a whole rather than getting into disputes. Jeffrire 12:26, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

On the contrary, one only has to read what you said about Singer above to see that you are pushing the view that NLP is a LGAT, basically because it's mentioned in the same book! How many times does this point have to be made? Singer and Langone do not describe NLP as a LGAT. Nor as far as I am aware does any other major investigator or commentator. The only citation of any note is Partridge and that is a passing reference. Skeptics Dictionaru is fine as a secondary source, but hardly a primary source. He cites no sources for his assertion. No compendium can be considered a primary source if it is not based on primary sources. Nobody as far as I am aware disputes that NLP is used by LGATs and cults.I don't think this back door approach is going to work Headley. Fainites 20:32, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I find your tone not civil. Please keep it cool.
The editor you are attacking now has just agreed not to push his view further, and notes like the above will just make the dispute worse. --User:Krator (t c) 22:37, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry Krator. It's just that we've been through all this so many times on the NLP page already. Fainites 22:22, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I have just reverted an anon related to this topic, who deleted one of the references to neuro-linguistic programming on this article. My suspicion (and hope) is that this is one of the involved editors who simply forgot to log in. As an addition to my edit summary, I want to invite that user to summarize the debate here that has, according to his edit summary, taken place on the talk page of another article. --User:Krator (t c) 23:08, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

(wasn't me).. but ... while we're on the subject..
  1. I'm not sure NLP is LGAT as much as LGAT can use NLP. That aside, if a reliable source cites it, we can technically include it.
  2. That being said, in combination with discussions in other articles... I propose that in order to be listed as LGAT, we require 2 (or more) reliable sources. If an organization clearly and undeniably fits the definition, then it should not be difficult to locate two or more independent sources which make the claim that it uses LGAT methods. In theory, this would provide a confirmation and reduce minority opinion false-positives.
Lsi john 23:19, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Krator, would this change violate any wiki rules? Lsi john 23:23, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
I'd say we can state that NLP is viewed as a LGAT according to a particular source. I would say 3 reliable refs would mean we can say its a fact that NLP is a LGAT. Presently we seem to have over 3 reliable refs. I think this should apply to all subjects in the LGAT scope. Jeffrire 03:28, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
I have no objection to requiring 3 reliable sources. As for claiming it is a fact, that would be WP:OR. We can only claim that someone else stated it. Lsi john 03:44, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually there's nothing wrong with one source of it's authoritative and not just a passing reference or a superficial compendium but nobody as yet has produced one. If NLP were a LGAT sources would surely not be so difficult to find and so thin when produced. It might be more fruitful to look for an example of NLP taught in LGAT form by a particular operater or company if there is a reliable source. For the reasons already given above (by Krator), trying to say NLP is LGAT is a bit like trying to say pain relief is aspirin. Tony Robbins could be an example though. Does anyone have an authoritive source to say what he does is LGATs? He's pretty much slated by Salerno in SHAM but as a lifestyle guru I think. However, he does seem to do the week long, mass audience thing.Fainites 22:13, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Article LEAD

The article lead has been reworked, to incorporate input from 3O as well as readability and flow.

Some information was moved to more appropriate sub-sections.

Lsi john 13:28, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

OK, then make your case, we can discuss, and anything useful may possibly be considered. Jeffrire 13:55, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

This is unproductive commentary. It also means anything useful may possibly be ignored. In the spirit of cooperation, I would suggest: "all input will be considered." Lsi john 20:35, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
A small note, I noticed the following edit summary: "This was already ruled on by 3O as being unnecessary." - 3O does not rule, the opinions given are purely the personal opinions (supported by arguments, of course) of those giving the opinion. --User:Krator (t c) 14:02, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
The 3O, regarding the mention of the award to the study, was also in line with a general concensus that the wording was unnecessary. It did not add anything to the article, and only served to overvalue one particular citation. Lsi john 17:12, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
I am just watching this space to make sure the quotefarm tag stays where it is until the article ceases to be a quotefarm, but I felt the urge to react upon this edit summary.
--User:Krator (t c) 14:02, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks Krator. Yes the 3o was only for one of those multiple edits and by the looks of the source in question Wikipedia would seem to smile on the reliability of the source. I will read up on 30 in more detail. Any more input from yourself is welcome. Jeffrire 14:11, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
The 3O edit that I made, removed the source initially, and then in a later edit, I readded the citation in the appropriate section. No sources were deleted and left out.
The 3O was given regarding the unnecessary wording for the award that was given to the study. That wording added nothing to the article and I believe there was an agreement to remove it.
Additionally, Smee routinely uses 3O as hard and fast confirmation of her opinion, I followed her lead. Lsi john 17:15, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Jeffrire, there were no substantial substance changes in my revisions. I re-ordered some wording and believe that I improved readability. The opening lead is now less filled with quotes per Krator's comments. The opening lead now gives a brief overview, supported by documented citations later. All citations remained intact. There was no reason to fully revert my edits.

Each of my edits was made separately. There was not one-single major rewrite.

Is it your request, and promise, to discuss every edit prior to making them? I am willing to agree to that, if it is your proposal and you are going to follow it also.

If there is an objection to my revisions, why not indicate here what they are? No citations were removed, only relocated.

I actually intended for my edits to bring a balance and blend. There are many things that remain in the article that I would remove, if I allowed myself to be biased in the editing.

Lsi john 17:12, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

The current lead is neutral and well written (I made a small (copy) edit, against my principles, for formatting and grammar only). Keep it, and I advise all editors involved work on improving the whole article. --User:Krator (t c) 19:49, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Thank you. Lsi john 19:50, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Three small notes:
  1. Is it necessary to state that it was explained in a textbook (last paragraph of the lead)? This is not some obscure web phenomenon trying to establish any notability to survive an AfD, so things like that are better moved to a non-lead section.
  2. There is one external link that should be converted to the ref format.
  3. The editor's note should be removed, as this is not the way Wikipedia operates. Either Self is reliable, and we assume that their sources are reliable too, or they're not. Note that first-hand observations are not necessary for a source to be reliable.
--User:Krator (t c) 19:54, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
I have just done all of the above. --User:Krator (t c) 20:06, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
I was working on it, you beat me to it. Thanks though. Lsi john 20:15, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

intention

(relocated from user talk page)

Krator, was it your intention that your 3O comment be used as justification for a major revert on the entire series of edits?

Also, would you be so kind as to give feedback on the current version of the article lead (after my edits) as compared to the version prior to them.

Thank you. Lsi john 17:27, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you again. Lsi john 19:52, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
It is truly a pleasure working with you. I actually feel better about wiki. With all the reverting, its been virtually impossible to make any forward progress toward a truly balanced and encyclopedic article.
I am not neutral on the subject. If I let myself, I would write glowing reviews about how much good is (and can be) done with Personal Growth training.
But that would not make a good article either, and so I try very hard to be neutral in the article.\
Lsi john 21:59, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. My main project here on Wikipedia is a video game, so I try to help at controversial issues every once in a while (Seen anything from sunni/shi'a, palestine/israel, collectivist anarchist/capitalist anarchist disputes at the moment.)
Also, I am in the process of adding a new notice on top of this page, which will read: "I prefer discussions on article talk pages." - your note above is an excellent example why. If the other editors on LGAT read it, they'd be more convinced of your good intentions, instead of assuming you're trying to make it a POV article. The amount of vandals trying to promote their own interests is high on Wikipedia, and that makes WP:AGF hard sometimes, even when the intentions are in fact good.
--User:Krator (t c) 22:04, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
I have two problems with communication. I am either too terse, or too verbose. When I'm too terse, people misunderstand me as being arrogant, head strong, conceited and condescending. When I am too verbose, people often don't bother to read what I type. I suspect you've experienced a bit of both from me thus far.
I appreciate that you recognize my NPOV intentions. I don't like reading anything negative about LGAT, but what I like isn't really important. The facts are, there are companies out there that have abused the system. As have banks, car dealers, schools, city counsels, US Senators, US Presidents... and so forth. So when a bad fact is relevant, it must be permitted. However, its when something bad is inappropriately inextricably and fundamentally linked to something which is not fundamentally bad, then I take issue.
I have been trying to find an outside person, to take an interest and help out.
Thank you. Lsi john 22:35, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
I really could be reading these wrong, but I don't think I am and they are good examples of why I have been so frustrated. There appears to be a concerted effort to locate information to help the readers understand the Rick Ross view of LGAT, which is incredibly biased.

"NLP is new age. That makes it religious or quasi religious just the same as est, EMIN, Scientology and the rest. I'm sure Sharpley and Elich treat NLP as lot of pseudoscientific "magical thinking" rubbish and that will be consistent with other cultlike pseudoscientific new age developments. I admit so far the Skeptics Dictionary web page needs further support but the book is bound to be the same as the website. Its such an obvious fact that NLP is a lgat. Jeffrire 13:09, 27 April 2007 (UTC)"

"Hi Smee. I am working on collecting more info on subjects that help the reader understand about LGATs. Do you have any candidate subjects for the category? I heard EMIN was a LGAT, and there are others. Jeffrire 13:13, 27 April 2007 (UTC)"

Lsi john 22:45, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
The note is in place above. Please discuss this on the article talk page. --User:Krator (t c) 22:49, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
-

Things to work/think with

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)
  • More?

--User:Krator (t c) 20:41, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

-techniques

I agree, this should be above analysys. However, the current techniques section is very wordy and difficult to read. After a quick reading, it does not appear to actually give specific techniques, but seems rather to give more of an analysys and commentary. I believe most of the verbiage in the current techniques section should be relocated to the analysys section.

If we have a techniques section, that section should only provide specific techniques used, without any analysys, commentary or conclusions. Analysys should be included in the analysys section.

As this would be extensive, I will wait for comments in order to get a group consensus before we do any major work to this section. Lsi john 14:09, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

- ORDER

I agree. I would be willing to take a shot at re-ordering, if there is a mutual agreement from the other editors.

I would not remove any content. I would not remove any citations. I would simply re-order the article in a more logical fashion for the reader.

Let me know. Lsi john 20:56, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

- Finkelstein

This has always seemed sort of out-of-place. Perhaps it can be incorporated into another section during the re-ordering. Lsi john 20:56, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

- LGAT

Personally, I agree. Although it is abbreviated as LGAT, my experience of the usage here, is an underlying repetition of LGAT, rather than a constructive use. I admit that I also use LGAT for speed, rather than typing out the lengthy Large Group Awareness Training verbiage.

If the focus of the article is about information, then softening the language with the trainings or similar phrase, will enhance readability without removing any substance.

If the objective is to reinforce LGAT in the reader's mind, then there may be objections to reducing the number of times its repeated.

Lsi john 20:56, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

- See Also

I have removed duplicate entries that also appeared in cited material and books. Actually everything that was in the See Also section was already referenced somewhere else in the article. I left the "List of LGAT" as it seemed directly relevant and worth having as a specific entry. Lsi john 21:19, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

- Categories.

I have cleaned up the categories one-by-one with a comment on why each was removed. I am open to discussion about putting some back, however I do not believe that I removed any which actually apply to this article. Lsi john 21:19, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Come a long way

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)

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)
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)
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)

Krator, could you have a peek at the List of Large Group Awareness Training organizations and methodologies opening Lead and give feedback? It was two or three paragraphs of overlapping and not very coherent wording that seemed to be trying to cram too much into two little space.

Thanks. Lsi john 23:42, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Major changes to article

Were made without consensus, and were highly inappropriate. (In my opinion and the opinion of others, apparently.) And images of books should appear in the article about the book themselves, and in general not in other articles, as per fair use. Smee 05:39, 28 April 2007 (UTC).

When comparing the latest version of the article, and the latest version by myself, I see no major differences, except for the following four, which can hardly be regarded as highly inappropriate - if these changes bother any editors, I encourage them to stay WP:COOL.
  • The book image was removed, citing inappropriate fair use. There is a specific fair use rationale on the image page, see Image:Hanley.jpg. This article badly needs images, especially in the first section. Unless a better one can be provided (an actual photograph of a large group awareness training in progress), keep this one.
  • Sections were made chaotic. Now there are three sections describing what others think about large group awareness trainings: Evolution, Academic analysis, studies, and Evaluations of LGATs, one of which (Evolution) is a stub section. This was two sections, and should be one section.
  • The following text: "Large Group Awareness Training is discussed and explained in the 2003 textbook, Introduction to Psychology: Gateways to Mind and Behavior[10], and in the Handbook of Group Psychotherapy[11].", was reintroduced in the lead. It should be removed because, as I stated above:
  1. Is it necessary to state that it was explained in a textbook (last paragraph of the lead)? This is not some obscure web phenomenon trying to establish any notability to survive an AfD, so things like that are better moved to a non-lead section.
I am not going to revert any edits - you are the editor of the article.
--User:Krator (t c) 11:17, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Krator, this is exactly what I've been dealing with. We had the makings of a very neutral and well written article, with NO cited sources removed. And Smee comes in and reverts it all, claiming restore cited sources, when no cited sources were removed. Its virtually impossible to get anything well written or balanced when she continues to do this. Lsi john 11:40, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I do see, now, that eventually she went back and put most of our changes back, but it would have been nicer if she had started from where the article was, rather than simply jump back to her version. This sends the message that it is her article and nobody can contribue without her permission. Lsi john 11:54, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Krator, your choice of wording was ironic: "you are the editor of the article" - that has very specifically and exactly been the problem here. She is the editor. Until now, noone has been allowed to make any edits without her permission and approval. Lsi john 11:58, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
This was unintended. My intention was to emphasize that I am not here to add the actual content to the article, just to keep things civil/well written/npov. A better wording would've been "one of the editors of", but I will not edit the above comment for consistency's sake. --User:Krator (t c) 15:05, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Krator, I knew that you did not intend it. Your intention and neutrality are not in question and my intention was not to twist your meaning. I referenced it as an ironic choice of words as I knew you intended 'your article' to mean all of us, yet from my perspective the actual choice of words, however unintentional, more accurately reflected my impression of the situation. Thanks again for your patience with all of us. Lsi john 15:19, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Hi Krator. Thanks for the link on being cool. I'm not that conversant with the rules yet. Its not at all like newsgroups I'm used to. I'm presently on the search for broader information on LGATs. Do you have any suggestions for areas that the article may be lacking? Jeffrire 11:42, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
I encourage any and all editors to work on the techniques section for now. Why?
  • It is the only section without lingering POV disputes.
  • Cooperating on such a section will improve the 'group spirit' - important.
  • The section is currently just a pile of links to psychological methods. Information on how these methods are used in a large group awareness training context is needed.
  • The prose is bad. Good prose is as important, if not more important, than NPOV and reliable sources.
An actual image of a large group awareness training is needed, too. None can be found on the web.
Also, I propose leaving the lead section for what it is, after the psychology textbook thing has been moved by Smee - please let her do it.
--User:Krator (t c) 11:56, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Yes Krator I think those are good suggestions. I'll get digging through the databases. Jeffrire 12:09, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Grumble mumble.. (kicking self).. Only now, when I am going back to see if I missed anything, did I realize you asked (us/me) to let Smee remove the psychology Textbook thing. I did that as I was going through and catching other edits. It was not overt and I apologize. I wish I had seen/read this sooner. On another note, I did not edit the techniques section! I wanted to give everyone a chance to contribute and actually thought Smee might want to give it a go. I have posted comments about that above. Lsi john 02:37, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Smee, I was ready to pull the unbalanced tag off of the article. It is very upsetting to come in and see that hours of work were reverted for no reason. No sources were removed. Things were re-arranged and sorted out. A few sentences were reworded for grammar and clarity. We worked very hard to maintain the information that was in the article and not remove anything significant and not remove any cited sources. Your revert actions are insulting to me personally. The message you sent me is that Lsi_john is incapable of editing this article. And so you reverted to your copy and then proceeded to re-work the article with the ideas we had suggested by our hard work. Please show respect to your fellow editors and work from where they leave off. Lsi john 12:06, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi Lsi john. I'd recommend looking through the cool link that Krator posted. Its a pretty positive set of recommendations. I'm going to let things cool down and focus on a bit of research - with discussion before major edits. Jeffrire 12:09, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
While I agree that the method Smee used was not the luckiest one, this is not helping. Let's hope she apologises, and that we (and this we includes everyone) can further work on editing the article, to make it a good article. Again the link: WP:COOL --User:Krator (t c) 12:19, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
PS: I can recommend the spoken version of the don't be a dick article I linked twice above. The calm way it is narrated helps. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Krator (talk • contribs) 12:21, 28 April 2007 (UTC).
Though I believe I was civil in my remarks, I also acknowledge that I was not calm. Many hours of mutual cooperation went into the changes that got reverted. And things like that editors note are still there and must be found again.
I just woke up and came in to find that all our work was undone and I reacted instead of going to have coffee and listen to the birds.
I apologize for the negative energy that I put into my reaction/response. While an apology from Smee would be nice, I would prefer that she read my comments, ignore my hostility, and try to understand my meaning. Smee brings value to the article when she chooses to work with the community.
Krator, one of the biggest reasons that I apprecited you being here, was that I knew you would bring a sense of balance, fairness and neutrality. Though I believe I edit with neutrality, I also recognize that I have an opinion on this subject, and more specifically on the way this subject is being treated on wiki. I knew, that if I wandered into biased territory, you would yank me back. I knew that you carried no bias one way or the other on this subject, and you would not allow me to inject any. And I appreciate that you are taking your time and investing it into this article.
Lsi john 13:12, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Psychology

  • Why was this template {{Psychology}} removed? Smee 05:57, 29 April 2007 (UTC).
  • Large Group Awarness Training is not part of that template. Bottom navigation templates are mostly for navigating between related topics, like video games of the same series, or towns in the same Netherlands province.
  • It is huge, and unnecessary clutter at the bottom of the page.
  • A similar template already exists on top of the page. The added value of including another psychology template is small.
  • If you agree with this reasoning, I would like you to include the removal of this template in a future edit to the article.
--User:Krator (t c) 11:46, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Evaluating a Large Group Awareness Training

  • As I repeated two times above, Large Group Awareness Training is not some obscure web phenomenon trying to establish some notability, why make it look like one?
  • The book may be notable within the context Large Group Awareness Trainings, but there is no need to mention it in the lead when it is not notable outside. If, for example, The Lord of the Rings had mentioned Large Group Awareness Trainings, that would've been notable enough to include in the lead.
  • I do not question the reliability of the study, nor the scientific value.
  • The current state of the article, where some of the most notable studies are briefly mentioned in the lead, and later elaborated in the evaluation section, is a good one I think. Well done.
--User:Krator (t c) 11:46, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Citation removed???

I worked hard getting all the citations for this article. There used to be (39) citations, now there are only 38. Please tell me what was removed and why. Smee 06:02, 29 April 2007 (UTC).

Version 126573722 by Smee at 08:40, 28 April 2007 contained a double reference to Tapper, from the newly included pyramid image. (ref 27). This has since been fixed. Your latest version before that was 26 April, and included 38 references.
Don't be paranoid :) --User:Krator (t c) 11:46, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Hello Krator. I was actually worried about myself being paranoid. I don't think I am now though - I've seen large changes to articles related to the lgat subject end up with items missing. I think under any circumstance where large changes are made, careful stocktaking is needed, especially where editors have presented odd interpretations of wiki rules. Jeffrire 14:03, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Jeffrire, without knowing which articles, which information, which rules and which interpretation, it is hard to address your concerns.
Please keep in mind that as editors, we have a mandate that we write articles:

"All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), representing fairly and without bias all significant views (that have been published by reliable sources)."

Sometimes this means that redundant information is consolidated. As I mentioned in our discussion at Talk:Erhard Seminars Training#Eisner, if an article already has 100 citations which declare the sky blue, adding one more does not contribute significant new material. However, adding a reliable source, with verifiable research, which declares the sky to be teal green, would be relevant. In this case, a reasonable case could be made to remove (or consolidate) one of the exisiting 100 blue references, in order to make room for the new teal green reference - to keep the article concise and within wiki guidelines, both for size and neutrality.
I suspect that as much as you see a conspiracy to remove your material, there are also people who see a conspiracy on your part to overly include it.
Just my thoughts. Lsi john 14:41, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
No Lsi john. I didn't see a conspiracy at all. I'm focused on supplying references that show relevant views. Jeffrire 14:49, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
You used the word paranoid.
  • paranoid is extremely fearful, characterized by suspiciousness, persecutory trends
  • paranoia is a tendency on the part of an individual or group toward excessive or irrational suspiciousness and distrustfulness of others
  • conspire is to act in harmony toward a common end
You did not use the word conspiracy, and if it was not your meaning, then I request that my words be changed to whatever pattern you see that illustrates that you are not paranoid.
It seemed a logical conslusion to use the word conspiracy. You seemed to be claiming that you are not paranoid because you see a pattern of large changes which remove information which represent your viewpoints. That would seem to indicate a conspiracy of some sort.
Again, if I misunderstood, forgive me. Misunderstandings are easy to do here.. as you seem to have misunderstood me on numerous occasions. In particular, did you read conspiracy in my text to mean collusion? Becasue that is not what I intended. Lsi john 15:12, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Quit fighting over semantics and NPOV, and go and edit the article. --User:Krator (t c) 16:36, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

 :-} Lsi john 16:43, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Ideas for content

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)

Krator's re-work of the LEAD...

...looks great, thanks! Smee 01:04, 30 April 2007 (UTC).

Yes its very readable. I would suggest something to work on long term though. I think it could include what LGAT organizers promise from the event (improved lifestyle etc) and also include the criticism or concern by psychologists. Jeffrire 01:53, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Good ideas... Smee 01:54, 30 April 2007 (UTC).
  • 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)
  • 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).
  • 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)
  • I will try. Remind me in a while if I don't. Smee 06:54, 3 May 2007 (UTC).

Techniques section

  • Suggestions for the techniques section? If someone already commented on this, I may have missed it, apologies... Smee 02:31, 30 April 2007 (UTC).
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. [[4]]. Jeffrire 05:28, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Smee, yes, there are suggestions above. In general, the feeling was that the techniques section doesn't really describe techniques. It generally gives evaluations and opinions. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Large_Group_Awareness_Training&section=7#Things_to_work.2Fthink_with

I would have started working on it, but I know that you prefer to make the major edits and so I waited for you. If we are going to have a techniques section, I believe it should strictly be about techniques, without an assessments, evaluations or opinions about their value or worth. There is already a section for assessments, evaluations and opinions. Lsi john 13:16, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Ah, thank you for the response, I will take a look when I get a chance, thanks. Smee 04:39, 2 May 2007 (UTC).

Which Langone book is that Jeffrire? Is that the article on LGATs here or is the one on rescuing people from cults, or is there another one? Fainites 22:26, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

If so, Amazon have a 'look inside this book' function on that one which is quite handy. Fainites 22:29, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Yes, sometimes Google Books has that feature as well...  :) Smee 22:33, 7 May 2007 (UTC).
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)

NLP sub discussion

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)

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)
I think we've had this same discussion before. --User:Krator (t c) 11:43, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the prompting Krator. I've gone ahead and made an edit. Jeffrire 12:22, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)

Yes we have had this discussion before and predict it will occur many times again. As ever, I await decent sources with interest :)Fainites 14:59, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

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 [5]. By the way, why did you attach original research to the Partridge ref on this article? Jeffrire 16:21, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Nobody has yet produced any major researchers or commentators who say NLP is a LGAT. In the notable researchers and commentators cited on the LGAT page, NLP is conspicuous by it's absence. I'm sure your only interest is in a fair and accurate article. Fainites 20:42, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

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) PS, Carroll's book says NLP is a LGAT. Jeffrire 00:36, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Don't understand your comment about user names. When have I ever not used it? Occasionally my computer asks me to sign in again but I think I've always picked up on that. Otherwise, still awaiting decent sources with eager anticipation and interest :) Fainites 21:29, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Good. In the meantime, this might help you out [6]. Jeffrire 00:48, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Riveting, but not a decent source for saying NLP is a LGAT. Fainites 09:51, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

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 [7]. 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)

Presumably stating that neither Singer nor Langone etc name NLP as a LGAT would be fine then? And we don't have substantial research reviews. Compendiums can rarely be good primary sources. Their entries should be based on primary sources. What is Carrolls primary source? Or are you suggesting someone can be considered authoritative on about 250 different topics? Fainites 21:29, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Halt the discussion.

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)

Second above comments
  • I second these wise comments by User:Krator. This particular thread needs a break. Smee 22:20, 11 May 2007 (UTC).
I agree. Jeffrire 03:02, 12 May 2007 (UTC)


Fine by me. Fainites 18:50, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Good article review

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)

  • I do realize you're making efforts to get past the disputes. But frankly, look at the dates. That possible resolution is just too recent to be the basis for a reconsideration. The ink's not even dry, so to speak. Wait a bit. Take some time. After you've demonstrated for a while that the warring really is over, then resubmit for GA consideration. Wryspy 22:00, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Thank you for your polite and respectful explanation. A clarification: The particular dispute that recently ended was regarding a very small section of the article, not a section really, but only a sentence or two. Both editors agreed to stop the edit warring as per recommendation by neutral editor User:Krator, as seen above. Smee 22:06, 13 May 2007 (UTC).
      • Yes, the dispute was really about NLP, not LGATs, and about one or two sentences only. It was a brief spill over onto the NLP page from LGATs and then back again. It was very short. In fact it was hardly an edit war. Most of the dispute was on the talkpageFainites 09:13, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
        • I will submit the article again for GA review, or perhaps someone else will, after we wait a short while as suggested by the last reviewer, for a period of stability, which it actually looks like we have achieved. Smee 09:15, 15 May 2007 (UTC).

Renominated GA

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).

GA Question

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)

  • Each group would probably state it is used for something different, however all would probably agree it is used for "self improvement", "personal development", or "whatever you want help with in your area of your life, it can be applied to help that area", etc. This is already addressed, in the article, in that fashion. Sorry it cannot be that much more specific, but most LGATs are not very specific in actually telling a consumer what their product will specifically do, in the course of marketing their work. In fact, many groups tell their members not to specifically describe what goes on in the course, just that it will help the consumer in any aspect of their life that they desire. Smee 03:40, 25 May 2007 (UTC).
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)
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).
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)
We all thank you for your time. Smee 18:58, 25 May 2007 (UTC).

On Hold

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).
  • The next sentence doesn't say explicitly in the article who is labelling LGAT as what, I presume its psycologists, and I presume the people contesting the labels are LGAT advocates or something. The book mentioned also doesn't seem to have its importance asserted, by being in the lead like this, it ought to be something special, but the lead doesn't really demonstrate why this book's referral of LGAT as a white collar cult is really signifigant in the grand scheme of things. -- , changed to psychologists, removed mention of the book itself. Smee 22:09, 25 May 2007 (UTC).
  • The three books at the bottom have similar problems of lack of justification of their signifigance, if these are the main three academic works on this subject, just say so, and make sure it says who is doing the explaning in the books. (I presume psycologists) -- , added word psychologists, as suggested. Smee 22:11, 25 May 2007 (UTC).
  • "Large Group Awareness Training teaches simple, but often overlooked wisdom, and generally takes place over the period of a few days, in which individuals receive "intense, emotionally-focussed instruction"." I know that this sentence is using the refs exact wording with the "simple, but often overlooked wisdom,..." thing, but without the article attributing in the text who is saying it, I think people are more likely to see this as some Wikipedian's slyly inserted personal opinion rather than the opinion of someone writing their peer-reviewed masters thesis. Also, is "focussed" an actual typo from the ref? -- , attribution given to the source, and removed the quotes, to spell word correctly. Smee 22:14, 25 May 2007 (UTC).
  • The rest of this section has what I think is an easily solved problem with defending the notability of all the books referenced here, I presume all of these works were written by academcs or from an academic perspective at least, instead of having each work in one separate sentence, I think it would be better to make it all one paragraph, with something like "Academic writings such as blah blah blah says so and so, while so on and so forth says, etc. etc." as the format, because without the academic writings part spelled out explicitly, the article doesn't really say how reliable or notable any of these definitions are. I don't know what the Consumer Reaserch book is, but if its also some academic work, might want to move it down with the rest of these things. Also, "Coon" is not introduced properly, he/she needs to be named compleatly and described first, otherwise a layman will have no idea what's going on or why some poor guy who doesn't have a last name is important on this subject. -- , reworked this section to implement above suggestions. These were good suggestions. Smee 22:47, 25 May 2007 (UTC).
  • "According to Navarro's Self Realization, Mind Dynamics...." Another poor chap with no last name and next to no chance of being identified by a layman. -- , no need for attribution here, this source fits WP:RS anyway. Smee 22:50, 25 May 2007 (UTC).
  • "The authors went on to state that though the...." authors of what, the only book introduced in this section has only one author named, since it just says "Navarro's Self Realization", if there are more authors, might want to name them. -- , same as above, removed quote, paraphrased instead, reputable source. Smee 22:50, 25 May 2007 (UTC).
  • Why is the next section, which is almost entirely based upon one study, actually basing itself on just this one study? Is it the most authoritative and comphrehensive study there is, which is widely recognized as summarizing or nearly summarizing academia's view on LGAT? If so, saying so in the article would be helpful to justify the prominence the article gives it. -- , though your assumptions here about this study were correct, I added a sentence for clarification. Smee 22:55, 25 May 2007 (UTC).
  • "LGAT's were commercial trainings that took many techniques from encounter groups." Were? What are they now? Is that just a typo? -- , you are correct, typo, and this was corrected. Smee 22:55, 25 May 2007 (UTC).
  • "Finkelstein's article explicitly mentioned Lifespring and Actualizations, using the example of Erhard Seminars Training ("est") as a typical LGAT." Finkelstein really needs to be mentioned immedietly in this section as the writer of this study, its quite confusing for his name to appear out of nowhere. Also, Actualizations doesn't link anywhere while Lifespring does, are they both some kind of LGAT organizations? Finally, "est" really seems like the kind of abbreviation that's supposed to be a capitalized acronym, like "EST", it looks kind of odd in the text below. -- , Corrected Finkelstein, and corrected EST. Smee 22:55, 25 May 2007 (UTC).
  • ""nonspecific effects of expectancy and response sets" may have accounted for some of the positive accounts." The typical reader probably won't understand what this means, and I barely understand it myself, instead of using a direct quote, an easier paraphrase would probably be better here. -- , You are correct, paraphrased. Smee 23:01, 25 May 2007 (UTC).
  • "Among the psychological dynamics Finkelstein explicitly mentions are emotional...." ....dynamics in LGAT? -- , You're right, "factors" is a better word here. Smee 23:01, 25 May 2007 (UTC).
  • "In 1989 researchers from the University of Connecticut received the "National Consultants to Management Award" from the American Psychological Association, for their study: Evaluating a Large Group Awareness Training." Why doesn't this study get just as much, if not more, attention than Finkelstein's study, its more recent, and it got a cool reward to boot. -- , though this is a good point, I don't think it should stop this article from getting GA status, and the reader can find out more, in that sub-article itself. However I will expand on that soon. Smee 23:01, 25 May 2007 (UTC).
  • "The Handbook of Group Psychotherapy notes that Large Group Awareness Training organizations...." Written by and notable because.....? -- , qualifier, explained it is an academic textbook. Smee 23:01, 25 May 2007 (UTC).
  • In the list of LGAT techniques, two of them are redlinks, might want to describe in comma's next to the terms what they are as long as the article's dont exist. There also seems to be an incompleate internal citation at the end of the sentence there, were the ref tags not used on purpose for some reason? -- , I just removed the 2 redlinks, and changed the citation to a better citation for the same author, same information. Smee 23:01, 25 May 2007 (UTC).
  • "These techniques are applied during unusually long sessions,....." what makes a session unusally long? "Long" is probably fine on its own. -- , done, removed "unusually". Smee 23:03, 25 May 2007 (UTC).
  • "physically exhausting the participants to make them more susceptible to the trainer's message, be it good or ill." Is the "be it good or ill" part a direct quote? That could be written more encyclopedically, such as "whether it is in the participants best interests or not." or something like that. -- , very good wording, used your words, if that's okay. Smee 23:03, 25 May 2007 (UTC).
  • "In the interests of consumer protection, potential attendees at LGAT's are encouraged to discuss such trainings with their current therapist or counselor,..." Encouraged by whom, personal psysicians? -- , added attribution to the author here, he is a psychologist. Smee 23:05, 25 May 2007 (UTC).
  • "Finkelstein noted the many difficulties in evaluating LGAT's, from proponents' explicit rejection of positivistic models to difficulty in establishing a rigorous control group." Raising the vocabulary level of an article from high school level to linguistics graduate is a no-no. "positivistic"? That broke my mind the moment I read it, and you can't just go buy new brains at Target you know.... -- , hehe, okay, removed "positivistic", made it a bit more general. Smee 23:05, 25 May 2007 (UTC).
  • "Not all professional researchers view LGAT favorably. Cushman (1989),[31] for example,..." Re-wording this to have something like "Reaserchers such as...." would probably be better, and once again, all these poor people in the rest of the section who apparently wern't born with last names, or even worse, this Cushman fellow who's last name is (1989)! That's gotta hurt. (Ok, actually, I do understand this whole Harvard Citation thing, but the people just plain are not introduced in the article, and only people who are already familiar with reaserchers in this field will know what's going on). -- , noted, and I changed the wording here to be more understandable. Smee 02:47, 26 May 2007 (UTC).
  • "In Introduction to Psychology, the author references many other studies,..." Who wrote it and why is he/she an important figure for reaserch on this subject? -- , this one is again written by Coon, but I just modified it to note that it is a psychology textbook. Smee 02:47, 26 May 2007 (UTC).
  • "...was reworked into the popular book Cults in Our Midst: The Hidden Menace in Our Everyday Lives, which she co-authored with Janja Lalich." Popular where, just in the U.S.? -- , well, the book was published twice in the U.S., and also in German and in Spanish, but I just did an easier fix and removed the word "popular". Smee 02:50, 26 May 2007 (UTC).
  • " Singer also writes that employees taking part in a company-wide Large Group Awareness Training program not only complained about attempted religious conversion, but also objected to the specific techniques used" "a LGAT"? Which one? Which techniques? Which religion? (If its some left-wing new-age type semi-Christian group, I will be a sad, sad panda.) -- , well, I changed the cite, you can actually search for "religious conversion", and see that Singer is not referring to a particular group here, but rather the methods employed. Smee 02:57, 26 May 2007 (UTC).
  • "Langone cited the 1982 Hosford study which showed no difference between the Large Group Awareness Training test subjects and the control group." A study which is important because...? Is this another name for Finklestein's study? -- , no need to mention the study in particular, so I removed it from the sentence itself. It simply goes to Langone's analysis. Smee 02:59, 26 May 2007 (UTC).
  • "The 2003 book Cults and New Religious Movements: A Reader states that similar thought reform techniques are used in both cults and Large Group Awareness Training." A book which is notable and important because....? Names don't make notability. -- , I changed the mention in the sentence to the author, instead of the book itself, to qualify this as the author's opinion. Smee 03:01, 26 May 2007 (UTC).

And that's all i've got. Homestarmy 20:22, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you to Homestarmy
  • Thank you. I see you put the GA on hold. I will look into these points in detail and attempt to address them, if I can. Smee 21:25, 25 May 2007 (UTC).
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)
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).

Pretty good work with the fixes, although I still see a few problems with some of the fixes, more than enough has been done for me to grant this article GA status, i'm no perfectionist. I'm just speaking from the diff and what I saw in the corrections, but DuMerton seems to of been inserted in the first line of "definition" without being introduced, it looks like you captialized EST in its first mention without capitalizing it again in the paragraph below, and on the "psycological dynamics" of LGAT thing, what I was trying to get across was that the sentence doesn't say what the dynamics are a part of, (namely, LGAT) not that it isn't attributed correctly to someone. For going towareds FA status, I recommend trying to avoid talking about individual books without justifying very explicitly in the article that the books are the absolute only and best sources for this subject, i've noticed that people in science related articles tend to get real suspicious about using individual textbooks or something, some weird idea that its advertising, I don't really buy that argument at all, but FA reviewers might. Doing the same thing with all the academics named in the article would probably be helpful as well. Homestarmy 02:27, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Thank you, yes, all valid points. We will work through these helpful tips as we work towards FA. Smee 02:41, 27 May 2007 (UTC).
    • By the way, this article doesn't seem to have a Peer Review yet, getting one first might prove helpful, there's quite a litany of FA things that aren't covered in Good Article nominations. Homestarmy 00:24, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
      • Thank you for pointing that out! I will address the other points you raised, and then put this up for Peer Review, on the way to FA! Smee 00:32, 28 May 2007 (UTC).

Thank you to Krator...

... for formatting the "books" section. It looks better. Yours, Smee 10:35, 26 May 2007 (UTC).

  • Wow, Krator (talk · contribs), thanks to you for formatting the "Articles" reading section, as well. Ironically, I think I had put this up on the "todo" list, uptop, but it looks really great the way you have done it. Well done! Smee 11:06, 26 May 2007 (UTC).
No problem. --User:Krator (t c) 11:53, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Template:LGAT has been listed for deletion.

Template is listed for Deletion. See Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2007_May_28#Template:LGAT. Smee 01:30, 28 May 2007 (UTC).

Unrelated image

Removed unrelated image. People in the photo are most definitively not in such activity and thus misleading. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:32, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

  • This is a free use image and the caption explains its use in this article. Smee 01:33, 28 May 2007 (UTC).
You cannot do that as it violates WP:V. These people are not in such a session, is misleading, and adds no value to this article. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:39, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
The image of yoga is also useless. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:40, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
WP:V does not discuss images - and the captions explain why these free use images are being displayed. Smee 01:42, 28 May 2007 (UTC).
That is not an argument. What's next? An image of a notebook and pen with a caption "people take notes in these trainings", and another about a person doing a Powerpoint presentation with a caption, "in such trainings, Powerpoint if often used"? There is no need for such eye-candy. This is an encyclopedic article, not a high-school essay. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:44, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
User:Lsi john initially chose the first couple of images, and they work very nicely to highlight certain sections of the article. Two neutral reviewers commented that the images were appropriate. Smee 01:45, 28 May 2007 (UTC).
I would accept being wrong on this issue, but expect my argument to be addressed on its merits. It seems wrong to illustrate an article with images that are unrelated to the subject. I would want to hear comments from other editors of this article. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:49, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Sounds good. So would I. The free-use images are highly related to the aspects of the article in the sections in which they are displayed, wi::th appropriate captions. Smee 01:55, 28 May 2007 (UTC).
The yoga one, maybe. The other one no, as it is a generic image of a group people in an unrelated conference. It adds no value to the article and is misleading failing WP:V, that is required for all aspects of an article including images, The fact that the image is free, is no basis for its inclusion. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:31, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
The caption expains the usage of the free image in this case. WP:V has no provisions for images. Smee 05:17, 28 May 2007 (UTC).
The Klux Klux Klan cult in gainesville. Large Group Awareness Training has been compared to cults
The Klux Klux Klan cult in gainesville. Large Group Awareness Training has been compared to cults
First of all, I originally chose the pyramid and the yoga guy images. The yoga guy is awesome, don't delete that.
Wikipedia articles need images. Images of actual large group awareness trainings are rare to the point of nonexistence. I know that, because I spent two hours searching the web for them. Therefore, other images were used to illustrate the article. These images do not make any claims, or defame the subject, or anything like that. They are just illustrations, to aid the reader in forming a picture of the subject in his head, and to make the article something more than just a big piece of text. These images were not chosen at random - for example, the image to the right could be inserted in the "Compared to cults" section, but that would be horrible.
If you own an image of a large group awareness training, I invite you to place it on this article - it would surely improve Wikipedia's coverage of the subject.
--User:Krator (t c) 11:14, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the impetus/request for more free images. If I or others find some, hopefully they will be added to the article in the future as well. Smee 11:17, 28 May 2007 (UTC).

Images are always a welcome addition to an article, and as I said, the one about yoga, may be useful. Main concern is about a photo of a conference starting ceremony audience, that is totally unrelated to this article. It fails WP:V and all content in Wikipedia articles need to conform, not just text. You can check that by asking at WP:V talk. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:38, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

What exactly are you saying is not verifiable? That Large Group Awareness Trainings (often) take place in conference halls or hotels? --User:Krator (t c) 16:10, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
What is not verifiable is that the people and conference are LGAT related. Added a disclaimer to the image resolves this. The image can stay with that caption, as it explains to readers that the image is for illustration purposes only and unrelated to the subject. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:13, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
I have made an edit which adds some clarification - "This is just a conference hall" - without attempting to be semi-legal text like "For illustration purposes only". We have Wikipedia:Disclaimer for that. --17:53, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Adding the text explains what the image is and removes the misrepresentation concern raised. The image is not of an LGAT, and there is no harm in stating that. On the contrary. The people featured in the image are not in a LGAT activity, and that information is pertinent. The other option is removing the image, or finding one that is related. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:36, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Cults template is not a category, but a template with related links.

  • Cults template is not a category, but a template with related links. Smee 17:54, 28 May 2007 (UTC).
Sure. But you are categorizing LGATs as cults by adding the template. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:58, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Nope. I am adding relevant links to the "see also" section. That is all. Smee 19:59, 28 May 2007 (UTC).
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)

Should we add {{Education}} and {{Emotion}} as well? Don't think so. A much better device would be the use of a "See also" section in which suitable articles for further exploration, that have not yet been wikilinked from the article's text could be added. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:26, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Now you are suggesting violating WP:POINT, in order to illustrate a point, and that is not conducive to a constructive discussion. The templates in question are highly relevant and correlated to the article's subject matter. Smee 21:31, 28 May 2007 (UTC).
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)
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).
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)
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).
Sure. I just thought that it could be useful to explore alternatives to templates. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:14, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Okay. Now let's see what neutral uninvolved editors coming from the RFC have to say. Smee 22:20, 28 May 2007 (UTC).

RFC Summary

Dispute about the appropriateness to add to this article two templates {{Cults}} and {{Psychology}}

Comment by jossi (talk · contribs)
  • The use of these templates is not appropriate: {{Cults}} is asserting that these organizations are cults, when that is disputed; {{Psychology}} 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)
Comment by Smee (talk · contribs)
  1. {{Cults}} is not asserting anything, it simply gives links to many relevant topics on a related subject, as outlined in the article already that it is related. The template itself does not imply anything or categorize the article in any manner - we are not putting the article into the category "cults", just adding links to the subject matter.
  2. {{Psychology}} is highly relevant, as the term "Large Group Awareness Training" is predominantly used by psychologists and psychiatrists, in psychology textbooks and academic journal articles. In fact, the term itself was first used by psychiatrists in academic journal articles, and picked up by other psychologists and psychiatrists from then on. Smee 20:44, 28 May 2007 (UTC).
  • As an aside, my thanks to Jossi (talk · contribs), for starting this RFC, and for framing the dispute in a polite and neutral manner. Smee 21:05, 28 May 2007 (UTC).
Comment by Krator (talk · contribs)
  • I've been through this once before - this exact same discussion - and managed to establish a fragile peace between the involved editors that got the article up to GA. The fragility proved fatal, and now has been brutally disturbed. The whole mediation process is something I do not want to do again, so good luck to y'all. User:Krator (t c) 22:48, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Comment by Lsi john

I believe the first question that needs to be asked is: "How are we using the term LGAT?"

Large Group Awareness Training - by the grammar of the words themselves, LGAT describes a methodology, not an organization.

On one hand, we define LGAT as a training methodology, where groups of people all attend a seminar training. On the other hand, we use LGAT as a label, to tag a Seminar Company as being an LGAT. In our article, we intermix the two usages, which I consider to be very inappropriate, misleading and the foundation for the rest of our problems.

The anti-cult editors deny that the term LGAT comes out of the anti-cult movement. And, at the same time, they use it predominantly as a pseudonum for cult. They tag companies as LGATs and include cult as often as possible.

In fact, I do not believe LGAT (the training methodology) has been referred to as a 'cult' (since a methodology can't be a cult), but, instead, some of the organizations themselves (which are called LGATs by the anti-cult community) have been referred to as cults (by the anti-cult community - not academics).

The primary example, and anti-cult banner carrier, Margret Singer, and her book "Cults in our midst", is featured in every LGAT article, where any remote link can be made to justify the inclusion. And, to reinforce the connection between LGAT and cult, the LEAD in this article uses the word "cult" twice. (Note: Lots of subtle psychological innuendo and implication are involved throughout the entire LGAT series).

If this article is about LGAT (methodology), and if LGAT is such a popular term amoung academics, why are we highlighting cult-claims about individual companies here in an article about methodology? The question is rhetorical, as the answer is obvious when one researches the development of these articles backwards, to discover who wrote them and why. (est atendees who believe Landmark and est are cults). This is significant as it explains why the articles are written the way they are, and why changing them into NPOV articles meets with such significant resistance.

If, as one of our editors claims, the phrase LGAT is used predominantly by psychologists, then I submit that LGAT and cult are unrelated and the cult template does not belong here, as it does not reflect the views any significant majority of academic sources.

If, on the other hand, the phrase LGAT is, in fact, a pseudonym for cult, then the template does belong here. And we should clearly state that LGAT is a pseudonym for cult. At the moment we are rather ambiguous and misleading.

Though some companies, who also happen to use LGAT methods, have been referred to as cults, I am unaware of any source (outside of the anti-cult community) which specifically say that LGAT methods are indicative of a cult.

Perhaps Smee could google up a dozen sources for us, that show a majority of academics and scholars, (who are not part of the anti-cult squad), associate the phrase LGAT with cult? Once those sources are located, I will be more than willing to read them and confirm their accuracy.

In summary, either LGAT is a pseudonym for cult or it isn't. In the discussions, we claim it isn't. In the articles we demonstrate, time and again, that it is.

I contend that the only legitimate use for LGAT is in describing a methodology for training. The methodology itself has nothing to do with 'cults' and therefore the 'cult' template does not belong. Furthermore the lead:

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) Note: I had taken this off my watch list and was no longer editing it. However, since I have now been classified as an editor instead of a respondent, I have re-added this article. Lsi john 01:07, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment by Jeffrire (talk · contribs)

The links that the templates provide are highly relevant. LGAT is generally discussed in relation to cults due to the similar or exact nature of the phenomenon. I am still not sure of the exact rules around applying templates, but if the word cult can be added to the article with a link, that helps to explain something in the article. If the cult template is added, then in helps explain even more. The broader the range of relevant articles it leads to, the better it'll serve the reader and they'll have a more informed choice as to exactly where LGAT stands in relation to the concept of cult. This is an electronic medium and the better the network of relevant links, the more useful it becomes in terms of informing the reader. The same is true with the psychology template. Both Psychology and cult templates are useful primarily as links, and the reader gets to make up their own mind as to exactly how and how much they are related. They will already be able to see that they are related to a significant level due to cult and psychological methods being mentioned in the article. Leaving it at that would restrict the options of the reader. The templates help keep the options appropriately broad. Jeffrire 03:20, 29 May 2007 (UTC) P.S, as a suggested solution for Krator's comment above, I see no problem with putting off the application of these templates until they can be applied without undue conflict or edit warring from proponents of LGAT subjects. Jeffrire 08:02, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I thank both Lsi John and Jeffrire for their comments, but I would appreciate non-involved editors to comment as that is the purpose of an RfC. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:07, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Comments by RFC respondents

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)

Clarification

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)

  • You are not coming from the RFC, but have rather been a long-term, involved, non-neutral party to this article. Thus, it is inappropriate for you to comment in the RFC respondents section. Please do not tell me what you think I should or should not do on the project. Smee 05:07, 29 May 2007 (UTC).

Smee why do you continue to edit user's comments? You complain when other people do it. Are you the self-appointed housekeeper for wikipedia? Please, either stop editing other user's comments, or stop complaining when other people do the same thing. Thanks. Lsi john 15:54, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

  • All I did was fix a link to userfy and link to the user's pages. I shall ignore the other impolite language used here by the user above. Smee 20:55, 30 May 2007 (UTC).

Odd inclusion

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)

  • No, the fact that this term has been used, over and over again, in psychology TEXTBOOKS, yes, academic journal articles, studies by psychiatrists, psychologists, other noted academics, and in reputable secondary sourced books, is highly notable. Smee 00:59, 30 May 2007 (UTC).
  • 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)
  • 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).
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)

LGAT not mentioned

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)

  • The article is describing a group that has cited themselves as an LGAT. Smee 02:59, 30 May 2007 (UTC).
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)
Closed confines

This text: Large Group Awareness Trainings often take place in relatively enclosed locations.[17] seems odd. Can someone provide page number on this book to clarify what this means? Thanks. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:47, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Will do. Smee 02:50, 30 May 2007 (UTC).

Landmark in LEAD

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)

  • It is not singling out, it is providing the context to the fact of which group objected to the term "white collar cult", instead of simply saying passively that it "was disputed..." Smee 03:57, 30 May 2007 (UTC).
  • 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)
  • And then that term was again used in a different secondary source. Smee 04:08, 30 May 2007 (UTC).
  • 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)

Psychological Term

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)

  • Would you mind if I started an WP:RFC on this issue and the use of the word "psychological" as related to the term? Smee 04:20, 30 May 2007 (UTC).

Large Group Awareness Training is a psychological term

  1. Defined in an article called "Large Group Awareness Training", in Annual Review of Psychology
  2. Further explained in detail in the book called Evaluating a Large Group Awareness Training - the book was part of the "Research in Psychology" series.
  3. Explained further in textbooks on psychology, like Introduction to Psychology

Nuff said. Smee 04:16, 30 May 2007 (UTC).

Yes, and I bet those books had LOTS of words and phrases that were not considered PSYCHOLOGICAL TERMS. You are doing Original Research and you are edit warring. Please stop. Lsi john 04:29, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

  • I ask you again, would you mind if I started a WP:RFC on the use of the word "psychological" ? Smee 04:30, 30 May 2007 (UTC).
  • Simply provide a source which lists LGAT as a psychological term. Lsi john 05:06, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Must you revert Everything?

Is there anything I can edit here that you won't revert? Even my templates get reverted? That {{originalresearch}} 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)

  • Um, User:Lsi john, that was not a revert. I changed your OR tagging of the entire article, to an OR tag of the sentence you have a problem with, but I did not revert you. Don't get all bent out of shape over minor things like that, and stop using CAPS in new subject headings on article talk pages please. Smee 04:30, 30 May 2007 (UTC).
  • 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)
  • 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).
  • 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)
  • 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).
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)
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)
  • Thank you. I have opened an RFC in order to work through some of these issues, hopefully with input from neutral previously uninvolved editors. Smee 07:34, 30 May 2007 (UTC).

Request for Comment - "Large Group Awareness Training (or LGAT) is a psychological term..."

Use of the word "psychological" in describing the term Large Group Awareness Training. 05:22, 30 May 2007 (UTC).

Comments from previously involved editors

Comment from Smee
  1. Defined in an article called "Large Group Awareness Training", in Annual Review of Psychology (Finkelstein 1982)
  2. 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)
  3. 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).
Comment from Lsi john
  1. Unless someone has declared it to be a 'psychological term', we cannot simply prove that it is, by emperical evidence of usage, as that is Original Research.
  2. Simply because the term is used in psychology books, does not make it a psychologiy term.
  3. If it is a psychological term, then it will be listed somewhere in a list of psychology terms.
  4. And, if it is a 'psychological term', then it will have a formal psychological definition.

Uninvolved editors, please note that this article is about LGAT which is a methodology used by seminar companies to provide personal growth training. LGAT does not need to be 'built up' and 'legitimized' and the article does not need to be 'fluffed'. Krator has also expressed the same view previously. Lsi john 05:41, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment from Jeffrire

From my reading of those sources its definitely a term used in psychology. But its also used in cultic studies, and in books on pseudoscience and skepticism. I think the term could simply be described as being used primarily by psychology, cultic studies, and scientific skepticism. Any relevant links that help to explain why it is used by those sources will be helpful, including appropriate templates and so on. Jeffrire 10:17, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Comments from previously uninvolved editors

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)

Comment from RalphLender

I will agree with the above comment. I don't think one can use the term psychological for LGAT. For example, it is not a term found in the standard text on psychotherapy outcome reaearch, Bergin and Garfield's Handbook of Psychotherapy and Behavior Change 2003, NY: John Wiley. RalphLendertalk 17:32, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Better lead

I would like us to develop a better lead to use when the page is unprotected. Here is my stab.

As used by some psychologists, psychiatrists, and academics, Large Group Awareness Training (or LGAT) refers to programs in the so-called human potential movement that claim to increase self-awareness and manifest positive personal changes in individuals' lives.[1] These programs have been compared to group therapy and religious revival meetings and have also been referred to as new age trainings,[2] mass marathon trainings[3] and white collar cults,[4][5] though this latter term has been contested.[6] The trainings are usually run by non-psychologists and often involve more than two hundred people at a time. Though early materials described LGAT trainings as being of unusually long duration, more recent texts describe the training as lasting from a few hours to a few days. About a million Americans have attended LGAT seminars.[7]

Please edit it mercilessly. --Justanother 22:41, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Version 2

Large Group Awareness Training (or LGAT) refers to the training methods used by some companies, in what has been referred to as the human potential movement. By using the LGAT techniques, these companies claim to increase self-awareness and manifest positive personal changes in individuals' lives.[1]These programs have been compared to group therapy and religious revival meetings and have also been referred to as new age trainings, [2] and mass marathon trainings [3]

Usually run by non-psychologists, the courses often include more than two hundred people at a time. LGAT trainings have been said to be of an unusually long durations, though more recent reports cite the trainings as lasting from a few hours to a few days. About a million Americans have attended LGAT seminars. [7]

blah blah opinions differ about the effectiveness of these trainings with some claiming the changes from days to years, and others claiming that the techniques can be harmful?

(the last paragraph is 'my' wording and an example only. We need to find credible sourcing to use for real wording)

The white-collar-cult in one reference is tied to Landmark. In the other reference it is used in a murky way that does not lend itself well to a clear citation.

I do not believe that we should single out ONE company, to be included in the lead. Krator (or Jossi) said something similar to this in a previous comment. The lead should be Generic and General and cover the topic well, but not in specific detail.

If we want to have a section below on individual companies, then landmark will certainly be included.. and if it works out to tag the white-collar cult onto landmark, thats fine. But tying CULT to the lead in this article is inappropriate. IMO.

In deference to Smee's position, we can work in the psychologist stuff in the 2nd or 3rd paragraph of the lead. Lsi john 22:58, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Better. The term LGAT is used by some psychologists, but also by anti-cult activists and popular writers, so better to not claim it is used (primarily) by a specific group. Thus, I like the second version much better. Ratagonia 23:05, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
  • What do you think of my position that the article should be more about LGAT the methodology or practice and less about LGAT the term? We can make points about development of the term in the body but not stress that in the lead. --Justanother 00:01, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Since the 'term' is not a tightly defined technical term, I'm being convinced that the article should be about the variety of seminar presentation techniques that have come to be called LGAT. Ratagonia 06:29, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Totally Confused

The above discussion itself demonstrates the complete confusion and wooly thinking that permeates the use of this term. Just in this paragraph, it has been suggested that LGAT refers to:

  1. programs in the so-called human potential movement
  2. training methods
  3. a methodology or practice

If there isn't even agreement on what sort of a thing it refers to, what hope is there of deciding whether any particular thing is an LGAT? And even if we could, what conclusions could we validly draw from the fact it is an LGAT?

So far as I can see this is a completely bogus categorisation whose main use is to facilitate completely bogus arguments of the following structure:

  • X is an LGAT
  • X has properties a,b,c (often undesirable)
  • Y is an LGAT
  • therefore Y has properties a,b,c

Even if there were reliable tests for deciding whether Y abd Y were indeed LGATs (which there aren't), the inference would be logically bankrupt because the conclusion doesn't follow from the premises, eg:

  • Leslie is an animal
  • Leslie has mammary glands
  • Fido is an animal
  • Therefore Fido has mammary glands

An meanwhile can anyone point us to an actual definition? Because if not, this article hasn't actually even got a subject to discuss.DaveApter 09:04, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Dave,

In some respects I agree. And in some respects, I'd rather try to steer a speeding, and out of control, semi safely to an emergency lane, than to stand in front of it, and either deny it exists or try to stop it with my bare hands. If you haven't already, take a moment to read my userpage essay on LGAT and wikipedia.

All 'strict sourcing' aside. All 'anti-cult' rhetoric aside. All 'POV authors (and editors)' aside. The term (phrase) has been used, and repeated, enough times, that it has some (at least low level) legitimacy. It's our job to sort through the rhetoric and biased sources, and find out what the true (and scientifically accepted?) meaning is, and then write an article which reflects that.

I agree, saying 'is used by psychologists' is inappropriate for several reasons.

  • Something can be 'denied to exist' by a psychologist, and thus the claim that the psychologist 'used the term' is accurate, but directly opposite to the psychologist's meaning.
  • Making the claim that the term is used by 'lots', and then citing 'lots' of emperical evidence, is Original Research.
  • If we cite lots of sources in the article, the claim will be self-evident and therefore doesn't need to be made by us. Which means the statement is also POV and not neutral.

Whether or not such a statement is accurate, isn't relevant, as it serves only to self-legitimize the term through OR. It doesn't give any view of the context in which the term is actually used by those sources and is, therefore, inappropriate.

Also, keep in mind that compromise will be required by all parties. I don't really 'know' what the human potential movement is, but in this article it doesn't sound scary and it doesn't sound cultish. To me, it sounds like an upwelling of people who want to find their potential, which sounds like a good thing to me. Furthermore, if WP:RS equated LGAT to HPM, then why not put it in the article? You can count it as a Good-Faith concession and part of your compromise. If the HPM article reflects an incorrect definition of HPM, then that can be addressed in its turn.

In general, LGAT is used by anti-cult propagandists in place of the word cult. Ok, so what. They've been successful and now it has been used a couple times by legitimate people and aparently by some of the companies themselves. So, lets focus on finding out how the legitimate community defines it. A solid scientific definition (or even an unsolid one) will certainly trump the anti-cult 'defined by example'.

The article is here, and it isn't going away. There are far too many (reliable) anti-cult propraganda sources using the phrase to be able to argue that it isn't legitimate. Rather than trying to stop the semi, lets make the article as accurate and as neutral as possible. I'm much more concerned about having someone improperly slip white collar cult propaganda into the lead (and thus cult into the definition), than I am in having human potential movement there. Lsi john 13:56, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi John – Thanks for your level-headed response. Sorry if I came across as excessively flippant or negative, and yes I did just read your essay and think it’s right on the button. I agree that the article is not going away and I would like it to be a better one. The serious questions I would like answering are 1) is there any agreement on whether the term refers to a program, a training method, a methodology, or a practice? (If it’s used interchangeably between them, it’s bound to create confusion), and 2) Can we please have a concise generally agreed definition? (or even two or three alternatives?)
It does appear to me that the term could be (and maybe has been) applied to any training session that takes place in groups of more than (say) 50 attendees and deals with issues of personal effectiveness. Surely this is such a ridiculously wide category as to be completely useless for drawing any conclusions about similarities between these various programs? Surely there must be some other defining characteristics? DaveApter 15:46, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Dave, when we ponder intangibles, wooliness goes with the territory. Do we agree:
  • 1. that there is a something that I will be a part of if I take one of these trainings.
  • 2. that this something is done in a group setting and involves interaction between the participants and between the participants and some leader (teacher, trainer).
  • 3. that this something usually has the stated goal of self-improvement.
  • 4. that there are certain commonalities of methodology in many of the groups delivering this something.
  • 5. that this something has been observed and perhaps "studied" by external observers.
  • 6. that their observations have been published in reliable sources.

Dave, if we agree on those then we have a basic justification for an article. All that is left is ensuring that the writing of it complies with WP:V and WP:NPOV. Ready to start? --Justanother 14:29, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi Justanother – thanks for your response. I’m not sure that I understand your questions, but I’ll try. I should say that I have no experience of any of the programs that have been called LGATs except for the Landmark Forum, so my answers relate to that and may or may not apply to any of the others. Here goes:
  1. If you mean ‘by doing the seminar, do I automatically become part of a club, association, congregation, community etc?’ the answer is ‘No’.
  2. Yes (but so would it be if I did a class on, say, painting or algebra).
  3. Yes.
  4. I have no idea, but in view of the diversity of the groups I very much doubt it.
  5. No doubt most of these have been studied at some time by someone or other.
  6. Quite likely some of them have.
Don't know where this leaves us. I don’t mean to be unhelpful. I only came here initially to respond to the RfC. And I really would like to see answers to the question about a definition. Good luck! DaveApter 15:46, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Hi Dave. Thanks. I am trying to address "totally confused" but that was likely hyperbole. Sorry if I was not clear in #1. I mean the rather trivial that there is a something that I will be taking part in if I take one of these trainings. I am sure you would answer yes to that. The only one of my points you have doubt on is commonalities or, we can say, similarities. And that is because you only have experienced one firm's offering, right? I am not at all familiar with "LGAT" but my review of some of the sources indicates that it is a phenomenon (in the simple meaning of something that one can perceive) that is definately worthy of an article here. Again, I am responding to "totally confused" and may be taking this to too basic a level. --Justanother 20:51, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Removing citations like there's no tomorrow...

Since this version, the article's already gone down from (44) citations to (39). Most intriguing. Smee 05:41, 3 June 2007 (UTC).

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)
  • I am going to take a break from this article for a while, and come back and see if more citations have been removed. It will be most interesting to see the changes. Smee 07:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC).
    • Okay, actually did a little bit of editing, and so there are (42) citations. Not sure which are the two that are still gone, but that's okay, the article is actually looking okay... Smee 11:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC).
      • It does not sound like you are applying good faith at all here, and I'm disappointed to see that. Lsi john 12:08, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

White-Collar-Cult

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)

  • What wording of this would you suggest? And I would also point out, it is a secondary source that is itself reputable, and it is highly relevant in that subsection. I will try to reword it a bit from your points. Smee 04:11, 4 June 2007 (UTC).
    • I utilized the exact quote from the WP:RS, so that there is no confusion as to the exact wording. Smee 04:14, 4 June 2007 (UTC).
  • Your statement is original research. I will not revert war with you. Lsi john 04:19, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Inappropriate use of OR tag. This is a direct quote from a reputable source, and cited appropriately. Smee 04:22, 4 June 2007 (UTC).
It's not the quote that is original research. Its your additional commentary. Lsi john 04:25, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
  • 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).
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)
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).
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)
  • I will ask the question yet again: How would you adjust the wording for the WP:RS and the associated quote? Smee 04:31, 4 June 2007 (UTC).

First, tell us their definition for White-Collar-Cult. Then provide the sources they are citing. They are not saying that anything is a white-collar-cult, they are citing sources as saying it. What are their sources? Where are their citations? This is not verifiable and cannot be included. Lsi john 04:32, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

  • No, we do not need to cite other citations, to back up the first citation. The citation itself is reputable, and the quote is thus allowed in the article. Smee 04:33, 4 June 2007 (UTC).
    • In other words, if you do not have other suggestions as to wording, I have only two questions: Do you disagree that the book satisfies WP:RS? Do you disagree that the passage you quoted above, is included in the book itself? Smee 04:36, 4 June 2007 (UTC).
      • I already told you what I believe. Someone else can remove your pov pushing against est. I also told you that I'm not going to edit war with you. You are including the word 'cult' in an article, without defining what white-collar cult is, and without any verifiable sourcing. Yes, I dispute that that paragraph is a reliable source. Lsi john 04:41, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I will ask again, do you dispute that the book itself satisfies WP:RS? Smee 04:44, 4 June 2007 (UTC).
    • I will answer again, yes I dispute that paragraph is a reliable source. Lsi john 04:45, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
      • So, you do not dispute the book satisfies WP:RS? Smee 04:46, 4 June 2007 (UTC).
        • So, you do not dispute that you are pushing POV? Lsi john 04:48, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I will ignore impoliteness, and instead ask yet again - Do you or do you not agree that the book satisfies WP:RS? Smee 04:49, 4 June 2007 (UTC).
    • In all good faith that is the only conclusion I can come to. Yes I dispute that paragraph satisfies WP:RS. And I have no intention of repeating myself again. You are welcome to leave the POV unreliable source material in the article to help push your cult adjenda. I will not edit war with you. And this conversation is no longer productive, so I will not reply further. Lsi john 04:51, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Okay, as I can see that you are refusing to state your opinion on whether or not the book itself satisfies WP:RS, I will again simply state that yes, it does, and the quote is from the book, and duly noted as such and that it is the assertion of the authors only, and thus we have attributed the quote to them. I will continue to ignore other inappropriate language about me, which is probably meant to provoke something, but that's alright, I understand things can get heated at times and individuals state things not conducive to discussion about article content itself. Smee 04:54, 4 June 2007 (UTC).

Removal of NPOV sourced material

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)

  • I do not know how to respond to statements laced with impolite language, so I will not. Smee 05:11, 4 June 2007 (UTC).
    • And yet, somehow you did anyway. I do not know how to deal with a relentless POV pusher who insists on including non RS cult references. So I suppose we're even. Anyway, as I said, I'm done editing for a while. You are welcome to re-POV the articles until someone else gets here and sees it. Lsi john 05:17, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
      • Good night to you also, and sleep well. Hopefully we will all be able to discuss politely and focus on the article's content after a short break. Smee 05:20, 4 June 2007 (UTC).
        • Thank you. Yes, I will still be able to talk politely after I rest, as I don't edit before my morning coffee. Though I doubt my resting will change your pov. Lsi john 05:26, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
          • Probably not, probably neither yours, but probably will change both of our tendency to comment on the others'. Smee 05:28, 4 June 2007 (UTC).
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)
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)
I'll make a push for enhancements of the codex of behavior. Said: Rursus ☺ ★ 08:50, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
  • The codex of behaviour, both in the article and herein on the talk page, is indeed in need of enhancements... Smee 14:03, 4 June 2007 (UTC).

Page explicitly saved

The article page have in it's entirety become privately saved for anti-cult purposes. Said: Rursus ☺ ★ 08:39, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

  • That is nice to hear :) Smee 13:42, 4 June 2007 (UTC).
    • Finally Smee acknowledges an anti-cult pov. Thank you. Lsi john 13:54, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Nope. Simply that User:Rursus is an amusing fellow with humorous statements and talkpage antics that are refreshing. But nice to know politeness on talk pages is not being attempted. Smee 14:00, 4 June 2007 (UTC).
    • I'm not sure how to respond to that.
  1. Rursus said the page has been archived for anti-cult purposes.
  2. You said that was nice to hear.
The obvious conclusion is that you are anti-cult pov and are glad the article was saved for anti-cult purposes.
Regarding your pleasure that politeness is not being attempted, I'm disapointed. I would hope that you would use politeness and want others to use politeness. Being happy that politeness is not being attempted is disappointing.
For myself, I always use politeness. I recommend it for everyone, including yourself.
Best regards, Peace in God. Lsi john 14:07, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I know that you think the term "anti-cult" is a derogative, just like you think the term "cult" is a derogative. It is one thing to imply these terms in articles, backed up by sourced citations. It is quite rude to imply them about other individual editors on talk pages. Please stop. Thanks. Smee 14:41, 4 June 2007 (UTC).
  • In fairness, it is appropriate for an editor to declare their POV on an issue. And it is incumbent for editors to not allow their POV to enter into their article writing. When an editor's writing adds material for only one side of a debate 100% of the time, that is an indication of POV on the part of that editor. When that editor refuses to acknowledge their POV on the subject, then it falls to other editors to note it and point it out. In your case, you are a single purpose account, as every one of your articles ties itself back in some way to anti-cult. Your editing connects Scientology, Landmark and LGAT to cults and all of your articles are related to this. To say it is inappropriate to note it, is absurd. It is very relevant to note that an editor is WP:SPA. Lsi john 16:17, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
In my case, I am anti-SPA and anti-POV. And, all of my editing reflects that (in multiple articles on different subjects). Lsi john 16:19, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Not a better lead...

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).

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)
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).
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)
  • No, User:Justanother, a summary edit that removes reputable sourced citations and material from an introduction that was previously worked on by neutral editors and stable as per the above subsection I had cited - is simply inappropriate. Smee 13:52, 4 June 2007 (UTC).
  • 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)
  • 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)
  • I am making new attempts to not respond to impoliteness. Smee 14:10, 4 June 2007 (UTC).
  • I am not being impolite. BTW, you are on WP:AN3 --Justanother 14:32, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Repeatedly implying that other editors are being impolite is, in itself, impolite. You are invivted to address the specifics of the issue and ignore any particular phrasing which upsets you. If you do not wish to participate in the discussions about article content, then it is a bit improper for you to participate in editing the content that is being discussed. Lsi john 14:33, 4 June 2007 (UTC)