Jump to content

Talk:Evaluating a Large Group Awareness Training/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Opening Remarks

An article's opening remarks should be limited to a brief discussion about the Book.

Some of the statements in the opening remarks seemed to be overly prejudicial and leading as well as WP:NR and have been removed.

The term Large Group Awareness Training has been used by psychologists, psychiatrists and academics in academic journal peer reviewed articles

  • Adds undue weight to the term LGAT and leads the reader to conclude it is a highly respected and highly used TERM. It is also unnecessary in the opening remarks for this book. The reader can easily click on a link for LGAT to find the definition and other uses of the phrase/label.

The book was referenced in a college-level psychology course, "Developmental Effects of Participation in a Large Group Awareness Training", at the University of Minnesota.

  • This too, leads the reader to a conclusion that the book is, perhaps, widely accepted and recognized as a significant work. Additionally no specific information is provided for 'what' this study referenced in the book. The implication here is that the psychology course referenced the book favorably. For all we know, without reading the book, the course referenced the book negatively. If this course must be referenced at all, it would be part of the article, "other places used or referenced", not in the opening remarks. The opening remarks should not assist the reader to form an opinion about the book, the writings, the concepts or the terms.

A 2005 study published by the British Psychological Society which analyzed the Landmark Forum course cited Evaluating a Large Group Awareness Training for background on the Large Group Awareness Training phenomenon.

  • This appears to have nothing to do with the book, other than pointing out that the book was used as a reference for a study. No indication is given as to how the book was used by the study, nor to the value of the 2005 study which made reference to this book. However, by including this reference (especially in the opening remarks) it adds undue importance to the study and seems to lead the reader to a conclusion about the value or recognition of the book. It certainly does not belong in the opening remarks.

The research reported in Evaluating a Large Group Awareness Training garnered the American Psychological Association's "National Psychological Consultants to Management Award", in 1989

  • This comment also seems to give undue prejudice and bias and leads the reader in a desired direction. It is not a general statement about the book or its contents and should not be included in the opening remarks. If used, it should be in a sub-section at the bottom of 'places used' or 'recognition given'.

Comment: The opening remarks of an article should be generic, neutral and balanced with no emphasis placed on the weight, importance or value of the topic. After reading the opening remarks, a reader should, ideally, have formed 'no opinion' on the subject matter or its value. Lsi john 13:58, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Please do not remove material backed up by highly reputable secondary sources from this article. Thank you. Smee 06:31, 18 April 2007 (UTC).
    • Smee, please see WP:LEAD for hints on writing a good introductory section. howcheng {chat} 05:53, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
      • Thank you, a good point, I will take a look. However, any specific points from WP:LEAD to concentrate on? Smee 05:55, 19 April 2007 (UTC).

unbalanced & controversial

This article appears to be one-sided.

The article is 100% positive review of the book and includes no opposition or criticism to LGAT or the book.

By so fully defining LGAT here and how well respected it is by authors and scholars, it seems there is a large absence of any criticism of such a controversial subject.

Given the controversial nature of the subject this seems biased and unbalanced.

The tags need to stay until the article contains opposing views. Lsi john 17:09, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Point of Clarification: The study was commissioned by a large group awareness training organization, fully with their cooperation, Werner Erhard and Associates. This book itself is most certainly not "controversial". It is not an unbalanced article either, but I will leave that tag for now. Smee 18:29, 19 April 2007 (UTC).
    • How is an absence of criticism about the book "unbalanced" ??? What if no criticism of the book exists in any reputable sources anywhere? Does the "unbalanced" tag need to then stay on forever? This is illogical. Smee 22:36, 19 April 2007 (UTC).
      • Smee, I believe you are following your heart. I believe you feel you are doing the right thing and I believe that you feel your writing and editing are balanced and fair.
At the same time, I also believe that the article is unbalanced and that your writing style is unbalance on this entire subject. I believe you have subconsciously painted a very poor picture of the LGAT concept because that is how you feel about the subject. Perhaps inadvertently, perhaps not. Your motives are not relevant. The work-product is.
In the same way that you know that LGAT is evil, I know that these articles are unbalanced and designed to prove that LGAT is evil. If I am wrong, then you will work with me and help me to achieve a balance in the articles. If I am right, then you will stand in righteous indignation and declare me an enemy and cry foul. Either way, I'm not going to engage you. I believe the article is a rave review of the book, and with such a controversial subject I do not believe that no criticism of the book exists. I do not believe you have looked for any criticism. In defining LGAT, you have never given any positive aspect of the process. You have never cited any company successes. Smee, you have written nothing which reflects good on LGAT. Ignore it if you want, but positive comments about LGAT are glaringly absent. That is the definition of unbalanced.
Those are my beliefs and you have done nothing to change them since I arrived at wiki. I will no longer lock horns with you. I will no longer engage you. I will not challenge you if you revert everything I have put on wiki. I will no longer edit any of the LGAT articles. I will leave comments and suggestions in the discussion and you are free to ignore them or use them. Your neutrality will be determined by your actions.
Peace in God Lsi john 23:13, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
  • If you refuse to discuss content, and only wish to discuss what you believe to be the personal motivations of other editors, we will not have a very productive nor constructive discussion. Your words above are irrelevant as you yourself stated above, to the content of the articles in question, and yet, are extremely bitter, abrasive, and hurtful. Smee 23:22, 19 April 2007 (UTC).

I'm sorry to hear that you feel my words are both irrelevant and hurtful. For any part I played in that, I appologize. Lsi john 15:11, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I recognize that a lot of work went into writing this article and I believe that opposing views can be found if research is done to look for them. If at some point I believe the article is balanced, and if the tag still exists on the article, I will definately post a comment here in discussion as well as a complimentary remark on job well done. Lsi john 15:16, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

  • I do not feel your words are irrelevant. But your words ascribing your own preconceived notions about what you think my motivations are, are highly inappropriate. Such as this sentence above: I believe you have subconsciously painted a very poor picture of the LGAT concept because that is how you feel about the subject. Perhaps inadvertently, perhaps not. Your motives are not relevant. The work-product is. Discuss content not contributors. Smee 16:37, 20 April 2007 (UTC).
Noted. Lsi john 20:30, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Removal of material

  • Please do not remove material sourced to reputable secondary sourced citations. Smee 05:27, 2 May 2007 (UTC).

Book article

I removed the Template about the "Landmark FOrum"(which postdates the book this article is about AND is a NPOV misrepresentation of the facts in which it chooses to include.) and the references to events that happened after the book was published. So long as this actually is an article about the book it seems to be about these should be obvious and non-controversial changes.

Also- reliable secondary sourced citations that are not about the articles content have no place in the article AND the template is very controversial and I would assert most editors disagree with it. This isn't a bad article - let's not mess it up with spin doctoring.Alex Jackl 05:32, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Alex Jackl, how do you expect to have a constructive dialogue when you throw around hurtful language ?????? DIFF I do not bring up the fact that a different editor has brought up issues with your conflict of interest on editing on Wikipedia, every time I see you on a discussion page. But when you use hurtful language like that, perhaps I should. Smee 05:42, 2 May 2007 (UTC).
  • there was no hurtful dialog. Stop discussing the user and discuss the article.
Very specific claimes are made. Either you address them or his edits stand as accurate.
Claimes of hurtful dialog and other things are irrelevant. Stick to the article. Lsi john 05:44, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
The comments by Alex Jackl directly about me are not about content, but contributors, and are not in accordance with WP:NPA. I will not stand for this nor participate in constructive dialogue with someone that bandies about these types of accusations. Smee 05:47, 2 May 2007 (UTC).
Then it appears we have a consensus that his edits are correct since you refuse to participate in constructive dialog. At least you're on record as saying so. Lsi john 05:57, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
No, his edits are most certainly not correct. However I am hurt and dismayed that the user continually wishes to engage in dialogue about contributors rather than about content. If the user wished to apologize for this and politely and civilly discuss content , that would be another matter. Smee 06:02, 2 May 2007 (UTC).
Then be the bigger person and set a good example for him to learn by. If you are demanding an apology, then you are not assuming WP:FAITH. Stick to the article. If you feel a serious breach of wiki-rules happened, then report it appropriately. This discussion is about the article. Please stick to it. Lsi john 06:05, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Smee: I, in no way want to personally attack you. However, it is bad form to remove content another user has put on a talk page. I wrote that to indicate that I was taking the case that you were not pressing your agenda in this article and it was a mistake. I probably could have found a more tactful way to say it and for that I apologize. My point stands though. It isn't about you- adding material to a book article that occurred AFTER the book was published ESPECIALLY if it is contentious material, is just not a good idea. The book was published before there even was a Landmark Education. Let's stick to the topic of the article. If your thinking is correct all will be revealed in time correct- there is no need to spin and attack to make your point. As Jossi indicated we are both senior editors and we both should know better.Alex Jackl 06:01, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Just how is it not relevant to mention, backed up by multiple secondary sourced citaitions from reputable sources if need be, that months after the study, the "technology" of the organization was changed to Landmark? This is highly relevant and should be mentioned for the reader in the article. Smee 06:04, 2 May 2007 (UTC).


It isn't relevant- have you read the book? This is not a book about the organization Landmark Education. It is a book about LGATs that has as part of its content discussion of a study on the course called the "Forum" which was delivered by a company called Werner Erhardt and Associates. If people reading this article are interested in that relationship they would click on WE&A and quickly know more than they could want to know about the relationship between Landmark and WE&A. It just isn't about that- focus o nthe book the article is about and there will be no contention. It is a good book by the way- I recommend it... :-) Alex Jackl 06:17, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
As to hurting you- as I said above that was never my intent and re-iterate my apology if I was tactless in my expression. But she "that lives by the sword dies by the sword"- isn't that the quote? It seems you avoid discussing content at all costs and hiding behind "reputable and sourced " as a shield and that anytime someone questions your facts or why a piece should be in the article due to relevancy, notability, or POV- you hide behind being wounded, offended or using sarcasm or don't even address the content questions. Please don't take criticism personally- that is part of what talk pages are about. A healthy discussion to get at what should be in the article. There will be disagreement- it is just a question of how we handle that disagreement. Let's talk about the content and not hide behind personal matters. As you are so fond of bring up- let us talk about the content and not the contributor. That would be a refreshing change. Sincerely, Alex Jackl 06:17, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Even in your "apology" you continue to put your own inner voice and spin onto my actions, and discuss me and your perceptions of my behaviour, as opposed to content. Smee 06:19, 2 May 2007 (UTC).
This is a review of the BOOK. It is not an article on the subject matter. Information not in the book is not significant to the article. Things that happened after the book was written, unless they relate directly to the book itself, are not significantly relevant to the article.
We assume you believe they are relevant, or you would not have included them.
Now please explain WHY they are relevant. Lsi john 06:06, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
We must stay clear of WP:OR. Lsi john 06:10, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
  • This is a perfect candidate for Request for Comment. After discussion, which is contentious and not going anywhere, we should solicit outside opinions/comments from previously-uninvolved editors. Smee 06:30, 2 May 2007 (UTC).

Smee, it hasn't been discussed. You were asked for justification for your opinion and you refused to explain your rationale. Your answer is "it belongs because of course it belongs surely you can see it belongs so therefore it belongs". That is not an explanation. It certainly is not a discussion.

You jumped right to RFC. That is WP:POINT and it is disruptive. Please discuss this and explain why a small company barely mentioned in the book is relevant to anyone who isn't out to tag Landmark. Lsi john 06:32, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

  • That last comment about "out to tag Landmark" is simply bitter and inappropriate. One of the very most importanct of all reasons for this Request for Comment in the first place seems to be the way you two discuss contributors instead of sticking to content, and always like to insert your own POV perceptions about my actions, as opposed to assuming good faith and being polite and discussing content and citations. Smee 06:41, 2 May 2007 (UTC).

Request for Comment - Sourced mention of Landmark Education

  1. Should the statement or a similar statement: "The intellectual property of Werner Erhard and Associates was bought out by its employees in 1991, and formed the basis for the company now known as Landmark Education, which delivers the "Landmark Forum" course." - be included in the article on the book, Evaluating a Large Group Awareness Training ? 06:12, 2 May 2007 (UTC).
- Note- This has not even been properly discussed. The user who wants to include the information has refused to discuss or give reasons for including the material.

Lsi john 06:15, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Note - Please see above. This has been discussed, by editors (including myself) who have certain points of view. The purpose of the current Request for Comment is to solicit comments from those editors previously un-involved in this issue. As such, this is a highly appropriate action. Smee 06
39, 2 May 2007 (UTC).

Comments by previously involved editors

Comment by Smee

The material was originally included as:
"The intellectual property of Werner Erhard and Associates was bought out by its employees in 1991, and formed the basis for the company now known as Landmark Education, which delivers the "Landmark Forum" -- it was backed up by the following reputable secondary sourced citation:

Clancy, Ray (July 21, 1992). "Professionals Fall Prey To New Age Gurus". The Times (in English). {{cite news}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)CS1 maint: unrecognized language (link)

This information should be included in the article. It is most relevant and of interest to the reader that a meer few months after the study which formed the basis for the book, the organization in question ceased to exist and a new one took its place, called "Landmark Education". The study then applies to the new organization as well and its course, for the same "technology" had not changed in those meer few months. At the very least, the relation to the newly formed company after the publication of the book is highly relevant and of note to the reader. Smee 06:12, 2 May 2007 (UTC).

Comment by Lsi john

My comments are that I think Smee should participate in the above discussion and not solicit extra comment until he explains why he feels it is justified. This discussion is no where near ready to have other editors come in and form an opinion when there are no facts presented to give an opinion about. Lsi john 06:27, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment by Ajackl

My comments I think are clear in the above talk page. I believe that if this is an article on a book it should focus on the book itself and its content not WP:OR on the editors part and not on event sin the world that happened after the book was published. This seems cut and dried to me and any material on Landmark Education- which did not exist when the book was written are unnecessary. This is particularly so because a reader could click through to the Werner Erhardt and Associates article that is referenced multiple times in the book article and there is a large amount of data on the relationship that can be found there if a reader is interested in that. Alex Jackl 06:23, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Another point that prompted removal of material was the inclusion of a contentious template that has been registered by some editors as a NPOV view of the facts was include din the article. The line mentioned above is the least inflammatory of the material. Also PLEASE DO NOT REMOVE MATERIAL FROM A TALK PAGE. I had to undo some edits in order to restore the material that was removed - for some unknown reason which we can only guess at. I will, because of WP:AGF, assume it was a mistake. Alex Jackl 06:35, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Comments by previously un-involved editors

Question from Anynobody; Are there sources available online to support this? "The intellectual property of Werner Erhard and Associates was bought out by its employees in 1991, and formed the basis for the company now known as Landmark Education, which delivers the "Landmark Forum" course."to

Okay, I will provide my citations here below:

  1. Clancy, Ray (July 21, 1992). "Professionals Fall Prey To New Age Gurus". The Times (in English). {{cite news}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)CS1 maint: unrecognized language (link) "A year ago Landmark Education International, based in Covent Garden, London, changed its name from Werner Erhard and Associates."
  2. Larson, Bob (2004). Larson's Book of World Religions and Alternative Spirituality. Tyndale House Publishers, Inc. p. 197. ISBN 084236417X. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help) "Best known for founding est, Erhard announced in 1984 that the est training was being "retired." In its place was a new course produced by Werner Erhard and Associates. In 1985 that course was redesigned and retitled Landmark Forum."
  3. Chappell, Clive (2003). Reconstructing the Lifelong Learner. Routledge. p. 94. ISBN 0415263476. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help) "The Landmark Education Corporation was founded in 1991 when Werner Erhard and Associates was purchased by a group of former employees...Based on Erhard's "technology", Landmark developed Erhard's original approach into the Landmark Forum - a short training course claiming to offer personal growth and transformation."
  4. Pinzur, Matthew I. (July 16, 2006). "New school to open amid high hopes: The founders of a new charter school -- the first in Miami Beach -- are active in a controversial self-awareness group". Miami Herald. {{cite news}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help) "Landmark has its roots in Erhard Seminars Training, or est, the personal-growth program created in the 1970s by ex-Scientologist Werner Erhard...Erhard dropped from public view in 1991 after selling the est system to Landmark, which is now operated by two siblings."
  5. Hellard, Peta (June 11, 2006). "Stress fear in $700 child forum: WA children as young as eight who attend "life-changing" coaching sessions by a controversial US company could have difficulty with their schoolwork afterwards, according to experts". The Sunday Times, Australia. {{cite news}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help) "Previously known as Est, Landmark Education was founded in 1971 by Werner Erhard, a former used-car and door-to-door encyclopedia salesman, after he quit Scientology."
  6. Silva, Horacio (August 28, 2005). "The Cult of Fashion". The New York Times. {{cite news}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help) "But its impact is nothing compared with that of Landmark Forum, called est in an earlier incarnation, which has all but seduced the front row."
  7. O’Brien, James (May 2005). "Defending Your Life: The Landmark Forum is a self-help program that offers to make you anew, more powerful dude. The catch? Try three days of scant sleep, humiliating revelations, and verbal abuse. So why are people signing up by the thousands?". GQ Magazine. {{cite news}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help) "The Landmark Forum is the streamlined, slightly gentler offspring of that pinnacle of the 70’s encounter movement, EST...In 1991, with lawsuits pending and a potentially damning 60 Minutes exposé about to create loads of bad publicity, Erhard sold the technology of transformation to a group of his former employees and split the country."
  8. Libaw, Oliver (August 13, 2002). "'Transformation' in a Weekend? - Based on EST, the Landmark Forum Says It Can Help People Become Happier and More Productive". ABC News. ABC. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)

Smee 07:34, 2 May 2007 (UTC).(UTC).

  • Lsi john or Ajackl this space is for your opinion of Smee's sources. 07:51, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
-Please don't SPIN the question.

From what I can see, Smee has collected quite a bit of proof which shows that the statement is true. However, I am unaware of anyone who is disputing the truth or fact or accuracy of the statement.

The quesion is not whether or not the material is true. The question is whether or not this information bears reporting in this article. And that is a Subjective question.

  • The article is a review of a book.
  • The book contained significantly more content than 1 minor company.
  • The fact that the intelectual propery rights of one individual mentioned in the book were bought by employees, after the book was published, is not significant to the book, this article or the subject of the book.

If we should report this one item, then we should also report weddings and divorces of involved parties as well as any changes in ownership of the publishing company. We should report everything that happened to the authors since the book was published. We should also report the status and history of every other person or company mentioned in the book..... none of which are relevant to the contents or writings in the book.

The real questions are:

  • Did the ownership of "The intellectual property of Werner Erhard and Associates" play a hugely significant role in this book.
AND
  • Is the fact that the employees later bought that "intelectual property" which "formed the basis for Landmark Education" significantly important to this article.
  • Is the information directly relevant, significant and important to this article?
  • Would including this information add significant value for the readers?

In order to form an opinion about these questions, Smee has been asked to give us justification for why she believes the above questions are answered yes. She has refused to do this and instead is showing that the information is reliable and citable.

The information she provided addresses the question "can we", it does not appear to answer the subjective question "SHOULD WE"?

I will let Ajackl speak for himself on this issue. Lsi john 13:13, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you

Smee has put together some pretty convincing citations, and they support the statement in question so unless the other invited editors have a good counter point I think the statement should be allowed. Anynobody 07:26, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I find it most interesting that perhaps the citation from the most reputable secondary source of all, ABC News, provides the information right there in the very beginning of the headline for their article: Transformation' in a Weekend? - Based on EST, the Landmark Forum Says It Can Help People Become Happier and More Productive - I wonder what the folks back at Landmark headquarters thought of the qualifier, "Based on EST..." Smee 08:04, 2 May 2007 (UTC).
Anynobody the question is not whether or not any justficiation can be found to permit the inclusion. I believe the question is whether or not this particular piece of information adds significant value to the article to warrant inclusion. Lsi john 12:52, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
I don't have much more to add. I have not heard anyone say that the citations Smee is using are faked or not real citations. The question is and always has been relevance, notability, and POV. This is supposed to be an article about a book. That book includes (but by the way not totally about) a discussion of a study that involved an organization named Werner Erhardt and Associates. Discussion about that organization belongs on that organization's page or on its founder page (Werner Erhardt). The single line that Smee has called an RFC for is itself relatively innocuous. Our major objection was the template which is essential an attack template against Landmark. Yes, every citation on the template is real. That is not the question- it is what is kept in the template/what the template is called/what is not included in the template. AND all that aside- Landmark Education did not even exist in 1990 when the book was published. If you read the actual book you will find this material is not at all representative of what the book is about. I am asserting (and this is NOT a personal attack but rather the whole point of conversations like this to avoid attack pages and NPOV) that that material would never be included by a neutral editor and that it is being included as a rider onto this article to further an attack campaign promulgating a particular POV. Now, frankly I could care less about Werner Erhard or Scientology and have little (but unfortunately growing) expertise in those areas. I am only interested that articles in Wikipedia not be used as spin devices to promote a campaign. The template we are talking about is , IMHO, a tool to do just that. If Smee could give one reason besides "my citations are well-sourced" to even have them in there when - as I said before- a user interested in the history of Werner Erhardt and Associates can just follow the links to the WE&A pages. It just doesn't belong here. Well-cited (which it is ) or not. By the way if you go to the Landmark Education website you will find the organization not shy at all about acknowledging Werner Erhard as the creator of many of the pieced of IP that Landmark uses and purchased form WE&A. It is just a historical interest though and non-notable.Alex Jackl 14:23, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Answers to questions posed by Ajack

Did the ownership of "The intellectual property of Werner Erhard and Associates" play a hugely significant role in this book.

This is an unusual question because it implies that accurate information about a subject which happens to be in a book about another subject is irrelevant as a citeable source. Is that what you are saying?

I think it isn't that unusual a question. Imagine a book on orange growing that discusses the most effective environments to grow oranges. One of the biggest chapters is on Florida because of it's climate. The imagine someone adding a travel guide to Florida template. That would make no sense. But one could use the same arguments being used here.... it mentioned even freqquently, Florida's environment is one of the reasons people travel there.. but the truth is it has nothing or little to add to the articles purpose= tho discuss a book written on orange growing environments. Doing WP:OR on Florida in that article would make no sense. If people were interested in WE&A's history they would go to that article. The template is perpendicular to the intention of the article- even if it includes some of the "characters" and entities" discussed in the book. Alex Jackl 04:25, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Reply
I understand your analogy, but respectfully it's not representative of this situation. The writers of the book worked with Werner Erhard and Associates observing their group called the forum, am I correct?
Since this group went on to the employee buyout, it shows that the nature of the group has changed since the book was written. To use an analogy; If we were writing an article on medical history, when discussing the the historical applications of leeches to cure disease it would be important to mention the therapy has been discontinued. In the way history describes it, people used to think they could cure stuff like the flu with leeches, nowadays though there are minor application for leeches they are not used to rid the body of illness.) Anynobody 03:45, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Actually I disagree. If the article were about LGATs you might have a point but it is framed as an article about a publication. Most (though certainly not all) literary analysis calls for analysis of the book in the context it was written. There is a lot of controversy about the extant of the relationship between WE&A and Landmark Education. The prevailing consensus on the Landmark Education article is less rather than more relationship and that is is historical fact from 16 years ago but not of much notability. There is no evidence as to how closely the current Forum or any of the Landmark Forum's are to the ones Werner Erhardt's group ran in 1988. The Template infers that there is a strong relationship. Facts have been argued onm other articles ad nauseum about that. Since the book article was published in 1990 before there ever was a Landmark there is no reason to put something controversial that is not in the book in an article about the book. Period. I am not saying anything elss straightforward than that. Alex Jackl 04:33, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Reply
From what I have read in the articles here about the association of WE&A and Landmark, the sale of intellectual property rights for "The Forum" to Landmark is undisputed. The participation by an unknown number of former WE&A employees seems undisputed also.
The book is about "The Forum" as agreed/requested by WE&A, and it's longterm effects on participants.
Since the book was published, "The Forum" has been sold to Landmark who evidently changed it somewhat. Since the subject of the book, "The Forum" has new owners and changed the procedures it's important to note that for the reader(s). To use your orange analogy, it's like changing the way the orange trees are watered, and adding new nutrients in the soil. The new techniques changes how quickly the oranges grow and affects their taste, but in the end they still end up being oranges. It's the same with "The Forum", under WE&A it was operated as described in the book. Under Landmark, it is operated differently but the goal is still self improvement. Anynobody 05:43, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
If this were an article on "The Forum" (which was a work product of WE&A) and its evolution over time. I would agree with you. However, it isn't. It is about a book in which some researchers laid out the results of some research they did. That research happened to have been conducted on WE&A's "Forum" course. The researcher's drew some conclusions and presented some evidence against hypothesis they had about LGATs- that should be the focus of the article. An analogy is if a researcher did an experiment on pneumonia, and did the research on a patient in a hospital who had pneumonia and then WIkipedia had an article on that paper. You would not talk about what the patient did two years later- it would be irrelevant unless the patient caught some kind of weird new symptoms that indicated the research was totally wrong. But EVEN then that would be contradictory to WP:NORunless another group of researchers published a paper with that conclusion referencing that patient and study. I am amazed - this seems so obvious to me as irrelevant. Alex Jackl 13:11, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Is the fact that the employees later bought that "intelectual property" which "formed the basis for Landmark Education" significantly important to this article. + Is the information directly relevant, significant and important to this article?

Yes it is, who owns the groups talked about in the subject seem relevant and important. (Helps show motivation re: profit or genuine attempt to help)

While I can appreciate your original research and your opinion that isn't part of the book. If you read the book you would know that ownership was not major factor in the book's thesis at all. It would be better to emphasize the conclusions the author reached more or quote pieces of the book if you wanted to expand. But frankly the article doesn't need that- it just needs to be about the book -as it is right now. All that additional stuff is trying to prove something. Let the book be the content of the article not anything else.Alex Jackl 04:25, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Reply
To address your point about WP:OR, reporting facts relevant to the subject being discussed is not original research. It would be original research to report the change of ownership AND then use that information to form some kind of argument. As I've stated above, the information is relevant to the group studied in the book. Anynobody 03:50, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
The very thing you just said is why it is WP:OR. It was not a change in ownership. Werner Erhardt dissolved the company. Some properties were sold to some employees, some properties were sold to others. A group of ex-employees and managers of WE&A bought the rights to the technology and started a new, employee owned company that produced courses based on that technology they acquired and the evolved by the new company. Many people chose not to participate in the new company or participated in other new endeavors based on the technology. The relationship between what is now called the "Landmark Forum" and the WE&A FOrum" or 1988 is at best spurious conjecture and Original Research, and at worst a statement designed to prove some POV. Then add on the total non-notability of it in context of an article about a book published in 1990 and AT THE VERY LEAST the template does not belong here. Alex Jackl 04:33, 5 May 2007 (UTC)


Is it Research or Trivia?
Anynobody, which is it?
  • Research:

It would be original research to report the change of ownership AND then use that information to form some kind of argument. -Anynobody

Yes it is, who owns the groups talked about in the subject seem relevant and important. (Helps show motivation re: profit or genuine attempt to help)

Thus you are making a point. It is not our job to HELP SHOW MOTIVE. It is our job to report what other's have said. Find someone who said that this change in ownership shows motive. Then include it.
  • Trivia: If you are showing trivial details, without making a point, then its trivia and doesn't belong.
You have not made a case for why its important, unless you agree that you are doing original research and making a point about motives.
Lsi john 12:02, 4 May 2007 (UTC)


Would including this information add significant value for the readers?

Yes it would, by providing a more complete understanding of the nature of the groups being discussed in the subject. Anynobody 01:57, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Nope. It really wouldn't- as I said - it is clear in the article that WE&A was one of the studied "LGAT"s. It is mentioned several times and Wikilinked. If someone were curious about the company they could follow that link. If anything the article would want more info on WE&A at the time the study happened - that might be more relevant but still probably excessive. Focusing instead of that - the company the study was actually done on- and focusing on a company that would exist until some years after the study happened (the book was published in 1990- the study was done a year or more before that) is clearly non-sensical. Alex Jackl 04:25, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Reply
Again, as stated above, this information shows that the group has changed since the research was done. By your logic we should present the book as if it is still 1990 and Werner Erhard and Associates still exists. As you know, it doesn't, not in that form at least which is why it should be included in the article. Anynobody 03:53, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Then why is it that only the sale of this one particular intellectual property is brought up? Where is the subsequent history of all the other discussion points and groups in the book? What about the subsequent history of the author? This material is not germain to this article. Lsi john 02:18, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Specifically it is trivia. Lsi john 12:15, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Lsi john the article says that this text is more of a research study summary than it is a book about LGATs in general: The study was conducted under an agreement between Werner Erhard and Associates and the researchers, which gave the researchers independence in research methods... Anynobody 09:50, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Usage of template in this article

The template issue is a matter for a separate discussion, and should be in a separate subsection. It is also ongoing at Talk:Scientology and Werner Erhard. Please see interesting comment from neutral previously un-involved editor, - User:Markeer.
NOTE: This comment originally appeared in the relevant discussion at Talk:Scientology and Werner Erhard.
The timestamp and original location of this quote from this editor is given and cited accordingly. Here is the DIFF, as well.

I know next to nothing about the subject of Werner Erhard (and little about Scientology) but had commented on this article in it's recent AfD so glanced here today. Looking at the article and this template I would say it's valuable to first time readers of this subject as a condensed navigation point on related subjects, just as the Scientology box is. There is little to no POV argument to a navbox on a subject appearing on an article page that primarily deals with that subject, and Wikipedia institutionally seeks articles that are of most use to a first time reader. I'm restoring the {{LandmarkForum}} in advance of additional editorial opinion, although I realize that no conversation involving less than 5 people can realistically be considered "consensus". -Markeer 17:06, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I think this sums up the main points of inclusion of the template in this article very nicely. Especially where the User:Markeer writes: "Looking at the article and this template I would say it's valuable to first time readers of this subject as a condensed navigation point on related subjects, just as the Scientology box is. There is little to no POV argument to a navbox on a subject appearing on an article page that primarily deals with that subject, and Wikipedia institutionally seeks articles that are of most use to a first time reader." It is a fair point, written by a neutral and previously un-involved editor, as to why the template is valid and useful as a navigational tool. Yours, Smee 06:27, 3 May 2007 (UTC).

It is a comment about a template in another article and does not necessarly reflect that editor's views on that template in this article. Posting his comments, without properly citing them as coming from another discussion was highly improper. Acting on them, as if you had a concensus, by editing the article and re-inserting a template that another editor had removed, was also improper. Lsi john 01:50, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Thank you for providing your opinions on what you think is proper and improper behaviour. Now, let us keep the rest of this discussion to the content at hand. Thanks. Smee 01:51, 4 May 2007 (UTC).
Please reference the link Smee provided and you will see the other side of the discussion on the template and my response to it on that page. Let's stick to this discussion... Alex Jackl 04:17, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

"Unbalanced"

  • Please state here, specifically, what can be added to the article and from what potential reputable secondary sources, in order for the article to not be "unbalanced". Smee 13:05, 4 May 2007 (UTC).
    • Please at least make an attempt to politely engage in discussion here on the talk page, and iterate specifically what you feel should be added to the article and from where, in order for the article to not be "unbalanced", in your view. Smee 13:31, 4 May 2007 (UTC).
  • This discussion has already been had above. Pretending this is a new section and that nobody is responding to you will not work. If you wish to participate constructively, then please do so. Until then, the template for unbalanced stands. Lsi john 13:33, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
  • At no point did you give any specific examples or recommendations as to how to improve the article in your view so that you would not perceive the article as "unbalanced". Smee 13:35, 4 May 2007 (UTC).
You appear to be operating under the belief that other LGATs are discussed in this book, as I understand from your statement:

"Then why is it that only the sale of this one particular intellectual property is brought up? Where is the subsequent history of all the other discussion points and groups in the book? What about the subsequent history of the author? This material is not germain to this article. Lsi john 02:18, 3 May 2007 (UTC)"

The title(emphasis mine): Evaluating a Large Group Awareness Training: A Longitudinal Study of Psychosocial Effects is singular. If it were Evaluating Large Group Awareness Training: A Longitudinal Study of Psychosocial Effects you'd probably be right in some of your points. Anynobody 21:03, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Specific

Lsi john can you please be more specific than you were above about what the balance issue is? Anynobody 21:08, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't matter. You and Smee make up the rules as you go along. The unbalanced tag was there. I believe it should stay there and you two are bullying me and reverting it. I will not have a revert war. The article is unbalanced and the tag should stay. Its becomming clear that muppets may be involved here. I vote for whatever you want to do. Its good with me. Why have rules at all when neither of you follow them? Lsi john 23:14, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I can tell you have strong feelings about the tag, and article in general, so please understand I am not trying to provoke you. The problem with the tag as it is does not explain what missing information would balance the article in a rational way. Indicating that that info from other groups should be included is incorrect because the book is about one of them. If you have other points please make them, and I'll leave the tag up but until conditions for removal of it are plainly stated the tag is inappropriate. Anynobody 01:20, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Right, and when your or smee's edits are reverted and someone asks for justification or relevance or clarification, you both revert with cited source and ignore discussion. Yet you demand that I re-justify before you allow my tag to stay.

What you have done in reverting my tag is against wiki policy, against wiki rules, against wiki guidelines. I said I won't revert it back, and I wont. I have also withdrawn my AN/I against Smee. It is clear that you are both going to continue bullying me because of that and I regret it now.

You may do whatever you want with the tags here, you don't need my blessing. Lsi john 01:42, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

There is a difference between an editor placing a {{Fact}} tag on a statement in an article, and one placing this tag on the whole article. A {{Fact}} tag is a request for a reference or citation once one is provided it gets replaced with a reference. If the editor who placed {{Fact}} doesn't approve of the reference, he/she reverts my edit and explains on the talk page why the source is invalid.

The unbalanced tag requires more steps, you have to create a section on the discussion page to explain why you placed the tag and how the article could be changed to make it balanced. The tag is supposed to signal a need to correct problems with the article. We (not just Smee and I) can't read your mind so you must explain the problem when adding a tag like this, (Please note the tag itself refers editors to the talk page to discuss it) Anynobody 02:13, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. It must be the way I spelled unbalanced that confused you two. Let it go. You win. ok? I really don't have the desire to fight with either of you. Or perhaps its that you have never edited this article and you're just here to rescue Smee from my horrible attacks?
Your friend never discusses anything, until 3R's are used up. And then the discussion is limited to the material is highly referenced by extremely reputable highly educated academics with lots of awards. So don't take the high road and say I didn't document or express my opinion. Just use the scroll bar and look up, because I did document it.
If either one of you two had any real respect for wiki, you would honor WP:BRD and the other wiki policies and stop forcing your opinions on other editors.
Like I said, you win. I'm not going to fight you. Let it go. If it will get you to leave me alone, I'll nominate the article for some completely neutral way cooler than anything award. Lsi john 03:05, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Lsi john if I've missed your reasons for why this article is unbalanced, please copy and paste them here or show me where they are. Anynobody 03:16, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Third opinion

Hi. Someone requested a third opinion on this article, asking if it was unbalanced. To my eye, it comes across as reasonable in tone and content, telling me what I'd want to know. Whether or not it's unbalanced, though, is hard for me to answer without knowing the source material and the context better. After reading it, my only real question was why anybody would be in a dispute over an article on such an old book.

Turning to the talk page, I see there has been quite a lot of discussion, and I'm having a hard time telling how much of it relates to the current version of the article. Skimming through it, I should mention that there is no reason that an article should treat all views on a topic equally; see the NPOV section on undue weight for more about that. Regarding mentioning that the successor organization to the one studied is the currently active Landmark Forum: that seems reasonable as long as the we accurately portray the nature of the relationship between the two organizations. It's true, and makes the material more relevant. Our readers are presumably smart enough to judge to what extent, if any, a late-80s study might apply to the current offerings of a semi-related organization.

I hope that helps. If not, feel free to ask for a more specific third opinion. William Pietri 17:33, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I think you've been most helpful, thank you for your opinion. Anynobody 00:23, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for taking the time to provide your opinion. It is most appreciated. Smee 07:20, 6 May 2007 (UTC).

Category

While this article probably should be in the LGAT category, it does not satisfy the current requirements as stated on that category page.

Specifically that it does not meet the requirements of the LIST.

Lsi john 17:08, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. Whatever the rules say, it is clear this article belongs in the category Large Group Awareness Training. This is a textbook example of a case where it is good to ignore all rules. --User:Krator (t c) 20:49, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Wouldn't it be better to 'fix the rules'? I tried. I was reverted. I gave up. Lsi john 20:50, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
That's what WP:IAR is for. --User:Krator (t c) 20:57, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

22 citations, now down to 16...

  • I see that we had (22) citations in this article, and are now down to (16). This is the version of the article with (22) citations. I'm going to take a break from this article which I initially wrote for a while, and it will be interesting to come back and see its progression/digression. Later, Smee 21:20, 6 June 2007 (UTC).
Based on that, I incorrectly deleted some of them as disruptive. Having since been told that they are not considered to be disruptive, I have restored the comments. Smee, I apologize for inappropriately deleting your comment.
And, as I am actively editing these articles, and as Smee has now implied, in several places, that valid citations have been (and will continue to be) inappropriately removed, and that the articles may go through a digression, and thus indirectly attacked my editing, it should be noted that Smee has a past history of adding invalid, inaccurate and poorly cited material, making his citations suspect IMO.
  • In PSI Seminars, it appeared that Smee was more intent on fulfilling promises made in an AfD here and here, to bring the (unnotable) article back with a sufficient quantity of sources, than he was in getting quality (or even relevant) sources.
It seems that Smee googled the words "psi seminars" and only read the google 'snippet', in order to qualify the sources as relevant. From this, he added a completely unrelated source to the article here. And, when challenged with a very clear edit comment here, Smee reverted (and improved) the unrelated reference here. Choosing not to edit-war, I tagged {{citecheck}} here, which Smee promptly reverted here, and justified it on the talk page here.
Ultimately I had to pay for the article, in order to read it all, and found that, in fact, it was not about PSI Seminars, but instead was about seminars put on by a school: Public Service Institute, for $2.50 each.
Smee repeatedly denies any wrong doing, and claims that it was an honest mistake. I might possibly agree, were it not for the fact that Smee knew that he had not read the full article, and yet he failed to assume good faith on my part, and reverted my clearly commented edits twice, in order to maintain his well sourced material.
  • In a BIO about William Penn Patrick, I removed an inappropriate category [[Category:American fraudsters]] here, clearly citing BLP violation, and Smee promptly replaced the category with [[Category:Fraud]] here, forcing me to get BLP opinion in order to remove the inappropriate category.
  • I have also had to remove numerous violations of WP:COPY throughout the LGAT series.
Based on the above (and many more examples), as well as this editors tenacious 3RR history as Smee blocklog1 and Smeelgova blocklog2, I find his above suggestion to be very presumptuous, in bad faith, to be implying ownership and simply rude.
Lsi john 01:28, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Wow dude. Posting the same exact message at multiple places to disparage me. Most interesting. You are assuming bad faith and misinterpreting my intentions, which was to note the citations for future other editors. Oh well. Have fun editing the article. Smee 02:08, 7 June 2007 (UTC).
Disparage? Not at all. It was in response to your suggestion that sources were disappearing and that the articles will digress. You posted virtually the same message in 4 articles (and now the same response), so I posted the same response. Future editors do not need a link to your preferred version, the edit history is permenant and anyone can 'go back' and see what was added or removed. At best, your posting arrogantly implied your version was better, at worst it was an attack on other editor's abilities and intentions. Have a nice break. Lsi john 02:19, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Evaluating a Large Group Awareness Training/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

*1 image, (23) citations. Smee 22:37, 19 April 2007 (UTC).

Last edited at 22:37, 19 April 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 14:45, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Evaluating_a_Large_Group_Awareness_Training/Archive_1&oldid=789375314"