Talk:Large-group awareness training/Archive 3

Comments by involved editors

 * Comment by Smee
 * Usage of the term Large Group Awareness Training is NPOV

Large Group Awareness Training is an NPOV term, utilized by psychologists, psychiatrists, and other academics, and defined in psychology textbooks : Smee 18:56, 12 April 2007 (UTC).
 * 1) -- Defined in academic journal articles by psychiatrists/psychologists.
 * 2) -- Defined in textbooks on psychology.
 * 3) Taught in college-level psychology courses: "Developmental Effects of Participation in a Large Group Awareness Training", at the University of Minnesota.  Hughes, Steven J., "Developmental Effects of Participation in a Large Group Awareness Training", University of Minnesota, presented at "Educational, Intructional and School Psychology", Symposia: SY EDC (18) 4], Universidad Complutense de Madrid.
 * 4)  -- A study which was made into a book, Evaluating a Large Group Awareness Training: A Longitudinal Study of Psychosocial Effects, won an award from the American Psychiatric Association.  This study was commissioned by Werner Erhard and Associates, so they therefore paid these scholars to analyze the phenomenon and classify them in it accordingly.
 * 5) Page. 54. : "Mind Dynamics, founded by Alexander Everett, was the major forerunner of large group awareness trainings.  Although Mind Dynamics was only in existence for a few years, it sparked an entire industry of similar trainings." -- This book was written by 2 graduates of EST who think highly of the coursework.  Therefore, the fact that they use this terminology shows it is NPOV.
 * 1) Taught in college-level psychology courses: "Developmental Effects of Participation in a Large Group Awareness Training", at the University of Minnesota.  Hughes, Steven J., "Developmental Effects of Participation in a Large Group Awareness Training", University of Minnesota, presented at "Educational, Intructional and School Psychology", Symposia: SY EDC (18) 4], Universidad Complutense de Madrid.
 * 2)  -- A study which was made into a book, Evaluating a Large Group Awareness Training: A Longitudinal Study of Psychosocial Effects, won an award from the American Psychiatric Association.  This study was commissioned by Werner Erhard and Associates, so they therefore paid these scholars to analyze the phenomenon and classify them in it accordingly.
 * 3) Page. 54. : "Mind Dynamics, founded by Alexander Everett, was the major forerunner of large group awareness trainings.  Although Mind Dynamics was only in existence for a few years, it sparked an entire industry of similar trainings." -- This book was written by 2 graduates of EST who think highly of the coursework.  Therefore, the fact that they use this terminology shows it is NPOV.

Smee 19:56, 12 April 2007 (UTC).
 * The 3 main take-away points from above citations :
 * 1) A study called: "Evaluating a Large Group Awareness Training" won an award from the American Psychiatric Assocation.
 * 2) This study was partly funded by Werner Erhard and Associates, therefore they were aware of the term's use with regard to their phenomenon.
 * 3) 2002 book, written by EST graduates favorable of the coursework, use the term "large group awareness trainings", to refer to industry as a whole.


 * Comment by Rorybowman
 * Usage of the term Large Group Awareness Training is frequently POV

No one is disputing that the term had its origins in the social sciences, but a Google search shows that most references and hits are in materials by anti-cult groups such as Rick Ross' "Cult Education Forum" section on LGAT's viewforum.php?f=4, and the Cultic Studies Journal in ways that groups such as Landmark Education (whom I hold in personal contempt) have found defamatory. Like the term "cult" itself (which after Jonestown became a sensational media buzzword) it has morphed outside of its original usage. Failure to distinguish the relatively modest and academic use from the more sensational uses lends authority to self-published sources such as Ross as per WP:RS which are extensively used in List of Large Group Awareness Training organizations. Within such contexts phrases such as "cult," "destructive cult" and "LGAT" may be distinguished, but in practice there is little difference. Apologies that I don't have the time just now to provide such examples, but the Google test is pretty clear. Notes regarding the way this term has been adapted and extended by the anticult movement (ACM) should be included, so that the extension of the term is clear. This is clearly the case in the cult article, and in trying to avoid this simple balance, this article is simply becoming a laundry list of every mention within a reliable source, completely ignoring the ways the word is really used and making it easy to distinguish a refereed journal article from Internet heckling and self-made men such as Ross. Rorybowman 00:43, 13 April 2007 (UTC) Fascinating isn't it. The anti-cult community makes up a word, they use it in anti-cult articles without ever scientifically or riggorously defining it. Then a self-proclaimed prophesy is born 'the term must be valid' look how many of 'us' use it. Then, because it isn't truly a 'well defined' or concise term, there are no 'quotable' or 'citable' articles wrtten saying so. How many books are written that say "The ocean is not pink and orange"? None, therefore you cannot say on wiki that "the ocean is not pink and orange" even though it is a perfectly clear truth. You cannot say 'there is no true definition of LGAT' because nobody has said so.. why? because its not a defined term and there is no reason to publish a book saying LGAT isn't defined. Then, when contributors who actually 'care' about wiki, go away for a day or two, the articles have somehow mysteriously reverted back to the party-line-rhetoric which existed before. The only hope is that enough truth gets removed from this article, and others like it, that only the hard core anti-cult activists will be unable to see the farse that it has become. I am now convinced that it is impossible to bring any semblence of balance or 'real' truth to this article. Lsi john 05:18, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * All very interesting suppositions. Do you have any citations from reputable secondary sources to back up your claims, other than always pointing to internet message boards?  Smee 00:44, 13 April 2007 (UTC).
 * Given that the main uses of the term are by unreliable sources, do we ignore that? By that standard I suppose Don Imus was just fired for accusing garden implements of having narcolepsy? Rorybowman 01:08, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Those are not the main uses of the term. The main uses of the term are in sources that satisfy WP:RS, for example psychology textbooks and academic journals, as cited above and in the article.  Smee 01:10, 13 April 2007 (UTC).
 * A very interesting commentary, but yet, not backed up by any reputable secondary sourced citations. If you have any reputable citations to contribute, they would be most welcome.  However, random rhetorical opinion is a violation of No Original Research, and has no place on the project.  Smee 05:21, 13 April 2007 (UTC).
 * Indeed. As you say, the only reputable? sources come from the anti-cult community and therefore are all that are available for this article. Which is what I just said above. Lsi john 05:24, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Your comments make no sense whatsoever. Which of the (35) reputable secondary sourced citations do you claim come from the "anti-cult community" ?  What evidence to you have to back up your claims?  Are you aware that at least 2 highly reputable studies of Large Group Awareness Training organizations were commissioned by these companies themselves?  (Werner Erhard and Associates, and Lifespring)  Smee 05:26, 13 April 2007 (UTC).

Comments by un-involved editors
As an outsider to this dispute, it really looks like the conflict is with regards to the wording of LGAT vs HPT. That has little to do with whether this article conforms to the NPOV policy with regards to its subject. However, I will say that Smee makes an excellent point: Source #8 in his list above, which was written by EST advocates, calls the phenomenon LGAT. If it's used by people in industry to apply to themselves, I don't see the problem with it.  howcheng  {chat} 21:20, 12 April 2007 (UTC) Smee 21:25, 12 April 2007 (UTC).
 * Please see Talk:Holiday_Magic, subsection: An Outside View, for comment from User:Howcheng:


 * If I understand correctly, Rorybowman's complaint is that the phrase "Large Group Awareness Training", a recognized term of discourse within the social sciences, has been adapted by laypeople who do not necessarily have the grounding to use the term correctly. Rorybowman claims that these are in fact "the main uses of the term", (emphasis in original), relying on "the Google test" for this perception.  His proposed solution is that material be added to the article describing the usage of the term by non-professionals.
 * There are a number of problems with this suggestion. First of all, the use of the "Google test" here is highly suspect.  The "Google test" may be useful for an indication of whether an article subject is notable or not.  It may be useful to find out which of two terms of roughly equal validity is more frequently used to designate a given concept or person.  However, it seems a stretch to say "Google proves that most people who use this term are misusing it."  Google lists 18,900 hits for the term.  How many of these 18,900 did Rorybowman examine to see whether their use of the term was in line with the correct usage of the term in the social sciences?  And what are his credentials for determining which usages are correct and which are not?
 * I just don't see any circumstance here which justifies bypassing WP:RS -- which seems to be what Rorybowman is actually asking for, to allow his own perceptions informed by the "Google test" to be added to the article. If we have mention in a reliable source of the term being misapplied then we can use it, but this just seems like a contributor asking for his original research to be put in the article because 'it's so obviously true' -- which is pretty much why all contributors of original research think theirs should be an exception to the policy against it. -- Antaeus Feldspar 07:00, 14 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Howdy Feldspar! I think I recognize your name from the Rick Ross LGAT forum, no? I agree that the google test is most useful as a measure of notability, but think that it is still worth considering that a significant portion of google hits are clear "misuses" of the term (by academic standards), with the Rick Ross LGAT forum being one of the most popular. Is your argument that merely noting widespread use (misuse or abuse) of the term by non-academics is original research? Rorybowman 20:52, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
 * That would obviously be a violation of No Original Research. Smee 20:54, 14 April 2007 (UTC).
 * So Rick Ross' "Cult Education Forums" are "novel narrative or historical interpretation" and should not be mentioned? Should single mentions on self-published websites such as AFF's "Large Grouop Awareness Trainings" page at http://www.csj.org/infoserv_groups/grp_lgat/grp_lgat_index.htm also qualify as original research? Rorybowman 20:58, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
 * No, the latter is an index to scholarly articles about the subject, published in an academic journal that undergoes peer review. Smee 22:26, 14 April 2007 (UTC).
 * Actually, citing the Rick Ross Form as an 'example' of a claim would probably be NR, as we cannot make claims on wiki and then 'demonstrate' their validity. In fact we cannot make any 'claims' on wiki, we can only cite research that is published. This means we cannot say LGAT IS or IS NOT and we cannot say a company IS or IS NOT LGAT, because that would be NR and POV. We can only say a company 'was referred to as' or 'was called an' LGAT and then cite the author who said it. Without a strict standard to apply, LGAT is POV by definition. Whether it is the POV of a contributor, or an editor, or an author, or another cited source, it is strictly a POV term and can only be used on wiki in that context.
 * e.g. In order to determine whether or not an animal is a bird, we apply a strict set of scientific tests. Anyone can apply these tests and the tests are always the same. In the case of LGAT, there is 'wiggle room' for every author, such as 'seminars of unusually long duration'. How long is 'unusually long'?
 * As not every 'definition' for LGAT is exactly the same, in the interest of an UNBIASED article, we should also include 'every' published definition for LGAT to ensure that our readers understand that the LGAT qualification is POV of whichever author is being cited. Use of IS LGAT needs to be corrected to 'person X cited company Y as an LGAT'. I also believe that if someone uses "LGAT" in an article or book, without providing their definition, that FACT should be included with the citation or the citation should not be allowed, as its meaning is unclear. A REPUTABLE source will provide a defintion for a term before they use it, or they will provide a citation which defines it for their usage. Authors who use a term, which has no fixed scientific standard of application, without providing a source or a defintion of their own, should not be considered reputable. Lsi john 14:05, 15 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I've never been to the Rick Ross LGAT forum, Rory. If you're thinking of somebody who has posted there, it must be somebody else.  I think my argument was already made pretty clear:  you have a claim you want to add to the article, but the only source you have for the claim is your own perceptions.  Suppose that we were to add your claim to the article because it is "clear" to you that the term is widely misused.  Then suppose that a week later, another reader comes upon this article and says "Why, it's perfectly obvious to me that most of those people who are complaining that the term 'Large Group Awareness Training' is misused are just people who are already hoodwinked by some bamboozling scam outfit, and their complaints are biased and groundless."  What argument would you propose to offer why we should incorporate into the article what is "clear" to you, but not what is "clear" to that reader? -- Antaeus Feldspar 21:42, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Apologies for confusing you with a different Feldspar. I am fine with either including misuses of the term or excluding them, but just want to be clear that the same standard is applied consistently within a given article. Much of this earlier article was quite divorced from the peer-reviewed and academic usage, but if that is the line that meets WP:NOR, then so be it. Thanks for the clarification. Rorybowman 22:24, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
 * If you mean the person who posts as "feldspar" on this page, then yes, that's a completely different person. I have no idea who it is, but it'd be unusual if there was only one "Feldspar" on the web. -- Antaeus Feldspar 23:23, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Internet mesage boards are not reputable sources

 * Please follow WP:RS. Please stop citing internet message boards as sources.  Thanks.  Smee 01:03, 13 April 2007 (UTC).
 * Fair enough. Rorybowman 05:49, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Most appreciated.  Smee 05:50, 13 April 2007 (UTC).


 * User:Lsi john, see conversation in this subsection. Rorybowman and I have agreed to this.  Please stop attempting to enter non-reputable information from an internet message board as a source.  Thanks.  Smee 17:59, 14 April 2007 (UTC).


 * Given that the Google search heuristic shows a major (arguably dominant) use of the term on teh Interwebs is such "unreliable sources," I think there is a clear distinction between citing them as authorities and mentioning their existence. Rick Ross and similar anticult activists are a major (if not the major) force keeping this phrase in circulation. It only seems intellectually hones to admit that: much as the "intelligent design" folks are part of the general public debate on evolution in the United States. That a source has no academic credibility does not matter much in what is essentially a partisan, political debate. I believe that the article needs to acknowledge the way this term has been adopted, extended or hijacked by the Rick Rosses of the world, who encourage some to spell "cult" "LGAT" and then claim otherwise. Near the end of her life, Margaret Singer lent her name to these people and they have been running with her tattered credibility ever since. Rorybowman 18:21, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Please see comment by un-involved editor Antaeus Feldspar above, which illustrates precisely the problems with this argument. Smee 19:26, 14 April 2007 (UTC).

Justification for unbalanced tag
The article does not give a balanced viewpoint. It is one sided. There is not enough balanced information in the article to give a balanced description of LGAT and therefore I have tagged that I believe it is unbalanced. If you wish to make threats of edit warring, that is fine. It serves to show lack of respect for fellow contributors. Lsi john 05:35, 13 April 2007 (UTC) I suppose you could start by helping finding some good points about LGAT and some benefits from LGAT companies. The article appears to be heavily biased and negative toward LGAT and toward anyone or any company which has been classified as LGAT. Lsi john 06:08, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * At present this article contains (35) citations from reputable secondary sourced material. Please explain the need for the "unbalanced" tag, and what information you feel should be included, and if you can, list the citations/reputable secondary sources from which to add this potential new material.  Thank you.  Smee 05:11, 13 April 2007 (UTC).
 * I don't believe you need any help collecting quotes, you're doing a great job of research. It is my opinion that the article is unbalanced and you know quite well why. I will not be baited into an arguement. Lsi john 05:22, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I do not know why. If you do not explain the reasoning for the tag here on the talk page, backed up by reputable secondary sourced citations, the tag will be removed as it is unjustified.  Smee 05:27, 13 April 2007 (UTC).
 * Besides saying simply "unbalanced" over and over, please instead provided your reasoning for the tag here on the talk page, backed up by reputable secondary sourced citations. Smee 05:37, 13 April 2007 (UTC).
 * The tag itself asks for contributions to help balance the article. I'm not aware of a requirement that I, personally, have to cite sources or 'fix' the article. I find it to be unbalanced and not representative of all points of view. You are welcome to go back in the edit history and re-instate things which have been removed, and then go find sources for them if you wish to have the 'unbalanced' tag removed. Lsi john 05:39, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * You have still not justified the "unbalanced" tag with specifically why you feel the article is unbalanced... Smee 05:41, 13 April 2007 (UTC)...
 * You are an excellent researcher. I'm sure you will have no trouble finding sources to help balance the article. The reason for the tag is to note that the article is unbalanced. If a contributor or reader had access to all the sources to balance it, then there would be no point in having an 'unbalanced' tag. I ask and welcome your help with the research. You have proven time and again how adept you are at locating such citations and I'm sure you will do a splendid job. I look forward to your assistance so we can remove the 'unbalanced' tag together. Lsi john 05:42, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Tag removed. User:Lsi john refuses to state what he feels is "unbalanced", and will not provide reputable secondary sourced citations to back up claims.  Smee 05:44, 13 April 2007 (UTC).
 * This is pointless. You will not state specifically what you feel is unbalanced, you will not give reputable secondary sourced citations to back up your claims.  Therefore you have not justified anything regarding the tag here on the talk page, therefore the tag must go.  Smee 05:49, 13 April 2007 (UTC).
 * I do not know how much more clear I can be. The article does not appear to fairly represent both sides of the issue. I will not be goaded into a citation debate. The tag asks for help finding citations to balance the article. If I had citations, I wouldn't need the tag. Help me find them instaed of bullying me. Lsi john 05:52, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * What is this "other side" to the issue? And this cannot be your own personal opinion or violations of No Original Research, this "other side" must be borne out by reputable secondary sources.  Smee 05:53, 13 April 2007 (UTC).
 * Which is why I need your help to find the citations. I can not answer your call for citations. The fact that I am new to wiki and not a researcher does not make my opinion about the balance of the article to be untrue. Help me find the citations which balance it and give both sides views. Clearly there are two sides, since you and I disagree about the TERM and its application. Help me find citations for the side which has been neglected. Lsi john 05:56, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * And what "side" do you feel has been neglected? Smee 05:58, 13 April 2007 (UTC).
 * The majority of studies in academic journals that I have seen seem to come to the conclusion that LGATs have short-term effects, which may be due to a therapy placebo affect (this was written in 2 psychology textbooks). However, I may get access in a coupla days to one more study that may say something otherwise.  But again, most of the research that I have read in peer reviewed journals states that LGATs have short-term placebo effects, and no measurable longer-term lasting affects, coupled with dubious practices, effectively practicing therapy without the supervision of mental health educated workers, and not enough screening for individual candidates with previous mental medical history.  Smee 06:13, 13 April 2007 (UTC).
 * John, I don't think that Smee is just being obnoxious here. While I personally believe that the anticult activists intentionally obfuscate and conflate LGAT's with cults, Smee's general point seems to be that self-published "jew lists" such as RR and CSJ are not reputable and so should not be used. By focusing exclusively on how the term is used in reputable sources this article will effectively show they are cranks. I did not understand this earlier, but by methodically documenting the semi-scientific use of the term, the absolutely non-scientific uses will pale. Please see WP:RS, specifically . The article seems to have begun as an ACM hit list but by rigorous documentation will end as a dull set of textbook footnotes. That is the emerging NPOV as I see it. Rorybowman 15:11, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Let's make a distinction here between RR and CSJ please. CSJ has a highly reputable Editorial Review Board, presided over by respected academics and scholars from both "camps".  Smee 21:46, 13 April 2007 (UTC).
 * Both 'camps'? Now you agree that there are two sides to this issue? Great! Help document the other 'camp'. Lsi john 22:04, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * No, my opinion is that there is only one side, that is, the side that is documented in academic journals and psychology textbooks. That is why I put "camps" in quotes, above.  If you find information in reputable sources as per WP:RS, by all means.  Otherwise, not.  Smee 19:27, 14 April 2007 (UTC).
 * So there are two 'camps', with different opinions, but only one 'side' because only one 'camp' has gone to the trouble to document its views on a 'topic' 'word' 'label' that that 'camp/side' made up, and therefore the other 'camp' doesnt qualify as a 'side'. Which begs the question entirely of bias in an article. An unbiased article will include views of both sides/camps or opinions. And, in the interest of fairness, when one side/camp/view/opinion is so much better documented, one might anticipate that an editor/contributor would bend over backwards to help bring both sides/views/camps/opinions into the article, as opposed to not contributing a single thing as well as riggorously enforcing rules of wiki 'against' contributors attempting to document the opposing view/(non existant camp)/side/opinion and relaxing the rules for contributors of the 'one side'

And, if there is only one side, doesnt that make this a very one-sided article? Lsi john 05:11, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Lsi john, remember that Wikipedia works on a principle of WP:NPOV, not false balance. In other words, we do not artificially try to build one side up without support in order to falsely "balance" the side that has more credibility.  If an article is "one-sided" because the other "side" is not represented by any reliable sources, that's preferable to saying "oh, well, we'll just present the views of Wikipedia editors who hold strong opinions on the topic as if those editors were reliable sources!" -- Antaeus Feldspar 19:22, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Indeed. Yet, as neutral editors, once we are aware that only one side is being published to any degree, then it is incubent upon us to be very careful in our presentation of a subject, so as not to present unduly prejudicial material which overly emphasizes the side being published. Regardless of any rules which permit it, there is a moral and ethical obligation to our readers not to use wiki as a WP:BOX.


 * Adding colorful adjectives to citations that add a subtle negative undercurrent, and carefully guide the reader to a negative opinion, is improper. Combining LGAT verbiage in the same paragraph with phenonemon and embroiled in controversy and investigated for fraud is inappropriate. The objection of some contributors here is that all those are combined as if to attach LGAT to crime, corruption and evil doings. If they are citable, then certainly all those things should be said. The real question, if looked at fairly, is.. should they be said in the same paragraph? should they all be said in the header of the article? why is it absolutely necessary to include LGAT in the opening remarks? What is so significant about LGAT that it must'' be tagged immediately after company names? LGAT is simply a method of training? Why is it important to give it such significance in every article? Lsi john 12:09, 20 April 2007 (UTC)


 * By saying "Company XYZ is LGAT", it seems to make some sort of official claim about the company. In reality, "Comany XYZ is a seminar training company that has been claimed to LGAT techniques", would present the same information, yet in a less accusing fashion. In all the articles here, it feels to me that companies are being "accused of being LGAT" as if LGAT is evil.


 * Companies that use LGAT techniques are just that .."companies that use LGAT methods and techniques". Again, regardless of any rules which permit it, why is it necessary to say "XYZ is LGAT" ? Even if a citation is being used, it could be phrased, in a secondary paragraph, that "In his book, Professor ABC said XYZ is LGAT" or "In his book, Professor ABC said XYZ uses LGAT methods". We have flexibility on how we present citations. I'm not suggesting mis-quoting. I'm not suggesting we disregard any citations. I'm suggesting that we have flexibility in how we present the facts. If all the facts are included, why is it important that they be presented in a way which is not acceptable to all sides? Lsi john 12:15, 20 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Because, as I have tried to show from the voluminous number of citations by psychologists and psychiatrists and other academics in peer review academic journals and psychology textbooks, it is simply an academic term, as defined in these types of reputable citations. Smee 16:35, 20 April 2007 (UTC).
 * Can this tag be removed? If not, what sections remain unbalanced? Disregard editor behaviour in any response, because this is about the article. --User:Krator (t c) 12:35, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Based on the current wording and order...I would say it is balanced. If significant wording changes are made, or leading adjectives are inserted, then that balance could shift. I believe I inserted the bias tag and Based on the current content and wording, I will agree to remove it. Lsi john 13:48, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

clarification on citations
The citations in the first paragraph: Are those citations of "psychologists" using the term, or are they citations where someone else said that psychologists used the term? Lsi john 05:18, 15 April 2007 (UTC) I wanted to know if you were citing 'references' which 'demonstrated' the claim, or if you were citing sources which 'made' the claim that psychologists used the term. It seems to me that making a claim: "The term Large Group Awareness Training has been used by psychologists[1], psychiatrists and academics in academic journal peer reviewed articles[2][3] and psychology books and textbooks.[4][5][6][7][8]" would need to be cited in a a 'quote' in a published reliable resource. Citing 'examples' of the claim, by showing where various psychologists used the term would qualify as 'original research'. If this is not an example of original research, then please let me know so that I can include such references in my edits as well. Lsi john 13:03, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The term Large Group Awareness Training has been used by x y z
 * Psychologists, in virtually all of the citations. Check the citations yourself.  It is all there.  Smee 06:16, 15 April 2007 (UTC).

In the interest of cooperation, I will allow the text to stand for now. However, I reserve the right to delete it as POV NR. Lsi john 13:06, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Check the citations yourself. They are all from highly reputable sources.  Citing that someone says something in a secondary source like a book or newspaper article, is not original research.  Smee 19:44, 15 April 2007 (UTC).