Talk:List of large-group awareness training organizations/Archive 1

Please provide links
I am going to swing through and try to document the trail for some of these groups. It would help if folks would include a link to the source that calls them an LGAT, a wikilink to the best article on them (if any) and a link to the group alleged (so it is explicitly clear which group is meant). Given that participants in such groups see labels such as "cult" as pejorative, this only seems fair, and will make it obvious who is saying what. Rick Ross is not Margaret Singer is not the American Family Foundation, etcetera. Please try to be rigorous. Thank you! Rorybowman 20:31, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I think it is inappropriate to link externally to the individual groups themselves. And any links citing sources should use the formatting, and not just put links next to the entries.  That way, the entries themselves will be all that is visible in the list, and unobstructed.  Smee 20:38, 17 January 2007 (UTC).
 * I will try. I'm not really familiar with the reference format but will look for a tutorial. Thanks for your skill with this. Rorybowman 22:34, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Try out Citing sources. Note that I have created a term for each citation as sort of a master citation, so as not to type the whole thing out each time.  The master citations is placed in the first appearance of the cite in the article page.  Smee 15:51, 18 January 2007 (UTC).
 * Good job with use of citations. Smee 02:25, 21 January 2007 (UTC).

Pejorative classification?
Please provide me with a citation/reputable source that indicates that this is a pejorative classification associated with cults and the like. Some of these organizations have actually even embraced or publicly acknowledged this terminology, so I do not see it as pejorative whatsoever. Smee 20:41, 17 January 2007 (UTC).


 * Landmark Education sued Margaret Singer into submission and has also sued magazines. I suspect that this is the reason Rick Ross constantly goes out of his way in his own fora to repeatedly deny he has called any group a "cult." MKP and WII have heard this enough to explicitly address it in a variety of places   and one of the biggest quarrels I've seen around the various "anti-cult" movements is around words such as "religion" versus "cult" and terms such as "apostate" and "apologist" to identify one partisan or another. Who has publicly embraced the term "cult?" While recognizing that it has its origins in the same words that bring us "cultivate" and "culture" this is an academic point and in common usage implies oddness or freakishness. While phrases such as "the cult of Mary" or "the cult of Jesus" may be common among scholars, I suspect they could get one punched at a revival meeting. For a general discussion of the term check out the extensive article at cult and compare that to Cult (religious practice) and Cult (disambiguation). Like "nigger" or "papist" or "faggot" the term is inherently "loaded" and almost never used by any group to describe itself. Rorybowman 22:21, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Perhaps, but to my knowledge no one has ever been sued or sued anyone else for claiming a pejorative use of the term "Large Group Awareness Training". In fact, Werner Erhard and his company themselves actually commissioned a study of their own company by academics, and the study was titled: "An evaluation of a Large Group Awareness Training".  Truly, the only people that have ever suggested that this is a pejorative term - are editors on Wikipedia.  That is, unless you can provide me with citations from reputable secondary sources that suggest this?  Most curious.  Smee 15:49, 18 January 2007 (UTC).
 * Ah! My apologies. I was referring to the word cult, not LGAT. Singer's book title was clearly sensationalistic for marketing purpose as are Ross' various flirtations. You are correct, in that I am not familiar with any group suing over the phrase "LGAT" but self-styled critics flirt with the distinction between cult and LGAT as clearly as LGAT's flirt with education and therapy. I stand corrected for my imprecise use of language. Although "LGAT" is often used as a codeword for "cult" it is not, so far as I know, actionable. Thank you. Rorybowman 16:15, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I am curious, what reputable secondary sources can you cite that state that "LGAT" is often used as a codeword for "cult" ?? I have never heard of this usage.  Smee 17:46, 18 January 2007 (UTC).
 * Rick Ross' "Cult Education Forum" is probably the most active anti-cult board around and clearly confounds cults with all sorts of things. A quick google search of "lgat cult" brings up numerous conflations and why do you think Singer didn't title her book LGAT's in our Midst. I assert that it is opportunistic marketing. Just as it is in the political interests of GWB to conflate all issues with "the war on terror" it is in the interests of anti-cult activists (especially non-Christians sucha s Ross) to conflate as much as possible with cults. I think it is less of a racket than Landmark, but it's a racket nonetheless. These are tricks picked up from neuro-linguistic programming and used by all rhetorical combatants. Rorybowman 22:43, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Interesting assumptions, but again, assumptions based on material that is not from reputable secondary sources, and therefore not for Wikipedia. Smee 02:26, 21 January 2007 (UTC).

The term is clearly pejorative and is used as such by those who use it as a rally banner.

Several plausible explanations for why you do not see "reputable secondary sources" denouncing the usage of LGAT by the anti-cult activists are: One truly interesting thing about all this is you insist that the opposition use "reputable" secondary sources and yet the measure of standard you set for yourself is virtually any published secondary source. Many of your secondary sources are far from reputable. The facts are, anti-cultists, like Margaret Singer, coined a new term/phrase: LGAT. The most likely reasons, which are usually the simplest and most obvious, were 1) New phrases are catchy and make good sound-bites and 2) to avoid the legal ramifications of attaching a word like cult to legitimate non-cult organizations. Having coined a new term, with no true scientific or medical definition, they were then free to use it at will and with impunity. Then, the more they use it amoungst themselves, the more they publish their jargon with the new catchy phrase, the more you can claim it is widely in use. And, with no true scientific definition, companies are hard-pressed to say it is being used inappropriately. Your claim that you have never seen anyone claim that LGAT is pejorative, except on wiki, is interesting. This implies that you, yourself, do not believe it to be pejorative. If it is not pejorative then there must be a good side to the LGAT label. Why don't your articles include the good things done by LGAT groups? Where are the paragraphs in your articles which describes all the wonderful things that LGAT groups can and have accomplished? Lsi john 21:52, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
 * a) The term has not been accepted by the APA and has no strict scientific or medical standard/definition which can be strictly applied to determine whether or not an organization qualifies to be tagged as LGAT. There is no reason to continue to denounce something that has already been rejected by the professional community as lacking scientific rigor.
 * b) Acknowledging the anti-cult activists and their mis-spelling cult as LGAT, in print or otherwise, would lend credibility to them that they don't deserve.
 * c) The anti-cult movement twists everything that is said to their own meaning as 'proof' that they are correct.
 * d) There is no cost-justification/benefit to denouncing absurd enmasse labeling. Some things are best left ignored.
 * e) Anti-cult activists are very careful to avoid saying anything which makes a legally binding charge. They hide behind implied meanings and subtle inuendo.

Commenting out listings without citations.
I swung through this morning and commented out various listings without citations. My hope is that this retains the work that has been done so far in compiling the list but keeps the article above-board. When adding an LGAT, please be familiar with the definition and provide a source. Thanks! Rorybowman 17:03, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I have no problem with this. Endeavours should be made to find citations, however.  Smee 20:26, 4 March 2007 (UTC).

The term "LGAT"

 * The term "Large Group Awareness Training" itself was not rejected as a result of the DIMPAC report, and is in fact still used by Scientists and Psychologists to this day. Smee 03:48, 31 March 2007 (UTC).
 * The term is still in use, as evidenced by this search yielding 48 books, on Google Books. Smee 04:13, 31 March 2007 (UTC).
 * You may also want to refer to the book Evaluating a Large Group Awareness Training: A Longitudinal Study of Psychosocial Effects (Recent Research in Psychology) - which utilizes the term frequently, the study was commissioned by Werner Erhard and Associates as a study of their course "The Forum". Smee 04:14, 31 March 2007 (UTC).

The term is not in use by credible members of the American Psychological Association. It is in use by the anti-cult activists and is used to label organizations they target and attempt to discredit. It has no scientific definition and is not found on the website for the American Psycholocial Association. It is applied to organizations without any formal or credible scientific tests or standards. Lsi john 04:17, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
 * You are incorrect. Please provide reputable sources for these allegations.  Smee 04:18, 31 March 2007 (UTC).


 * Extensive searching of the American Psychological Association fails to yield a definition or results. All references provided for LGAT trace back to anti-cult activists. If it is used by the American Psychological Association and other reputable sources, then the challenge is on you to provide those sources.Lsi john 04:25, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Okay then, I will. Thanks for this impetus.  References abound, actually.  Did you not check the references cited above?  Are you saying that the term "Large Group Awareness Training", as utilized in each of the 48 books linked to above, are only by what you call "anti-cult activists"???  Smee 04:27, 31 March 2007 (UTC).

If LGAT is a legitimte term, then a rigorous definition and scientific qualifications should be placed in the article to define exactly qualifies a group to be an LGAT. Groups are being labeled as LGAT with no scientific standard because none exists for the term. Lsi john 04:33, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Sounds like a great idea, will do, thanks. Smee 04:55, 31 March 2007 (UTC).

While I have no doubt at all that there are many groups out there which are unsafe, a witch hunt which brands and labels every company that runs a personal growth seminar is inappropriate.

Without the specifics of 'who' placed each company on this list and why they are there, this page is nothing more than a 'jew list' intended to discredit legitimate companies in an effort to legitimize the anti-cult position. Lsi john 05:26, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Clarification: 'jew-list', as used in this context, was intended to compare the LGAT list to a 'Nazi list of jews for termination' or a 'witch hunt'. It was not intended to be offensive to any person or religion. If anyone is/was offended, please accept my sincere apology.Lsi john 18:23, 2 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Please stop making false claims, unless you can back them up with citations from reputable cited secondary sources. I suggest you stop basing your analysis from internet sources, and instead read what is written about LGATs in books and scholarly academic journal articles.  Smee 05:54, 31 March 2007 (UTC).

Clean-up
I read one of the sources "Intruding into the Workplace" and only six groups are perhaps called LGATs there. The chapter is about the workplace, not about LGATs only. I made corrections based on that one read. It would behoove interested partie to review all the references. Not to mention that the entire list is POV as in what groups name-callers call this one name. Be that as it may. --Justanother 19:29, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Given no clearly scientific standard which can be applied to an organization, to determine its qualification as an LGAT, I would agree that the entire list, and hence this article, is POV. What steps are necessary to remove a strictly POV article from wiki? Lsi john 20:10, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * You use the process WP:AFD. You want to hold off and participate in other AfD's on that page for a while to get a feel of how they work. Do that for a good while (I am thinking like a month, or more) as if you fail to get it deleted on your first try then you will do even worse if you bring it again later. Don't waste your trip to the well, make sure that you understand how things work here before taking the drastic step of trying to remove an existing article. Meanwhile read the policies and make all the regular edits that you like, the other editors will help you out, and mistakes are easily undone and do not particularly count against you provided that you learn from them. Do not make my mistake of losing your cool. Once you do that you have to reprove yourself to some extent and that is a waste of time that you really do not need to go through. Happy Editing! --Justanother 20:28, 2 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I have restored these citations. Please read the referenced citation, it is from a reputable secondary source that is an authority on the subject.  Smee 21:40, 2 April 2007 (UTC).
 * Please do not misunderstand me. The chapter is about "cults" in the workplace. It is not entitled "LGAT". That means that a simple mention of the group in the chapter does not mean that they do LGAT. The ones that do LGAT are clearly spelled out. To infer that any others are LGAT is WP:OR on your part, Smee. The re-inclusion of Sterling shows me that you are not carefully reading that source. Her objection to Sterling is its place in the workplace, it is not LGAT. I know Sterling and Sterling is not LGAT. --Justanother 21:54, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

POV
With no clear defintion for LGAT, adding groups, companies or organizations to this list is strictly the POV of the person doing the adding. Without being 100% familiar with wiki policy, does citing an author's POV qualify as citing reputable published sources?

With no clear defintion, inclusion in the list cannot be disputed or refuted, again because it is a POV issue. This would make it a one-sided term, with only the ability to be added to the list, and no method to be removed.

Even if one were to concede legitimacy to the LGAT term, with a broad and generic definition, seemingly intended to allow virtually anyone to be labeled LGAT, is the term of any significant value?

Though I am expressing this here, perhaps the issue lies with the problematic LGAT article itself. In order to avoid POV charges, I believe that a precise, concise and specific defintion of LGAT is needed. Lsi john 20:46, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * That is why new entries require citations. Smee 21:34, 2 April 2007 (UTC).

Sterling Management Systems, LGAT classification
Here is the info removed twice from the article by User:Justanother :
 * Sterling Management Systems

Therefore it is most certainly discussed directly in the context of being an "LGAT". Smee 22:10, 2 April 2007 (UTC).
 * Clearly this controversial group is discussed within the classification of Large Group Awareness Training by Dr. Singer, as its controversial nature and litigation is described in detail by Dr. Singer directly after other case studies of LGATs. Smee 22:05, 2 April 2007 (UTC).
 * No, clearly this controversial group is discussed in the context of religion ("cult" if you prefer) in the workplace. How do you get LGAT out of that is beyond me. --Justanother 22:06, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Hrm, let us see: It is discussed under the subsection of :
 * What Goes On in an LGAT?
 * Development of a New Age Training Program: A Case Example
 * Problems with Being "Transformed" at Work
 * Smee, take another look please, I think the section breaks in the artricle are throwing you. Sterling is NOT in the LGAT section. Sorry. I can AGF honest error on your part. --Justanother 22:13, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Smee, as a matter of policy, it is unreasonable to re-word an author to fit your personal designs or adjenda.
 * The progression of the subsection headings show an obvious intention at first classification, and then subsequent description and clarification. I will get more input.  Smee 22:15, 2 April 2007 (UTC).
 * You are wrong but go ahead and grab a few more opinions. Meanwhile it is disputed = leave it out. Later. --Justanother 22:17, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * A cited reference must clearly identify the group in question specifically as an LGAT.
 * If the cited reference is within a specific LGAT chapter, paragraph or list (and is clearly to be included as an LGAT and not an example of non-LGAT), then the group can be included as LGAT _AND_ the defintion of LGAT must include 'religion' as a basis for qualification if that is the basis cited for inclusion of the group.
 * If a cited reference comes from a chapter on 'cults' or a book on 'cults', then it is either in-appropriate to include it here, or 'cult' must be included in the definition of LGAT.

You cannot have it both ways. LGAT, as it stands, is broadsweeping and vague. It is pejorative and without a clear definition, it is only valid as a smear tactic term which cannot be challenged, which makes it POV and not factual or scientific. If you do not wish to see the entire LGAT reference challenged and removed from wiki as POV, then we must all adhere to a strict standard of fact and journalistic excellence.

As it stands, I agree with justanother, the entry for Sterling is disputed and must remain OUT until you can clearly establish the claim that the author included it as an LGAT. POV has no place in factual wiki articles. Lsi john 22:36, 2 April 2007 (UTC)


 * "It is pejorative and without a clear definition, it is only valid as a smear tactic term which cannot be challenged, which makes it POV and not factual or scientific" - I request that you stop using this incendiary, non-factual language. The terminology is obviously scientific and has been written about and published in scholarly academic journal articles and books by multiple different authors, psychologists and psychiatrists, and other leading academics in their fields.  Smee 22:41, 2 April 2007 (UTC).


 * Then, I formally request that you produce a specific definition for LGAT. A defintion which will be publised in the LGAT article; a definition which can then be applied to every group on this list, to justify their inclusion or refute it.

The evidence available suggests that anti-cult activists hide behind the ill-defined term to avoid prosecution for liable and slander. It is commonly used by those groups to belittle and undermine the credibility of many organizations. When I say 'bird', you picture the same animal that I do, because we have a scientific standard to define 'bird'. When the anti-cult activists say LGAT, it means whatever they need it to mean to include whatever group they are trying to include. This is the very essence of pejorative and has no business in wiki articles. Lsi john 22:49, 2 April 2007 (UTC) — Lsi john (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * personal comments moved to my user discussion page. Lsi john 01:35, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Smee, your edits/updates and posts constantly fall directly in line with the anti-cult party-line rhetoric. I welcome third disinterested party involvement. It will be obvious, to anyone who looks at the articles you update, that you are pushing your adjenda and fighting any attempt at article neutrality. All they will have to do is look at the logs of the things you add and allow, that appear at times to be verbatim from the rickross forum, versus your deletions, which are the same things that get censored on that very same forum.
 * "The evidence available suggests that anti-cult activists hide behind the ill-defined term to avoid prosecution for liable and slander." This is simply untrue.  Show me evidence from a reputable secondary source that shows this?  This thread and abrasive inappropriate language is getting us nowhere.  Let us wait for input from other editors, I have put in a request from an uninvolved source.  Smee 03:58, 3 April 2007 (UTC).

In the few days that I have been a wiki contributor, I have not seen you make a single edit which goes counter to the anti-cult party-line, which only adds to the conclusion that you are pushing your pov.

You helped create the Klemmer&Associates page which initially and incorrectly classified it as a LGAT and you allowed the rick ross FORUM to be cited as a reliable source for this claim (the ONLY place it has ever been called an LGAT). (Yet, you are quick to delete anything counter to your view as 'unreliable' or 'unpublished'). Now, when the facts demonstrate that no reliable source has classified K&A as an LGAT and the article has been stripped of everything anti-cult, you have declared it as an 'advertisement'. This is a clear demonstration of your adjenda and pov on this issue. If the article was worth writing and editing in the beginning, why have you now abandoned it? Conclusion: It is no longer of value to you in pushing your adjenda. If you are unbiased, then go research Klemmer & Associates and rewrite the article with absolutely NO cult/LGAT references. Fix it. Make it a non-advertisement article. It was clearly worth your time to edit in the beginning, how about finishing the article and adding some information about the work that K&A is doing for children and orphans in Africa?

It's clear to me, based on my experience in the past few days that you are, indeed, a pov pusher and you have an adjenda which is not neutral. Where you have been summarily deleting, I have been tagging and offering you an opportunity to correct the entries. When you are forced, by fact and rules, to accept wording you don't like, you rewrite the entire section and force the other editors to start over with the critique.

Feel free to point me to any edits you have made which carry any message which contradicts my findings and conclusions. Lsi john 13:39, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Third Opinion Summary: don't list it. --User:Krator (t c) 08:56, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The fact that it is discussed within an article on this topic does not make it an organization that fits the (vague) definition. To use the same example used above: When the breeding behaviour of a specific type of bird is compared to a crocodile, or if a crocodile is used as an example to give the reader a better understanding on birds, a crocodile isn't automatically a bird too.
 * Scientology being the crocodile. Wait a minute, I just got that - should I be insulted? (laff - personally, I see Scientology as more "the pit bull of religions. grrrrrrr). --Justanother 13:08, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * That was our concensus. Smee was ignoring concensus and simply reverting the group back into the list. Thank you for your input.Lsi john 12:30, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I tagged Lsi john with WP:SPA, because he has made few edits outside of this topic. From WP:SPA: "This can be perfectly innocent, or it can represent a user pushing an agenda, so such accounts may warrant a bit of gentle scrutiny." This is not a personal attack, but rather something to take into account when reading comments by this user. @Lsi john, I encourage you to edit outside of this topic. With broad Wikipedia editing experience, users will value your input more.
 * I think tagging me SPA is a bit harsh, given that Ive been on wiki for a whole three days, given the amount of time I have to spend on wiki and given the number of reverts, manglings and rewrites that Smee has occupied me with on this particiular (group of articles). As far as I can see, my edits have all been attempts at article neutrality. You are, of course, entitled to your opinion, but pulling he trigger on SPA agasint a 3-day newbie is incredibly harsh, imho.Lsi john 12:23, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * On a side note, I find this topic as a whole not really notable, and references outside of the specific scientific area (business and cultism) it is discussed in are needed on both this list and the main article. Newspaper articles would do.
 * Krator, I would agree also. However, it is an extremely important topic/issue/article for the anti-cult groups. As a uninterested third party, I would request that you spend time reading articles and postings on the rickross.com forum under Large Group Awareness Training. While a forum is obviously not a reliable source for reference on wiki, I believe it will be very enlightening and demonstrate why this topic is so important to them. Research on the topic yields very little interesting information other than from these groups. The term is broadsweeping and the definition vague and illusive. It is used as a catch-all by RR to include any organization they choose.
 * In my opinion if it deserves an article at all, it qualifes for 1 paragraph : LGAT is a broad sweeping term to classify various groups with no concise defintion for their inclusion. Adding much more detail than that, without pointing out who really uses it, leads to a biased article.Lsi john 13:50, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

"anti-cult activist sources"
Stop reverting. The same references you use to claim "psychologists and academics" also show anti-cult activists use the term. This must stay. STOP REVERTING. By "repeatedly" removing valid references, you are effectively VANDALIZING Vandalism this page and compromising the integrity of wikipedia. This is against the rules. Please STOP it. Lsi john 15:22, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

If you have some wording adjustments you wish to make, DISCUSS it here. Compromise is always an option. Flat removal of a valid citation is not an option. Lsi john 15:23, 9 April 2007 (UTC) Smee, now you are adding LGAT categories to articles which have no CITED SOURCES linking them to that category. Now YOU are using your POV to add categories, which you told me is against the rules?!! Lsi john 19:00, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Removed violation of WP:OR, none of the sources are classified as "anti-cult activist sources", by any reputable secondary sourced material/citations. This is simply pov-pushing, violations of WP:OR, and highly inappropriate.  It is obvious that scholars, psychologists and psychiatrists use this academic terminology, show me a reputable secondary source that classifies "anti-cult activists" as using it as such.  Thank you.  Smee 18:13, 9 April 2007 (UTC).
 * Both Rick Ross and Margret Singer are self-proclaimed anti-cult. This is not POV, it is well documented in their own works. You cited 48 google references. Where is your reputable source which identifies EVERY SINGLE ONE of those sources as a scholar, psychologist or psychiatrist? The list you provide is just as valid for 'anti cult activist' as it is for 'psychologist'. Rick ROss is included in your 48 references and he is neither a scholar, a psychologist nor a psychiatrist. In fact he is a self-proclaimed, and widely accepted as an anti-cult activist. Lsi john 18:27, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
 * You are mistaken. Ross is not cited in any of those 48 references from Google Books.  Please remove your unsourced violation of WP:OR.  Smee 18:37, 9 April 2007 (UTC).
 * Lsi john, please step back, take a moment, and calm down. Your use of CAPS and exclamation points is not conducive to a constructive conversation.  Now, I was adding the category to articles already listed and sourced here with multiple citations.  Smee 19:02, 9 April 2007 (UTC).

 Lsi john 19:19, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Smee, the reference to anti-cult activist was sourced and I believe you removed the source during one of your early reverts. Both Rick Ross and margaret singer are anti-cult activists and I believe they have both used the term. In fact, Margret Singer and her panel are commonly cited as using the term (if not inventing it). Lsi john 20:37, 9 April 2007 (UTC) If this cannot be done, then this material is WP:OR and must be removed as unencyclopedic. Smee 20:42, 9 April 2007 (UTC).
 * 1) Please provide a reputable secondary source claiming that "anti-cult activists" use the term Large Group Awareness Training.
 * 2) Please provide a reputable secondary source identifying these individuals as "anti-cult activists".

Then you would allow the verbiage "individuals who specialize in anti-cult research" ? Following the rules, work with me to get incorporate acceptable verbiage into the article. Lsi john 21:07, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Please show me the reputable sources that state the above 2 pieces of info. Smee 21:15, 9 April 2007 (UTC).
 * per the rules on edit conflict, please answer my question related to 'compromise' and 'assisting with wording. Lsi john 21:17, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Third opinion
If a specific person said something, we attribute to that specific person, not to a group of people based on that. If this "Margaret Singer" said something, we state that "Margaret Singer said..." not "(insert group of people that Margaret Singer may belong to) said...". As a side note, it was also asked whether this is usable as a source. The answer is that it appears to be self-published and biased, and I see no indication that it undergoes editorial control, so the short answer is "no". Seraphimblade Talk to me 21:25, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Sounds good, thank you. There are plenty of other sources on this topic, specifically from academic journal articles and psychology text books.  Smee 21:41, 9 April 2007 (UTC).

Major work in progress
Smee ? First you ask for third party arbitration and now you summarily tag the page as major-rewrite in progress? This qualifies as a unilateral decision by one editor without the concensus of the group and is against the wiki rules. Lsi john 21:21, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Please stop this nonsense. As you can see I am merely adding citations from additional sources that discuss and define Large Group Awareness Training, and list groups classified as such, for example from popular psychology textbooks.  Smee 21:40, 9 April 2007 (UTC).
 * You are the one who tagged it as 'major rewrite', without indicating in this talk page what you were doing. And that major re-write came immediately after a third party decision ruled against one of your major source references. Adding citations does not require a 'major rewrite', and therefore I stand by my response. Lsi john 23:31, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Stop trying to pick an argument when there is none. I subsequently finished adding sourced citations from reputable secondary sources, including psychology textbooks that describe Large Group Awareness Training, and also removed the tag.  Done deal.  Try to be more cognizant of  WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF next time.  Thanks.  Smee 23:34, 9 April 2007 (UTC).

Also, since you seem to have finished your Major Rewrite, why did you not remove your improper sourcing? I could have, but in the interest of cooperation, I was allowing you to remove it. Yet you have not. You also have other 'cited sources' which are actually wiki articles. As it is clear that you only make the edits which suit you and ignore third-party 'suggestions' to remove references, I will go ahead and begin learning the dispute process and see you there. Regards. Lsi john 23:36, 9 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Please instead remove the citations themselves, and mark with, which yields: .  This will indicate the need for other citations from other sources, which do exist in scholarly secondary sources.  Or, invariably, it would be nice to give me a chance to yes, remove that source, and add other sources instead.  Smee 23:50, 9 April 2007 (UTC).
 * You had a chance to remove them, you had a chance to correct them. You made 'major edits' to the page and declared you were finished. You ignored the post from an independent third party and left the invalid reference in. Without that reference, those names are unsupported and should be removed in the same way that you routinely delete other author's edits as uncited. You can put those names back later if/when you find valid references from reliable published sources. Until then, they should be considered invalid, pov and do not belong on wiki. Based on the rules you quote to me, you cannot publish unsupported pov and simply cite it as 'reference needed'. Remove it now, put it back later if you can justify its inclusion. Lsi john 02:06, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I have citations and will add them momentarily. Please assume good faith and leave the Fact tags in place with the entries for a short while.  Thanks.  Smee 02:07, 10 April 2007 (UTC).