Talk:Mind Dynamics/Archive 1

LGAT - unbalanced labeling
The LGAT page large group awareness training has been marked as biased and unbalanced. Anti-Cult groups have targeted a number of training organizations and indiscriminately 'label' them in an effort to discredit them.

The attempts to discredit Mind Dynamic seminars by the anti-cult groups with their LGAT verbage, is biased and prejudicial and should be removed.

Lsi john 00:43, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Category
Smee, there are NO cites sources within this article. Any Category you add, is clearly your POV. An elephant is category Animal, and within Animal you will find Snake.. that does NOT qualify an Elephant to be in the category SNAKE.

you keep insisting that people not push POV, yet you continue to inject your POV with your edits. Please STOP IT..

And please revert your own edits.. remove your POV categories .. or stop removing other people's edits and calling them POV. Lsi john 19:17, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Please see cited source for this within the article. Smee 00:31, 10 April 2007 (UTC).

Tag
Please state your reasoning for the "unbalanced" tag, or it will be removed. Thanks. Smee 03:59, 10 April 2007 (UTC).

I had a reason previously and you reverted it. What point is there to re-adding tags and reasons when you simply revert what you don't like. Lsi john 04:00, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Please stop with the WP:NPA, and instead focus on commenting on content, not contributors. Please state, here on the talk page and NOT in and edit summary, why you added the tag.  Smee 04:03, 10 April 2007 (UTC).
 * Stating history and fact is not a personal attack. It is well documented that you revert what you don't like and only now with mediation in the balance are you suddenly using the talk pages and feining to be attacked.
 * This article is one-sided and biased. It contains paragraphs which are there only to keep the article on wiki and are virtually unrelated. The article is a collection of sentences where anyone ever mentioned anything related to Mind Dymanics in a negative tone. It is biased and serves only to push a POV for LGAT. Thats my 'opinion' and thus the tag stating that an editor expressed an opinion. The article contains no viewpoints which cite anything 'good' about the company, hence it is unbalanced. Lsi john 04:06, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Additionally, it seems that a THIRD PARTY opinion that the awareness page could not be used on another page, does not apply to the same editor of this page. Lsi john 04:11, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * That opinion relates to using the "Awareness Page" as a source, not an external link. And I included as many citations and mentions of the group from reputable secondary sources that I could find.  If you know of other reputable secondary sources, please let me know here on the talk page.  Thank you for clarifying your opinion regarding the tag.  I would make a personal request to you to please take the time to read through WP:NPA, WP:OR and WP:RS.  Thank you.  Smee 04:13, 10 April 2007 (UTC).
 * Ok, so you are saying that it is okay to place unreliable sources as an external link? And you agree not to delete such additions to other pages? I ask, because when I put similar type links in SEE ALSO, you deleted them as unacceptable, instead of offering to move them to 'external links' or some other acceptable place. Lsi john 04:20, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * No, I actually think it is a reliable source, just one that does not fit all of the characteristics of WP:RS, and rather fits into the external links section quite nicely. If you wish to make a big issue of this as well, I can ask for a third opinion, which I will do now.  Smee 04:22, 10 April 2007 (UTC).
 * Specifically what historically do you think needs to be added to bring in more sources on the "neglected viewpoints" ? Smee 07:10, 11 April 2007 (UTC).


 * I agree that the "Awareness Page" is appropriate for an external link. (As an aside, I think this page could use more of a description of what it was that Mind Dynamics actually did.  If it included more information about the enterprise and its stated goals, the article might sound more balanced.) Eseymour 17:48, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you for providing your comment. I agree as well that there could be more of a description, and I am actively attempting to find reputable secondary sources to add this information.  However, in the mean time I do not feel that the tag is warranted.  Smee 17:51, 12 April 2007 (UTC).

Assessment comment
Substituted at 02:27, 22 May 2016 (UTC)