Category talk:Large-group awareness training

Purpose of category

Please stop reverting my edits simply because you do not like them. SEE ALSO: is a link to related material and is relevant. Lsi john 15:32, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

This is not the purpose of a category. Keep it to the article, please. Smee 18:10, 9 April 2007 (UTC).

Smee this should not even be a category. You have it as an article and a cagetory which is absurd. Stop edit warring. Stop being disruptive. Stop being so one-sided in your POV and opinion edits. Lsi john 18:13, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

• Please stop your violations of WP:POINT. The two references that were initially included in the category are valid, as they are in the name of the category itself. Smee 18:15, 9 April 2007 (UTC).
  • Smee there is a question whether this is actually qualifies as a 'category' at all. SEE ALSO is valid and ties back to this subject directly. The term is used by anti-cult activists. SEE ALSO is a reference to connect articles which are linked by subject. my edit was valid and correct and if you wish to arbitrate it, then do so.. but do not revert it again. Lsi john 18:19, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
  • You can have it one way or the other.. either SEE ALSO applies to this article/category or it doesn't.. You don't get to have it apply only when you want it to apply. Lsi john 18:20, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
    • And that is an obvious violation of WP:POINT. You do not understand the purpose of categories. I have asked for an opinion from an uninvolved neutral source. Smee 18:25, 9 April 2007 (UTC).

• This category includes topics related to Large Group Awareness Training. Groups listed here should also be listed at List of Large Group Awareness Training organizations. -- This sentence is necessary, for it explains the criterion for the category. But if you really strongly oppose the sentence, that's fine. Smee 19:52, 15 April 2007 (UTC).

• I believe it is redundant and adds undue bias. Psychology has shown that repeated uses of a term tends to normalize it and make it acceptable. In this case, it leads the reader to a desired conclusion that the term is acceptable.

• The term is in the title, it is in the opening sentence twice, and it is in the list for the category twice. The category title is self-explanatory and listing both 'LGAT' and 'LIST OF LGAT' in the opening sentence is superfluous. I believe it should be removed but I will accept a third party opinion if you prefer. Lsi john 04:48, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Removed, as no 3rd party opinion was requested, I have assumed there is no objection to removing it.

• I further believe that the category itself serves no useful purpose and should be removed. Lsi john 04:48, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

  • The category is useful, as the term is widely used in psychology and INTRODUCTION TO PSYCHOLOGY textbooks to characterize these groups. Smee 06:46, 18 April 2007 (UTC).

Third opinion

Smee is correct, we don't really do "see also" sections in categories. (Generally, they should be avoided even in articles, if something's related that should be worked into the prose rather than dumped into a laundry list). Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 21:32, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Then please refer to several other disputes, where Smee has added LGAT category to her articles as well as SEE ALSO to her articles, which would qualify as your described 'laundry list' She plays it both ways, as she sees fit and it is frustrating. Lsi john 21:34, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Please also note the highly reputable citations that refer to this term, such as textbooks on psychology. Smee 21:49, 9 April 2007 (UTC).

Highly reputable is POV, unless you have a citation, qualified to make such declaration, which declares the sources as 'highly reputable'. POV has no business in these articles. Lsi john 23:13, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

The "highly reputable" sources are significantly documented in the main article, see for example the psychology textbook INTRODUCTION TO PSYCHOLOGY, which discusses LGAT. Smee 17:56, 14 April 2007 (UTC).

There are "reputable" and there are "unreputable", I am unaware of any wiki classification for "highly reputable". Therefore "highly reputable" is POV. Lsi john 04:53, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Problem with text

The text on this article states that organizations listed here should also be listed on the list of LGAT. However the LIST of LGAT requires that the organization be cited by a reputable source. This is a serious contradiction and possibly indicates WP:BOX Lsi john 04:59, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

• Your link references the Wikipedia page on userboxes??? Confused. In any event, no, the criterion are very straightforward. Groups listed here must have been referenced as such in reputable sourced citations. Smee 05:44, 19 April 2007 (UTC).

• Removed: Any article may be included in this category as long as it references some other article already listed here. -- This is ambiguous and confusing text. Smee 05:45, 19 April 2007 (UTC).

• • Its not ambiguous or confusing at all. It clearly illustrates the ease with which something can be included here. Why did you unilaterally WP:TE REVERT the text instead of WP:FAITH discussing it? Lsi john 13:10, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

If you want to suggest an alternate here, then that is acceptable and proper. But simply reverting is inappropriate and shows disrespect for the mediation we are currently in. Lsi john 13:34, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps this:

Qualifications for inclusion in this category:

1. Primary: Article directly cites LGAT reference to the article subject itself.
2. Secondary: Article cites a reference to an item already included in this category.

If either Primary or Secondary apply then the article may be included in this category.

Lsi john 13:34, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

• No. See below. I will tighten the criteria. Smee 18:30, 19 April 2007 (UTC).

Qualification for Category

Smee, per your own words, we need to make it clear how a group or article is eligible for this category. You have repeatedly re-included articles in this category and cited that they reference a group already on this list and that qualifed the article to be included in this category. That makes it very easy to be included in this category and that fact needs to be stated very clearly. If you can include articles here because they mention or reference an item here, then that must be made clear. Lsi john 13:02, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I believe it should be made clear to the reader that virtually anything can be listed here as long as it somehow references something else which is already listed here. Lsi john 13:07, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

• NO, that is NOT what I am saying. A group listed here must first satisfy the criteria at List of Large Group Awareness Training organizations. I will tighten the criteria to reflect that. Smee 18:30, 19 April 2007 (UTC).
  • Thank you for the wording compromise. Wouldn't the way its worded now exclude all the people on the list since they cannot be Organizations? Lsi john 22:54, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
    • You are welcome. No, because one is a significant researcher of the phenomenon, and the other is an article about both the individual and the organization. Smee 22:57, 20 April 2007 (UTC).

CATEGORY: An article listed in this category must first satisfy the inclusion criteria to be listed first at List of Large Group Awareness Training organizations.

A person cannot qualify to be listed at the List of LGAT organizations.

LIST: Any group or organization can be listed here, provided a citation from a reputable source can be found which identifies the organization as LGAT.

I think you will need to add another method of being qualified to be here. Lsi john 23:02, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

• Or to make it easier, I'll simply remove the Singer entry. That would fix things. Smee 23:04, 20 April 2007 (UTC).
  • And Harry Palmer - I was trying to keep from forcing things to be deleted. Lsi john 23:06, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
    • That is what I was referring to above. The Harry Palmer (Avatar) article, is both about the individual - Harry Palmer, and the organization - Avatar. Smee 23:09, 20 April 2007 (UTC).

Neuro-linguistic programming, Bonyan, Silva Method and Evaluating a Large Group Awareness Training are not organizations which have been cited as being LGAT and are not eligible to be on the list of LGAT. Therefore, they do not qualify to be in this category, as defined on the articles page. Lsi john 18:42, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

• Well, Evaluating a Large Group Awareness Training has "Large Group Awareness Training" in the name of the book, and thus obviously belongs in the categories. The others are an easy fix, I will simply change inclusion criteria: "organizations" to "organizations and methodologies". Smee 19:08, 21 April 2007 (UTC).

• I don't see LGAT referenced in either the Bonyan or the Silva article. Lsi john 23:43, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks, I'll look into that. Smee 01:21, 22 April 2007 (UTC).