Talk:Lifespring

Unless Lifespring called themselves any of the terms used, we cannot simply put POV in the article and declare that lifespring was LGAT or anything else.

If we list reference of people who 'called' them LGAT, then the wording must state that it was an author's opinion.

Without a clear 'definition' to apply, and a cited reference, we cannot simply declare POV Lsi john 22:20, 13 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

The entire opening paragraphs are all WP:NR POV and need citations. Lsi john 22:28, 13 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

• I have added (12) citations from reputable secondary sourced material. Smee 03:01, 15 April 2007 (UTC).Reply
  • And how do you make the claim that they "ARE" NEW AGE / HUMAN POTENTIAL / LGAT? From what I see, that is an AUTHOR"s opionion and the article must say that 'according to such-and-such' they are those things. Lsi john 04:43, 15 April 2007 (UTC)Reply
    • This has been cited and backed up by numerous reputable secondary sourced citations. Check the citations please, it is all there. Smee 06:17, 15 April 2007 (UTC).Reply
• Please stop using CAPS. It is not conducive to a constructive discussion. Smee 07:10, 15 April 2007 (UTC).Reply
  • Thank you for your input. I use CAPS to identify words which I believe are key to a sentence. I apologize if the use of caps offends you. It is part of my communication method to draw attention to words which would ordinarily be accented or highlighted by human speech. Since audio cannot be included in these discussions, I use caps. Your request has been noted and will be taken under consideration. Lsi john 13:28, 15 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

I repeat my request here in this article. There is a scientific test for what a bird is. A test can be made and a determination made about an animal: This IS a bird or this IS NOT a bird. There is no scientific definition for LGAT and therefore it is strictly a POV claim that something IS an LGAT. Whether it is a contributor's POV, or an editor's POV, or an author's POV or some other reliable source's POV, it is still POV and must be cited in the article as POV. You can claim that someone 'called' it an LGAT. You can claim that something was 'referred to' as an LGAT. But we cannot claim that something IS an LGAT without being able to document exactly what an LGAT is and exactly what tests apply to qualify something to be an LGAT. In particular, LGAT is referenced as having sessions of 'unusually long duration' but without a specific time, this could be 10 hours or 12 hours or 50 hours. There is no cut-off and thus 'unusually long' is the POV of whoever makes the claim LGAT.

In the interest of cooperation, the wording can stand for now. However I reserve the right to delete the text as POV. Lsi john 13:32, 15 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

• And what of the (12) reputable citations? Check the cites and get back to me, they are from extremely reputable sources. Smee 19:46, 15 April 2007 (UTC).Reply
  • Smee, I realize your post is dated before our truce. I would like to say, however, that extremely reputable sources is not a wiki term and when I read it, I experience it as confrontational and demanding. (In the same way you sometimes experience my words as hurtful when they are not meant to be so). We need to get used to each other's communication styles, and I also suspect that we can both make some compromises in our choice of words. (e.g. you have requested that I not use caps, which is a habit I have that is not intended to offend.) I respectfully request that you use adjectives with care, so as to cause others not misunderstand you as being righteous. I, too, will make an effort in that same area. Thank you. Lsi john 16:07, 21 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

Under this article under criticism and citing Virginia Thomas, it states in reference that concerning her harassment that she was sent a photo of her three year old daughter at daycare and Virginia Thomas does not have any biological children. This was cited using the Washington Post article as reference and nowhere also in their article does it state the same, there is nothing about her and a daughter. Hmistre (talk) 16:49, 27 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

I have attempted to remove some leading phrases and unduly prejudicial remarks and citations.

We cannot claim 'many' peole have said something, as that is WP:NR. We can list the people who said it.

We cannot claim many new LGATs exist. We can claim many new organizations exist (which may have been labeled as LGAT).

We do not need to cite awards given to a reference we are citing. That gives undue bias to a particular source and unfairly leads the reader to a desired conclusion.

for other comments, see edit notes Lsi john 04:37, 16 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

Rick Ross website, which is not a WP:RS, is listed as an external link. Is this within wiki rules? If so, then please let me know, as there are numerous external links to non-reliable sources which need to be added to this and other articles. If not, then it should be removed. Lsi john 16:42, 16 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

• As an external link, the reference is highly relevant. See other articles. The site in this case is merely an educational archive of relevant articles. Smee 06:35, 18 April 2007 (UTC).Reply

• • External Links:

• Should be avoided if at all possible. If the material is relevant, an effort should be made to include the material as a citation.
• Should avoid linking to search engines or aggregated results.
• Should avoid linking to a list of links unless the entire list meets WP:RS.

Instead, each separate WP:RS item should be listed as an External Link and thus reducing the possibility that a wiki reader would end up on NON WP:RS material via the External Link.

• Not all the writings of an otherwise WP:RS Author meet the standards for WP:RS. If the writing is a blog, personal webpage, opinion or paper with no verifiable research, it would not meet the WP:RS qualifications and should not be referenced in an article or external link. The RR website has many opinion papers which would not meet WP:RS standards and should not be used. This includes some articles by RR himself. If his material is to be used, it should be subject to editorial review and publised, not simply put on his website.
• May link to personal web pages of recognized authorities. However, this should not be considered as carte blanche to reference otherwise non WP:RS material which is opinion and unverificable research or articles by other individuals posted on that personal webpage.
• Should avoid links to open wikis, except those with a substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors.

Lsi john 16:26, 21 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

I believe the following external links do not satisfy the requirements of WP:EL:

• Redbook article about Lifespring

While it was published and is related to the article. It is an opinion and is unverifiable.

The author is not a WP:RS.

• Bibliography of articles and books concerning Lifespring

Clearly a blog of emails and unverifiable opinions from non WP:RS.

• Lifespring Graduates Webring

Links to a forum, not WP:RS

• Lifespring Graduates discussion list

Wiki is not a search engine for other information about a subject.

This link is not WP:RS material directly on point with the article.

• Lifespring Graduates Webring

Same as above. Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a Featured article

Lsi john 16:30, 21 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

All of the items listed in this section appear to violate the WP:EL standard for links to avoid:

12. Links to open wikis, except those with a substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors.

Lsi john 16:45, 21 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

The opening remarks for an article should not 'lead' a reader to any conclusion. The opening remarks should be generic and factual, setting a groundwork for the article itself. Putting opinions of authors, regardless of their WP:RS status, adds an undue bias to the article and leads the reader, who should not be able to form an opinion about the subject based solely on the article's opening remarks.

I have moved the material to a more appropriate location in the article. Lsi john 16:57, 16 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

• Please do not remove material from highly reputable secondary sources from this article. Smee 06:36, 18 April 2007 (UTC).Reply

• The survey fulfills WP:RS, but the other text was obviously not backed up by anything, and thus is a violation of WP:OR. Smee 04:30, 21 April 2007 (UTC).Reply
  • Violations of WP:OR again removed from the article. Smee 06:27, 21 April 2007 (UTC).Reply
• This is the POV, unsourced violation of WP:OR that I have removed a few times now, it is obvious a Point is attempting to be pushed here:

These cult awareness groups have very broad definitions of cults. Their definition of cults include: eastern philosophies such as Sri Chimnoy and TM, any MLM company (Amway, Herbalife), Bahai, Fundamentalist Religions, etc. etc.

Smee 06:28, 21 April 2007 (UTC).Reply

I am looking for WP:RS, I wish User:Freely would reference the source since they were the originator of the statement. Longncsu 09:31, 21 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

• While I agree with some of Longncsu's removals. I also would like to state that using your LORDSHIP in edit comments is not constructive and is unacceptable. Sarcasm and name calling must be avoided. It only causes both parties to dig their heels in, and resist seeing the other point of view. Though the sarcasm may not be intended to be hurtful, it could be received as hurtful to the recepient. Misunderstandings are far too easy in a controvercial text-only medium.

Also, once an editor deletes something and gives a reason for it, I believe a discussion should be had, by all parties, before simply reverting and declaring that the original text was valid.

Time should be taken to explain why the text is valid, and why it meets the appropriate criteria. Similarly, an effort should be made to explain why the text is not valid or doesn't meet the appropriate criteria. It is not constructive for either party to cite a rule and simply declare that they are right.

Only by taking time on both sides and making an effort to understand the other's opinion, can a compromise be reached. Sometimes what is WP:RS to one person, may not be WP:RS to the other. Sometimes a WP:RS author may have non a non-verifiable blog which might be non WP:RS.

Lsi john 16:50, 21 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

Smee is obviously very biased against any educational organization that may resemble in any way Lifespring. he monopolizes this group and has no problem linking multiple companies with Lifespring. Anyone in his way can get hurt. It is time he sticks to Lifesping and stops bringing in other organizations that can be detremental to many people.Freely 05:25, 1 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

The bias you suggest can be overcome in other ways. The reference you recently deleted was to a forum, the remarks were pov and opinion. I dont believe the forum qualifes as WP:RS and the personal remarks which add the additional companies, were not cited by WP:RS source and deleteing them on that basis was acceptable. Lsi john 13:57, 1 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

• I simply HATE how certain users time and time again seem to only wish to focus on commenting on the contributor, as opposed to a discussion of content, as per WP:NPA. Yeesh. Yuck yuck. Smee 05:13, 2 May 2007 (UTC).Reply

Why did we ignore the peer review suggestions? Lsi john 01:04, 25 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

The following source is sited for reference in this article: http://perso.orange.fr/eldon.braun/awareness/v-intro.htm This excerpt contains NO mention of Lifespring and therefore the Text in the article does not match the Source being cited.

Please provide a book/page number and quote, which establishes the use of the name "Lifespring" in the cited material.

Thank you. Lsi john 23:59, 2 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Smee, if this is an ownership issue, please just say so and I'll back away. Otherwise, please show some respect and stop edit warring with me on every article I edit. You have already demonstrated that you do not check your facts or read the articles. My {{citecheck}} tag is appropriate. Lsi john 20:06, 23 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

• I DO CHECK MY FACTS AND THE ARTICLES. IT WAS A ONE TIME MISTAKE. PLEASE STOP WITH THIS INAPPROPRIATE LANGUAGE AND LABELING. Thank you. We do not need both a citecheck tag AND a fact tag. I added a fact tag, and a note, commented out, that should be plenty for now. If none is provided after a while, we delete the info. Smee 20:07, 23 May 2007 (UTC).Reply
  • We can leave the citecheck tag, for now. I am quite surprised that you bring up something that I have already apologized for, however I will still strive to continue to add reputable secondary sourced citations in articles that I contribute to and/or create. Smee 20:10, 23 May 2007 (UTC).Reply

There is already a referenced source, therefore 'fact' is the wrong tag. The question is whether or not the statement in the article matches the source. The correct tag for that is 'citecheck'. Please provide a full translation from that site which supports your claim. Lsi john 20:15, 23 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

• In reality, either tag will work. But you have shown your willingness to edit war on this issue, and I will not push it with you, because I am quite tired of the behaviour patterns. You can have you "citecheck" tag, for now. Hopefully the original editor that added this information to the article will provide more info. Smee 20:19, 23 May 2007 (UTC).Reply

Smee, You are engaging in edit warring in Lifespring and Mind Dynamics. You are at least 2RR in both of those articles against the same editor. You have been asked to stop it and you persist. This is clearly edit warring and must Stop.

You can be blocked for 2RR warring as well, when you are clearly warring and not discussing. This is the 2nd article in less than 2 hours that you are warring in. This is a warning to stop your edit warring.

Lsi john 20:14, 23 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

• I am seeking out the proper channels for this. I should point out that you have been blocked for edit warring as well. It takes two to edit war, and you are a participant. Please also use more polite language on talk pages. Thanks. Smee 20:17, 23 May 2007 (UTC).Reply

• User:Lsi john, please undo this DIFF. This is supported by multiple citations within the article, included in the "Criticism" and "Lawsuits" section. Smee 02:06, 24 May 2007 (UTC).Reply
  • The company itself SHUT DOWN because of all of the complaints, lawsuits, and allegations of mental anguish suffered at the hands of the company. How else is this not notable in the lead??????? It is the very reason that the company no longer does business? Smee 02:17, 24 May 2007 (UTC).Reply

Smee, you continue to revert my changes, after making numerous promises on the 3RR board to work together. Only after you get reported do you decide to revert yourself and come here to discuss changes. That is contentious editing and there is no reason for me to believe you will stop it. Lsi john 02:22, 24 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

• So, are you refusing to discuss what I have raised above at all? Smee 02:25, 24 May 2007 (UTC).Reply
  • Okay, you are refusing to discuss the issues I have raised above, just so we are clear, most interesting. Smee 00:05, 25 May 2007 (UTC).Reply

• What is interesting is that you make rude and unfair judgments about what I am or am not doing. When in fact, i'm trying to program and earn a living. The fact that you sit here 24/7 does not mean that the rest of us live here. You are being rather rude and impolite making these judgments. Lsi john 00:16, 25 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

• Actually, I do not "sit here" 24/7, and my question to you is not rude, it is a clarification. It has been over 24 hours since my inquiry to you about this, and you have not responded. However, your recent impolite response to me, speaks volumes... Smee 00:20, 25 May 2007 (UTC).Reply

• today has been a very busy day for me, but if you prefer to trade insults like you seem to want to do, I can oblige. though I truly prefer not. Please let me know how you wish to play this game of yours. 24 or 72 hours will neither one make any significant difference in one line of an article. Do not declare that I am refusing, unless you also are going to permit me to declare that you do not check facts. Lsi john 00:22, 25 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

• If you declare that I am refusing, when I am not refusing, does that make you a liar? or is this another fact that you have declared and not verified? Lsi john 00:24, 25 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

• You do not have to discuss anything on the talk page for 24 or 72 hours, no. However, if no polite response is given on the talk page for a length of time, I will wait and eventually put the material back in. I request that you STOP throwing around these false accusations of yours, you are making it seem as if you are incapbable of assuming good faith at all...

Sir, YOU are the one throwing false accusations: **Okay, you are refusing to discuss the issues I have raised above, just so we are clear, most interesting. Smee 00:05, 25 May 2007 (UTC).. Please stop it. If you cannot be civil, then do not speak to me until you learn how. Lsi john 00:27, 25 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

• The fact of the matter, is that you have been actively editing the encyclopedia, even while I was waiting for a response. So that you were somewhere else is not an excuse, because you were here. Nevertheless, I apologize and have stricken the remarks. Smee 00:28, 25 May 2007 (UTC).Reply

Is the disputed sentence available from a reliable secondary source? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:46, 25 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

This text: There has been discussion among a few former participants of the workshops, that they were too stressful and disruptive. However, with over 300,000 graduates, the vast majorithy found the workshops to be incredibly beneficial. ^[1], does not reflect what the source says. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:51, 25 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

• Good catch, that information was not backed up by the source, at all. Quite an interesting tidbit of flagrant OR violation. I removed it, and added info tighter to what it actually says in the sourced citation. Smee 00:56, 25 May 2007 (UTC).Reply

Why so many sources for this? form of "Large Group Awareness Training"[3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14]? Statements such as these need one or two sources, not twelve. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:57, 25 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

The International Survivor's Action Committee... may not be a reliable source for these claims as the material is self-published, and the claims made are about third parties. See WP:SELFPUB ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:06, 25 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thank you to Jossi

Jossi, thanks, I like all of your recent edits so far. As to the sources, please don't remove them. Others were, shall we say unconvinced as to the veracity of this information and characterization in academic psychology sources, so I provided more citations. If you feel they are too many, before we remove them I would like a chance to work them into the article in other places - because they also provided other info on Lifespring, and analysis, I just have not gotten around to that yet. Smee 02:07, 25 May 2007 (UTC).Reply

Sure. You could combine all the sources into one ref block. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:52, 25 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Give me some time first, please to work on some material from these citations. I am thinking of a subsection in the article called "Analyzed in psychology sources", or something like that... Smee 04:54, 25 May 2007 (UTC).Reply

• I do not have a lot of time here, but I do want to respond to Smee's request. If you will take a minute to look at the edit comments on that Diff, it gives the reasons for my removing it. I searched the article and did not see the wording which matched the claim.. BUT that is only part of my objection. If the material is properly referencing cited material then it SHOULD go in the article. However, if the company had 300,000 people go through its courses... and only 6 (my number) lawsuits, then those lawsuits should be mentioned in some proportion to its overall contribution to the article. Saying that the company faced criticism from members before we state that 300,000 people have gone through the course seems backwards to me. And I'm not convinced that the statement belongs in the article LEAD anyway.

Note: I believe the comment about 'members' is technically incorrect as I don't believe there were 'members', but rather 'students'. Saying 'members' seems to come from a 'cult' perspective and is suggestive of something that isn't true. These are training organizations, which have students that move on in their life, not 'members' who stick around and 'worship a cult leader'. There is no foundation which suggests that there was any 'membership' involved, and regardless of whether or not the citation specifically says 'members', we are not required to include material which we know to be false, or which contains false wording.

If the company closed due to a lawsuit, then that lawsuit is significant and should be in the final statement of the lead, which would be the final statement about company. Other lawsuits and such, should be down in the article in an appropriate location.

I have no issue with showing that Lifespring made some mistakes. I have an issue with over emphasizing those mistakes in the face of 300,000 people who went through the course.

Smee, respectfully, put this in perspective with your recent situation of inserting a source into the article without verifying or fully reading it. You made a mistake. You acknowledged the mistake. You apologized for the mistake. You also explained 'that it was only one out of an overwhelming volume' of other work. You have, rightfully suggested that it not be repeatedly brought up.

The situation here, in these articles, is not entirely different.

• Did Lifespring make mistakes? Certainly.
• Do other companies that use LGAT methods make mistakes? Certainly.
• Should those mistakes be mentioned? Certainly.
• Should those mistakes be the focus of every article we write? ... only if you would also agree that everything written about you should include your fact-checking mistake.

And I mean that respectfully. It's actually a very good illustration of what Ive been saying since I got to wikipedia. many of these articles are overemphasizing the mistakes of companies, and do not include anything about all the good work and success they have had.

We post our DYK awards on our main userpage. We post our BarnStar awards on our main userpage.

But we delete the block notices. We delete the 3RR warnings. We delete the harsh criticism. We delete everything negative that gets put on our talk pages.

Why can't we give these companies the same treatment that we give our own pages? Why do we have to delete our block notices and warnings, but make lawsuits the primary focus of articles? Why do we move our Barnstars to our primary page, but delete, omit or relocate company successes to the bottom of the article?

That is the nature of NPOV that I'm trying to address here.

Lsi john 15:41, 25 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hey everybody, Smee just PM'd me and said if I didn't add more sources than the one I have, to my recent contriubtion, then he'd delete what I just put in. What do you all think? I think that this is a very important topic, and since Lifespring has spun so many noteworthy spinoff groups, it's really important to document them. Any suggestions on cleaning up the section I just added or any ideas? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Fredsmith2 (talk • contribs).

• Fredsmith2 (talk · contribs), I agree with you here. I believe the article should mention all of these spinoff organizations. However, the information will have zero staying power in the article without citations that satisfy the Wikipedia:Reliable sources guideline. Smee 06:26, 25 May 2007 (UTC).Reply

I recommended removing the spinoff section to this. There is no proof that these companies are in fact spinoffs of Lifespring and could potentially harm these companies reputations. You can repost if you have verifiable proof. Kmarsh22 (talk) 17:23, 2 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

Suggestion: Read Peter Pomerantsev's 2014 book Nothing is True and Everything Is Possible: The Surreal Heart of the New Russia (later published with variant subtitle "Adventures in Modern Russia") and its chapters about Russian "training for personality development" organization Rose of the World. Pomerantsev quotes an obscure notice on the Rose of the World Web site as mentioning that "the trainings are based on a discipline called Lifespring, once popular in the United States", and describes the death by apparent suicide of several Russians who went through its "personal training" seminars, and severe mental problems of many others. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.95.217.102 (talk) 21:42, 14 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

Jossi, in the edit summary, you asked me to summarize this. I then did so, at your request. Please add this info back into the lead. I shortened the material, twice. As a prominent critic, and the wife of a United States Supreme Court Justice, Thomas has a loud mouthpiece, and the events that occurred to her as a result are also notable. However, to simply note that she was a prominent critic in the lead, and not the fact that she was harassed and needed counseling after Lifespring - will be a good enough compromise for the both of us. Smee 17:59, 25 May 2007 (UTC).Reply

Smee, Virginia Thomas was 1 person. Prominent or not. A single person, does not warrant space in an article lead about a company that was open for almost 20 years. Please read my comments (above). It really isn't difficult to be NPOV here. Stop packing the LEADs with criticism and controversy when that is not the primary focus. Or, rename the article to 'Criticism of Lifespring'. I really am trying to be understanding here, but I don't get it. Don't you realize how much friendlier people would be toward you if you started writing neutral articles? Wikipedia might actually be fun if you did that. Lsi john 18:22, 25 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

User:Lsi john, your words in the subsection above are so filled with poison and so obviously using the word "we" to refer to me, and my userpage and talkpage with disdain, and my numerous well-sourced contributions on the project, that I just don't know how to respond anymore. I've tried being polite with you, but all you do, time after time, is keep coming back with nasty remarks at me, as opposed to pointing out specific issues with an article, or just sticking to specific issues about an article. It is truly troublesome and disruptive. Smee 18:24, 25 May 2007 (UTC).Reply

I'm truly sorry that you choose to see poison in them. If my words are poison, then what do you call the words you are using against the companies you are writing about? Because that is exactly what you are doing to them. You are going out of your way to highlight their mistakes and to highlight the controversy. And you are ignoring 20+ years and 300,000 students. For someone who can't take any criticism, you sure seem to dish it out in piles to these companies. In my case, I made a polite example, and mentioned your 'mistake'. How would you feel if we write an article "Users accused of ...."? How would you feel if users started posting the accusation on their user pages? I can tell you that I would complain if they did. It would be wrong and you wouldn't like it. Just like what you are doing in these articles is wrong. Lsi john 18:29, 25 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

• Please STOP inferring things about me and my edits, and instead use the article talk pages to post politely about what changes to content you want made to the article. If you cannot refrain from all this negative posting about me, then please do not post on the article talk pages. It is not fair to the other editors who do want to keep discussion to polite comments about changes that need to be made to the content of the article. Thanks. Smee 18:32, 25 May 2007 (UTC).Reply

But Smee, its a citable FACT. We can report and talk about facts here. right? Its not attacking you to discuss something that actually happened. Even you admitted it. Don't you see? I'm saying exactly the words here that you always say.. citable fact, reliable source, relevant material... and you are not happy about it. Yet you do exactly the same thing to these companies. You want us to care about your objections. You want us to forget your mistake. Do you care if the companies object to your biased articles? Lsi john 18:35, 25 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

This is about content, it is about your biased content and your constant and repeated efforts to re-insert it. I am just using facts which relate to you, to help you understand what you do not seem to be able to understand otherwise. Not once did I accuse you of deliberately inserting false information into an article. Never have I suggested that you intentionally vandalized that article by inserting information which did not relate to the company. I'm simply relating the facts that actually happened. And you don't like it, but you seem to love to relate all the bad facts about these companies. Lsi john 18:38, 25 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

• COMMENT: - I will not engage in further discussion with this user, if the user refuses to keep comments to content of the article, and not discuss individual editors constantly, either intertwined with article discussion, or as opposed to it. My apologies to others who wish to have a more polite discussion about content on the article talk pages. Yours, Smee 18:45, 25 May 2007 (UTC).Reply

The article's lead should include a summary of the article as per WP:LEAD. I do not think that it is useful to state specific examples of the controversies in the lead. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:49, 25 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

• Good, so we agree that there should at least be a summary of the various controversies, we perhaps do not yet agree on the form that summary should take. As you had suggested in your edit summary, I began to shorten, cut, and summarize the criticism out of the lead, to the point that now I feel it is not the best, but adequate as a compromise. Smee 18:50, 25 May 2007 (UTC).Reply

And thus the last statement in the lead should be when the company ceased operations. Smee 19:55, 25 May 2007 (UTC).Reply

Then it should be in its own paragraph. Unless its closing is SPECIFICALLY AND DIRECTLY RELATED to the lawsuits. Stop using implication and innuendo to push an adjenda. Lsi john 20:05, 25 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

• Actually, we don't yet have a sourced citation for precisely when or why they shut down operations, so I removed this info as unsourced until we do have a citation. Smee 19:59, 25 May 2007 (UTC).Reply

• Well it was certainly good that you reverted first. Why do you have to revert first and then consider you might be wrong. This seems to be a theme. If the company didn't shut down as a direct relation to the lawsuits, their closing should not be in that paragraph. Please stop reverting me simply because I make an edit. Its rude and arrogant. Lsi john 20:04, 25 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

• I will not discuss further with this user, who refuses to keep conversations polite, and to content of articles only, as stated above. However, my reasoning for removing the unsourced info is above. Smee 20:05, 25 May 2007 (UTC).Reply

• And my VALID reason for editing was in my edit comment and did not deserve to be reverted without consideration. I will take note that you refuse to have discussion about article content. Thank you. Lsi john 20:07, 25 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

• The user will take note that I refuse to discuss content, yes, but only with an editor that also sees fit to discuss other users on article talk pages, in a hurtful, insulting and disparaging manner. I am most willing to discuss content with any other user who wishes to keep discussions to content, and keep discussions polite. That is all. Smee 20:12, 25 May 2007 (UTC).Reply

Smee, I would argue that being careful with citations, how we use them, and how we derive information from these, is quite important as it pertains to the ability of others to judge our edits in good faith. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:14, 25 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

• I agree. Smee 21:24, 25 May 2007 (UTC).Reply

I am going to add the Work In Progress tag to this section, and provide some background on the academic analyses. Smee 01:34, 30 May 2007 (UTC).Reply

Please be careful with sources. Lsi john 01:40, 30 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Please stop following me around and saying that. Smee 02:46, 30 May 2007 (UTC).Reply

a) I'm not following you around. b) Please stick to the article and stop talking about my behavior. Lsi john 02:47, 30 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

• I will shortly expand this section from the existing citations in the section. Smee 02:50, 30 May 2007 (UTC).Reply

• I see that there were (27) citations in this article, and now (26). Here is the version with (27). I will take a break from this article, and pop back in after a while, and it will be interesting to see the progression/digression. Later, Smee 21:17, 6 June 2007 (UTC).Reply

• I find the previous comment by Smee, as well as article talk-page comments here, here, here and here, to be very presumptuous, in very Bad Faith, and personally offensive.

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.

• At Talk:Evaluating a Large Group Awareness Training, Smee has also implied that 5 sources have been inappropriately removed: here. Even though the article edit history clearly explains why the material was removed here.

• Smee declares authorship of Mind Dynamics here, again listing the number of references and implying that the article will digress.

• In another case, at Large Group Awareness Training, Smee took an exact and specific quotation and replaced it with the weasel words "has been said", and changed the citation away from the source here.

• At List of Large Group Awareness Training organizations, a secondary source and a primary source, were both listed throughout the article, which I corrected here. Smee quickly re-added it as an WP:EL here. Note, that article is a List, not an article (or information) about LGAT.

• 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 01:27, 7 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

• 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 02:06, 7 June 2007 (UTC).Reply

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 02:23, 7 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

Trimmed down EL sect, added {{No more links}}. The sect was looking like spam, pushing out promotional products, linkfarm, etc. Cirt (talk) 14:59, 29 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Lifespring. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070208153055/http://www.hoffmaninstitute.org/about/directors-advisors/directors.html to https://www.hoffmaninstitute.org/about/directors-advisors/directors.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:17, 15 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Lifespring. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140714134336/http://www.q7.com/~terri/Papers/transformative.htm to http://www.q7.com/~terri/Papers/transformative.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:01, 7 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Lifespring's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "thepit":

• From Holiday Magic: Church, Gene; Conrad D. Carnes (1972). The Pit: A Group Encounter Defiled. New York: Outerbridge and Lazard. ISBN 0-87690-087-2.
• From Mind Dynamics: Church, Gene; Conrad D. Carnes (1972). The Pit: A Group Encounter Defiled. New York: Outerbridge and Lazard.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 14:18, 1 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

There's an old video clip of Ginni Thomas participating in a televised discussion about Lifespring here. JezGrove (talk) 15:38, 2 April 2022 (UTC)Reply