Lifespring received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
It is requested that an image or photograph be
included in this article to
improve its quality. Please replace this template with a more specific
media request template where possible.
Wikipedians in California may be able to help! The Free Image Search Tool or Openverse Creative Commons Search may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites. |
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)
The entire opening paragraphs are all WP:NR POV and need citations. Lsi john 22:28, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
I have attempted to remove some leading phrases and unduly prejudicial remarks and citations.
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)
Lsi john 16:26, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
I believe the following external links do not satisfy the requirements of WP:EL:
Lsi john 16:30, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
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).
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)
Lsi john 16:50, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
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)
Why did we ignore the peer review suggestions? Lsi john 01:04, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Is the disputed sentence available from a reliable secondary source? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:46, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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).
Lsi john 15:41, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
References
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).
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)
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)
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).
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)
And thus the last statement in the lead should be when the company ceased operations. Smee 19:55, 25 May 2007 (UTC).
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)
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).
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)
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:
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: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 15:17, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
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:
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: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 00:01, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
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":
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)
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)
Lifespring received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
It is requested that an image or photograph be
included in this article to
improve its quality. Please replace this template with a more specific
media request template where possible.
Wikipedians in California may be able to help! The Free Image Search Tool or Openverse Creative Commons Search may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites. |
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)
The entire opening paragraphs are all WP:NR POV and need citations. Lsi john 22:28, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
I have attempted to remove some leading phrases and unduly prejudicial remarks and citations.
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)
Lsi john 16:26, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
I believe the following external links do not satisfy the requirements of WP:EL:
Lsi john 16:30, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
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).
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)
Lsi john 16:50, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
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)
Why did we ignore the peer review suggestions? Lsi john 01:04, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Is the disputed sentence available from a reliable secondary source? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:46, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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).
Lsi john 15:41, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
References
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).
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)
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)
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).
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)
And thus the last statement in the lead should be when the company ceased operations. Smee 19:55, 25 May 2007 (UTC).
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)
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).
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)
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:
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: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 15:17, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
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:
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: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 00:01, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
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":
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)
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)