Jump to content

Talk:Lifespring

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Smee (talk | contribs) at 20:19, 23 May 2007 (→Ownership). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

facts needed

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]
  • 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]

Removal of Leading phrases and bias

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

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]

See Also

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]

Opening Remarks

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]

Survey is WP:RS, rm WP:OR

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]

peer review

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

Invalid Source Cited

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]

Ownership

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]

Edit warring

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]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Lifespring&oldid=133010214"