Talk:PSI Seminars

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the PSI Seminars article.
Article policies
An entry from PSI Seminars appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know? column on 13 May 2007. (hook), (article as it appeared on Main Page)
Wikipedia

Contents

[edit] Created article

Created article on the organization, with 12 citations. Smee 17:35, 9 May 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Removal of highly sourced material

  • This article is no longer a stub. Add {{sectstub}} to sections you would like to see expanded. And please do not remove material that is backed up by highly reputable secondary citations. Smee 22:14, 17 May 2007 (UTC).
All due respect. Sourced material is not sufficient justification for including in an article. It must also be directly relevant and significantly notable. When notability or relevance is cited for removing material, citing RS is not a proper response for re-including the material.
This article is a stub as it gives very little information about the company.

Lsi john 22:22, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Smee, unless you are actually claiming that WP:RS is sufficient on its own, please specifically address the concern raised, and stop reverting based on WP:RS. Lsi john 22:25, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

  1. The information is cited in a reputable secondary source.
  2. The information is again brought up by yet a different reputable secondary source.
  3. One mention in a reputable secondary source might not be notable, but (2) or more, is.

Smee 22:27, 17 May 2007 (UTC).

I'm not questioning notability. I'm questioning relevance. Those other companies are not relevant to this article. Lsi john 22:32, 17 May 2007 (UTC)


  • Please, I am not objecting to your feeling that certain parts of the article need to be expanded upon, merely that you use the {{sectstub}} tag, instead. Smee 22:27, 17 May 2007 (UTC).
  • And you believe that reverting the tag, instead of improving it, is helpful? How about if we work together, and you improve the edit, instead of deleting it. You know as well as I do where the deficiencies are and you're much more familiar with the nuances of the tags usage. Lsi john 22:32, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Done. {{sectstub}} tags have been added. Smee 22:36, 17 May 2007 (UTC).
  • Thank you. Hopefully you understand that, given our history of too many tags, I wasn't about to stub every section like that. :) Lsi john 22:42, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I will see if I can find additional reputable citations to expand on the history and organization of this company. Smee 22:49, 17 May 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Notable

  • The groups are "notable". They have their own articles on the project. This is a common phrase used on the project, when referencing other articles that exist on the project. Smee 01:01, 18 May 2007 (UTC).
  • It's OR unless you can find a citation. Just because other editors allowed OR doesn't mean we must. Lsi john 01:03, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Stable articles in existence for a long time are inherently notable. Smee 01:04, 18 May 2007 (UTC).
  • However, as a compromise, I will remove the word. Smee 01:04, 18 May 2007 (UTC).
  • Good catch to avoid 4RR, eh? :) Lsi john 01:37, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
  • No. To Assume Good Faith. Please do not make these bad faith assumptions, this is not civil. It is also not conducive to constructive discussion on talk pages. And for your information, the information was only restored twice. Smee 01:38, 18 May 2007 (UTC).
Ok, then you didn't see that you were 4R in this article. I apologize for assuming you saw that. Lsi john 01:42, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
You are mistaken, I was not. Read WP:3RR. And try to act a little bit more polite on talk pages. Smee 01:43, 18 May 2007 (UTC).
I'm being very polite, thank you. I've read 3RR and you reverted my edits 4 times already in the past few hours. I just can't report it due to the promise I made. Lsi john 01:44, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
WP:3RR refers to reverting back to the same version of a page. You are mistaken. But that's alright if you mistakenly misinterpreted 3RR. No worries. Just try to be a tad more polite on talk pages next time is all. Thanks. Smee 01:47, 18 May 2007 (UTC).

[edit] 3RR Violation and edit warring

Smee, as you have indicated that I am not welcome on your page, I am hereby informing you that you have been reported for 3RR violation. Lsi john 02:25, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

  • No compromise was reached. No compromise was agreed to. The edits involved were REVERTS, they were not two editors working together. Lsi john 02:41, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
    • I offerred a compromise, in-line with your previous edits, you wanted the word "notable" removed. I removed it, voluntarily, before you made me aware of any of your 3RR concerns. Do you want to discuss the issue, or do you only wish for punitive measures to be taken? Smee 02:47, 18 May 2007 (UTC).
      • And I am unable to edit here due to your edit warring. So I have no choice but to leave your compromise. You didn't discuss the compromise, you simply implemented it. That is not a compromise. Lsi john 02:48, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
        • Yes, I removed the word "notable", how can you object to my doing exactly what you wanted? That is the point of the talk page, for you to raise your concerns, albeit in a polite manner. Smee 02:49, 18 May 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Larry King

The citation on Larry King specifically says its the best he's seen. It specifically does not say they will attend. This was not my citation, I only corrected it based on content. Also, his credentials are as important as every critic's credentials. It shows his basis for making the comment. Please do not put in false or misleading quotes. Lsi john 12:34, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Smee, I am requesting that you stop removing relevant sourced material. Your actions are biasing the article in a POV manner. If this author said something, then its relevant to the article. Lsi john 12:40, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Added info tighter to source. Added back in quote from Proctor. Smee 12:43, 22 May 2007 (UTC).
  • Thank you. I really don't care who adds the material as long as it is accurate. If you feel you need to be the last one to edit thats okay with me. Thanks again for restoring the correct citation. Lsi john 13:35, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Third Opinion

This is the sentence in question, from the article:

Other groups cited by Vahle as influenced by Mind Dynamics included Erhard Seminars Training, The Forum, and Lifespring.

For third opinion commenter, please comment on relevance of this sentence in this article.

[edit] Comment by Smee (talk · contribs)

  • In light of the very next sentence citing the fact that Stich and Russell compared PSI Seminars as "an EST type self-awareness and motivational organization", and this is in a reputable secondary sourced citation, I think the sentence in question should remain in the article. Smee 12:34, 22 May 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Comment by Amatulic (talk · contribs)

I agree with Smee. I see no reason to remove that sentence other than to conceal the influence, which would violate WP:NPOV. -Amatulic 16:40, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you to Amatulic

Thank you Amatulic, for providing this polite third opinion. Smee 22:23, 22 May 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Inaccurate source citation

"Some companies will pay for their employees to attend coursework at PSI Seminars[9]."

Is not an accurate citation for the referenced article. Please provide the exact quote from the source which you believe justifies the statement made here in this article. Lsi john 15:27, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Exact quote

"..said Forrest Story, manager of Personnel staff development for Orange County, which pays the Class fees for its employees to attend the PSI seminars." This obviously supports this fact, and it is from a reputable secondary sourced citation. Smee 22:22, 22 May 2007 (UTC).

Actually it doesn't. That is ONE company, the article said SOME companies. I have made the correction for you. And thank you for providing the full citation. It was not available FREE from the source where I tried to view the article. Lsi john 22:35, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Thank you for thanking me, and for being polite in this particular instance. It is most appreciated. Thank you. Smee 22:37, 22 May 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Not PSI Seminars.. but PSI seminars .. as in seminars at PSI

" Supported by tax dollars, the college's Public Service Institute offers about 120 business seminars every semester that teach stress-reduction techniques and word processing skills tailored for area businesses."

PSI = Public Service Institute. Did you even read the article? The courses are $2.50 Each!

I'm not going to risk 4RR just to get the article correct.

Please remove this unrelated material from our important article.

Thanks. Lsi john 23:41, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

  • I will assume good faith here that you are telling the truth and remove the material myself, even though you have not assumed good faith that I made a mistake, and are instead being nasty. However you still are not using polite language, and that is quite annoying. I wish you would see, one day, that if you are polite to others, they will respond in kind, and if not, probably respond in kind as well. Smee 23:46, 22 May 2007 (UTC).
    • You don't have to take anything on good-faith, you can pay $3, just like I had to, and read it for yourself. You could have AGF 2 days ago when I told you it wasn't PSI Seminars, but you didn't.
I couldn't find a reference to PSI Seminars in the FREE copy. It looked like a college doing the seminars from the snippet that I got. I removed the material in our article, stated why, and asked for more information. You provided a reference. I assumed good faith that you had read the material and that it was relevant, and not simply Googled 'PSI Seminars' and included material blindly. But you hadn't read the material, and in my mind, this leads me to question the credibility of your other research. Had you really read the article, you would have known it was completely unrelated. In all honesty, I don't see this as a simple excusable honest mistake. You reverted bogus data back into an article, because you thought you were right.
As for being polite, I told you twice that it was the college and you reverted and insisted it was 'our' PSI Seminars. You made me jump through hoops and pay for the article, just to find out that I was correct in the first place.
So unless you want to compare my harsh words with your invalid GOOGLEs, lets not critique the way I choose the wording of my sentences. I'm not calling you names and I'm not attacking you personally. I share some of the same objections that Wikipediatrix already raised about your behavior here. Civility is a two way street. If you want a softer tone, then earn it by treating me with respect. Lsi john 00:21, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I honestly thought that was what was being discussed in the article. I also did not have access to the full article. You could have assumed good faith and seen that I made an honest mistake. Instead of saying: "Did you even read the article? The courses are $2.50 Each!" - You could have said: "Smee, I found more of the article and I think you may have made a mistake." But so long as you are impolite and downright rude in the way you frame your comments, you cannot expect others to accord you respect and assume good faith with you. Shape up your attitude, be more polite, and you will be treated accordingly. Don't, and you won't. Smee 01:14, 23 May 2007 (UTC).
    • Smee, you are an experienced editor and you have written numerous articles. Adding the source, without full access to the article is not an honest mistake, it was irresponsible, and thats all I'm going to say on the matter. Lsi john 01:30, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
      • It was an honest mistake. I saw a section quoted in the article, and made an assumption. I was wrong. However you could have stated this politely, instead of rudely, and I would have been more than happy to remove the item. In fact, I would have thanked you for pointing it out. However, you chose not to take the polite path, instead, you chose to ridicule me for making a mistake. I find that highly suggestive of your overall character. Everyone can change. I hope in the future you will be more polite, and not step so quickly to assume bad faith of people. Smee 01:34, 23 May 2007 (UTC).
        • And how many other of your 'highly reputable reliable sources' are 'honest mistakes' where you have 'made assumptions' without reading the material? Thats more of a concern for me than whether or not you respect me or talk nice to me. Negligence is not a mistake. Lsi john 01:38, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
          • It was a mistake. I have admitted that, and apologized. But apparently you do not wish to apologize for your rude behaviour. That is unfortunate. I will always try to do my best, trying as it can be at times, to be polite. However, I will respond more favorably to those who are polite in return. Smee 02:43, 23 May 2007 (UTC).
            • First, I have nothing to apologize to you for. Second, you have not apologized, you have only made excuses about it being an honest mistake. You said that you were wrong, but that is not an apology. An apology contains three very distinct words I am sorry. And a true apology doesn't contain any other excuses or explanations. Third, you don't owe me an apology; you owe the WIKIPEDIA readers an apology. You have violated their trust and disrespected them in a very serious way. Your PROMISE. your reaction.
If you truly wish to earn my respect and soft language, you will post on your userpage that you added a citation to an article, without reading it, and when challenged, you reverted it, still without reading it, and later found that it was totally unrelated to the article. And you will apologize (I am sorry) to all the wiki readers for your careless disregard for journalistic integrity by 'assuming content', instead of actually obtaining the source and reading it for yourself.
If you do that, then you will have my respect, because that would demonstrate a very high level of integrity and an ability to accept personal responsibility for your actions.
And, lastly, how I treat, or talk to you, should have absolutely nothing to do with how you treat or talk to me. As a senior editor, welcoming a new editor, you should be willing to set an example. You should not demand my soft language before you are willing to treat me with respect. Your conduct, and edit patterns, toward me have been very disrespectful and abusive since I got to wiki. And, based on your treatment of me, you have no right to demand that I use soft language when I address you.
How you handle it from here is entirely up to you, but do not demand that I show you respect, until you show respect to me, to your fellow editors, to your readers, and most of all, to yourself. Lsi john 03:25, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Quite an interesting read. However, I always try to be polite and use "soft language". I am sorry. I apologize. I do not have to put some big banner on my userpage for making an honest mistake, and I would not ask you to do anything like that either. In the multitudes of reputable sourced citations that I have put forth on numerous articles, I am bound to make some mistakes, I am human. But to be ridiculed for it so rudely, is hurtful, inappropriate, and not conducive to any form of meaningful dialogue. I will always try my best to be polite, frustrated I may be at times by other editors rude and hurtful behaviour patterns and choice of words. But I would hope that other editors will do the same. Please try to be more polite with your choice of language in the future. If you had said: "Smee, I think you may have made a mistake here..." and provided the full quote, instead of: "Did you even read the article? The courses are $2.50 Each!" -- it would have furthered a more polite discussion. Instead, we are left with this. Smee 03:32, 23 May 2007 (UTC).

[edit] More sources for secondary citations?

  • If others know of more sources for secondary citations on this topic, or other related topics, that would be most appreciated. Smee 04:14, 23 May 2007 (UTC).
    • Or for that matter, other types of highly reputable primary documents - like public domain federal government documents would be interesting to see, if others know of the existence of any. Smee 04:20, 23 May 2007 (UTC).

[edit] I Apologize for making an honest mistake with a sourced citation

  • To all who may read this: I APOLOGIZE FOR MAKING AN HONEST MISTAKE WITH A SOURCED CITATION. Thank you for your understanding, to anyone who reads this apology. I had only seen part of a quote, which read: said Forrest Story, manager of Personnel staff development for Orange County, which pays the Class fees for its employees to attend the PSI seminars -- However I am assuming on good faith that another editor checked this cite, and found the full article, and found that it does not refer to this "PSI Seminars". Though the editor did not point this out politely, I admit that I made a mistake with the citation, and that was wrong. I have added literally hundreds of reputable secondary sourced citations to other articles in the course of my contributions to them and/or creation of new articles, and to the best of my knowledge this is the first time that something like this has happened. However, it will most likely not be the last. I am human. I make mistakes. If someone in the future points a mistake out to me, politely, I will most happily discuss it and if it is confirmed, I will remove the information in question myself. Thank you. Smee 20:15, 23 May 2007 (UTC).
  • Please do not comment further in this section. Smee 20:44, 23 May 2007 (UTC).

[edit] History section opens with unsourced claim

"PSI Seminars is the oldest personal growth seminar company in the United States" This is 5 months old. Sounds like it may be true if an unorthodox definition of "personal growth seminar" is used. Otherwise there's no citation and Scientology and est are much older and they are all LGAT. What makes PSI qualify for unique enough to be the oldest of it's kind?

Any possible arguments for keeping this unsourced statement? Micahmedia (talk) 20:53, 28 March 2008 (UTC)