This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

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

• 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).[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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).[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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).[reply]

• 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)[reply]

• Done. {{sectstub}} tags have been added. Smee 22:36, 17 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

• 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)[reply]

• 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).[reply]

• 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).[reply]

• 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)[reply]

• Stable articles in existence for a long time are inherently notable. Smee 01:04, 18 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

• However, as a compromise, I will remove the word. Smee 01:04, 18 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

• Good catch to avoid 4RR, eh? :) Lsi john 01:37, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• 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).[reply]

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)[reply]

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).[reply]

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)[reply]

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).[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]
  • 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).[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
      • 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).[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• Added info tighter to source. Added back in quote from Proctor. Smee 12:43, 22 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

• 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)[reply]

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.

• 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).[reply]

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)[reply]

Thank you to Amatulic

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

"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)[reply]

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).[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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).[reply]

" 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)[reply]

• 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).[reply]
  • 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)[reply]

• 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).[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    • 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).[reply]
      • 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)[reply]
        • 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).[reply]
          • 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)[reply]

• 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).[reply]

That's still not an apology! That's okay. There's hundreds of editors and admins that can't admit they are wrong without giving excuses. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.189.208.233 (talk) 15:09, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• 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).[reply]
  • 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).[reply]

• 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).[reply]

• Please do not comment further in this section. Smee 20:44, 23 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

"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)[reply]

The assertion of 'oldest' is true but only in the context of 'continuously-operating'. This sounds more like a marketing spin than an impartial neutral fact.

The history is also one sided - does not place PSI in the context of LGAT evolution. PSI was founded in 1973, est was training in 1971.

There is no reference to the mixed evaluations of LGAT as a psychological technique. LarryLACa (talk) 19:25, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As promised in the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PSI Seminars discussion a few weeks ago, I have completely rewritten the PSI Seminars entry.

During an extensive database search on EBSCOhost (Academic Search Premier, ERIC, Medline, etc.) and some specialized psychology and education databases, such as Psycline, I found only one on-topic cite, which was of a USC PhD thesis that I have obtained and read. I've included a quotation from that thesis and have deleted most of the other cites, as recommended by the reviewers. For example, I have removed the citations of books published by or written by PSI Seminars or by non-mainstream publishers. I have also removed the citation of the completely irrelevant article in "Culture, Medicine and Psychiatry," which I obtained and read.

I have added a reference to the Wikipedia entry for Large Group Awareness Trainings, which gives valuable additional information and citations.

I have retained the Larry King Live quotation despite the fact that Beckwith, Proctor, and DeMartini were (I assume) compensated for their two weeks' work. The quotation clearly indicates that, and their association with PSI Seminars as consultants is relevant.

VQuakr, whom I assume was unaware of the extensive deletion discussions, on 5 August 2013 added back an earlier section ("Controversy") that had been removed on 4 February 2013. The section consists of an unsourced statement and a reference to a book by Dr. Margaret Singer ("Cults in our Midst") that consists of reworked material from a study that was rejected by the American Psychological Association's Board of Social and Ethical Responsibility for Psychology (See Margaret Singer ). I have therefore not included that "Controversy" section in the rewritten entry. Eric Siegel (talk) 20:58, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Eric, thanks for your work on the article. You are correct that I reached this page in a manner unrelated to the deletion discussion, but I am a little confused by your reasoning for excluding a criticism or similar section. While it may be true that Singer's publication was not suitable for peer review, said review is not a requirement for use as a source (see WP:RS for a Wikipedia guideline on reliable sources). As for the unreferenced portion of the statement, do you believe that what I restored was factually inaccurate or otherwise unverifiable? VQuakr (talk) 08:48, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi VQuakr! First, thanks for fixing my references, and for the welcoming cookies! This was my first attempt at heavy-duty wikipedia editing, and the learning curve for both the markup language and the wikipedia rules was steeper than I'd anticipated. It's nice to get some cookies!

For my first major wikipedia effort, I was indeed concerned with having highly-vetted references. Although I feel that PSI Seminars is certainly not a "cult" and I completely agree with the "unreferenced part of the statement," someone had tagged that statement with a "citation needed" tag and I couldn't find any credible published source for it. I also felt that the Singer book falls within the "Some types of sources" section of Wikipedia:RS that says, "... some scholarly material may be outdated, in competition with alternative theories, or controversial within the relevant field. Try to cite present scholarly consensus when available, recognizing that this is often absent." (BTW, the Singer cites refer to "PSI World," which I assume is the current "PSI Seminars" although it's in a different city and although the class described is somewhat different from the current PSI Seminars classes.) I'd read approximately ten academic papers (all the references that I could find) on LGATs during the positive psychology class that I took, and the Singer book was way out on the edge. Yes, Google shows that some individuals feel that PSI Seminars is a "cult," but giving that accusation credibility by citing a discredited book and then countering with an unsourced statement seemed to be a mistake. I worried that I'd start a war of unsourced statements from competing viewpoints. The USC PhD thesis that I cited should go a long way towards handling the "cult" accusation, and it also mentions the pressure to attend advanced courses, etc. Unlike public blogs, it's clearly a credible source. ("a completed thesis written as a part of the requirements for a PhD" that is "publicly available" and is from a major institution) So I thought that I'd just drop the whole "controversy" section.

However, because of your comment, I'll re-think this. I'll see if in a few days I can come up with a reasonable "Controversy" section that uses only vetted, credible sources.Eric Siegel (talk) 22:25, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've done some looking around, and I didn't find a vetted, credible source in the sea of personal testimony, argument and counter-argument on blogs, none of which are citable by Wikipedia rules, and most of which seem to be from people who have not actually taken the class. (We don't know the dynamics of the writer's relationship with the person who took the class, and we don't know the student's psychological profile and life situation before and after the class. I feel that these usually-anonymous blog entries are perfect examples of non-citable sources.) Although there are some citeable statements about the cult accusation from a PSI Seminars site itself (e.g., http://psiseminarstruth.com/is-psi-seminars-a-cult/ ), because I want to avoid inciting unsourced arguments and flame wars in this Wikipedia entry, I'm not creating a "Controversy" section. Eric Siegel (talk) 01:51, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DGG added the "news release" tag on 18 May 2015, but I don't see why that was done. As stated in "Complete rewrite after deletion discussion," above, I tried to make this entry conform extremely closely to Wikipedia rules. I deleted all citations from books published by PSI Seminars, non-mainstream publishers, etc., and I included the cautionary and negative information that I found in a citable source (the PhD thesis from USC). I also included a link to Large-group awareness training, which includes more cautionary material, although some of it is relatively old and not particularly relevant to the PSI Seminars LGAT. To the best of my knowledge (albeit I'm a beginner here!) everything in the article is cited from a Wikipedia-acceptable source. I could not find any citable material (other than the discredited Singer book, which I don't want to cite for the reasons stated in "Complete rewrite after deletion discussion") to counterbalance the citable positive books and articles that were previously in the article; should I therefore delete some of the positive material to make the entry appear to be more balanced? (That seems a bit extreme!) If DGG could contact me on my talk page or comment here and suggest reasonable changes that would get the tag removed, I would be more than happy to make them! Eric Siegel (talk) 04:48, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You could start with the entire Courses section. We don't advertise when and where people run their courses. Personally I'd just delete the entire section and salt the earth in my wake, but if you wanted to give re-writing that a shot it would be a start. There is a difference between providing straight information in a neutral fashion and providing straight information in a neutral fashion that is encyclopedic in nature. Business opens at 10am is not encyclopedic under any interpretation. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 11:46, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

{U|Panyd}}}, I really like the wording of your explanation. I may use it in the future, if that's ok with you DGG ( talk ) 05:41, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Panyd and DGG, for clarifying the reason the tag was applied. I've removed the "Courses" section and replaced it with a pair of sentences that simply state the course names. As the company's product is those few classes, I feel that I should retain mention of their existence, if only in brief form. I've removed the descriptive detail and the mention of the "Principia" conference along with its list of notable speakers, which is of secondary importance. Assuming that this is sufficient, I've removed the tag; please tell me if further action is necessary. Eric Siegel (talk) 19:28, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Re- Deleted all citations from PSI sources: The lead citation for History and Background is the PSI About page. The text is a slight rework of the information on the PSI About page. LarryLACa (talk) 19:12, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]