Talk:Landmark Worldwide/Archive 16

Archive 10

←

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

→

Archive 20

Follow suggestions in the ORANGE BOXES

I want to thank AlexJackl for reminding me of what we're all here for. Let's all stick to getting this entry sharpened cleaned-up, follow the orange boxes at the top of the discussion page, and go from there. Cool? Arcana imperii Ascendo tuum 06:05, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Edit-war 1, Campaign 1

At 04:31 on 2007-10-25 a Wikipedian changed the wording:

"Published figures -- several of which the owner of the http://www.landmarkeducation.com site website subsequently rendered unavailable at some time between 2007-03-04 and 2007-04-07 per http://www.landmarkeducation.com/robots.txt -- suggested the following growth-pattern in approximate cumulative numbers of people attending the Landmark Forum since 1991"

replacing it with the wording:

"Published figures suggested the following growth-pattern in approximate cumulative numbers of people attending the Landmark Forum since 1991:

stating in the edit-summary: "Removed the old "portrays" spin word and cleaned up some POV wording.."

As a result, Wikipedia lost a neutrally-worded explanation as to why we can no longer directly verify data published to the world-wide web by Landmark Education and referenced in Wikipedia since March 2007 with due care and diligence, citing the full URLs and the dates of retrieval. The edit has replaced facts with vagueness and has weakened the critical apparatus provided by Wikipedia

I propose restoring the original wording as quoted above or an improved rather than a curtailed version.

-- Pedant17 01:21, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Seconded. Arcana imperii Ascendo tuum 01:34, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Edit-war 1, Campaign 2

At 07:20 on 2007-10-25 a Wikipedian deleted the following data:

Published figures suggested the following growth-pattern in approximate cumulative numbers of people attending the Landmark Forum since 1991; 2001: 300,000<ref>http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1101980316-138763,00.html</ref> 2001: 600,000<ref>[http://web.archive.org/web/20021005063934/www.landmarkeducation.com/display_content.jsp?top=21&mid=80&bottom=124&siteObjectID=593 Landmark Education's web-site as of [[28 November]] 2002]</ref> 2002: 600,000<ref>[http://web.archive.org/web/20030625104924/www.landmarkeducation.com/display_content.jsp?top=21&mid=80&bottom=124&siteObjectID=593 Landmark Education's web-site as of [[29 July]] 2003]</ref> 2003: 600,000<ref>[http://web.archive.org/web/20031212204155/www.landmarkeducation.com/display_content.jsp?top=21&mid=80&bottom=124&siteObjectID=593 Landmark Education's web-site as of [[10 June]] 2004]</ref> 2004: 758,000<ref>Landmark Education's web-site as of [[7 February]] 2006, as formerly available via http://web.archive.org</ref> 2005: 1,000,000<ref>http://www.landmarkeducation.com/display_content.jsp?top=21&mid=80&bottom=124&siteObjectID=593 retrieved [[2007-10-25]]</ref>

commenting in the edit-summary: "need solid, possibly notarized statement from LE's accounting instead of a suggestion or editor's own estimate".

Pending the production of a notarized statement from Landmark Education, the deleted text offerred possibly the best available and most solid statistics: published by Time Magazine and by Landmark Education itself. In no way do they represent a Wikipedia-editor's "own estimate"; nor do the figures provided constitute "suggestions" -- on the contrary, they form published data (however implausible). (The "suggested" in the text refers to the growth-pattern. I allow the published and documented figures to speak for themselves as to the accuracy and genuineness of the resultant growth-pattern.)

I added this data to the article in response to the note (which remains) about "vague and approximate information". Wikipedia needs to combat vagueness and approximations with better (and possibly more) data wherever available, and I have attempted to provide the best available at this time. Let's put back the deleted text pending the emergence of even better information.

-- Pedant17 01:21, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

See above. If you can provide a more visually appealing graphic until the official count comes in, fine. Alex from my understanding, states that this estimate is low, so I think conservative is the way to go. Discuss. 01:36, 26 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arcana imperii Ascendo tuum (talk • contribs)

We could use:

Year	Total "Forum" enrollees	Offices	Countries	Source
2001	300,000	42	11	Time Magazine
2001	600,000	60	21	Landmark Education
2002	600,000	60	24	Landmark Education
2003	600,000	58	26	Landmark Education
2004	758,000	58	26	Landmark Education
2005	1,000,000	51	25	Landmark Education

OK? --- Pedant17 07:20, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

• • • Seems to work in the interim. Arcana imperii Ascendo tuum 08:23, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Edit-war 1, Campaign 3

At 13:39 on 2007-10-27 a Wikipedian deleted the following data:

[[Laurel Scheaf]]: [[Board of Directors|Director]];<ref name="BOD19AUG2002" /> Landmark Forum Leader<br> Sanford Robbins: [[Board of Directors|Director]]<ref name="BOD19AUG2002" /><br> [[Brian Regnier]]: Course Designer<br>

commenting in the edit-summary: "simplify".

Since this edit simplifies at the expense of removing factual data not available elsewhere in the article, I propose restoring the deleted material.

-- Pedant17 07:20, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Edit-war 1, Campaign 4

At 13:42 on 2007-10-27 a Wikipedian deleted the following data:

some of whom volunteer their time;<ref> [http://www.landmarkeducation.com/display_content.jsp?top=22&mid=175&bottom=219 The Landmark Seminar Leader Program], Landmark Education website, [[2006]], states: ''"Seminar leaders are accomplished women and men who volunteer their time and talent..."'' </ref> <br>7,500 volunteers in "Assisting Program" (1998)<ref name="estfriends" />

commenting in the edit-summary: "not employees and old data"

If we don't count "trained leaders" as "employees", let's move this sourced data on "trained leaders" elsewhere in the article, rather than deleting this interesting information which highlights the distinction between employees and volunteer labor.

We should not delete data on the basis that it appears "old". The deleted data had clearly attached dates, such that any reader could identify the vintage of the data and note the lack of more recent data in the article. If more recent data becomes available, we can incorporate it alongside existing data to express patterns in historical development. Given the unusual structure of Landmark Education's labor-force, (bracketed) mention of volunteers under the heading of employees seems entirely appropriate, especially given the classification of such workers as employees by the US Department of Labor. Let's restore this data, updating it if the possibility arises.

-- Pedant17 07:20, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

• • Seconded. An important part of Landmark Education to note that it is a for-profit company with the majority of work done by volunteers, referred to as leaders. The employee/volunteer distinction is blurred, is unclear, and as of this writing...only as clear as the old data. If the Dept. of Labor thought it was interesting to note, so should the article. Arcana imperii Ascendo tuum 14:50, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Lucidish

Good work on the edits, man. That's the way it should be done. Props to ya! Arcana imperii Ascendo tuum 19:54, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

References

United States Government

The United States government has been critical of France for classifying Landmark Education as a cult? Really? There is no citation for this claim. By the way, most people who access this article are looking for information about what the training consists of, what its goals are, etc., and the article contains little-to-no information regarding that. It also seems extremely sanitized to me. Bananafish00 02:58, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

"This report has come under fire from certain international groups[citation needed] and from the United States government[citation needed]." -- I am going to remove this statement unless someone can back it up. It sounds, frankly, unbelievable, and gives the impression that the US government and "certain" international groups (which ones?) support Landmark Education in some way. Bananafish00 16:39, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Reformers Group

DaveApter, I remember you mentioning this would be a noteworthy addition. Please advise. Arcana imperii Ascendo tuum 05:28, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

IF there are no takers, I can include the section with refs. Please advise on placement in article. Arcana imperii Ascendo tuum 20:38, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

This article has been protected again and I cannot add mention of the Reformer's Group. Arcana imperii Ascendo tuum 02:31, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Good edit, Dave. What I'm aiming for is a summarization of the petition for space constraints. Can you agree to work on that section? You have more capacity and the capability to work with that section than I do. It would be much appreciated. I think we need to keep the last bock of text I quoted, but is there an option of paraphrasing it? And do you have any other citation Jo thinks are necessary? The way I'm looking at it, the citation we have works in the absence of anything else, but the "anything else thing" I have no knowledge of unless someone else does. Thanks in advance! -- Arcana imperii Ascendo tuum 01:18, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Transformation Reformers Group

Please see Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Self-published_sources. Blogs are not considered generally to be reliable sources. Is there a mention of this petition in a third-party source? That would be the best venue to keep that material in the article. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:23, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Harry himself acknowledged the petition. If he didn't, I SERIOUSLY doubt it'd be up there. Ya know, whole legal thing. Some of the editors to this article are members. Dave Apter, a long-time editor to this article indicated it deserves mention. Besides a myspace page, this petition exists in no other form. Harry Rosenberg even provided contact info. Again, this has been up a while and Rosenberg has acknowledged, not refuted its existence and has taken no legal sanctions against it. Arcana imperii Ascendo tuum 05:05, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Blogs are not reliable sources in Wikipedia. If this petition had some kind of media exposure, we can cite that. Otherwise we should not. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:54, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Again, I will state this for you: It garned a PUBLIC ACKNOWLEDGEMENT BY THE CEO OF LANDMARK EDUCATION. IF THAT INFORMATION WAS UNRELIABLE (EX: HIS LETTER WAS FAKE), THE CEO WOULD HAVE HIS LETTER TAKEN DOWN. Arcana imperii Ascendo tuum 00:08, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

There is no need shout. It does not matter if a CEO of a company responds to a petition from customers. That in itself is not notable for inclusion in an article, unless the petition and the response have been published by a reliable source. You may want to ask at the Reliable sources noticeboard, for further clarification. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:19, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I typed in all caps so you would read. Jo, the only other option is to provide a link to the actual petition on ipetition, which is not allowable under wiki standards. The wiki area you pointed to says: Self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources... The key word is largely. This is a special case. Arcana imperii Ascendo tuum 01:03, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

"Self-published and questionable sources in articles about themselves" Material from self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources in articles about themselves, so long as:

it is relevant to their notability; it is not contentious; it is not unduly self-serving; it does not involve claims about third parties; it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject; there is no reasonable doubt as to who wrote it; the article is not based primarily on such sources. Arcana imperii Ascendo tuum 01:14, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

If this was an article about the blog or about "Transformation Reformers Group", yes, it could be used under the WP:SPS provision. But it is not. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:23, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Rather than respond here, a better course of action would be to ask at the Reliable sources noticeboard. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:24, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

• • Jossi, thinking about it now, I agree with you. It IS unsourced. And there it goes. Arcana imperii Ascendo tuum (talk) 01:51, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Office closures (Moved section for continuity)

I have taken out this section. Surely the fact that two or three offices out of fifty-odd have been closed over a period of years is not significant enough to mention, still less to have a section all of its own.

I'm also removing the sentence "Many researchers have examined the origins of the organization (in est/WEA etc).[7]" as it doesn't relate to anything in the article. Also it's pretty vague, and of doubtful accuracy (how many is 'many', who are they, and what did they conclude?), and furthermore the reference is a dead link. Landmark Education makes no secret of that fact that the Landmark Forum is derived from material originally developed by Werner Erhard, and even says so on its website and brochures. DaveApter (talk) 16:59, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

It's a global thing worthy of mention. Arcana imperii Ascendo tuum (talk) 18:20, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

As I understand it, the opening paragraph is intended to summarise key points in the article. There is nothing in the article indicating that researchers have investigated these origins, still less that "many" have. A couple of lines above, it already states the fact that the material was derived from WEA.

- Or were you referring to the office closures? If so, please substantiate why you think the closure of a couple of offices out of 50 or so is significant enough to justify an entire section (and a misleading headline - surely "Global office closures" would imply a substantial proportion of offices all around the world being closed?). Please answer these points explicitly before reverting again. Thanks. DaveApter (talk) 23:41, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

ACTUALLY, I have a section ABOVE in the talk page that you could have discussed on BEFORE you reverted. How about you READ that and tell me why TWO COUNTRIES having all offices closed is NOT WORTHY OF MENTION, I'll revert, and YOU respond to the talk section I CREATED above. Have a NICE DAVE. Arcana imperii Ascendo tuum (talk) 01:54, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Offices of any large organization come and go. It is typically not noteworthy, except to the people at those offices of course. We aren't going to include why each office opens and the demand for something and work put in to do so. Spacefarer (talk) 12:06, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, why they closed was noteworthy, despite all the decidedly lame reasons why some editors minimize or rationalize it with the "volunteer work" on these pages. Arcana imperii Ascendo tuum (talk) 12:25, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Besides, I'm just going to continue to edit it back in, daily. So far, the only people who want to edit it out are LE-sympathizers whose prior edits reflect as such. Again, NOT NPOV! We clearly DO NOT have NPOV consensus here. Arcana imperii Ascendo tuum (talk) 12:34, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

"Offices of any large organization come and go. It is typically not noteworthy, except to the people at those offices of course. We aren't going to include why each office opens and the demand for something and work put in to do so. Spacefarer (talk) 12:06, 27 November 2007 (UTC)"

The part in italics is the part I don't understand, either from the grammar, a lack of wording, I donno. The first part, "we," I don't understand. Are you more than one person or a representative? Secondly, it looks like two thoughts that ran on, but I can't decipher it. Please explain what that part means. I'm scratching my head and can't make sense of it, and if that's your rationale, as it reads...it's just incoherent. Please elaborate. Arcana imperii Ascendo tuum (talk) 00:02, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I've never heard of the organisation before, and found this page via the Wikipedia:Third_opinion page, so I guess my opinion is equal to that of anyone else who stumbles on the page not knowing anything about it. It seems to me that the Office Closures section is justifiably important in the article. It's extra information that's appropriately referenced. I think it should stay in the article. Annihilatenow (talk) 17:40, 28 November 2007 (UTC)