Talk:Landmark Worldwide/Archive 17

Global Closures

We need to include a section on what offices have shut down in what countries. We're talking about entire country blackouts where LE has closed shop and left, along with a sourced explanation of when it happened and a possible why. Arcana imperii Ascendo tuum 20:36, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Any information concerning Germany or Non-Sydney offices in Australia out there? Arcana imperii Ascendo tuum 16:47, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

As I brought this up HERE, I'll respond to it here. I'll use one of the favorite examples other editors like to use: If IBM or Microsoft closed offices in two countries due to media coverage or public perception, it would most certainly be worthy of inclusion in their respective articles. Therefore I have reverted that section as it is not only sourced, but worthy of mention. How can a company bill itself as in the business of worldwide transformation when offices are closed in prominent countries? Anyway, I'm sticking to the facts, not a POV bias. Arcana imperii Ascendo tuum (talk) 02:32, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

How do we know the offices closed because of media pieces? Of the references in this section, one is in Swedish and the another gets a 404 error when you link to it. My understanding is that the offices that closed were very small. Triplejumper 01:20, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I'll check my citations and follow-up with the translations. Thanks for the heads up! I appreciate it! Verification of references is very important to me. Again, I acknowledge you for pointing this out for me so I can create a better section. Pax Arcane 02:11, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

(I have a day job and it may take me a few days to a week to get it in, but I'm on it. I have to find my hard-copies). Pax Arcane 03:01, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

TJ, I think half of this is part of the references section. Man, it's a mess! lolz. It's messier than my middle school gym locker! I'm not very wiki-wise, I admit that. Reading it, no...editing very detailed things, yes. If you help me with that section, assisting so I can learn, I'll pledge to help finish the work. Pax Arcane 15:41, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Third opinion

If the study uses a non-representative sample set and cannot make claims of strong correlation/causality, it does not seem very helpful for inclusion. While it may be useful to professionals as a reference point to take suggestions about what aspects may need further study, it does not seem to provide reliable or pertinent information for a Wikipedia article. Vassyana (talk) 20:54, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

You should have recused yourself as you were unable to provide a neutral 3O. You have experience editing and contributing to articles dealing with New Age activities, one of the variables of this study. I doubt you can seriously claim ignorance and no knowledge of LE, especially given the frequency of contact you have with User: Jossi --Pax Arcane 00:59, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

hey! I would suggest you tone-down your rhetoric and accept input from editors that are not involved in the articles about which you ask for WP:3O. You cannot choose which editor's input to accept and which one to reject, based on whatever you may think of them. Your comments are bordering on personal attacks, and are most unwelcome. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:31, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Jo, don't implicate yourself. Read the study as it was published (and I gather you probably have) and quietly walk away from this. Vassyana was biased and could not give a neutral 3rd Op. You're dragging yourself into the mix with a similar bias. I wanted a neutral POV as the article I cited was. You know, the peer-reviewed science stuff. Just walk away, man. --Pax Arcane 05:44, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I have no comment on that study, and I do not care for this article. It is your behavior I am questioning. And you do not tell fellow editors to "walk away". That is impolite, unwelcome, and in contradiction with the spirit of this project. No one is questioning your bias, so do not go around and questioning other's. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:59, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

That's a nice Straw Man argument, but the article to be referrenced is the point. I question your "sudden appearance" in all NRM, LGAT, or New Age articles. I'm intersted in science and psych journals, whereas you seem to be the 'protectorate" of the aforementioned. Curious. I don't welcome your presence in anything I am involved in editing. You're not the NRM/LGAT/New Age police...and that's not me being impolite, that's calling a spade a spade. Good day and I hope you can walk away from your entrance without recourse from other adminsPax Arcane 06:17, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

You really need to stop making such comments. If you have any concerns about my actions as an admin, you are welcome to post a notice at WP:AN, and fyi, anyone can and will edit any and each article that they like. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:03, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

You "really" need to acknowledge why you're here and how you make your living affects the whole Wiki process. Just drop it. You're making your bias worse. --Pax Arcane 17:05, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Your comments ... are most unwelcome. For a WP:SPA like you (see your contribs), you need to become familiar with WP:AKASHA. You have some chutzpah to question the motives other editors that edit on hundreds of topics and that contribute to the project countless hours, when it is actually you about which your own argument works against. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:50, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Is that a threat? At any rate, continuing this shows you're being more of a WP:DICK than a WP:ADMIN. --Pax Arcane 00:47, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

... a comment which strengthen my argument. No this is not a threat, where do you see that? I am only stating a fact. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:15, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

And while you are at it, read the top of WP:DICK: The presence of this page does not itself license any editor to refer to any other identifiable editor as “a dick”. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:18, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Jo, what's the point of continuing this? In all discussions you seem to have an undeniable need to have the last word in order to stroke your ego. I'm not a single-purpose account. I'm trying to get articles in project hip-hop off the ground, when probably has more historical value that Pemwat or LE, as the history was often not written down, and if it was, it has been quickly lost. Anyway, good day. I saw your revert. The whole chart, to begin with, was an estimation the editors came up with and agreed on, which I was fine with until I realised there was nothing to back it up. LE didn't say it was over a million people on its site, Harry told that to time and LE uses THAT article to refer to their numbers, rather than an official statement. It's questionable. IF it's something no one can independently confirm, it doesn't go into an article in a practical sense. That's why I took out the Reformer's section...in the same spirit, even if Harry did respond to them, there's nothing solid to back it up. BTW, I didn't refer to you as a "dick," I was comparing an admin's actions (yours) to a "dick's" actions. Pax Arcane 02:27, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm removing this section again, mainly because it appears not to be relevant to Landmark Education - as Triplejumper pointed out above, it relates to "The Forum", and the fact that the paper refers to a 1985 publicity document would seem to indicate that it was the WEA "Forum" that was being referred to, not the Landmark Forum. Although published in 2005, it is not at all clear when the study was carried out. If the citation is worthwhile at all, perhaps it might have a place in either the WEA or LGAT articles. I've read it in full and it does appear to be a very mediocre piece of work. It is strong on speculation and a sample of 44 people who had done the Forum seems to be far too small to draw any meaningful conclusions, especially as it is admitted that they are not randomised selections.

While I'm about it, I'm also deleting the section on Sales and Marketing as it clearly violates NPOV. There used to be a selection of quotations which correctly reflected the fact that some people hold the opinion that Landmark sales tactics are over-zealous, whereas others think differently. They have been selectively removed to leave only the critical comments. And what is it about the notability to the three individuals who are quoted?

And I've edited the section on closure in Sweden to leave the facts, without the speculative commentry. DaveApter (talk) 13:39, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

OK, Dave. The 2005 paper done in Israel, you'll have to include as you can read the paper yourself to determine when it was carried out. The whole critical thinking thing TJ and you have. If you haven't read it, it almost seems like you guys do not believe it exits. I mentioned the study for dicussion on the talk page quite some time ago. MUCH like the section on global closures. Instead, you guys didn't do anything. You decision. Now it's coming close for 2008 registrations and here come the edits. Don't worry about it...I mark the cycles and can guess when it's coming like tide. The Israeli study seems to indicate the the Forum course would actually be beneficial. You'll have to accept that some people use science to study your org.

I don't know why you keep telling me to read the paper when I already said that I had read it. I can't find anywhere in it where it's stated when the survey was carried out. Can you point me to anything I have missed? Nothing that is cited in the paper is later than 1993. If the course in question was in fact the Landmark Forum, why is the only reference to related literature a pamphlet published over 5 years before LE was even formed? I don't even think the paper is particularly damaging - I think it's so poorly written that it doesn't seem to say anything very coherent. I removed it because it doesn't add to the quality or usefulness of the article.DaveApter (talk) 15:19, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

If you've read the other stuff, you'd know the APA issued a statement that LGATs needed more study for consumer benefit because research since the 80s had largely been fallow. So someone takes a stab at it and that makes it not notable? I understand your corporate need to distance yourself from est, but as far as anyone can tell, it's the same thing repackaged...hence the need for more study. But anyone reading this discussion or seeing the history of the page knows LE's M.O. Enjoy it guys. It's 2007 and you're reaching the high water mark you had in 1977. All indicators have show it's downhill from here. A good meme does what its supposed to: kill itself. --Pax Arcane 18:34, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

The Harvard business study...I'm including the quote because it was very notable, and here's why: Some editors, like your amigo TJ, argue that the Israeli study shouldn't be included because it's just cross-sectional, but the Harvard study was just a case study. Do you and TJ know the difference? If you can verbalise it before editing it out, this is the place. Hey, aren't YOU the guy I gotta keep reminding to use the discussion page, btw? --Pax Arcane 14:28, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Removal of Governmental Mention section

I have removed this section based on that in each of the countries cited in the section, either Landmark Education was removed from subsequent lists, corrections were issued or in the case of France the list was never reviewed or updated again. Triplejumper (talk) 00:59, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. I appreciate your well-reasoned rationale. We should work together like this in the future. This is better than the way we've been doing it. A line comment by the edit just doesn't work for me or most editors on wiki, but a discussion like this on the talk page is much more acceptable. Thank you. --Pax Arcane 03:01, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

None of the reasons given justifies removing the section on "Governmental mention". If sourced information exists detailing subsequent history, that can supplement or even possibly supplant the historical information that certain governments made certain mentions at certain dates, as well attested. One keeps hearing vague generalizations about retractions and amended "lists", but such hearsay "evidence" does not suffice for determining Wikipedia content: let's put any hard evidence in the public domain. If nobody reviews or updates a document (such as the French Parliamentary Commission report) then it stands for all time as an artifact of its day and reflects the historical situation then. If revisions exist, let's hear about them in the restored section of the main article -- as information pertaining to yet another segment of the historical record. -- Pedant17 (talk) 03:56, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I was assuming Triplejumper was making statements of fact. If they were just vague statements, I disagree with the edits. I was more praising him on using the TALK page than the veracity of his edits. For ONCE, we did get a rationale from him. Quite a historic moment. "Well-reasoned" was me assuming his statements were true. Well, even Von Savage made mistakes. I apologise for my earlier support. --Pax Arcane 16:08, 27 December 2007 (UTC)