Talk:Landmark Worldwide/Archive 18

message: I've read through the arguments, and am only vaguely clear on what is going on, but as best as I can deduce, the following occurred: there was a study done  in Israel in relation to a limited aspect of LE.  The study had some "issues" in it's reputability because of the way it was conducted.  In the ensuing discussions about the studies inclusion in the article, there was some incivility (from what I can tell on the part of most parties).  I have not read the section, because I had trouble fishing it out of the history and it seems to have been removed.  I am generally in favor of inclusion based solely on notability.  The extent of that coverage, however, is based on credibility.  For example, I believe that the theories that say the Apollo moon landings were a hoax are patently false.  However, they are widely debated and believed (hence notable), and thus are included in the Moon landing article, though just barely.  The theories represent probably less than 5% of the article.  So, the application of this example here would be: (1) Is this study notable?  Can one honestly say that the article is thorough without it?  If it is not notable, ditch it.  (2) If it is notable, how reputable is it?  If it isn't reputable, it should be included anway, but it's lack of reputability mentioned in a proportionate, referenced, NPOV way.  Honestly, I don't know the answer to either question, because the arguments have been so (understandably) esoteric—and at times contentious—that I still don't have answers. But I believe these guidelines are the bedrock of Wikipedia (in theory and practice) and really, if all parties are honest, the answer will become readily apparent.  This might call for some humility and compromise, both of which can be icky to the ego, but we are all big enough boys and girls to be contributors to Wikipedia (in case there are some teens here) so we are all big enough to keep this issue in perspective.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 18:24, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  ''Second'' third opinion 

message: Guys, it's pretty bad. Dunno when exactly it started looking like someone took a wrecking ball to it, but it needs to be fixed. I'm in the learning process. In the zeal to keep out my 3rd Op supported edits, things got screwed in the ref section. If we start ripping the page apart because things are messed up past cite 46, it's as bad as just blanking the page. Let's work together on this. No weasel edits with the refs. If a cite is noted (check the internal) but doesn't correspond at the bottom, then it's a cleaning up issue, not a section deletion. Anything that says "citation needed" is another animal entirely. Spacefarer, work with me on this. TrippleJ, thanks for pointing out what I need to fix before deleting. as well and I ask that you help me. Any of you guys know any neutral Admins that could watch the process. Cheers! Peace! Pax Arcane 18:46, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Admins are not there to moderate content disputes. We have a dispute resolution process for that. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 06:01, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The article is semi-protected. You're an admin. What are you doing here, Jo? --Pax Arcane 06:19, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  My username is Jossi, not "Jo". And I am here for the same reason you are here: editing Wikipedia. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:04, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Keep digging, Jo. --Pax Arcane 17:03, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Need an NPOV editor (if available) to assist with the reference section. If not we work together. 

message: Please see WP:SELFPUB. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:19, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ...so long as it is it is not unduly self-serving...--Pax Arcane 02:30, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Harry told that to time and LE uses THAT article to refer to their numbers, rather than an official statement. It's questionable. Are you saying that these numbers are not cited in the Landmark website? Many articles about companies include  company's statements, and these are not necessarily self-serving. Why would these numbers be self-serving?  ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:32, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But that's the sticking point we got on. DaveApter and AlexJackl mentioned, either here or in other communication that a CPA was about to provide certification for the last cell. That hasn't happened. From my standpoint, a company would really publicise something like this, but other than statements by grads, there's been nothing, nada, nil. That's where my hesitation for inclusion comes from. The discussion started on providing verification and was quickly dropped, so I figured it'd be best not assume anything or rest on editor's own projections. I'd rather the facts and that seems reasonable, wouldn't you agree? Right now, all we have is an unverified statement made to TIME magazine some time ago. --Pax Arcane 03:05, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The statement is verifiable as per the source. If that figure is correct or incorrect, we do not know. If the figure was given to Time by Rosenberg, we do not know either. The only thing that is verifiable is that the figure was cited in that Time article, and that is exactly what we should be doing. Wikipedia is not investigative journalism. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:13, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of self-published material 

message: The quote about the Harvard study is not relevant to anything about assisting at Landmark Education.  There is no point and it seems a POV add-on. Alex Jackl (talk) 15:14, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The point is not even Harvard saw fit to use it in the classroom, hence the disclaimer on your corportate website. --Pax Arcane 18:30, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Two issues: one , even if this is relevant and note-worthy it doesn't belong in the section on assisting. Two, unles syou have a document form Harvard University that details its stance on this study it is all hear-say and OR.  Alex Jackl (talk) 04:22, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's noteworthy because LE has to have the Harvard disclaimer on on its website whenever it refers to this holier-than-thou, "case study," which is probably the lowest form of unscientific research. But it sells, you already know that, as you are an LE course designer. --Pax Arcane 01:52, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Appropriate material 

message: I thought you said LE was about to release a CPA verified statement confirming those numbers? What happened? Did grads re-taking the Forum for free to boost numbers not count? --Pax Arcane 18:37, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not that I remember.  I did think those numbers were available in some official context but I don't remember hearing - or saying - that a "CPA_verified statement" was pending.  I will check on it though.   Reviewers of the Landmark Forum are not counted in the standard enrollment statistics.   Any numbers would be only counting new graduates.  I will check though and see if there is something coming out... Alex Jackl (talk) 04:22, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Dude, you said in September that the CPA certified doc was forthcoming, you were actually beaming about it on the phone. --Pax Arcane 01:53, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Since I don't remember saying that at all I find it difficult to believe I was beaming.  However, I am still looking for official sources.Alex Jackl (talk) 03:06, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What's the hold-up? I, as well as many other journalists have noted LE takes its time getting anything done. There's like a 6 month lag, horrible customer service. You ask for info and it's like the request falls on deaf ears. It's a corporation wanting global transformation by 2020? You'd never know it. I mean really, how frickin' long does it take to get a headcount? All LE does is count heads and money. That's the primary function of any of their paid positions. LOL... Count heads and money. Can it get at least that right? LOL. Is this a corporation or a yard-sale? --Pax Arcane 04:05, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

text:  Why all this fire and smoke? You already have an headcout.  What you want is a CPA-CERTIFIED THIRD PARTY source- that is what I am looking for.  Also, I don't do this for a livng... I have a real job and a fmaily so I iwll get to it when I can.  I am not an employee of Landamrk but know many.  I iwll se ehwat I can come up with.  Have patience - this issue is not going away! :-)  Happy New Year. Alex Jackl (talk) 05:28, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alex, I'm confused 

message: I find the level of disagreement in the discussion on this page to be incongruent with the information contained in the article, which seems a bit dry.  There are a few paragraphs which mention potential controversies, but there is no coherent narrative offering any explanations of why there is so much controversy.  It seems very odd to me that a training program like the landmark forum would evoke such strong negative and positive reactions alike.  I think this article will be incomplete unless such a narrative can be agreed upon and included in the article.  Perhaps a good starting point would be to gather the material discussing controversy into a single section?  Cazort (talk) 13:59, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You'd have to ask why AlexJackl and company wanted Landmark Education's history of litigation to have a seperate wiki page and go from there. I agree with you, but the page is simple for a reason...Landmark participants heavily edit this page to exclude anything controversial they can't litigate out of existence. --Pax Arcane 22:06, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

text: If it seems odd that an org offering training programs (such as Landmark Education) should generate so much controversy ... one might postulate that  "Landmark Education" involves and implies something more than or different to "education". I agree that the article should face up to the fact that controversies exist. -- On the other hand, I do not think it a good idea to put up a single "controversies" section. Better to deal with the points at issue one by one as they arise in the various sections of the article. -- Pedant17 (talk) 07:15, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why is this page so controversial?