Talk:Landmark Worldwide/Archive 17

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Removal of Governmental Mention section