Talk:Landmark Worldwide/Archive 16

message: 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)
thread_title:  Follow suggestions in the ORANGE BOXES 

message: 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)
replies: text: Seconded. Arcana imperii Ascendo tuum 01:34, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit-war 1, Campaign 1 

message: At 13:39 on  2007-10-27 a Wikipedian deleted the following data:
Laurel Scheaf: Director; Landmark Forum Leader 
Sanford Robbins: Director
Brian Regnier: Course Designer
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)
thread_title:  Edit-war 1, Campaign 3 

message: At 13:42 on  2007-10-27 a Wikipedian deleted the following data:
some of whom volunteer their time;
The Landmark Seminar Leader Program, Landmark Education website, 2006, states: "Seminar leaders are accomplished women and men who volunteer their time and talent..."
 7,500 volunteers in "Assisting Program" (1998) 
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)
thread_title:  Edit-war 1, Campaign 4 

message: 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)
thread_title: Lucidish

message: 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)
thread_title:  United States Government 

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  Transformation Reformers Group