Talk:Landmark Worldwide/Archive 15

message: What happened to this page?  It seems to have fallen tino the mediation cabal and died a slow painful death.  What happens now? Ckerr 06:26, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Any sign of life? 

message: The article remains too fluid to have any prescribed overall structure. -- Pedant17 05:10, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussion on the overall structure 

message: is it a pyramid scheme or money trap or cult or something like that? Can we include debate for or against? I don't know what to think of Landmark Education.--Sonjaaa 03:45, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  questions? 

message: Pendant or Alex (can't tell from edits and my eyesight could be better), I'd remove that box if I were you until the certified document is published by Landmark about their participants, which I understand should be available now, if not soon. Catch AlexJackl on his talk page, he should have immediate access to that info. Arcana imperii Ascendo tuum 17:20, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not sure what this refers to: have we ever had a box of projections about growth in the Landmark Eduaction article? -- If Landmark Education plans to produce a certified document then I would welcome that, but it would need to traverse the usual barriers against corporate self-published documents before we can process any such work for inclusion in the Wikipedia article. -- Pedant17 01:21, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Alex indicated he has no problem producing this. I think he mentioned they reached a million as of late 2006/early 2007, so your estimates may have been over the mark by a lot. Arcana imperii Ascendo tuum 01:32, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Projected growth rates box 

message: Let's go back to the idea of Wikipedia of being an encyclopedia. We need reliable references that would include direct experience and other professional observations. Spacefarer 01:25, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Back to being an encyclopedia article 

message: Look at the ones on this page? See a non NPOV or bias...or a lack of objectivity?  Arcana imperii Ascendo tuum 13:45, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Majority references are corporate 

message: The block was lifted per conditions that it not be an edit war. Triplejumper, good job on the citations, but see if you can find non-corporate citations. The information I added, that Mvemkr tightened up the wording for was fine the first time. If another citation is needed, I will happily provide. Mvemker edited it so the language was neutral. Let's all stay in check from the jump. Cool? Arcana imperii Ascendo tuum 23:09, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  This will not be an edit war 

message: This is not a forum for general discussion of personal discussions about the subject.
Any such messages will be deleted.
Please limit discussion to the suggestions on how to improve the content of this article.Arcana imperii Ascendo tuum 19:44, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  REMINDER 

message: This is probably where we need to start on editing this article. Too many "citation needed" components need to be removed in an brisk fashion. Arcana imperii Ascendo tuum 21:11, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of non-cited sources