Talk:Landmark Worldwide/Archive 14

Discussion on the 'What is it about?' sections

The very formulation "what is it about" betrays its own unencyclopedic bias. -- Pedant17 05:10, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Suggesting deletion of this article

The LE information presented in this article is mirrored on the corporate website.

This article is more or less an advert, repeating the LE course syllabus and information available on their website. The Landmark litigation article, however, is what it is.

I haven't seen a consensus reached. I just don't see the possibility of an accurate, NPOV article. I think the topic would be best-served by deletion for all parties involved.

LE has it's own website for a reason...the wiki entry just adds a self-serving bump below in google searches.

Support? Arcana imperii Ascendo tuum 03:01, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with your suggestion. The wiki article as it is now is just an advertisement. I saw it a while back when it had some balanced topics such as "Controversies" "Complaints about LE" etc. Now the wiki page looks like suddenly there are no more controversies and complaints about LE from the human population.

The term "Wiki" implies collectively adding information from many sources. Either this page should encompass that, or this page should be deleted and people can check out the LE website on their own. --24.16.70.72 06:47, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I really wish people would sign in if they are going to engage in these conversations. Alex Jackl 03:44, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Unsigned comments have the extra force and vigor of "man-in-the-street" public opinion and the possible freshness of a new point of view. Let's make them welcome. -- Pedant17 05:10, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

It is hard to take this kind of "just an advertisement" comment seriously. Read the history of this page and when you come up for air it will be a little more clear why that is not a fair assessment of the page at all. Alex Jackl 03:44, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

An article at any given point of time can look like an advertisement. Its history will not redeem the user at such points-in-time. -- Pedant17 05:10, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

There is a group of people who think "fair" equals half praising and half badmouthing. Not that is simplistic. Much of the Landmark Education page should be devoted to facts about Landmark Education- what it is , how it works, what kind of education it offers.

SIGH. ALEX. Your corporate website already provides MORE "facts" than this article. Give this tired charade up.Arcana imperii Ascendo tuum 04:05, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

There should certainly be an entry on controversy since there is some but this should be relatively minor in degree to its importance.. This does reflect my view - which has been argued for many times before and I will not repeat that those that believe LE is a "cult" or "harmful" are in a massive minority and need to be acknowledged but then we should move on in building an encyclopedia article. Alex Jackl 03:44, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

We await good evidence on how one can plausibly characterize the mainstream view as belonging to a "massive minority". -- Pedant17 05:10, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

None of this is new news. This has been discussed ad nauseam on this article - I just didn't want any new comers sucked into any illusion that this page somehow should be deleted. Alex Jackl 03:44, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Alex, again, the charade...newcomers will come and add. The whole collaboration thing that is Wiki. This isn't "Alex's" LE wiki page. Arcana imperii Ascendo tuum 04:05, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't think deletion is the ideal answer, but it is a feasible answer, and better solutions have all ended in gridlock. If you ever nominate it for deletion, let me know, I don't watch the page very closely. Poindexter Propellerhead 03:59, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Discussion on the 'Controversies' section

We don't need a separate defined "controversies" section: different viewpoints on Landmark Education may crop up at any point in the article. -- Pedant17 05:10, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

• • • I beg to differ here. To not have the controversies section separate would be Un-encyclopedic.Triplejumper 23:22, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Can you please explain how the lack of a "controversies" section would make an article "Un-encyclopedic" -- rather than simply asserting the opinion? -- Note that the Wikipedia Manual of Style guidelines in Wp:wta#Article_structure discourage such separate sections, suggesting:

Separating all the controversial aspects of a topic into a single section results in a very tortured form of writing, especially a back-and-forth dialogue between "proponents" and "opponents". It also creates a hierarchy of fact — the main passage is "true" and "undisputed", whereas the rest are "controversial" and therefore more likely to be false, an implication that may often be inappropriate.

Since many of the topics in an encyclopedia will inevitably encounter controversy, editors should write in a manner that folds debates into the narrative rather than "distilling" them out into separate sections that ignore each other.

-- Pedant17 02:29, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

The chimaera of an overall structure

On 2005-10-13 an editor made a suggestion about the overall structure of the article see Talk:Landmark Education/Archive 1. The proposal came to nothing.

On 2007-01-19 an editor made suggestions about the the overall structure of the article, proposing an overarching schema which might have left several lively areas of discussion without a home: see Talk:Landmark Education/Archive 6. The proposals did not gain consensus: see Talk:Landmark Education/Archive 7. But on 2007-08-14 remarkably similar-sounding proposals re-surfaced.

If a desire exists to re-litigate certain points, perhaps we could highlight such points, taking into account the water that has flowed under the bridge and the overall thrust of discussions in the Wikipedia community. My take: grandiose overviews may sound fine, but they can impose a limiting structure, ill-suited to the fluidity of our multi-editor body, Specific lists and formulations can distort the debates and distract us from directly and collectively improving the text of the article, which can grow and multiply organically outside any straightjacket.

-- Pedant17 05:10, 18 September 2007 (UTC)