Talk:Darren Mack/Archive 1

Response to WBLman
I am the editor who expanded what was originally a stub into the basis for this current page. I believe Smeelgova's involvement with editing this page has been confined to restoring previous versions when the page has been vandalized by unregistered users. In accord with Wikipedia's policies, please do not engage in personal attacks against other editors.

I have included in the Biography section all the biographical information which is currently available about Darren Mack. I have included all the available education information, i.e., Reno High School, University of Nevada, and Landmark Education. I have included all the available employment information, i.e., Palace Jewelry and Loan and Landmark Education. If and when additional biographical information becomes available, I will also include that.

Darren Mack's significant involvement with Landmark Education as both a student and faculty member is a relevant biographical fact. It is part of his life history. Had he attended Harvard University and taught there, I also would have included that biographical information. No statement has been made that it is relevant to the crime of which he has been accused.

Your statements about Rick Ross are POV. The Reference to the Rick Ross article is one of two sources for the information included in the article about Darren Mack's involvement with Landmark Education. I have, once again, restored that reference. Please note that I deliberately did not include that article in the External Links section, as I thought to do so would be POV.

Nearly every article on Wikipedia with even the smallest reference to Landmark Education has a long history of edit wars. Either Landmark alumni can continue to delete information which doesn't suit their POV, eventually causing this matter to be taken to Mediation and/or Arbitration, or you (plural) can accept the fact that it is legitimate to include the fact that Darren Mack was both educated by and taught Landmark Education courses in his biography. --Kat&#39;n&#39;Yarn 01:09, 14 August 2006 (UTC)Kat'n'Yarn


 * I recommend then restructuring this article to have an educational and employment section if you think all that biographical information is necessary. In which case Landmark should be an item under both categories.  I see no reason to have his employment or participation at Landmark called out in it's own section.  Doing so implies that it had something to do with his current state of affairs.  Which is my point about removing the Rick Ross link, which I have done again.  If you read that link you will see that it is clearly POV and inflammatory and I assert doesn't belong as a link even though you (or some other editor) got some historical information about Mack from it.  If you read the Ross article I believe this will be clear.


 * I think all that biographical information is necessary in a biography. I imagine this will be restructured many times as new information is added by many editors.  This is in an early stage; we've still got a trial to go through.  I'm thinking about adding a "life style" subsection myself.  However, I think the article would suffer by your suggestion.  If you have a specific textual change to suggest, please do so.  It seems to me that a longer explanation would be necessary if the information were to be split between two new subsections, and that the result would be a fractured biography broken up into too many small subsections for the amount of information available.  I disagree that having the Landmark information consolidated does not, in any way, imply anything other than it was a part of Darren Mack's biography.  Can you explain how you think any implication is made?  Do the "Early Life" and "Marriages" subsections make the same implications?  I have, once again, restored the Rick Ross Reference.  I don't know how familiar you are with citing sources, footnotes, bibliographies, etc.  Information is given in the article, there are footnotes to denote the sources of that information, cited sources are listed in the References section.  That's all.  The External Links section is provided for the reader to seek further information, and I did not include Rick Ross' website there.  I have read the Rick Ross article several times.  The article is POV, in that it is not balanced.  There is a small amount of opinion, but it is predominantly factual and verifiable.  Wikipedia requires that encyclopedia articles be NPOV.  It does not require that a POV article cannot be a reference source.  Kat&#39;n&#39;Yarn 04:46, 15 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I did not, and do not, dispute Mack's involvement with LE as a relevant biographical fact for this article. It is definitely part of his life history, just as if he had attended Harvard would be. I do not dispute the legitimacy of including the fact that Darren Mack was both educate by and taught LE courses in his biography.  I'm not sure how you got that impression, given I didn't remove the LE section of the article, only the POV link in the section I edited.  What I dispute, and have again removed, is the link to Rick Ross's page on the subject as it is completely POV.


 * I realize my statements about Rick Ross were POV and I made them on the talk page NOT in the article. I thought it important to include my opinion for why I was removing the link.  If a source is clearly POV, is it a valid source for the information you want to include in this article?  It looks to me like you DID include that article in the External Links section, though you said you didn't in your response here.


 * It's in the References section, which is comparable to a bibliography of sources referred to. It is not in the External Links section.  Kat&#39;n&#39;Yarn 04:46, 15 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I cannot speak for other Landmark alumni and request you speak to me as one vs. "you (plural)." I didn't delete this link because it doesn't suit my POV - I think having it here makes the article POV vs. NPOV and would be happy to have this be taken to Mediation and/or Arbitration if necessary. However, removing a POV link doesn't seem like such a complicated issue to me.WBLman 22:58, 14 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Once more, it's a reference. It's a cited source.  While I wouldn't dispute that Rick Ross has a POV, people being what they are, most people do, that doesn't mean that everything he's ever written should be thrown out as not being factual.  I believe even you agreed with him on the point I used his article as a reference for.  Kat&#39;n&#39;Yarn 04:46, 15 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Kat'n'Yarn, I now understand what you were saying about the use of Ross' article as the reference for the information included in the Mack article. Sorry, I wasn't following what you were saying in our previous conversation and am somewhat new to editing. So, given that we are in alignment that Rick Ross has a POV (generally anti-Lamdmark which is clearly expressed in his previously referenced "article" on this subject) I have replaced the reference to his article for Macks biographical information with the primary source for this information; the SF Chronicle.  Mr. Ross himself referenced the SF Chronicle as the source for the biographical information on Mack (as indicated by the link in Ross' article on Mack to the Chronicle).  I never objected to the inclusion of the facts around Mack's participation in and leading of Landmark courses, I only objected to the use of Rick Ross as the source for information on the matter given his overt POV on all subjects relating to Landmark.  Also, since Ross himself got that information from a reputable cited source (SF Chronicle), and in keeping with Wikipedia guidelines, and since the primary source for the information is available. . . I substituted the link to Ross with the link to the Chronicle.  I'm sure you would agree but just wanted to outline my thinking here.  Thanks. WBLman 06:01, 14 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Glad to hear you're learning. Now, both the SF Chronicle article and the Rick Ross article are secondary sources.  As an aside, Wikipedia prefers secondary sources to primary sources.  I included both references because they reference different facts.  The SF Chronicle article references both Macks working for Landmark.  MySpace and the Rick Ross article reference that Mack led the Communication course.  BTW, Wikipedia encourages use of multiple sources.  Please don't make me go look it up.  I'm sure you can find it.  Kat&#39;n&#39;Yarn 04:01, 19 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I appreciate the use of multiple sources but cannot understand why you would use the Rick Ross page as a reference for that information if you have read it. There must be some other reference for "that Mack led the Communication course" without using a reference so obviously POV.  Ross clearly insinuates that Landmark had something to do with Mack's current state of affairs and then proceeds to bring up all sorts of irrelevant information which has nothing to do with Darren Mack, rather is all about his accusations for Landmark.


 * The only other source of information on Mack leading Landmark's Communication Course is the MySpace web page, which is a primary source. Wikipedia says we can use that, as long as there is also a secondary source.  I don't agree with your insinuation about Rick Ross' insinuation.  You seem to see a lot of insinuations that aren't there.  Kat&#39;n&#39;Yarn 02:25, 20 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I read the Ross article again to see if I was missing something and again, I don't why you would consider it a valid reference for an encyclopedia article given the obvious slant of it. Reading it reminded me of the occasional times I have read a National Enquirer or Star Magazine article while waiting in line at the grocery, where the writer uses a small amount of factual information to build a whole story, make a connection and create drama. I find those articles entertaining but would never expect to see them referenced in Wikipedia, even though they do have some amount of factual information.


 * It's a valid source of information on Mack leading the Communication course. It's no where close to a National Enquirer article.  Rick Ross' specializes in information about controversial groups.  Sure, that's a POV, but it's one every similar specialist in the world would have.  Get over it.  Kat&#39;n&#39;Yarn 02:25, 20 September 2006 (UTC)


 * To be responsible for operating inside the intention of Wikipedia to be a resource on the level of an encyclopedia, I think it is required to "consider the source" for all information (especially references) and if an obviously POV article has one little piece of information that you didn't find elsewhere that you want to use, I would suggest choosing NOT to use that information or that article as a reference since it pulls in such a POV that it undermines the overall intent. So, I think using this kind of reference totally undermines Wikipedia's intentions and design and suggest using the SF Chronicle article as the reference even though it has been used before and/or finding another resource for the information you want to include. I am awaiting your reply before editing. WBLman 15:39, 19 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I think you're more interested in pushing your POV, and it's a bit tiresome. Even if there were another source, there's no reason Rick Ross couldn't also be used.  Kat&#39;n&#39;Yarn 02:25, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 14:37, 1 May 2016 (UTC)