Talk:Holiday Magic/Archives/2012

Purported cult
This material is from the article List of purported cults, which we are paring down to a pure list. Editors here can best evaluate its statements and decide how to integrate it into this article. Thanks, -Willmcw 11:07, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)


 * ''Holiday Magic
 * ''Holiday Magic combined personal development with commercialism, subsuming both Mind Dynamics and Leadership Dynamics within its organisation. It allegedly treated participants with extreme physical rigor. Erhard Seminars Training may have partially evolved from Holiday Magic.

Usage of the term Large Group Awareness Training is NPOV
Large Group Awareness Training is an NPOV term, utilized by psychologists, psychiatrists, and other academics, and defined in psychology textbooks : Smee 18:36, 12 April 2007 (UTC).
 * 1) -- Defined in academic journal articles by psychiatrists/psychologists.
 * 2) -- Defined in textbooks on psychology.
 * 3) Taught in college-level psychology courses: "Developmental Effects of Participation in a Large Group Awareness Training", at the University of Minnesota.  Hughes, Steven J., "Developmental Effects of Participation in a Large Group Awareness Training", University of Minnesota, presented at "Educational, Intructional and School Psychology", Symposia: SY EDC (18) 4], Universidad Complutense de Madrid.
 * 4)  -- A study which was made into a book, Evaluating a Large Group Awareness Training: A Longitudinal Study of Psychosocial Effects, won an award from the American Psychiatric Association.  This study was commissioned by Werner Erhard and Associates, so they therefore paid these scholars to analyze the phenomenon and classify them in it accordingly.
 * 5) Page. 54. : "Mind Dynamics, founded by Alexander Everett, was the major forerunner of large group awareness trainings.  Although Mind Dynamics was only in existence for a few years, it sparked an entire industry of similar trainings." -- This book was written by 2 graduates of EST who think highly of the coursework.  Therefore, the fact that they use this terminology shows it is NPOV.
 * 1) Taught in college-level psychology courses: "Developmental Effects of Participation in a Large Group Awareness Training", at the University of Minnesota.  Hughes, Steven J., "Developmental Effects of Participation in a Large Group Awareness Training", University of Minnesota, presented at "Educational, Intructional and School Psychology", Symposia: SY EDC (18) 4], Universidad Complutense de Madrid.
 * 2)  -- A study which was made into a book, Evaluating a Large Group Awareness Training: A Longitudinal Study of Psychosocial Effects, won an award from the American Psychiatric Association.  This study was commissioned by Werner Erhard and Associates, so they therefore paid these scholars to analyze the phenomenon and classify them in it accordingly.
 * 3) Page. 54. : "Mind Dynamics, founded by Alexander Everett, was the major forerunner of large group awareness trainings.  Although Mind Dynamics was only in existence for a few years, it sparked an entire industry of similar trainings." -- This book was written by 2 graduates of EST who think highly of the coursework.  Therefore, the fact that they use this terminology shows it is NPOV.


 * LGAT is generally used by POV authors that are opposed to such groups and "human potential training" is used more generally by NPOV sources. We use the NPOV, please. Discussion of the biased use of the LGAT term is recent on the LGAT talk page. You know that. The fact that NPOV sources use "human potential training" is borne out by my experience reading reliable 3rd-party material. --Justanother 18:08, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * This claim above by User:Justanother is actually factually inaccurate, as borne out by the sources above. Please back up your claims with reputable secondary sourced citations, as I have done.  Smee 18:12, 12 April 2007 (UTC).

Smee 18:14, 12 April 2007 (UTC).
 * The 2 main take-away points from above citations :
 * 1) A study called: "Evaluating a Large Group Awareness Training" won an award from the American Psychiatric Assocation.
 * 2) This study was partly funded by Werner Erhard and Associates, therefore they were aware of the term's use with regard to their phenomenon.
 * Quick Google test: "large group awareness"+training = 21,800 vs. "human potential"+training = 709,000 . Google tests are not the best but are good indicators. You can also run the test as "large group awareness training" = 19,700 vs. "human potential movement" = 82,500. Let's look at books. "Large group awareness training" = 49  vs. "human potential movement" = 709 . So the fact that you cite a few books proves little. --Justanother 18:48, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually "Google Tests" are highly unreliable and are actually discouraged in AFDs. So again, I will ask, do you have any reputable secondary sourced citations to back up your claims?  Thought not.  Thanks.  Smee 18:52, 12 April 2007 (UTC).
 * Pick any of those 709 books. Take your pick. --Justanother 18:53, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * You mean Web sites, not books? You have not specifically cited any reputable secondary sources.  Thus, your claims are invalid.  Smee 18:58, 12 April 2007 (UTC).
 * No, 709,000 is websites. Just 709 is books. As opposed to just 49 books for your term. --Justanother 19:09, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * So what? That has nothing to do with anything, it just means that the 2 terms are completely different and refer to different things.  If anything, the fact that it is used in 49 books is great, points to reputable usage in secondary sources, even more sourced citations to add to the article.  Smee 19:12, 12 April 2007 (UTC).

An outside view
As an outsider to this dispute, it really looks like the conflict is with regards to the wording of LGAT vs HPT. That has little to do with whether this article conforms to the NPOV policy with regards to its subject. However, I will say that Smee makes an excellent point: Source #8 in his list above, which was written by EST advocates, calls the phenomenon LGAT. If it's used by people in industry to apply to themselves, I don't see the problem with it.  howcheng  {chat} 21:20, 12 April 2007 (UTC) Howchen, thank you. I'm curious to know if you have read the book. Are you familiar with the subject matter? I'm curious because you say you are an outsider, yet you say they "call the phenomenon LGAT" which is not cited that way in Smee's list. Perhaps you meant strictly that you are an outsider to this debate, but not an oursider to the subject? I have not yet read the book myself and thus do not now exactly what is referred to as a phenomenon in it. Lsi john 22:37, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you for providing your input. Smee 21:21, 12 April 2007 (UTC).
 * I am an outsider to the debate as well as to the subject, although I was a psychology major in college (but that was 14 years ago). The word "phenomenon" just seemed to be appropriate. If it's not the right word, then I apologize and would like to know what a better term would be.  howcheng  {chat} 23:03, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

WP:OR
The opening paragraph should be about the company. As it was, the majority of the focus was related to LGAT. This is an article about the company, not LGAT. If the primary focus in this article is around LGAT, with very little information about the company or its works, then this article should be merged into the LGAT article.

Secondly, we can only state that authors have claimed Holiday Magic played a role in LGAT, we cannot say that they 'did' play a role.

Wiki articles are not supposed to lead the reader to a desired conclusion, merely present the facts correctly and let the reader come to whatever conclusion they wish.

Making claims instead of citing sources is a violation of WP:NR and should be left out of articles. Lsi john 07:39, 16 April 2007 (UTC) 03:00, 17 April 2007 (UTC)


 * All information has been highly sourced to reputable secondary sources within the article. Smee 06:12, 18 April 2007 (UTC).


 * Being sourced and reputable, does not make it relevant or significant (nor always accurate). Lsi john 17:14, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Controversial
I do not believe the organization itself was cited as controversial. It may be surrounded with controversy and it may have been involved with controversial things. But I do not believe that the article lead is sticking to the facts. Please remove POV and WP:NR misleading terminology.

If the resources cited claimed that Holiday Magic "was a controvercial Multi Level Marketing" then please provide, here, a specific quote which establishes that for us. Otherwise, please stick to the facts and do not insert invalid POV and WP:NR Lsi john 17:14, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Please check the sourced citations provided. The organization was investigated by multiple branches of the federal government, for fraudulent practices, similar to Mind Dynamics and Leadership Dynamics.  Smee 18:34, 18 April 2007 (UTC).
 * And saying it was controversial on your own, is WP:OR. It is biased and misleading. It is your own pov and your own work product and your own conclusion. Contributor's personal opinions and conclusions do not belong in a wiki article. Lsi john 20:23, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Stop reverting
Please stop reverting and discuss changes here. The reverts are obvious, due to the original misspelled text being re-inserted. Lsi john 17:22, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Stop removing highly sourced material from the article. Smee 18:35, 18 April 2007 (UTC).
 * Highly sourced, does not make it appropriate or relevant. Please participate in Discussion with your fellow contributors instead of unilaterally reverting things. The edits made have requested you to use discussion. This means more than coming to discussion to say 'stop removing' and then unilaterally reverting what you want in the article. Lsi john 20:27, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Unbalanced Tag
This article has been tagged unbalanced due to the colorful and carefully chosen words which seem to carefully lead the reader to a desired conclusion.

Please do not remove this tag unilaterally. Lsi john 17:22, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The tag can remain in place, I am in the process of adding ever more reputable sourced citations with more material anyways. Smee 18:35, 18 April 2007 (UTC).
 * What is unbalanced? What sources/citations would you suggest we add to the article?  Smee 18:38, 18 April 2007 (UTC).
 * Smee, please stop asking the same questions over and over again. I have answered you numerous times. Your choice of wording is inflammatory and sensationalizes the article beyond its merits. I would truly appreciate it if you would stop simply reverting and come to the table in WP:FAITH to work out these differences. Lsi john 20:30, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I asked a good faith question, and you respond with impoliteness, discussing a contributor as opposed to content. Now, after you placed the "unbalanced" tag, you did not delineate specifically what is unbalanced in your opinion.  Please do so, so that we can work this out.  What, specifically, do you feel in your opinion is "unbalanced" ??  Smee 05:39, 19 April 2007 (UTC).

This article portrays the company in an extremely negative light and seems to be unbalanced. While the company was certainly not a model for good conduct, much of that opinion comes from the article itself. There is very little in the article about what the company did. How they operated. What their methodologies were. The only purpose for this article appears to be for reporting the negative information about the company.

The Unbalanced tag, is a request for other editors to help contribute to more information about what the company was doing or trying to do. Lsi john 19:11, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, this is what the company was trying to do. From the multitude of sources that I have read on this subject, from reliable reputable secondary sources, its actual main goal was as a fraudulent organization.  Smee 19:16, 7 May 2007 (UTC).
 * And this is backed up by both secondary sources, analysis in Criminal Justice courses in graduate-level classes, and of course multiple investigations at the Federal level of the United States government, both the Executive and Legislative branches... Smee 19:17, 7 May 2007 (UTC).

Hi, folks. I see a request here for a third opinion, but I'm not seeing that one is yet necessary, as I don't see that you've discussed the problem fully. John, per WP:NPOV, a negative article is not proof of imbalance or undue weight. If the only verifiable material is negative, then that's the article we write. If you have evidence that the article is unbalanced, or specific suggestions for improvement, please do make them. Perhaps that will get you two past the impasse. Thanks, William Pietri 19:33, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you, William Pietri, however please also see another opinion in the bottom-most subsection. Smee 19:35, 7 May 2007 (UTC).
 * Thank you Mr Pietri. The 3O opinion to which Smee refers was regarding the use of fraudulent in the opening sentence about the company. The fact that the article is so heavily weighted against the company, and was the only purpose for writing the article, gave an overwhelming sense of 'fraudulent'. This actually goes to illustrate my claim that the article is highly unbalanced.
 * However you also make a good point. It is one I have struggled with for quite some time. I am unable to obtain discussions from Smee. I present a statement or make an edit, and I get 'cited source', and an abrupt end of conversation.
 * I look forward to a good discussion here about the unbalanced nature of this article Lsi john 19:45, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Please see the multitude of sources including closed Federal United States government investigations that actually found the company guilty of fraudulent practices, leading to the company's dissolution. The word "fraudulent" is most certainly justified, and backed up by numerous reputable sources, including:

I cannot spell this out any clearer. Smee 19:47, 7 May 2007 (UTC).
 * 1) Secondary sources.
 * 2) Academic sources, graduate level courses on Criminal Justice.
 * 3) Multiple investigations by the Executive branch and Legislative branch of the United States government.
 * Your harsh, impolite and condescending tone is not productive. Please address me with respect. Lsi john 19:49, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
 * My apologies, no disrespect was implied. However please take a look at some of the cited sources, as pointed out above.  Please also remove the "unbalanced" tag, or I will, as per neutral opinions given in this subsection and the bottom-most subsection.  Thanks.  Smee 19:59, 7 May 2007 (UTC).
 * You two both seem like reasonable editors, but your styles certainly don't work well together. Perhaps you could try to meet stylistically even while disagreeing over the content? John, Smee's clearly interested in specifics, so try suggesting particular changes you would like to see in the article, hopefully with some references to back them. Smee, rather than just stating your side of things again, try verbalizing the bigger picture and acknowledging what concerns of his you find reasonable. Maybe that would help. Thanks, William Pietri 20:24, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Mr Pietri, thank you. I used unbalanced because I felt that the article only contained information which was negative and did not seem to contain any other information about the company itself. Krator has suggested using incomplete instead of unbalanced. This tag actually speaks more to my objection. By filling the article out with more information about the company, its purpose, its methods, its accomplishments.. etc etc.. the article will end up naturally being less lopsided. As a new editor, I'm not familiar with all the tags and their usage. It is much more helpful when someone sees my objection and helps me find the correct solution, rather than simply telling me that I'm wrong, and reverting my edits. Thanks again. Lsi john 20:45, 7 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Indeed, and I will try to find information on this arena from reputable secondary sourced citations, however from the (28) citations found so far, they seem to all analyze the fraudulent nature of the company/pyramid scheme. Perhaps, historically, this will be the general context of "Holiday Magic"...  It certainly is according to current secondary sources, Graduate level coursework on Criminal Justice, and the United States Federal government Executive and Legislative branches... Smee 21:11, 7 May 2007 (UTC).
 * Smee, I'm talking about documenting what the company did. What was their purpose. What was their mission statement. Did they hold seminars? How many people went through their training? Surely these facts are out there and can be found? You're a much better researcher than I am. You have stated time and again that your best work is research. Was nothing written about this company that wasn't tied directly to fraud? Is there no other information you can find? I'm not contesting the fraud. I'm not contesting the problems. But surely there was something else they did that got documented somewhere? Thank you in advance for your help. Lsi john 22:19, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, I do enjoy the hunt for reputable secondary sourced citations. And I can honestly tell you that yes, the vast majority of citations from the (28) sources I have found write about Holiday Magic in the context of being tied directly to fraud.  However, some of them also discuss background of the organization, and yes, I will look through these reputable secondary sourced citations and expand from there, hopefully with some of the stuff you have requested - but most of it deals in even more detail with the specifics of the Pyramid Scheme mechanics.  Holiday Magic is, after all, cited in many locations as a textbook example of Pyramid Scheme...  Smee 22:23, 7 May 2007 (UTC).

Third Opinion
Given the criminal history of Holiday Magic, and given that it was described as a pyramid scheme by the United States Senate, and that a large portion of the company's historical notability was due its deceptive and fraudulent business practices, I am not entirely sure why there's any need of a third opinion as to whether the company was "controversial". Snuppy 21:01, 18 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Snuppy, perhaps you did not review the discussion to fully understand why this is important. If the word "controversial" is not a cited reference, then (regardless of its accuracy) it would be an opinion or conclusion and thus 'technically' violate WP:NOR, and/or WP:POV wouldn't it?


 * The issue, while seemingly small, opens the door, just a crack, to a much wider scope of edits in the LGAT series. I believe that wiki is being abused to insert tiny bits of opinion here and there with a colorful word here and there which are designed to lead the reader to an overall conclusion.


 * It is the very technical rules that are being used to further the cause of the LGAT adjenda. And those same rules are the only way to stop the abuse.


 * On any individual edit, in any individual article, it seems innocent and not noteworthy. However, when you consider that these edits are generally being done by the same contributor across a large number of articles on the same subject, I believe a pattern emerges. A drop of water is not noteworthy. Yet a dripping faucet for a year wastes quite a bit of water.


 * Wiki is being used to generate an overall poor view of LGAT and then to target companies and organizations using the LGAT verbiage. Wiki rules are being used to validate that usage. Lsi john 01:04, 19 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I thought the word "controversial" was a generally kinder way of portraying an organization that was closed due to fraud and deception. While the word itself might not actually appear in the cited sources, it is neither a stretch nor original research to conclude that criminal behavior might be considered (at least in the circles I travel in) "controversial". If you would like the word "controversial" replaced with the more accurate "criminal" or "fraudulent", I believe that would satisfy even the most exacting parsing of WP:OR.


 * The Third Opinion you requested was for a specific instance, and I gave you an answer based on that specific instance. If you believe that Smee's edits are part of a larger pattern of subversive behavior, and you can back up this contention, you might want to take it to one of the various administrator notice boards for a broader spectrum of adjudication. Snuppy 01:51, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Larger pattern of Subversive behavior would be a good choice of words. I had been trying to find something that specifically described what I'm seeing. Thanks. Lsi john 03:48, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I wrote quite a piece somewhere here about invented "controversy". The main point being that if you would destroy something you must first make it "controversial". Critics throw that word around quite freely. I do not know enough about Holiday Magic to say if it was "controversial". That would mean that reliable sources called it that, perhaps because some believed it was great and others believed it was a fraud. That does seem to be the case, no? Or did everyone pretty much come to the conclusion that it was fraudulent? Bottom line, just go with your sources and do not loosely add the word "controversial". --Justanother 04:00, 19 April 2007 (UTC)


 * We could replace the word "controversial" with "fraudulent". That would be a tighter version to the numerous sources attributed to multiple investigations by the United States Federal Government, in various branches.  Smee 05:41, 19 April 2007 (UTC).

Third Opinion 2
Summary: No.

I have previously mediated in conflicts between the two editors involved here, I therefore I thought it would fit if I gave a third opinion in the case of this article. In the usual style:


 * When making claims, the article is very clear in choice of words. Adjectives like fraudulent have a clear and verifiable meaning.
 * The article is incomplete, but not unbalanced. Some information on what the company actually did, and what products they sold, would be good.
 * Therefore, I see no reason for an unbalanced tag to be on this article.
 * Unless the editor in question is inactive, it is considered good form to let the editor who placed a tag on an article remove it.

Some general points for improving this article:


 * The sections could be organised more clearly.
 * Create three supersections: history, products and organisation.
 * Most of the current article should go into history, with (most of) the first section belonging in organisation.

--User:Krator (t c) 19:28, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you for providing this third opinion. As you requested, I will wait to see if User:Lsi john removes the "unbalanced" tag.  I will also look into creating the supersections you have suggested.  Smee 19:31, 7 May 2007 (UTC).


 * Krator, thank you. I was unaware of the existence of an incomplete tag. It actually does better describe my meaning. I did not contest the existence of the negative information. However I did object to the article containing only that information. As a new editor, sometimes its more helpful to have an alternative suggestion than simply be told I'm wrong. Lsi john 20:41, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Sweden
It appears that the report from sweden is in 2 parts. The first part does not mention Holiday Magic in the context cited in the article. The second part of the report will not load. Lsi john 15:43, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The citation is accurate and supports the information and is cited appropriately. Please do not remove reputable sourced citations.  Smee 20:21, 30 May 2007 (UTC).
 * Please provide a working link. And stop calling all your sources reputable sourced citations, unless you want me to point out your WP:COPY and well the ones you don't read. Lsi john 20:24, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The citation is fully cited itself to the actual report. Smee 20:25, 30 May 2007 (UTC).
 * I have tagged it with CITECHECK until you can provide the details. The copy you reference will not load for me. Lsi john 20:27, 30 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Please stop moving things around inappropriately. Surely the CEO of the company itself is relevant in the section on the fraudulent activity of the said company.  Smee 20:29, 30 May 2007 (UTC).

Please stop edit conflicting me. Lsi john 20:29, 30 May 2007 (UTC) The charges the CEO faced are not related to Holiday magic and are not appropriate to be slurred into the mix. Lsi john 20:30, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Um, he was the CEO of the company. The charges are related.  Smee 20:32, 30 May 2007 (UTC).
 * The entire PDF is loading fine. Smee 20:34, 30 May 2007 (UTC).

The charges are related to HIM, not the company. I left them in the article, because you'd pitch a fit if I removed them. But they do not belong intermixed in the company legal information. Lsi john 20:50, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * He was the CEO of the company. See MCI Inc. and its mention of Bernie Ebbers.  Smee 20:52, 30 May 2007 (UTC).

European Report
Even without the link to the actual report, the report is fully cited, and the page numbers are all given. The citation is appropriate even without an external link, which is really only a convenience link. I was still able to download a copy of the PDF, so the link is functional. Smee 20:37, 30 May 2007 (UTC).

What will it take to get a truce with you, so you don't constantly revert everything I do? Lsi john 20:49, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * What will it take for your to discuss politely on the talk page, and not remove information from highly reputable sources? Smee 20:50, 30 May 2007 (UTC).

Reorganized
I have reworked and reorganized this article. To the best of my knowledge, I have not deleted any facts.

I consolidated several sentences which were redundant, but the original meanings are still there.

I added a couple new sections, and moved the relevant information to those sections.

I also renamed a section, which was a) inappropriate and b) inaccurate based on the other data that is also in that section.

Hopefully the article is more readable now and has a little better flow, rather than being a list of cited facts.

Lsi john 23:19, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Hard do understand
The paragraphs of the introductory section seem unrelated. Missing: How exactly was HM’s business model fraudulent? (one sentence please). Some explanation can be reconstructed from the article text down there but it is rather not straightforward. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yecril (talk • contribs) 09:36, 13 March 2009 (UTC) I agree with Yecril- I had hoped for some information about how the scheme was supposed to have worked, how it was sold to investors, what they actually did. It wouldn't need to be very long. The information that is here is well sourced and interesting, but seems to have some gaps. 91.105.164.198 (talk) 22:37, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) HM used to sell cosmetics.
 * 2) HM used to recruit distributors.
 * 3) HM used MLM as a pyramid scheme in that …
 * 4) HM was found guilty.

Los cosméticos Holiday Magic son fabricados en España por CODICO, S.A.
Los productos cosméticos Holiday Magic desde 1983 son fabricados y comercializados en España por Compañía Distribuidora de Cosméticos, S.A. (CODICO,S.A.).

Codico,s.a. es el fruto de dos circunstancias: La extinción de la multinacional norteamericana Holiday Magic y del olfato empresarial de los hermanos José Luis y Julio González.

En 1983 la empresa norteamericana preparaba su equipaje de vuelta a Estados Unidos. Dejaba atrás 14 años de venta directa de cosméticos, 23 delegaciones y 65 empleados. José Luis y Julio formaban parte de la plantilla. Frente a ellos se presentaba la incertidumbre del desempleo. Eran momentos de tensión. La empresa no tenía liquidez y sólo ofrecían a sus trabajadores cobrar las indemnizaciones en productos, una opción que a los hemanos mellizos les permitiría crear Codico. "La noche anterior al cierre de la empresa, soñé ese momento y vi las consecuencias positivas que tendría para nosotros "explica José Luis. Dos meses después a su salida de Holiday Magic Spain (era así como se registró en España la norteamericana Holiday Magic Inc), Julio y José Luis constituían la empresa Codico, s.a. Hoy 27 años después, siguen comercializando los productos con la misma marca, a los que obviamente, han añadido su propia línea cosmética, aunque no tienen relación con la empresa americana. Para cualquier información: http://www.holiday-magic.com  e-mail: info@holiday-magic.com  Teléfono: 915424940  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.226.32.195 (talk) 18:32, 2 March 2010 (UTC)