Talk:Landmark Worldwide/Archive 18

Second third opinion
I've read through the arguments, and am only vaguely clear on what is going on, but as best as I can deduce, the following occurred: there was a study done in Israel in relation to a limited aspect of LE. The study had some "issues" in it's reputability because of the way it was conducted. In the ensuing discussions about the studies inclusion in the article, there was some incivility (from what I can tell on the part of most parties). I have not read the section, because I had trouble fishing it out of the history and it seems to have been removed. I am generally in favor of inclusion based solely on notability. The extent of that coverage, however, is based on credibility. For example, I believe that the theories that say the Apollo moon landings were a hoax are patently false. However, they are widely debated and believed (hence notable), and thus are included in the Moon landing article, though just barely. The theories represent probably less than 5% of the article. So, the application of this example here would be: (1) Is this study notable? Can one honestly say that the article is thorough without it? If it is not notable, ditch it. (2) If it is notable, how reputable is it? If it isn't reputable, it should be included anway, but it's lack of reputability mentioned in a proportionate, referenced, NPOV way. Honestly, I don't know the answer to either question, because the arguments have been so (understandably) esoteric—and at times contentious—that I still don't have answers. But I believe these guidelines are the bedrock of Wikipedia (in theory and practice) and really, if all parties are honest, the answer will become readily apparent. This might call for some humility and compromise, both of which can be icky to the ego, but we are all big enough boys and girls to be contributors to Wikipedia (in case there are some teens here) so we are all big enough to keep this issue in perspective.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 18:24, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

= Need an NPOV editor (if available) to assist with the reference section. If not we work together. =

Guys, it's pretty bad. Dunno when exactly it started looking like someone took a wrecking ball to it, but it needs to be fixed. I'm in the learning process. In the zeal to keep out my 3rd Op supported edits, things got screwed in the ref section. If we start ripping the page apart because things are messed up past cite 46, it's as bad as just blanking the page. Let's work together on this. No weasel edits with the refs. If a cite is noted (check the internal) but doesn't correspond at the bottom, then it's a cleaning up issue, not a section deletion. Anything that says "citation needed" is another animal entirely. Spacefarer, work with me on this. TrippleJ, thanks for pointing out what I need to fix before deleting. as well and I ask that you help me. Any of you guys know any neutral Admins that could watch the process. Cheers! Peace! Pax Arcane 18:46, 1 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Admins are not there to moderate content disputes. We have a dispute resolution process for that. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 06:01, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The article is semi-protected. You're an admin. What are you doing here, Jo? -- Pax Arcane  06:19, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
 * My username is Jossi, not "Jo". And I am here for the same reason you are here: editing Wikipedia. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:04, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep digging, Jo. -- Pax Arcane  17:03, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

= Removal of self-published material =

Please see WP:SELFPUB. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:19, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
 * ...so long as it is it is not unduly self-serving...-- Pax Arcane  02:30, 16 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Harry told that to time and LE uses THAT article to refer to their numbers, rather than an official statement. It's questionable. Are you saying that these numbers are not cited in the Landmark website? Many articles about companies include company's statements, and these are not necessarily self-serving. Why would these numbers be self-serving?  ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:32, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

The original article http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1101980316-138763,00.html reads Since 1991, approximately 300,000 mostly professional and well-educated seekers have taken the introductory Forum (an estimated 700,000 took Erhard-era seminars). so it seems that the text in that table (at least the first row) is verifiable. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:40, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
 * But that's the sticking point we got on. DaveApter and AlexJackl mentioned, either here or in other communication that a CPA was about to provide certification for the last cell. That hasn't happened. From my standpoint, a company would really publicise something like this, but other than statements by grads, there's been nothing, nada, nil. That's where my hesitation for inclusion comes from. The discussion started on providing verification and was quickly dropped, so I figured it'd be best not assume anything or rest on editor's own projections. I'd rather the facts and that seems reasonable, wouldn't you agree? Right now, all we have is an unverified statement made to TIME magazine some time ago. -- Pax Arcane  03:05, 16 December 2007 (UTC)


 * The statement is verifiable as per the source. If that figure is correct or incorrect, we do not know. If the figure was given to Time by Rosenberg, we do not know either. The only thing that is verifiable is that the figure was cited in that Time article, and that is exactly what we should be doing. Wikipedia is not investigative journalism. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:13, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

= Appropriate material =

The quote about the Harvard study is not relevant to anything about assisting at Landmark Education. There is no point and it seems a POV add-on. Alex Jackl (talk) 15:14, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The point is not even Harvard saw fit to use it in the classroom, hence the disclaimer on your corportate website. -- Pax Arcane  18:30, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Two issues: one, even if this is relevant and note-worthy it doesn't belong in the section on assisting. Two, unles syou have a document form Harvard University that details its stance on this study it is all hear-say and OR. Alex Jackl (talk) 04:22, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
 * It's noteworthy because LE has to have the Harvard disclaimer on on its website whenever it refers to this holier-than-thou, "case study," which is probably the lowest form of unscientific research. But it sells, you already know that, as you are an LE course designer. -- Pax Arcane  01:52, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

= Alex, I'm confused =

I thought you said LE was about to release a CPA verified statement confirming those numbers? What happened? Did grads re-taking the Forum for free to boost numbers not count? -- Pax Arcane  18:37, 16 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Not that I remember. I did think those numbers were available in some official context but I don't remember hearing - or saying - that a "CPA_verified statement" was pending.  I will check on it though.   Reviewers of the Landmark Forum are not counted in the standard enrollment statistics.   Any numbers would be only counting new graduates.  I will check though and see if there is something coming out... Alex Jackl (talk) 04:22, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Dude, you said in September that the CPA certified doc was forthcoming, you were actually beaming about it on the phone. -- Pax Arcane  01:53, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Since I don't remember saying that at all I find it difficult to believe I was beaming. However, I am still looking for official sources.Alex Jackl (talk) 03:06, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
 * What's the hold-up? I, as well as many other journalists have noted LE takes its time getting anything done. There's like a 6 month lag, horrible customer service. You ask for info and it's like the request falls on deaf ears. It's a corporation wanting global transformation by 2020? You'd never know it. I mean really, how frickin' long does it take to get a headcount? All LE does is count heads and money. That's the primary function of any of their paid positions. LOL... Count heads and money. Can it get at least that right? LOL. Is this a corporation or a yard-sale? -- Pax Arcane  04:05, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Why all this fire and smoke? You already have an headcout. What you want is a CPA-CERTIFIED THIRD PARTY source- that is what I am looking for.  Also, I don't do this for a livng... I have a real job and a fmaily so I iwll get to it when I can.  I am not an employee of Landamrk but know many.  I iwll se ehwat I can come up with.  Have patience - this issue is not going away! :-)  Happy New Year. Alex Jackl (talk) 05:28, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

= Harvard study =

I have multiple references to Harvard University asking LE to stop distributing this case study publicly as it was a case study designed for classroom use only and I've prepared to add 4 or 5 references behind the statement that keeps getting deleted if necessary. It was a classroom exercise ONLY, not an endorsement. It proved nothing. -- Pax Arcane  00:13, 24 December 2007 (UTC)


 * 'Case in Point,'The Boston Globe/April 2, 1999, 'A Harvard Forum For Self-Promotion?

Boston Globe/November 6, 1998 By Alex Beam, 'Pay Money, Be Happy', New York Magazine, just to name a few, in case the original source wasn't "reputable."


 * No one ever said it was an endorsement- at least I didn't . What made you think it was?   "It proved nothing"?   What do case studies "prove".  It was a case study.  You are adding a lot meaning around it.
 * Sign your comments. LE thought the study was REALLY important, I guess so much so that they continue to tout it on their website and in the info packets they send to journalists writing critical stories. Why it's even worth mention in the article at all is beyond me, but someone from your org apparently thinks it's important or it would have vanished a long time ago. I know LE really likes any connection it can make to the words "Harvard" and "University," but "science," hell no...lol. -- Pax Arcane  04:00, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Also- it has NO RELEVANCE to assisting. If you think the Harvard case study is important enough to be referenced as itself in the article lets talk about why you think it is that important. The commentary about the study is not about assisting. Let's discuss it here if you think we should have a section just on the case study. Alex Jackl (talk) 03:04, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree, i think it deserves a yank from the article. However, because LE insisted on going out of its way to justify its importance, oh well, it's stuck in there with the clause they had to sign with Harvard. I know that's a real b__ch for LE, but they insisted, and well, I acknowledge their insistence. For the record. In this article. Too bad LE can't get anything right the first time. Think you guys would have learned exponentially from the jump seeing as you had the failure of est, but if nothing changes, nothing changes, right?-- Pax Arcane  04:00, 24 December 2007 (UTC)


 * The link to NOW Magazine is a bad link http://www.nowtoronto.com/issues/19/34/News/feature.htm. And I agree that it is not relevant to the assisting program. Mvemkr (talk) 07:28, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Just chop of an "l" and you get a broken link! Try this: http://www.nowtoronto.com/issues/19/34/News/feature.html People keep truncating the .html ending to just '.htm' so they can claim it's a broken link. Noticed that A LOT here. I think LE's use of the study is relavent, but the case study or the section on the Assisting Program is completely worthless. -- Pax Arcane  14:29, 24 December 2007 (UTC)


 * People is YOU Pax. I just checked the edit trail- YOU added the link with no "l". See http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Landmark_Education&diff=179897861&oldid=179890668  Come on Pax- why are you on this crusade? Ohhh - it is a conspiracy by the evil cult to break links!  Give me a break.  I know you are smarter than this - I just don't know why you can't move on form this fixation.    As I have said before if YOU really think the Harvard study and Harvard's relationship to it is so important then make an argument for a section on it or a sentence somewhere in the article.  That section of the article is on Assisting at Landmark.  I mean, dude, the article is locked again.  It is difficult to take you seriously when you are on a rampage to prove your POV about Landmark Education.  Okay- flame off.  Let's try to reason this out instead of relying on "truthiness". :-)   Alex Jackl (talk) 05:24, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
 * People is YOU Pax. I just checked the edit trail- YOU added the link with no "l". See http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Landmark_Education&diff=179897861&oldid=179890668
 * I have to point out Alex, this is where you're ouright lying.
 * I looked at the edits and Jossi left out the "l" at the end when he re-wrote the section. It was there when I origially added it. You looked in the edits as far as it was self-serving to you, not "what was so." Honesty and integrity, Alex. -- Pax Arcane  18:23, 3 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Alex, please calm down. You may want to review a few courses and create a different way of being with me, something healthier than this...ballistic presence you're experiencing now. -- Pax Arcane  16:19, 29 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree with Alex Jackl that this reference is not relevant to the assisting program. I propose that a few sentences  under EVALUATIONS or SCIENTIFIC STUDIES be created that cites some of the findings in the Harvard University study and then place the note on the agreement at the end of those few lines.  (I fixed the NOW Magazine link BTW) Thoughts anyone? Mvemkr (talk) 13:22, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Mveker...it doesn't fit into either category (EVALUATIONS or SCIENTIFIC STUDIES). The only category it fits into at this point is "thing LE's legal team send out to anyone writing a story" and "thing they can't distribute publicly." The way it is in the article, is fine. I don't see what the problem is all of a sudden. I tacked on a true sentence and everyone freaks out, suddenly it's not noteworthy, etc. I don't follow. LE thinks this study is REALLY important. So it's included. -- Pax Arcane  16:14, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Pax Arcane The true sentence isn't the problem here, it is the placement of it in the ASSISTING PROGRAM section. I have read the Harvard University Case Study (although it has been a while), and it is relevant to the article not just because as you say "LE thinks this this study is REALLY important".  Perhaps we should create a secion after EVALUATIONS to say CASE STUDIES, but I think SCIENTIFIC STUDIES works. Mvemkr (talk) 18:34, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Then what were the variables studied and the hypothesis, including the alt hyp and null hyp if you think it belongs in the category "SCIENTIFIC STUDIES"? What field of science does it fall in? Absoultely none of the above. In fact, putting it in that category would be further LE propaganda (overstating the importance of a case study) by trying to legitimize it as "Scientific," when it is nothing of the sort. -- Pax Arcane  01:07, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

ADMIN REQUEST
editprotected I do request that the last sentence in the "Assisting" section of the article be removed on three grounds:

1. That sentence has nothing to do with Assisting at Landmark. At the very least it is in the wrong place. 2. It is Original Research - it is based on an editorial article by a journalist with an absolute negative POV on Landmark and with no references as to where he heard this information. Not what I would call a reliable source.

3. Even if Harvard asked Landmark to stop publishing one of their case studies for marketing purposes - that is hardly surprising given how allergic academic organizations are about their research being used for for-profit marketing. EVEN if it is true- so what? It is a published quote from the CEO of Landmark about the topic of that section: assisting.

In my mind these three grounds make this a black and white issue and I request that an admin remove the sentence: "According to an article that appeared in www.nowtoronto.com in April 2006, Harvard University had Landmark Education sign an agreement to stop the public distribution of this marketing case study of the Forum, carried out by two of Harvard's business-school professors.[37]" It is weasel-wording trying to push an anti-Landmark POV and is out of context in that part of the article.

I do apologize for any heat in my conversations about this - it is just exasperating to deal with what I perceive (my perception admittedly) blatant POV pandering. I have been trying to keep my head down and will not react anymore until some more people have had a chance to comment. Thanks for your help in this matter. Alex Jackl (talk) 05:24, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
 * You're being selective with the truth. Repeated from above.


 * 'Case in Point'

The Boston Globe/April 2, 1999, 'A Harvard Forum For Self-Promotion? Boston Globe/November 6, 1998 By Alex Beam, 'Pay Money, Be Happy', New York Magazine, just to name a few, in case the original source wasn't "reputable." I picked the source that originally had the _least_ amount of damning things to say about Landmark Education, but apparently my kindness was mistaken for stupidity. -- Pax Arcane  16:16, 29 December 2007 (UTC)


 * The protection was set to expire in a couple hours, so I will just unprotect the page. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 16:29, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

The sentence now has 5 sources. None of the 3 parts of your argument stand. -- Pax Arcane  20:44, 30 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Please re-read the arguments instead of just reflexively repeating yourself. I wasn't questioning whether Harvard asked Landmark to stop using one of their case studies.  My arguments point to the complete un-notewerthiness of it in that section of the Landmark article and, frankly, in any part. Alex Jackl (talk) 01:56, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Two people disagree with one line I added and referenced. Two people pro-Landmark as ref'd in previous cabals. I'd hardly consider that encyclopedic. My sentence adds insight on something LE finds notable, is sourced (FIVE, count 'em FIVE) when previously claimed to be unsourced. Will I see you at the LE 2020 meeting? -- Pax Arcane  02:38, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Harry Rosenberg made a comment about "assisting". Our article quotes his comment as recorded in the Wruck study from Harvard. Because of Wikipedia's policies on verifiablity we note the degree of (un)availability of the Harvard study at or near wherever we reference it: either in the article-space or in a footnote. Just one of the many problems of accessibility of material about Landmark Education. -- Pedant17 (talk) 08:43, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Why is this page so controversial?
I find the level of disagreement in the discussion on this page to be incongruent with the information contained in the article, which seems a bit dry. There are a few paragraphs which mention potential controversies, but there is no coherent narrative offering any explanations of why there is so much controversy. It seems very odd to me that a training program like the landmark forum would evoke such strong negative and positive reactions alike. I think this article will be incomplete unless such a narrative can be agreed upon and included in the article. Perhaps a good starting point would be to gather the material discussing controversy into a single section? Cazort (talk) 13:59, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
 * You'd have to ask why AlexJackl and company wanted Landmark Education's history of litigation to have a seperate wiki page and go from there. I agree with you, but the page is simple for a reason...Landmark participants heavily edit this page to exclude anything controversial they can't litigate out of existence. -- Pax Arcane  22:06, 11 January 2008 (UTC)


 * If it seems odd that an org offering training programs (such as Landmark Education) should generate so much controversy ... one might postulate that "Landmark Education" involves and implies something more than or different to "education". I agree that the article should face up to the fact that controversies exist. -- On the other hand, I do not think it a good idea to put up a single "controversies" section. Better to deal with the points at issue one by one as they arise in the various sections of the article. -- Pedant17 (talk) 07:15, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Whoops, there goes DaveApter again!
Wholesale PR edits without discusssion! Kudos! Does Spacefarer=AlexJackl=DaveApter=Jossi ? Discuss amongst yourselves! -- Pax Arcane  21:52, 21 January 2008 (UTC)


 * First of all the above is a violation of the civility and no personal attacks policies. Please leave it out.


 * For the record this is the thinking behind the edits I made:
 * Some observers question whether and to what degree Landmark Education courses benefit participants. Others criticize the use of volunteers by Landmark Education; others highlight the connections with other groups and with Werner Erhard
 * I removed this because it is simply unattributable opinionating: Which observers? What do they know about it? Do they have any expertise in the matter? The reference given does not substantiate this sentence. It's doubtful that this is justifiable anywhere in the article but in any event it certainly has no place in the intro which is supposed to summarise points developed at length in the article itself.


 * Wikipedia thrives by recording that some people hold certain opinions. The sentences in question backed up this attributable opinionating with the example of a referenced quotation. We leave the evaluation of the expertise of the commentators (in this case endorsed by a governmental agency) to the judgment of readers. -- Previous versions of the Landmark Education article have expanded on such opinions. If the article now no longer does so, we need to restore the deleted portions -- not complain about lack of substantiation. In the meantime, we can restore this text and its supporting footnote. -- Pedant17 (talk) 01:47, 28 January 2008 (UTC)


 * The coursework and pedagogy of WEA evolved from est/Erhard Seminars Training, founded by Werner Erhard in 1971.
 * I removed this simply because it's a repetition of a point that had already been made.


 * Repetition can highlight important points in context. But this sentence did not even constitute repetition: the corporate descent of Landmark Education (as discussed earlier in the article) does not necessarily equate to the origins of the coursework. Given some of the corporate obfuscation that exists on this point, the sentence should stand as a valid and independent contribution to the article. -- Pedant17 (talk) 01:47, 28 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Various sources indicated Harvard University had Landmark Education sign an agreement to stop the public distribution of this marketing case study of the Forum, carried out by two of Harvard's business-school professors.
 * I removed this primarily because (as already pointed out on this page and not repudiated) it has nothing whatever to do with the topic of the section "The Landmark Assisting Program". It's also a messy irrelevant addition to an over-long and meandering article. Who cares? What does this tell us? Harvard made a business study about LE which was substantially complimentary; LE (understandably)circulated it; Harvard asked them to desist on the grounds that it was created as a real-world example for use in coursework rather than a public endorsement; LE then complied with the request. What does all that contribute to an encyclopedia article?


 * As I wrote in this very Talk-page on 2008-01-01: 'Harry Rosenberg made a comment about "assisting". Our article quotes his comment as recorded in the Wruck study from Harvard. Because of Wikipedia's policies on verifiablity we note the degree of (un)availability of the Harvard study at or near wherever we reference it: either in the article-space or in a footnote. Just one of the many problems of accessibility of material about Landmark Education. -- Pedant17 (talk) 08:43, 1 January 2008 (UTC).' -- The connection with the topic of the section lies in the fact that we have used the case-study as part of the supporting apparatus for Rosenberg's comments on assisting. -- If the highlighting of Landmark Education's marketing infelicities seems "messy" and "irrelevant", allow me to suggest a separate subtopic or a separate article on Marketing Landmark Education. That would strengthen the article and/or provide a stable point of reference for the Wruck and Eastley study. -- Discussion of the Wruck/Eastley study adds facts to the encyclopedia. And the other fact -- that at least 5 references exist in relation to this episode -- strongly suggests that the matter has generated wider interest than a routine amicable agreement over the use of semi-academic material for commercial use. -- Pedant17 (talk) 01:47, 28 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm tempted to revert the edits, but I don't want to get into an edit war. Anybody got any comments? DaveApter (talk) 14:35, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * DaveApter I do think that you have some good points here. In particular I agree with you about the opening paragraph and unattributable opinionating. While it it gets at something noteworthy, I don't think it should be in the opening paragraph. There are other things to say but I won't at this time.Triplejumper (talk) 20:54, 22 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Of course you agree, TJ. You voted most of the stuff out, or edited it out along with Dave in MedCab or elsewhere. Dave, as far as civility goes, you throw that out the door when you mass-PR edit without discussing anything. You both do it, repeatedly. Your version of a discussion is getting together your LE cronies and all agreeing. There would be some stuff under controversy but you guys already got it moved to separate pages, and knowing you can't link to them in Wiki is how you all play the game. The stuff is attributable, but you edit it out. You think I was born yesterday? Show me where these controversies have not existed outside of LE, LLC and we'll see about editing them out. Use of volunteers? You guys got that moved to an LE legal section. There were labor violations in France and Texas, all documented. Association with Werner? LE has gone from distancing him to embracing him, and Erhard was controversial period. Success of LE? Nothing that anyone can measure scientifically, and nothing LE will let be measured due to disclosures signed when one does courses. Shall I continue? LE sues YouTube and loses to Havard Law and the EFF in an eeriely similar way Scientology tried to silence criticism. LE sues someone for infringing a NON-LE copyright violation. I can go on further.


 * Unattributed opinionating: bad -- reporting attributed opinionating: good. -- Back in March 2004 User:Eladm wrote : 'The first change is to move most of the second paragraph to the section about Criticism about Landmark. Not deleting anything. The current structure includes the negative remarks as part of the definition of Landmark. I think the correct place is in "Criticism about Landmark". Indeed it even starts with the words: "Some former participants and outside critics..."' -- But that suggestion got squashed: "First change: nope. That's the intro, which synopsises the article, and it's an important thing about Landmark." (see Talk:Landmark Education/Archive 1). What has changed? -- Nothing. The existence of criticism/doubts/negativity in relation to Landmark Education remains an important, highlightable fact, worthy of our opening paragraph. -- Pedant17 (talk)


 * The Havard case study was a case study that LE even has a disclaimer on their website. If you know what a case study is, you probably wouldn't reference it for anything. BUT...LE thought the case study was monumental, so much that they ordered thousands of copies after it was done to imply an endorsement by Harvard (until they were forced to sign an agreement). We can go on for days or you can accept the paragraphs where they are and consider it a fair assessment. Do you really want this to go back to MedCab? I can source the HELL out of all my statements, the ones LE hasn't gotten taken down or have shut down from websites (they have, btw). -- Pax Arcane  22:50, 22 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Would you please confine yourself to a sober discussion of improvements to the article and refrain from abusing this page to attack other editors and have a general rant. None of the above engages at all with the points I made above in justifying the edits, viz:
 * 1 The first item is simply opinionating, not fact; furthermore the cited reference (whihc is just a statement of someone else's opinion anyway) doesn't justify the remarks.


 * The first item (the acknowledgement that lots of criticism has addresses lots of features of Landmark Education) records the existence of an opinion. The footnote provides a referenced and quoted "for example" from an official government publication. It establishes the link with "Werner Erhard" and demonstrates the importance of making (and hiding) that link. If you want more specific references, ask for them or supply them rather than deleting the valid along with the merely temporarily inadequate. -- Pedant17 (talk) 01:47, 28 January 2008 (UTC)


 * 2 The second point is a repetition - isn't saying it once enough?


 * The discussion of the origins of the the coursework does not constitute a repetition. -- Even if it did, we can (briefly) repetitively cater for readers who skip to different sections of our article uising the miracles of hypertext. -- Pedant17 (talk) 01:47, 28 January 2008 (UTC)


 * 3 The stuff about the Harvard study has nothing to do with the topic of the paragraph. Even in a context where it was relevant, it seems a marginal and obscure point (and not one that is particularly damaging for LE) - I can't understand why you are so attached to it.


 * The discussion of the availability of the Wruck and Eastley case-study explains why the diligent researcher may encounter difficulty in verifying Rosenberg's quoted statement. Without that explanatory openness, someone might even try to delete the whole shebang on the basis that the source had gone out of print or had disappeared from the public domain! -- Pedant17 (talk) 01:47, 28 January 2008 (UTC)


 * If you are so keen to re-instate these, will you please answer these points first. Thanks. DaveApter (talk) 18:36, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I have to consult my sources and citations. Let's give this a week or more if need be and if I can't cite sources (as I may be off), we can discuss the points further. I have multiple sources on the first item. "Some" doesn't mean all, and even if it's a minority, I stand for inclusion. The second item have a previously stated and sourced relvancy, if I'm not mistaken. The Havard case study really has to have that statement to balance it. Readers probably don't know what a case study is or the importance of it. The first and second parts are likely going to stay as I can source the seperate Landmark and Werner Erhard pages' citations. It adds history, LE finds it relavent, to the uninformed reader, it adds background. To you and I, no, it's stuff we already know, to newcomers it's the stuf they don't know they don't know...which is why I tend to be an inclusionist on Wiki. But if you and your LE compatriots understand the last sentence, you may have to just grin and bear it. There's always stuff we don't know we don't know, right? Why keep the stuff we know away from people? ;) -- Pax Arcane  18:58, 23 January 2008 (UTC)