Talk:Landmark Worldwide

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Irrelevant image gallery[edit]

I have removed the image gallery, which had nothing whatsoever to do with the topic of this article. DaveApter (talk) 16:49, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, DaveApter. I add a topic of the description. Yours sincerely. --Thomas Ptarmigan (talk) 12:41, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
  • DaveApter, you might like to know that Thomas got blocked for running a bunch of socks. Drmies (talk) 20:22, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

POV Quotes[edit]

I noticed that some of the references in the "Landmark Forum" paragraphs have had quotes embedded in them that have a very negative POV. I will take a look at that over the next few weeks to see if it is accurate or if it needs to be tweaked. Any thoughts? Alex Jackl (talk) 15:55, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

In absence of any other commentary, removed the questionable quotes. Source material was fine but quotes were cherry picked. Alex Jackl (talk) 15:39, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
An IP Address came in and put the non-neutral content back in. I believe editors should not use either positive or negative quotes to support a non-neutral POV. I reverted it back. Happy to discuss on this page. Alex Jackl (talk) 15:44, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Odd quote?[edit]

I just noticed the insertion referring to 'Ponzi' that had been inserted into the article on December 17th. This strikes me as having been cherry-picked for its negative connotations, and is not representative of the general tone the Time article from which it was drawn, and reads rather oddly. DaveApter (talk) 17:39, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Pinging DaveApter:

1. I am the author of this change. Please ping me back in future, for a faster reply.

2. The article as before (and now, after your revert) strikes me as cherry-picking the sources for their positive connotations, and is thus not representative of the general tone the referenced articles. It also reads rather oddly, looking as a WP:POV and even WP:COI piece.

I am restoring this quote from the already existing source. Now, that I looked at other related RS-es, I will also add other facts quoted there, for balance.

-> Please continue to seek consensus (via WP:3O maybe?) and let us all strive for WP:NPOV. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zezen (talkcontribs)

It does seem that the TIME quote has been cherrypicked - it's literally the only negative sentence in the entire article. The other item added to the criticism section also seems dubious - it uses a qualified quote made in a tabloid newspaper from one scholar to supposedly summarize what the scientific consensus is (it again appears to be the most negative usable item in the entire article, an article which is a borderline reliable source. The sourcing criticizing Landmark's marketing seems solid, while the sourcing alleging harmful effects seems much less so. Nwlaw63 (talk) 18:49, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

@Zezen: We can certainly agree that it is desirable for the article to comply with WP:NPOV policies, but it does not seem to me that your edits achieve that. Is the comment you added from the Time article a fact or an opinion? Obviously the latter. The undue weight guideline states that it is ok to include 'facts about opinions' as long as they are notable opinions from established experts. Was the writer an expert in the field of personal development courses? Actually, the sentence isn't even a well-formed opinion, more a throwaway rhetorical flourish. What does it even mean to "have enough of a Ponzi taste..."? The term Ponzi scheme has a well-defined meaning, and there are no reliable sources anywhere suggesting that Landmark bears any resemblance to such operations. As for WP:3O, this is for resolving conflicts that have become deadlocked after exhausting discussion on the Talk page, and we seem to be a long way from that here. DaveApter (talk) 11:21, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

@DaveApter: Your arguments are sound. Let us then remove the Time quote altogether, leaving only the quoted opinions of experts. Please also do as you seem fit here to arrive at NPOV, as I will have little time to curate this and other articles in the weeks to come. Zezen (talk) 12:23, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Inappropriate negative POV edits[edit]

A new editor came in and made a whole series of negative POV edits on February 26, 2019. I reverted to the last stable version from three days ago. This article has achieved some degree of stability and agreement. Please discuss changes here if possible. Thank you very much! Alex Jackl (talk) 17:00, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Removed draft court motion[edit]

I removed a draft motion that was added. I removed it as per WP: Relevance. An actual court decision might be relevant but that certainly didn't seem to be. Happy to discuss if anyone thinks otherwise. Alex Jackl (talk) 15:41, 21 April 2019 (UTC)