Template talk:LandmarkForum
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Created the template
- Created the template: Template:LandmarkForum. Smee 21:18, 28 January 2007 (UTC).
[edit] Contesting this Template as POV
This template pushes a particular POV and is being discussed at the Landmark Education Talk site. Alex Jackl 22:12, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
- Please discuss your opinions here instead of there. Smee 22:13, 28 January 2007 (UTC).
- I have voluntarily modified the template with some of your ideas... Smee 22:13, 28 January 2007 (UTC).
- Understood. However the name itself needs to change. The Landmark Education page is not about some string in a series of cmpany name chanegs done for some person. Werner Erhardt and Associates left with Werner Ehrardt. I have never met the man! Landamrk Education is about a company that is 15 or so years old and it inherited the assets and many of the personnel of another company. Many of those personnel then left when it became clear this was not WEA, part II. This is not about the Landmark Forum. It is about Landmark Education. So therefore the title "Current Company" is one big POV. I don't mind working on this with you Smee and coming to some agreement but we can't start with this "Landmark Forum / "Forum" thing and the "Current OCmpany" is a POV magnet. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by AJackl (talk • contribs) 22:27, 28 January 2007 (UTC).
- No, it is most certainly not POV. It is POV to focus on one company, when there is a history of :::profitable enterprises over the past 35 years. That should be the scope. And just because you have not "met the man" does not mean that it is impossible that he is "pulling the strings" - as it was put in a magazine article... Smee 22:30, 28 January 2007 (UTC).
- I have voluntarily removed "current" from "Current Company", as per your idea above. Smee 22:36, 28 January 2007 (UTC).
-
-
- The "article" you mention is I believe the Plysaski(sic) article - in which a disgruntled electrical engineer with no position or history of knowing anything about the actual structure of the company and citing no references said he thought "Werner Erhardt was still pulling the strings" That is exactly the kind of gossip and unsourced speculation that many of the citations littering these articles are made of. That is a great real-life example of the Bush-replaced-by-android kind of citation that is skewing so many of these articles. There is NO evidence (that I have seen) except conspiracy theorists opinions and gossip that even vaguely point to Werner Erhardt having more than a mild consultancy role AT BEST. I speak about this certainly as someone who has experience with this organization - for better or for worse.
-
-
-
- I do appreciate some of the changes you made but the fundamental idea is flawed- the template becomes instead of a neutral guide for reader's that Jossi suggested a POV roadmap pushing a particular world view. That is a problem. I think we should not put the template up until we either:
- (1) Reach consensus ourselves
- (2) Pull in mediation to reach consensus
- (3) Pull out all the stops and get some arbitration pulled in.
- Let's resolve it ourselves first!Alex Jackl 22:53, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
-
One suggestions: remove the "Topics" section, that is better suited for the "See also" section in specific articles. As for the media section, I can see that it is a contentious issue. I am sure you can find some common ground about what to include and what not to include in that section, if at all. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:59, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
- I will implement this suggestion above from Jossi and remove the "Topics" section. Smee 00:40, 29 January 2007 (UTC).
