Jump to content

Talk:Landmark Worldwide/Archive 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7→Archive 10


Please start new discussion topics at the bottom of the talk page per Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. Thanks!

Previous discussions have been archived:


Landmark Education vs Landmark Forum

I noticed that when you search on Landmark Forum you get directed to Landmark Education. Should they be two seperate articals. eg Some reports speak directly about the Landmark Forum and not Landmark Education or thier other courses; Do we know if all Landmark's courses are LGAT specific, etc. Also as the Forum appears to have changed over time it would give some room to talk about that (eg 4day to 3day)

How do we tidy up the reference section

I'v noticed in my reading of the references in this document that the same reference materials are reference time and time again. I believe we could cut the reference section in half if we used the same number to reference the same artical.

  • eg The est of Friends, Metroactive Features, July 15, 1998 issue of Metro, Metro Publishing Inc. is refered to 4 times.

Anyone know how to do that? Mark1800 08:07, 8 October 2006 (UTC)


Director listing

Why do you want all this redundant information in the article? We already have a listing of all the directors in the box above and to the right. You bring up the examples of Google and GE, the latter, by market cap, frequently being the most valuable company on the planet; even those articles don't list all the previous directors or all the VP's. If you go to the Google page, you will see a list of 25 VP-level people, and yet you insist on duplicating this information for LE. Why?

RE Directors

  1. Why are we using references that are 4 - 6 years old. Some of these guys might have died in that time... We should be using the listing from the current company filing as required by US Law. I'm sure these guys will be a Delaware listed company. Everybody who is anybody is listed there. If they are not, then my opinion of them will go down. LOL (Delaware good for doing all the things that they seem to be accussed of, tax reduction, hiding stuff, etc) Delaware companies must present some info and that includes a list of current directors (in fact I think all states must report that as part of the minimum reporting info).
  2. Why are we listing former Directors. If we are going to do that then in just the few documents I've read so far we are missing about 6 people. sigh. It's seems silly to do so. The info box will soon need it's own page...
  • Mark1800 04:38, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Minutes of Boards meetings seem to be a very accurate source for members of the Board of Directors. However, once we get a proper cited source that is more current, that would be acceptable.
    • Not all former Directors have been listed, however, as David Ure is both a former Director and a current Landmark Forum Leader, it stands to reason that he plays a key role in the organization's strategic decision making methodologies. Yours, Smeelgova 04:45, 12 October 2006 (UTC).
  • Actually it does not. Normally if you become a Director, you stay there for as long as possible. Directors, normally only become former directors if they make a big mistake, or for personal reasons. In both cases, they usually are minoritised and held as no longer having inflence. I can think of no examples in Business were a former director has been seen as a playing key role in the organization's strategic decision making methodologies. Even, for example, Bill Gates is seen as having less and less power as he withdraws from the company.

Intro & religious implications

I think the article is a lot better than it has been. However, I thought it still had problems, particularly in the opening paragraphs; much of it was just awkwardly constructed. I've removed the reference to what Landmark's general consul said about the Time Magazine article for three reasons: first, it's not introductory material; second, it didn't link to the actual article; and third, it was rather dubious. Although the Time Magazine article doesn't mention the word cult, it does quote someone who states that the Forum turned her husband into a "robot"--hardly any better. Instead, I've included the actual reference to the Time Magazine article (was it really missing before!?). Also, the opening implied that Landmark has won all its defamation suits, which isn't true. I think the opening is more balanced now, and I think it actually reads like an introduction. Recently, it has contained both pro- and anti-Landmark statements which are much too specific to be in the introduction.

I've also modified the "Religious implications" section, as it was pointed out quite some time ago that volleys of links to the Landmark website are undesirable. I've replaced this with a link to the Landmark page on clergy's views.

Perhaps the most contentious change I made is from "many clergy" to "some clergy", and changed the wording from "have found no conflict with their faith" to "have made statements that they find no conflict". Speculating on the mental state of clergy is, I believe, more perilous than saying something about what they have actually done; while it is probably true that "many" clergy have found no conflict, I think the term "some" better reflects the number who have made statements on the matter.

The first half of this section desparately needs references with actual links, rather than suggestions to where one might go. As it currently stands, with the only linked references stating that it is a non-issue, it is hardly worthy of a section. Ckerr 12:35, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I've reinstated the changes to the "Religious Implications" section, as User:Sm1969 seems to have reverted them without discussing this on the talk page. The changes to the intro are fine. But please, Sm1969, if you are going to do a simple revert, it's probably best to discuss it here before making the changes. Also, perhaps you missed it, but this topic came up before, and the majority view was that there is no point having seven links that point straight to the Landmark website. The link I provided contains links to five of the seven articles, and includes one other (Rev. Shearer) that is omitted in the current article. This is sufficient. Ckerr 08:56, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
I agree, we should avoid having way too many links that forward to Landmark's corporate website, or if they do, this should be mentioned. Yours, Smeelgova 09:04, 23 October 2006 (UTC).
I'm not sure what the issue is with the links to LE's web site. Can we include statements of the clergy? Some of them hold very high positions, such as Father Banaga, President of Adamson University, with over 20,000 students in Manila? By the way, the "religious implications" always comes up under the context of the "cult" allegation and is part of LE's refutation to the "cult allegation" (aside from the legal tests). Sm1969 03:39, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
The article as it stands now is fine, I think. There's no problem including statements by the clergy; the problem is including things directly from the Landmark website, as regardless of who they quote, it's still a single source. If they are quoting notable people making notable statements, then these should be possible to find in other sources, as you have for Basil Pennington. Ckerr 09:31, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Regarding your edit stating that ilovepossibility.info is created by Landmark Forum graduates: this is true, but I think it's unnecessary. The paragraph starts off by saying "Many clergy have attended the forum...", so it's implicit that they're forum graduates. Also, the way you've stated it has the effect of reducing some of the site's credibility. This might not unjustified, but I wouldn't be surprised if other users like Mark1800 and Sm1969 took issue with this. Personally, I would be happy with your comment about ilovepossibility.info to either stay or go. Ckerr 14:55, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
Well, you make some valid points. Hopefully editors of opposing POV will come here first and share their reasoning with us and enlighten us, before making changes with no discussion. Yours, Smeelgova 19:48, 23 October 2006 (UTC).
Here is a statement from The Tablet, A Weekly Catholic Magazine: [1] which states:

Several Catholic priests and religious sisters have endorsed Landmark. The Trappist monk Basil Pennington has praised the Forum for bringing about a "full human enlivenment" which make people "more lively" in the practice of whatever faith they have.

You can also get this at the web site of the Tablet, but it requires free registration there. Sm1969 03:44, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Reference at The Tablet (requires free registration) Sm1969 03:48, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Summary of course content

The article as it currently stands does not explain the content of Landmark's courses. Readers who have not actually participated in Landmark need at least a paragraph attempting to summarize what it is that they are teaching that has been so controversial. DaveApter requested this back in August, and I'm reiterating it now because I agree and I'm archiving that comment. The proportion of information about the company itself vs. the controversies surrounding it has gotten a bit better, but the article is still over optimal length due to excessively wordy controversy and lawsuit info, so I will see what I can do about that. -- Beland 15:00, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Here is a reference from the "Journal of Contemporary Philosophy" on Landmark Education, entitled "The Promise of Philosophy and the Landmark Forum" (authored by professors and a Landmark Forum leader) The Promise of Philosophy and The Landmark Forum:

We describe a contemporary experience of Socratic philosophy in-the-making provided by an employee-owned, private educational organization, Landmark Educational Corporation. Its introductory program, called The Landmark Forum, brings philosophy practically into a person’s life.3 It is a three and one-half day course in which trained leaders, in the Socratic tradition, challenge conventional thinking, discursively examine the nature of human nature, and facilitate participants' explorations of their lives. The method, format and style are Socratic (it is good theatre), but the discourse itself reflects a systematic and accessible integration of Eastern and Western philosophies. Our thesis is that the Landmark Forum constitutes a return to the original roots of philosophy, to the examined life, to philosophy in action as Socrates envisioned. Participants in this inquiry examine the human condition in a way that leads them to self- knowledge, to new levels of responsibility, and to reformed and revitalized commitments. In drawing attention to the Landmark Forum one of our purposes is to invite a discussion of its value for higher education. Would it be beneficial if college curricula included more courses like the Landmark Forum?

Sm1969 05:12, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Thank you for providing that most interesting blockquote. It would be extremely intriguing to think of what would happen if Landmark Education attempted to introduce its coursework into College Systems. Smeelgova 04:33, 24 October 2006 (UTC).

Abstract Sm1969 05:00, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Here is a blockquote from the Abstract, hosted at the European Governance institute and at Stanford Law School:

Philosophy promises more than contents of thought. It can cultivate openness to continuously arising new contents of thought. Unconsciously identifying with the contents of thought displaces this openness; the remedy for such unnoticed closed mindedness is self-knowledge. In the Socratic tradition the Landmark Forum - a forty-hour course sponsored by the employee owned Landmark Educational Corporation - provides a model of philosophy as the practical art of uncovering and expanding self-knowledge and thereby generating unforeseen ways of being in everyday life.

Sm1969 05:08, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

  • On the other hand, I don't see how this can be a very objective piece, when one of the principal authors is CEO of the Business Development subsidiary, and also Vice-President of Research, Development and Design of Landmark Education, Steven Zaffron. Smeelgova 05:16, 24 October 2006 (UTC).
    • It's fine to attribute it, but also note the two professors on the article. Professor Steve McCarl even has Landmark Education right on his web page. Sm1969 05:25, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Status in Sweden

I removed the following text:

According to the United States Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor's International Religious Freedom Report 2006, Sweden has labeled Landmark Education as an "active religious group".

A significant number of smaller, internationally active religious groups have also been established in the country. Such groups included the Church of Scientology (approximately 3,000 members), Landmark-Forum, Hare Krishna, Word of Faith, and the Unification Church.[1]

This quote is misleading and the introduction is factually incorrect, by my reading of the referenced source. The State Department was listing active religious groups in the country, and included those in the above list along with Christians and Muslims. The label is apparently assigned by the State Department, not the government of Sweden. -- Beland 15:40, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Status in Germany

As far as I can tell, the 2006 State Department report on religious freedom in Germany [2] does not substantiate any of the claims the article makes about the status there, so I am removing it as a reference and requesting a corrected citation. -- Beland 16:34, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Opening Paragraph: Cult Allegation

This has several problems. In the United States, as I have cited repeatedly, the term "cult" is a triable question of fact, capable of being proven true or false. The way this paragraph comes across it is borderline libelous. This is also seriously overweighting a minority position. Rick Ross says it is not a cult. Margaret Singer says it is not a cult. Every written article that has made that assertion in the US has retracted. The Netherlands have retracted. In fact, the only entity that makes that allegation is the Austrian government, and there it is by translation, and unclear what in the Austrian government actually said that. Landmark Education never had operations in Austria.

I can see that you will keep heading for trouble Smeelgova until we eventually have an arbitration on this. Sm1969 03:53, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually no, I will not keep heading for trouble. I actually was NOT the one who put the cult allegation into the intro paragraph in the first place, or if I was, User:Jossi has removed that part of the intro, to make it more succinct, and I agree with him on this particular edit. Detailed info on that sort of stuff is better in the body of the article. Please, if you have further issues that you feel you wish to take to some sort of arbitration, please, bring them up here on the talk page, and I will strive to be reasonable and listen to your arguments and read through your sources/citations. The article is actually looking a lot better, and several other editors have remarked the same. Yours, Smeelgova 04:19, 23 October 2006 (UTC).
As I wrote above--which I'm not sure if you've seen--Art Schreiber's intrepretation of a piece of journalism is not exactly an unbiased source. However, the way it's currently presented in the article is as if it's an unassailable fact. If Time Magazine conducted a thorough investigation into whether or not Landmark was a cult and found it wasn't, then why didn't they say so? To be pedantic, nowhere in the article do they say it's not a cult. Instead, they quote Liz Sumerlin, who claims it turned her fiance into "a robot". So rather than quoting Landmark's view on articles about itself, or some other equally questionable source, why not just cite the article under "External Links" (as was already done) and let readers decide for themselves how to interpret it? Ckerr 09:27, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
Of course, Art Schreiber's interpretation is biased, but that's is LE's POV (one expression) regarding the cult allegation. The best expression of LE's POV is in the court documents, where the term "cult" is defined, and with which LE established that being called a "cult" is, in the United States, not constitutionally protected free speech, but rather an assertion of fact. The court documents then go on to give the general consensus of the tests that you can apply to determine whether a group IS or IS NOT a cult. I think these tests should make it into Wikipedia, so that the reader does not come away with an interpretation that is libellous and because the tests are educational; yet, you have to reflect the history of the discourse in the US. Alas, none of this should be in the opening paragraph. I only put this there because I was tired of how the opening had been hijacked by a minority view. The purpose of the encyclopedia, my understanding, is to describe the points of view and how those holding a given point of view (their evidence) and to weight the degree of description by relative percentages of what fraction hold that particular point of view: 1) majority view, 2) minority view, 3) insignificant minority view (excluded from the encyclopedia). My understanding of NPOV is not that you have people supporting their POV with evidence, but in the weighting of the points of view. What's missing from the opening paragraph are factual data regarding the size and scope of the operation, for example. Sm1969 03:34, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Here are the court opinions regarding "cult": [3] which states on page 6 (Defendants Statements are Misstatements of Fact, Not Opinion):

Landmark believes, and [court] decisions have held, that an allegation that an organization is "cult" or "brainwashes" people or exerts "mind control" over participants is a statement capable of being proven true or false."

Subsequent pages then go on to describe the legal tests. I believe Wikipedia operates off of US law, and I also believe that Wikipedia has a policy regarding libel. That said, the "cult" allegation is definitely a matter of historical discourse in the US and abroad. In Germany, for example, the "brainwashing" assertion was held not to be a question of fact, but an opinion and protected as free speech, so the laws differ. Landmark has obtained retractions regarding "cult" in the Netherlands, Germany and Switzerland. Sm1969

Similar yet closer to NPOV

I was surfing and came across this [[4]]. It's interesting. It looks like a copy from this page and yet it seems close to NPOV. Any thoughts, people? Mark1800 04:27, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

More here [[5]] Mark1800 04:28, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
These simply appear to be copy-cat Wikipedia sites from older versions of this article. You could do exactly the same thing by browsing the article's history on Wikipedia itself. In fact, it is often most enlightening to do this, and go back to the "earliest" page creation, and then step forward to see how the article evolved, and if there is useful information from the past that was cut out, that could go back in at a later point. Yours, Smeelgova 04:40, 23 October 2006 (UTC).

Cult allegations

I still find the passage on Art Schreiber and Time very problematic. You can't "note" something unless it's indisputably true, but this is not at all what he's doing--he's offering his opinion. Nor is it made clear that he is speaking on behalf of Landmark (chairman of what board?). Furthermore, none of this, in my opinion, belongs at all in the "Cult allegations" section--as if Landmark is not going to strenuously deny that they are a cult! Finally, it makes no sense to dismiss the cult allegation before said allegation is even made.

In my opinion, this section has been butchered by well-meaning editors who have made edits that are intrinsically justifiable, but who haven't properly taken into account the overall effect on the article. Of the nine paragraphs in this section, none say anything about "cult allegations"! There are are four paragraphs that explicitly deny Landmark is a cult, one that denies general wrongdoing on Landmark's part, two which do not make any claims either way, and two which claim general wrongdoing on Landmark's part. None mention what the cult allegations are.

I don't think this article should return to the treatise on cults it once was, but nor can this article be honestly called NPOV. There was a lot of referenced material in the cult section which has been removed. The article was never calling Landmark a cult--it was reporting that people had called Landmark a cult. It also reported that Landmark sued people for calling it a cult. This was fair, and this was good reporting. The article is currently neither. Ckerr 15:03, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

If no one responds to these arguments within a day or two, I will restore the referenced content of the "Cult allegations" section that has been removed, as well as remove Art Schreiber's quote, as the article currently makes no mention of what the "Cult allegations" are. Ckerr 03:02, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
Ok, there are several things I can add to it.

1) In the United States, the term "cult" has been found to be a triable question of fact that can be proven true or false, not a statement of opinion. The term is inarguably derogatory. Thus, you have the basis of a defamation lawsuit, as shown in some of the libel cases Landmark Education brought against "Self Magazine" and Margaret Singer, both of whom retracted. The section on "cult allegations" might be entitled "cult allegations retracted" or "cult and the tort of defamation". You also have Wikipedia policy regarding libel/defamation.

2) Beyond that, you might include the legal tests for being a "cult" (proven true or false), such as the strict authoritarian leader. These are listed in the court cases.

3) Landmark Education's reponse to this is in numerous places: A) the Art Schreiber quote re "Time Magazine" that is there now, B) the court cases, C) the expert testimony of i) clergy, ii) psychologists and iii) psychiatrists.

4) Most of what was there previously was overweighting a minority opinion (undue weight) in my opinion.

How can we work this out? Sm1969 03:51, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not saying we should say Landmark is a cult (which would be, of course, libelous) or isn't a cult. It's not libelous to say that allegations have been made that Landmark is a cult; it's a statement of fact. Whether Landmark is or isn't a cult, and what "cult" actually means, is irrelevant to the article. All I suggest is reporting history and reporting what people have said; that's not libelous.
I've decided to be bold and make the changes I think the article needs. They were, among others:
  • Fleshed out "Legal Disputes" a bit and moved it to right before "Criticisms". It is possibly a touch anti-Landmark POV. Incidentally, I also edited that article, as discussed on its talk page.
  • I removed sentence about France's treatment of minority religions. It's irrelevant, unless Landmark is a religion, which was the implication of the sentence.
  • I removed "and the tort of defamation" for reasons given above.
  • I removed Art Schreiber's quote for the reasons given elsewhere. I also removed Raymond Fowler's quote, since the exact same quote is given in the following section (Brainwashing).
  • I placed Louise Samway's quote first, to give some idea of what the allegations are.
  • I quoted what Amelia Hill actually says about the cult allegations (the quoted paragraph was strangely mum on the matter).
  • I took out the definition of brainwashing. It doesn't matter for our purposes whether or not Landmark is brainwashing people. What matters is who says they are and who says they aren't.
  • I added a quote from Time Magazine which mentions the brainwashing allegations.
  • I took out some material about Dr Fowler's letter. What Landmark does with the letter is irrelevant to this section.
  • I am very tempted to take out Raymond Fowler's last quote, simply because he's already been quoted twice before and thus isn't a very independent source, but I'll leave it in because I'm sure others will disagree with me on this point.
I think there are still some issues with the article; notably, it doesn't flow that well. (It's a long way from Featured Article status.) But I think it covers the ground, and hopefully the pro- and anti-Landmark camps will be equally displeased with it. Ckerr 09:46, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
I don't even see that the Samways quote from a book long since out of print even supports the allegation of LE being a cult. Furthermore, I think the retractions should be mentioned by name: Margaret Singer, Cynthia Kisser, FACTS Magazaine, Self Magazine. It is, in my mind, not sufficient to defer this to the legal section elsewhere. Sm1969 15:26, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
I agree that Samways' quote hardly touches on "cult allegations"; perhaps it belongs in the "Brainwashing" section, or perhaps the section headings need to be reworked. With regard to the "retractions", I urge you to consider if perhaps you are advocating a point of view here. I'm curious to know why you say that it's not "sufficient" to discuss the cases on a separate page. Also, why didn't you mention Elle Magazine or the Rick Ross Institute, both of whom seem to have "defamed" Landmark and gotten away with it? I'm not opposed to a brief overview of the legal cases involving Landmark in the main article, as it might give a better idea of what the cult allegations are, but I am concerned that such an overview would be difficult to write objectively. I really think it's better just to point readers to the full source. Ckerr 03:57, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
The cases should be discussed within the context of the "cult" and "brainwashing" and "mind control" allegations for several reasons. 1) They represent both sides of the issue (LE's and those that are using the specific language), 2) there is also the courts opinion and the settlements, which are independently verifiable. "Elle" magazine should be mentioned, but the court dismissed the Elle case because it was an expression of opinion, not words that were subject to concrete meaning, capable of being proven true or false (which is necessary for a libel/defamation claim). We should mention the Rick Ross institute as it shows several things, not the least of which is that on-line defamation law is different. He can hide behind the anonymity under the Communications Decency Act section 230 and could not say, himself, many of the things people are anonymously allowed to say on his web site. For example, Rick Ross himself says that LE is *NOT* a cult, but from all the posts there (anonymous) you would be lead to believe that it is. Alas, an encyclopedia is an attempt to summarize the significant points of view and to represent them in proportion to the number of those who hold those points of view, so simply pointing the reader to the cases is not sufficient. The fact that so many publishers have issued retractions is notable. Sm1969 05:15, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
As you've probably noticed by now, I took your advice and added the summaries of the court cases. I still think we must be extremely careful to avoid being POV and/or getting bogged down in detail, but I think in principle it works to include the information. Ckerr 14:47, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Cult Allegations and Retractions

I changed what you (CKerr) wrote again, a little bit. Very few entities have actually called LE a cult. Those that did are: 1) Margaret Singer, 2) Cynthia Kisser/Cult Awareness Network, 3) Self Magazine, 4) Panorama Magazine. All of those have retracted and their retractions are published or referenced in court documents. Elle Magazine and Rick Ross did not call LE a cult. Rick Ross says, specifically, that LE is not a cult. It is accurate to say that any entity that has said outright that LE is a cult has retracted. The French government report has also been repudiated by the French Prime Minister who noted that the list of sects could no longer be relied upon.

Sm1969 20:09, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, unfortunately I don't agree with the changes you've made. I wasn't too fond of the title before and I'm still not too fond of it. I changed it so no title is needed, since "Cult allegations" is perhaps too suggestive, and "Cult allegations and retractions" is misleading, since only three of the seven cases have resulted in retractions (not sure why you didn't mention FACTS Magazine).
With regard to the sentence you added, my understanding of the cases is that neither Cynthia Kisser nor Margaret Singer explicitly stated that Landmark was a cult; when Landmark sued them, they claimed that they never thought or said it was a cult (reference here). (So, technically, they should not even be in the section on "Cult allegations", which is why I changed the title.) The sentence had been making a very big claim--notably, that every person who has ever called Landmark a cult has (1) been noticed by Landmark, (2) been sued by Landmark, and (3) lost. Anyway, the only thing that I feel disempowers this section of the article is the repetition of information between the paragraph of "Legal disputes" and the first paragraph of "Criticisms and Controversies". Ckerr 11:58, 31 October 2006 (UTC)


Problematic

I agree that some discussion of whther LE is a "Cult" is appropriate, given that the accusation is sometimes levelled.

Clearly it's in the realm of Opinion rather than fact. The challenge lies in identifying who says it is (and what they mean by that), and who says it isn't (and why). The trouble is that there seems to be almost nobody notable who has unambiguously said that it is. I have tried to get a sensible debate going on these issues in previous archived sections of this page but without much success.


I would love to see the issue addressed sensibly within the WP:NPOV policy.

I strongly disagree with CKerr's suggestion as the previous version was strongly pushing a particular POV. DaveApter 10:31, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually I don't think you do disagree with me. I completely agree that the previous version was strongly POV too. That said, I think it did have some reasonable referenced sources, and if the material were presented in the manner of "X says Landmark is a cult" rather than "Landmark is a cult, as stated by X" then it would be acceptable. The previous version of the page went too far, I thought, but at least it explained what the allegations were--here, the reader is left in the dark. Ckerr 07:57, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Landmark Education / Sweden

I don't see anything specific about Landmark Education in the references you gave, nor can I even see the site. I speak some Swedish and it came back with "page not found" for the www.regeringen.se reference.

Introduction

I decided to revert DaveApter's change to the final paragraph of the introductory section, because I felt it wasn't quite NPOV, and since the previous version seemed to have implicit support, by virtue of its lasting so long. I'd be happy to change it, but I think we should discuss it here first.

DaveApter's change was this:

Landmark Education and its methods evoke controversy. Supporters and detractors hold strong opinions and express their views passionately. Surveys indicate that over 94% of customers report that The Landmark Forum made a profound and lasting difference in their lives; whereas detractors claim that the courses do not really work, or that they may have adverse consequences, or that the company exploits its customers.

The main problems I have with it are:

  • The 94% figure is from Landmark itself, as far as I know. This is not a valid source, especially not as an unreferenced statement of fact in the introduction. (Besides, many of Landmark's critics are not people who have done the course themselves--because, the critics would say, they've been brainwashed--but rather graduates' family and friends, for what they perceive as an undesirable transformation in that person's behavior.)
  • Landmark's "detractors" are portrayed as being outright wrong--if 94% of people say that it works, and their complaint is that it doesn't work, then obviously they're just stupid.
  • The use of "or...or...or" makes it sound like the detractors are grasping at straws. (Some believe the courses don't work, have adverse consequences, and that the company exploits people.)

Due to the contentiousness of the matter, I think it might be wiser just to leave it, perhaps with some tidying up of the language (every paragraph starts with "Landmark", which is not good writing). But I think it would be hard to say anything more specific than what is already there without ruffling feathers. Ckerr 01:44, 8 November 2006 (UTC)


Response

I think it improves the article to give some kind of summary of what this "controversy" is about. I also think it is useful and informative to have some sort of context as to who holds these "passionately expressed views", what the views are, and why they arrived at them. It would clearly also be relevant to have some kind of estimate of the sizes of the various groups. All this is clearly problematic because of the absense of objective data, and is further complicated by questions which some wish to raise about the partiality of the data that does exist.

But clearly it is relevant whether opinion amongst people who have done the courses is divided fairly evenly or comes down predominantly on one side or the other. We could argue until the cows come home about whether the 94% figure is justified or not, but I can't find any source at all which indicates anything other than that the vast majority of customers are highly satisfied. Apart from the surveys, there is the raw fact that Landmark gets about 6,000 new customers every month, virtually all as a result of personal recommendations.

It might be alright to include something about what the controversy entails in the introduction. That said, I don't think it's necessary--anyone curious can find out in under a second simply by scrolling down. I would strongly oppose, however, any attempt to quantify what fraction of people support or criticize Landmark, since no reputable source has ever looked into this. Without knowing exactly how Landmark phrased their survey, I'm pretty sure I would have ended up in the 94% of "supporters"--yet, as you are well aware, I also have some sharp criticisms of the organization. In my own Forum, as I've mentioned before, probably almost half had some fairly serious criticism of Landmark (mostly Landmark's perceived manipulation regarding additional courses), but most of them would agree that Landmark had made a positive difference to their lives. I don't think you can use Landmark's continued success as an indicator of people's views on it; there are plenty of corporations which the public has extremely negative views on which are nonetheless successful. Ckerr 04:13, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for responding constructively to the debate. One of the things that continues to amaze me is the asymmetry between the standards of proof which critics demand for a pro-Landmark proposition and for an anti-Landmark one. I agree that none of this is conclusive, but I would say that - taken as a whole - it is certainly suggestive:
  1. At least five studies carried out by reputable research organisations, all reporting a high degree of satisfaction, and specific tangible benefits.
  2. A considerable number of personal accounts of specific accomplishments which customers credit Landmark with having empowered them to achieve.
  3. A large number of on-the-record evaluations and testimonials from credible individuals.
  4. A number of positive appraisals by respected high-quality journalists and commentators.
  5. The fact that the majority of customers continue to do further Landmark Courses from time to time.
  6. The fact that large number of customers recommend the courses to their friends.
On the other hand we have:
  1. A small number of isolated complaints from individuals who did not feel they got value from courses.
  2. A similar number of adverse remarks from people who reacted badly to an introductory event.
  3. A few acquaintances of Landmark customers who were not impressed with the perceived results.
  4. A number of sensationalistic newspaper and magazine articles.
  5. A handful of self-appointed "cult experts" who rush out negative commentry or innuendo without taking the trouble to do any serious first-hand observation of what is involved. DaveApter 18:49, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Hmm. To some extent I agree with you, but without trying to sound like a post-sociorelativist, I think there are alternative viewpoints which are equally valid. Of most concern to me are the various unknown selection effects, especially when the data are being reported by Landmark itself. About the standard of proof, perhaps the reason could be that Landmark critics tend to add "accusations" to the article, while Landmark supporters tend to add "facts". Of course, these require extremely different levels of proof; the former needs no proof as to its truth, only evidence that people have thought similarly before. Ckerr 08:42, 18 November 2006 (UTC)


You quite rightly point out that the opinions of those who haven't done the courses are also valid, and I agree. But there is even less data on this. Some acquaintances of Landmark graduates find them pushy, irritating and obsessed; others find them vastly improved in reliability, productivity or empathy. Who's to say what the numbers are on either side? And what does that count for anyway?

I completely agree--which is why we should leave it out entirely. One of the reasons I objected to the long list of clergy supporting Landmark, and similarly object to Landmark's own surveys, is because they present an unbalanced view of things--Landmark has made an effort to find and source statements by clergy in support of it, and no organization has bothered to do the opposite. Hence, if we present a fair sample of the information available, this will represent an unfair sample of reality, because the information available is biased in Landmark's favor. Ckerr 04:13, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
I think the long list of clergy is appropriate, particularly given the allegations they are refuting. Most of the credentialed critics of LE have not done the Landmark Forum. At least the clegy have done the Forum and can speak from experience. The reader just needs to know that, particularly for the surveys, LE is citing the surveys. Sm1969 00:52, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
The article states in each case when a critic has not done the Landmark Forum, and I don't think citing a list of clergy makes this any more clear. It's a tenant of Wikipedia policy that organizations are not good sources on themselves, and I don't think there is good enough reason in this case to make an exception to that rule. Ckerr 08:42, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't really follow the logic of your bulleted objections above. I'm not trying to say or imply that the detractors are "just plain wrong", but I do find it really hard to understand what their beef is, and why they get so hysterical. As far as I can see the issues do all fall into one of the categories I enumerated (and yes you are right that some critics hold some combination of these opinions). This is my personal evaluation (and I'd welcome any hard reliable facts to support or oppose):

  • Do the courses work? Well there are so many reports of really impressive results, I'm surprised this gets off the ground. Of course it is always open to ask "Did they inflate that?", or "Might they have done that anyway?". It's just a question of gathering the evidence and drawing your own conclusions.
To my knowledge, there haven't been any controlled longitudinal studies on Landmark's success, which would likely be the requirement of proof in a scientific context. I'm not particularly swayed by individual success stories, especially since (in my limited experience) many of the graduates' families find their transformation much less remarkable than the transformed people themselves. There is certainly a thrill and an energy when the Forum finishes--but does it last? I'm not aware of any data on the matter. Ckerr 04:13, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
I agree that more rigorous and scientific studies would be desirable, but see my comments above regarding my views on the balance of the evidence that does exist. And by "results", I am not referring to the transient emotional high which most participants experience on Sunday evening in the Landmark Forum; I am referring to the specific outcomes: transformed personal relationships, higher earnings, major new career directions, raising huge sums for charities, inspiring a team to get involved in a disaster relief initiative. DaveApter 18:49, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Do the courses destablilise or damage people? As far as I can see, there's no evidence whatsoever to support this. With nearly a million customers, even 1% would amount to 10,000 damaging case histories. Where are they?
Many of the customers of Landmark have been through some fairly nasty things in their lives, such as child abuse, nasty divorces, etc. These things are all generally agreed to be damaging to people, yet the vast majority of them (including those who enroll in Landmark) lead normal lives. Hence, the only way to tell if Landmark is "damaging" to people would be through a large statistical sample, which, to my knowledge, has not been done. Again, individual reports of psychotic episodes etc. following a Landmark course carry little weight. Ckerr 04:13, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
Pretty much my point - there is actually zero evidence of harm resulting from Landmark courses, yet these scare stories still continue to circulate. For example Rick Ross continues to harp on about the two tragic murder instances, but (apart form being a classic case of post hoc reasoning), this is actually over two whole orders of magnitude less than the number of such cases in a random sample of one million over several years. I don't know whether he's being deliberately dishonest or just statistically incompetent. DaveApter 18:49, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Are people being drawn in to buying lots of expensive courses? The typical Landmark customer does a couple of seminar series per year - that's a total expenditure of about $200. And a total time investment of 60 hours. Hardly seems excessive to me.
In Australia, the Curriculum for Living costs about $1,800 ($500 $1,100 $200). That's a fairly significant expenditure, and one participant in my Forum went into debt and had to engage in some less-than-forthright activities to pay it off in time. That's pretty disgusting. In general, if people are paying almost $2000 because they're being sucked into a marketing ploy, that's a pretty serious accusation; to my knowledge, it's much more than a typical person would lose in a pyramid scheme, for example. Ckerr 04:13, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
I know many paoeple who have done less than forthright things to purchase cars- does that make Toyota accountable for that perosn's lack of integrity? $1800 is not a lot of money by the standards of weekend long courses. Most people who give close to 100 hours of training (which is what that $1800 represents- the whole curriculum for living: two weekend courses, and two three-month long once a week courses) charge a LOT more than $18 an hour!!!!! Then the recurring cost of ~$200 a year is quite small. Let's not make issues where there are none- there is enough for us to argue about! Alex Jackl
Actually Alex is understating the point: the total is about 220 hours of tuition (45 for the Forum, 30 for the first seminar series, 55 for the Advanced course, and 90 for the Self-expression and Leadership Program, plus 3 hours of personal coaching). So that's about $8 an hour [and those are Aus$ - somewhat less than US$ ?] You can hardly get basket-weaving courses for that!
And I don't get that there is any evidence that people do this because they are "sucked into a marketing ploy" - they are the ones who fill in the form and hand over the payment. On four separate occasions, which presumably they wouldn't do if they didn't get value for the previous course? And every course has an opportunity to withdraw and get a refund after the first few hours (twice in the case of the Forum).
And what is the relevance of the comparison with losing money in a pyramid scheme? People register into a Landmark course because they want the training; they buy into a pyramid scheme because they expect a (generally totally unrealistic) financial return on their investment. DaveApter 18:49, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Are the "assistants" being taken for a ride? A lot of observers are generally puzzled by poeple volunteering for a private profit-making company. But if you ask why they do that, they say because they want to make a contribution to the course participants, and because they get valuable training themselves (e.g. in teamwork, leadership, or reliability). And with less than 1% of graduates involved in the assisting program in any given year, it's not that much of a big deal anyway.

Also, I'm taking out the word "considerable" - this is a subjective value judgement. And the term "commentators", which is just a POV attempt to talk up the credibility of critics. DaveApter 15:42, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree with your action but disagree with your reasoning--my objection to it was that it talked about "commentators" expressing their views "passionately", which is certainly not what they are supposed to do! Ckerr 04:13, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

In Australia

This is poorly sourced negative material. 1) The book is long since out of print. 2) The author states that she has neither done nor observed the Landmark Forum. 3) The juxtapostion with events in Europe is a non-sequiter. 4) Placing this under the "cult" defamation tort is even more bizarre. Let's redact this poorly sourced negative material. Sm1969 07:42, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Duly referenced source from a large publisher, Penguin Books. Let's see what others think about this. Smeelgova 07:50, 13 November 2006 (UTC).
It's also a self-selected quote from a book that is long since out of print, and we see what the author's actual experience is. Sm1969 08:03, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Also the statement "techniques allied to hypnosis" is probably borderline "factually false and defamatory" and should probably be redacted based on that and the statements by the head of the American Psychological Association who did directly observe the Landmark Forum. Sm1969 08:06, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
By the way, I really enjoyed parts of the French video, like Mayor Brard getting into his pyramid scheme and cleaning out the students' wallets. It was a nice hack job. Sm1969 08:41, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
I don't think it's the best content ever to appear on Wikipedia, but I do think it adds something to the article. To answer your points above: 1) Yes, but this doesn't ipso facto invalidate it. 2) This fact should be duly noted in the article, and it is. I don't think this should be the death knell for the section, since the author is only making broad claims about organizations that try to get "quick results". 3) I completely agree; the fact that Dr. Samways is Australian is completely irrelevant to the section. 4) At least in the current revision, it is not under the cult section at all, but rather under "Criticisms and controversies". With regard to your second statement, I think it is neither untrue nor defamatory. Some of the techniques used in my Forum ("Close your eyes...") were quite close, in my view, to hypnosis; nor can I see how comparing something to hypnosis would be defamatory, since it is a widely studied technique with some useful clinical applications. In summary, while I agree that this section could use copyediting, I do not think it can be classed as a "tort", nor need it be "redacted". Ckerr 11:47, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
I guess proving that something is or is not "allied to hypnosis" is hard to prove one way or another and is thus merely an opinion, based on distant knowledge. The section needs improvement and balance. Separating it to "In Australia" is downright bizarre. Sm1969 12:12, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Rules of the Landmark Forum

Most of what you just added is dated and trivial and in exagerrated language. Sm1969 11:15, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

It's sourced with three citations and useful information. Please find a more current source. Smeelgova 21:04, 14 November 2006 (UTC).
The material used for this section is sourced with three citations, and the rules come from excerpts of those articles. Please do not remove or change this information with original research, unless you have other sourced citations to back up your information. Smeelgova 21:15, 14 November 2006 (UTC).

Some of it, however, does not meet the criteria of notability, and much of it is still trivial. Sm1969 06:09, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

If you have more recent sourced references we'd be glad to see them. Smeelgova 06:14, 16 November 2006 (UTC).
I added a reference from the course syllabus. This is, in fact, an area of significant change in the last two years. http://www.landmarkeducation.com/display_content.jsp?top=21&mid=59&bottom=62
I left in and fixed all of your new references. However, the new heading title is simply too long, "Rules of the Landmark Forum" is concise, and factual. Smeelgova 02:46, 18 November 2006 (UTC).
It is concise but not factual. Many of them are tips and the intent is for customer value, so that context should be present. Omitting this information looks strange. I request that you re-add it as: Landmark Forum Tips and Agreements. Sm1969 03:21, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
I think the original version of the list, which implied that anyone who tried to go to the bathroom would get whacked with a broom, was a little far from NPOV. I think it's currently fine, including the heading. (After all, the forum is a "game", and so of course it has "rules". That's what Alain told us, anyway.) While I don't think this section detracts from the article, I don't know if what it adds is justified by its length. Ckerr

Austria

1) The first report on notes LE, but refers to it as an "other group active in the country" (not in the "sect" classification.

2) The second report--hosted at the US state department--says nothing about LE.

3) LE never had operations in Austria.

This is being removed as poorly sourced negative material; at best, it is a misinterpretation; at worst, baseless, and the official sources indicate it is baseless. Sm1969 01:56, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the source does indeed clearly state this, and please do not summarily remove this again without discussion on the talk page. I have added a blockquote which further shows that this is spelled out within the cited source. Smeelgova 13:04, 17 November 2006 (UTC).
It is spelled out in the cited source; however, the source notes LE as an "other group" in the country. Furthermore the page at the US State department itself says nothing about LE. Admnistrator Beland removed your quote as a mis-interpretation previously. Finally, there is zero evidence LE ever had operations in Austria. Sm1969 03:23, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
I request that you remove Austria. Again, the copy of the same report at the OFFICIAL web site does not even list Landmark Education as being active in the country. Furthermore, the allegation of LE being a cult is factually false and defamatory; however, the first argument is decisive. Sm1969 03:25, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
It is also possible that the US State Department's web site does *NOT* list Landmark Education because Landmark Education wrote to them to correct the factual error. Again, I repeat the request that you either A) substantiate this statement or B) redact it.

Invalid citation

The quotation from the http://www.allamericanpatriots.com/m-news article storyid-16247.html site on the page has clearly been doctored to have a reference to Landmark inserted, as there is no mention of LE in the otherwise identical citation on http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/irf/2006/71367.htm.

I have therefore removed it. DaveApter 09:37, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Sweden

Neither of the two references on Sweden's Government say *ANYTHING* about Landmark Education. I will redact this unless you substantiate it. Sm1969 03:28, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Alright, allow me time to find another source, I believe that another one exists. Smeelgova 03:29, 18 November 2006 (UTC).

Och ja haer laest Svenska paa Universitatet i Berkeley och bott i tyskland! Sm1969 03:40, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Educational Context, Peer Review, Notability

Hi Smeelgova,

I notice you don't personally like the Notability criteria (per your user page), but it is a policy of Wikipedia. If you are going to mention the lack of peer reviewed studies, you need note that there are probably ZERO other private educational corporations that have peer reviewed studies. Otherwise, we should redact this information outright. Sm1969 03:36, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Request-1: I request that you A) re-add the line, "As with most private educational corporations, ..." or B) redact the statement outright regarding lack of peer reviewed studies as it is not notable in this context. Sm1969 03:36, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Let's both try to be more civil, and NOT USE CAPS SO MUCH IN TALK PAGE CONVERSATION. FROM MY "ALREADY ALWAYS LISTENING PERSPECTIVE", IT LOOKS LIKE YOU ARE YELLING AT ME. Thanks. Yours, Smeelgova 03:40, 18 November 2006 (UTC).
I will take a look at the text you mentioned in the article now. Thanks. Smeelgova 03:40, 18 November 2006 (UTC).
Might I recommend that you take the Landmark Forum since you recognize the Already Always Listening. This will allow you to give up your Already Always Listening, as a choice. Sm1969 03:49, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Request-2: Also, please add the same contextual information about the training of the course leaders. Sm1969 03:44, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I have compromised and removed the text in question from your first request. As to the second, it seems unusual that course trainers in the company are not required to have any sort of outside credentials whatsoever other than training within the internal programs of the course. This seems to be an exception to the norm of training companies. I've voluntarily abided by your request and removed the text from your first request, so I think we should leave in the second part. Smeelgova 03:47, 18 November 2006 (UTC).
I think you are mistaken. It is extremely common for commercial training companies not to require educational qualifications. I taught microprocessor design and programming at a London training company for eight years and the only training in presentation I have is that provided by the company during my induction. As far as I am aware none of the other trainers had teaching qualification. The company was highly respected and had over 200 major corporations among its customers. The same applies to almost every other commercial training organisation I can think of. And I can think of none who "produce peer reviewed papers on education".
The only possible reading of your edit on this topic is to foster the impression that Landmark Education is some sort of cowboy outfit that throws any old person in front of the room. Nothing could be further from the truth. The training that Landmark Forum Leaders have to go through, and the evaluations they have to pass, are amongst the most demanding on the planet. DaveApter 11:39, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
If the same faulty reasoning applies to #1, then we should equally apply it to #2. It is not odd--look at the list of companies on the IACET web site of which LE is a member and you will find few if any of them having training outside their in-house methodology. Request: Redact or put in a notification that puts the reader on notice that this is not notable. Sm1969 03:51, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
Actually, browsing through most of the organizations on the list, it looks like most of them probably wouldn't accept any trainers without at least a bachelor's degree. Smeelgova 03:58, 18 November 2006 (UTC).
Here is a nice article on Forbes and the value of a college degree with such quotes as, "Bill Gates, who dropped out of Harvard to start Microsoft (MSFT), certainly doesn’t fit the stereotype of a low paid college dropout." [6]
Very inspiring. Doesn't change the facts of my statement above. Unfortunately, most of the institutions listed in the website reference you gave above will most likely not hire a person for a training position unless they possess a college degree of some kind. Another example, school teachers won't be able to get a job anywhere without at least a college degree, and usually also a master's degree in education. Thanks. Smeelgova 20:02, 18 November 2006 (UTC).
Well, can we redact everything from Rick Ross then? He only has a high school degree, was convicted of felony embezzlement, charged with felony kidnapping, and assessed a civil verdict of over $3 million, with zero credentials to speak of?
Your statement is also original research, nor can you conclusively say what percentage of the course leaders do or do not have college degrees. Landmark Education makes no pretense of being a formal school education; rather, it is private educational corporation, and whether this is notable (per the Wikipedia policy of notability) is only to be determined by comparing Landmark Educaiton with other private educational methodologies.

Sm1969 01:35, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Reverts & civility

I've reverted several changes to the "Criticisms and controversies section". The two most significant ones are:

  • I removed the "In Australia" heading, since it didn't describe the section it purported to. This was the way the article was before (a well-meaning but misguided editor changed it).
  • I reverted the text of the first paragraph of this section to my version of several weeks ago, since the modifications since then were POV in favour of Landmark. (I could easily "explain away" the three court cases which Landmark won, as this editor did to the two they lost.)

There seems to be a perception that making strongly POV edits in some parts of this article balance out the other parts that are strongly POV the other way. No, they don't, they just make it a weak article. I plead with all editors to make each sentence they write as NPOV as they possibly can, regardless of the article's past history and the content of other sections. And for the pro-Landmark editors, please consider: are you sometimes making people wrong with your edits and comments? Ckerr 09:23, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm trying to remember what you reverted. I believe there were several inaccuracies in the statements and was trying to get it accurate. Again, you would have to read the court cases. 1) In the "Elle Magazine" case, the judge ruled that the article was a matter of opinion (not assertions of fact), and dismissed the libel case. In the Rick Ross case, there was a change in case law after the case was started. Landmark Education has never "lost" a case per se. These are more like a "draw" than winning or losing. Where the issue of "cult" (that particular word) was taken on, Landmark Education has always obtained retractions: Self Magazine, Margaret Singer, Cynthia Kisser/Cult Awareness Network, the case in the Netherlands (Panorama). I don't know of any case where that particular word ("cult") has been allowed to stand. In other words, Landmark Education's record in legal cases is rather good. Sm1969 11:41, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
I never said "lost" in the article; I said "dismissed". The reason for dismissal is irrelevant in this context. Ckerr 13:00, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Let me summarize the cases: LE As Plaintiff: 1) Self Magazine published an article and used the word "cult" and other statements Landmark Education regarded as libelous. Self said their article was a matter of opinion; Landmark Education said it was a question of triable fact; the court agreed with Landmark Education. Rather than face trial by jury, Self Magazine retracted.

2) This is also true for the Margaret Singer and Cynthia Kisser cases.

3) The "Elle Magazine" of 1998, the court ruled that the language of the article was a matter of opinion, not an assertion of fact, and Landmark chose not to appeal the initial court judgement.

This was certainly a legal loss, and this part of the article is discussing legal cases. Hence I don't think it would be misleading to call it a loss, although the article currently does not, nor do I think it should. Ckerr 13:00, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

4) Finally, there is the Rick Ross case, and both sides have differing stories on why Landmark Education withdraw the case; LE says it was a change in Internet case law after the case was filed; Rick Ross says it was to avoid going forward with the case with open discovery (meaning that Rick Ross could publish all of the evidence on his court site).

Either way, the case was dismissed; the article didn't call it a "loss" and didn't give a reason. This was fair. What was not fair, in my opinion, was quoting only Landmark's version of events. Ckerr 13:00, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

In all those cases, the issues never went to a jury. For example, in the "Elle Magazine" case, the Wikipedia language should not reflect that LE "lost" the case, i.e., because the allegations were true. Rather: the article was an expression of opinion, NOT capable of being proven true or false, rather than an assertion of fact.

I think here you're conflating the issues of a legal loss with a conceptual loss. In my view, only if you come from the space of "This article is anti-Landmark" will you read "The case was dismissed" as "Landmark is a cult". That their case was dismissed is a verifiable fact. Everything else is a story! Ckerr 13:00, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

5) In Europe, there was the libel case that went before the judge, and the Defendants could not name a single definition (per Art Schreiber, and I have not seen the original court documents) of "cult" that was met by Landmark Education, according to the judge.

In summary, CKerr, your attempts to summarize or classify as win/lose are inaccurate. We could state: did they plaintiff get what they wanted or not, but that is not the same thing as win/lose (by jury). I have personally read 250 or so pages of court documents (or whatever, and it is a lot) and am trying my best to be accurate. These documents are all on-line at the Rick Ross web site.

Sm1969 12:29, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I know you are trying your best to be accurate, as is everyone else here. I agree with you that it's inaccurate to classify them as win/lose, which is why I instead classified them into the categories I did. Anyway, I appreciate the civility you are showing towards me, and I hope you can show it to Smeelgova too. Ckerr 13:00, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Austria: Conflicting Evidence from US State Department

The Austria quotes have two conflicting statements regarding Landmark Education. 1. The American Patriots web site giving the "Austria 2006 Religous Freedom Report" has "Landmark Education" listed among the other groups. http://www.allamericanpatriots.com/m-news article storyid-16247.html

2. The US State Department gives the exact same report without Landmark Education: http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/irf/2006/71367.htm

3. Zero persons have asserted that Landmark Educaiton ever had operations in Austria.

4. I will redact this content because it is the same source, and the US State Department web site is the authoritative one. Sm1969 11:55, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

If you look more closely, the only reason here is because the US gov't site does not include the full report. The other citation does. Smeelgova 20:04, 18 November 2006 (UTC).
I did look more closely. Not only is your source unofficial, it even has advertising on it. Would you like to A) redact this or B) get the administrators involved again?

Sm1969 01:32, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

The fact that it has advertising is irrelevant. It is the quoted report as Released by the US Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor. Smeelgova 04:57, 19 November 2006 (UTC).

The vast majority of groups termed "sects" by the Government were small organizations with fewer than 100 members. Among the larger groups was the Church of Scientology, with between 5,000 and 6,000 members, and the Unification Church, with approximately 700 adherents throughout the country. Other groups found in the country included Divine Light Mission, Eckankar, Hare Krishna, the Holosophic community, the Osho movement, Sahaja Yoga, Sai Baba, Sri Chinmoy, Transcendental Meditation, Landmark Education, the Center for Experimental Society Formation, Fiat Lux, Universal Life, and The Family.

Smeelgova 04:57, 19 November 2006 (UTC).

The fact that it has advertising indicates that it is NOT from a US Government web site. It is NOT from the US Department of State. The other URL, the official one from the US Department of State does *NOT* have anything about Landmark Education in it. Sm1969 06:04, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Take Notice: Articles regarding ongoing enterprises, ArbCom ruling

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Hunger The principles of editing articles about ongoing enterprises are analogous to those which govern Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. As applied to this matter, unsourced or poorly sourced negative material may be removed without discussion, such removal being an exception to the 3 revert rule Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Remove_unsourced_criticism. This extension of policy is based on the proposition that any unsourced or poorly sourced negative material is potentially harmful.

Passed 6 to 0 at 14:24, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Editor Smeelgova was involved in this arbitration, and Smeelgova is presently adding unsourced or poorly sourced negative information, pertaining to Austria and Sweden. Sm1969 01:41, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

As User:Jossi stated on User:Sm1969's talk page, this is a separate ruling and does not pertain to this particular article. Smeelgova 04:56, 19 November 2006 (UTC).

There is something curious here. L is missing from the State dept page. Sme's explanation that this is because this isn't the full report doesn't make sense, becuase why would they edit out just one org? OTOH http://www.unhcr.org/home/RSDCOI/450fb0b1a.html has L in. I would suggest that until this is properly resolved, ie the original report is found, this report should only be used with caution William M. Connolley 09:48, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I think, then, that this is poorly sourced information and can not be used for such an allegation for an ongoing enterprise per the page at the top. The US State Department's English language version should be decisive. Also note, that this is a report of the US State Department--we have not seen the original German language report. This edit should remain redacted until decisive evidence is produced that it can be introduced. Sm1969 13:03, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Here is the State Dept. report which mentions Landmark Education: http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/irf/2005/51539.htm. The confusion may come from how the annual reports are labelled. -Will Beback · † · 20:05, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
The 2005 report does have it. The 2006 report does not have it. Between 2005 and 2006, the US State Department removed it from their official web site. Sm1969 21:28, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
They did not remove it. The link I posted is on the State Dept. website. By law, the department is required to prepare an annual report. The contents of the report change every year, but an omission from one year to another does not mean that the actual facts have changed. It is verifiably true that the 2005 report says that Austria lists LE among the "sects" in the country. -Will Beback · † · 22:46, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
No, I am saying that they removed it from the 2006 report. It is in the 2005 report. I think the 2006 report has to be taken as decisive, until better information comes along. The 2006 report does not have it. Both reports are posted at the State Department web site. Landmark Education has never had operations in Austria. How do you know that an "omission from year to year does not mean the facts have changed." Where are you getting that information? Sm1969 22:51, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
So long as we clearly indicate that the source is a 2005 report then it is verifiable. If you like we can also say that the informaiton was omitted in the 2006 report. -Will Beback · † · 22:59, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
And I have done exactly what User:Will Beback just suggested. Smeelgova 23:03, 20 November 2006 (UTC).

FYI, these reports are "timed". Meaning that a report for 2006 supersedes a report for a previous year. This is the sam as many other reports from the us.gov such as travel advisories. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 23:07, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

That's right, but unless we want to erase history it is still true that the report was made 2005. Without some source for it, we can only speculate as to why that aspect of the report changed in 2006. -Will Beback · † · 23:14, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
We are going to need to find the original Austrian report which is second-sourced by the US State Department. Sm1969 23:16, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Sounds like a good idea. Smeelgova 23:44, 20 November 2006 (UTC).
Please stop removing this information, it is historically accurate and factually cited. Thanks. Smeelgova 21:14, 25 November 2006 (UTC).
What is factual? The only fact is that it is an opinion of some anonymous Austrian bureaucrat that Landmark Education was an appropriate oganisation to be included in some miscellaneous list, of which we don't even have any idea of the selection criteria. This adds no useful information whatsoever to the article. I will continue to remove it. DaveApter 11:19, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

The key issue here

A selective extract from a bureaucratic document is being used here, out of context, to cast aspersions on Landmark Education. The whole thrust of the original paper was to demonstrate that the Austrian state is not opressive to minority religious movements. To illustrate the point, the official who compiled it grabbed a random list of minority groups and pointed out that the Austrian state does not persecute or opress them. The fact that LE is included in the list does not in any way imply that there was any official evaluation of the merits or characteristics of the organisation, or that it has anything in common with any of the other groups mentioned. Landmark does not even have an office in that country or hold any courses there. This is another example of detractors grabbing any rag-bag items they can dredge up to pin the "cult" label on Landmark. This item is completely irrelevant and I am removing it. DaveApter 17:06, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it seems that way, I am afraid. The pinning of the "cult" label is so misused and misapplied by detractors in many a article, only because of the negative connotations of the term. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 17:14, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Unfortunately, the item is factual, and a fact that the reader will most certainly be interested in. We have been through this and the information is accurately cited from a referenced source. Smeelgova 00:45, 25 November 2006 (UTC).
What is factual? The only fact is that it is an opinion of some anonymous Austrian bureaucrat that Landmark Education was an appropriate oganisation to be included in some miscellaneous list, of which we don't even have any idea of the selection criteria. This adds no useful information whatsoever to the article. DaveApter 12:02, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
We must be careful, though, to portray that in its correct context, lest the English language reader come to believe that Landmark Education is a "cult" which has been ruled a "triable question of fact, capable of being proven true or false," and we have the retractions of Margeret Singer, et al, and the Wikipedia content policy of libel, and the fact that LE sued for correction in Germany, and obtained that correction. This alone merits our putting in some contextual information around it, lest the English-language reader take away that factually false and defamatory impression. Alas, LE (and this is original research) never had operations in Austria. Sm1969 00:51, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
All of the contextual information that you have cited is presented in detail in the legal actions page, Landmark Education litigation, and the reader is referred from this article to there. Thanks. Smeelgova 00:53, 25 November 2006 (UTC).
The reader should be clued in right here about the retractions/refutations and libel policy, not have it deferred under the theory the reader might pursue it to another article section. Sm1969 01:02, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
It is not "deferred", it is in the proper location. The proper location to mention Landmark Education's extremely litigious history would be the page about Landmark Education litigation. As stated above, the information in question is properly sourced, and the article mentions the absence of the info in the 2006 State Dept. report. Thanks. Smeelgova 04:09, 25 November 2006 (UTC).
I don't think LE's history is that litigious at all. Litigation against LE consists I think of 4 cases in 15 years. Outbound litigation in the US consists of 5 cases in 15 years. Outside the US, I can think of another 4 cases. This is for a company that will soon have had 1,000,000 customers and 16 years in business. The inbound litigation surely is small. The outbound is notable for it being mainly on one topic: defamation. In the litigation, there is always a consistent pattern--people needing to take extreme positions to sell books, get high ratings on TV shows, get customers to deprogram. Then, we have the recent subpoenas that you seem to be obsessed with, but copyright infringement really is a pretty new one for LE. Sm1969 06:51, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
Then, we have the recent subpoenas that you seem to be obsessed with - I have said this many times before and I will say it again: If you wish to attempt to have a cordial relationship on the talk pages, please do not make these generalizations and assumptions into what you perceive to be my POV or motivations. Thanks. Smeelgova 10:04, 25 November 2006 (UTC).

Notices of WP:AN/3RR

Landmark Education

    • No, what ArbCom is saying is that the principal of REMOVING totally UNSOURCED negative information is higher than 3RR. Your particular reversions of my reversions are totally unsourced and directly DAMAGE Landmark Education and DAMAGE Wikipedia. Please read the actual ArbCom ruling. The words "Landmark Forum" or "Landmark Education" do not even appear in your references; further, the one in which they do, is an obvious FAKE version of the US State Department report. Sm1969 08:11, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
I would really appreciate it if neither of you used bold or caps. It's hideous and contributes nothing. If you want people to listen, then whisper. Ckerr 13:04, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
The 3RR was dismissed. Sm1969 12:59, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
I would really appreciate it if neither of you used bold or caps. It's hideous and contributes to nothing. If you want people to listen, then whisper. - I agree with User:Ckerr, the USE OF CAPS in this manner is inappropriate and not constructive in any fashion. Please stop. Thanks. Smeelgova 01:00, 21 November 2006 (UTC).

Religious Freedom Report, Austria 2005 / 2006

YES Landmark Education: 2005: http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/irf/2005/51539.htm NO Landmark Education : 2006: http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/irf/2006/71367.htm

They removed it from one year to the next. The US State Department is doing the classification, not the Austrian government. At least no one has produced a report from the Austrian government of what their actual language is. It may be too much bureaucratic work for the State Department to remove 2005, 2004, etc., and prior versions, so they took it out of only the current year. The US State Department's official web site has to be taken as decisive, and the copies that Smeelgova is asserting are trumped by the official one.

Sm1969 22:56, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Please see User:Will Beback's comment above. Thanks. Smeelgova 23:16, 20 November 2006 (UTC).

Do not merge section

Please see Talk:Landmark Education jargon. Thanks. Smeelgova 23:19, 20 November 2006 (UTC).

Where in Fast Company Magazine from March 2006?

Where is the quote from Dan Gayman regarding the statement allegedly made in March 2006?

I will redact this negative, poorly sourced material in 24 hours unless substantiated; further, when substantiated, it must be notable. Sm1969 00:36, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Just what about the referenced citation do you consider to by poorly sourced? Smeelgova 00:59, 21 November 2006 (UTC).
What page? Their magazine is on-line. Put in the URL, give the page, and then we can discuss notability. Sm1969 01:53, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Sigh, I will re-add {{Fact}} after the citation. Please be patient and give time for people to research this. Thanks. Smeelgova 08:39, 22 November 2006 (UTC).

Critiscm and controversies

This section was extremely weighted and didn't follow Wikipedia Standards for being NPOV. In an attempt to reduce this section and represent a more balanced view, I have begun to make the changes listed.Nsamuel 01:49, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, we agree that Wikipedia is controversial, but it just means that we need to be careful. Is there something specific on the web pages that you don't think the people actually said? Furthermore, some of the sources are only available from Landmark Education, like the customer participation statistics, which "Time Magazine" also accepted. If there were something directly conflicting, I think people would have bring it out. Let's look at the stuff on a case-by-case basis--that shall be our particular care.

I have reduced the article to 2 sizeable criticisms and 2 brief accolades. This should absolutely allow for both views to be heard as well as reduce the size of the article. While this could be a section that contained an exhaustive list of both the controversies as well as praises, it would seem that representing both viewpoints with two issues accomplishes what this section set out to do. Any more on either end seems to be overkill. Nsamuel 22:42, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

This is not acceptable. The prior version was heavily sourced with relevant information. I have restored it and will continue to work on getting more citations, especially as new information on these developing topics comes to the fore. Smeelgova 08:19, 22 November 2006 (UTC).

Using a Corporate Website as "Source"

There are currently at least twenty-three citations which lead to the Landmark Education Corporate Website at this point. This is way too many citations for an article that claims to be neutral and encyclopedic. Not only are there too many, most of them are messy and not cited properly. This all needs to be cleaned up and/or removed. Yours, Smeelgova 03:54, 21 November 2006 (UTC).

We will work on them over time. I don't think you dispute that the people said what they said on the Landmark Education web site, do you? Sm1969 04:17, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I think it is a little odd that in an article about the company itself, the company's website is used as a source reference this many times. Smeelgova 04:08, 21 November 2006 (UTC).
From Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Company_and_organization_websites:

Company and organization websites

Caution should be used when using company or organization websites as sources. Although the company or organization is a good source of information on itself, it has an obvious bias. The American Association of Widget Manufacturers is interested in promoting widgets, so be careful not to rely on it exclusively if other reliable sources are available, in order to maintain a neutral point of view. Exercise particular care when using such a website as a source if the company or organization is a controversial one.

Wikipedia seems pretty clear on this. Especially the part about: Exercise particular care when using such a website as a source if the company or organization is a controversial one. Smeelgova 04:10, 21 November 2006 (UTC).

We just need to be careful and look at things on a case-by-case basis. Many of the citations are also found elsewhere in court documents. Sm1969 04:18, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
No, we should be careful not to use a Corporate Website as a source, particularly with regard to a controversial company, on that company's article page. If other sources can be found as you say, they should be used instead. If not, these references are inappropriate, certainly inappropriate to be used so many times. Smeelgova 04:20, 21 November 2006 (UTC).
Are you honestly disputing that people said what they said? Also, where Landmark Education is the only possible source of the information, they should be cited and that should *not* count towards a "magic number of links." Can we agree on that? Sm1969 04:23, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
It just comes down to whether or not Landmark is a reliable source on itself; Wikipedia rules would tend to indicate it isn't. If the "only possible source of information" for some topic is a twelve year old's blog, then this means that we should not include this information on Wikipedia, not that we should cite the blog! Likewise, no matter how beneficial it would be to the article to have a neutral estimate of customer satisfaction (say), the fact of the matter is that we don't. In theory, something that's important enough to include on Wikipedia will be mentioned by an independent source; else it doesn't belong. I agree that there can and should be exceptions to this rule, but I think the rule itself is a good one. Ckerr 19:19, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
You may be mistaken. Landmark can be a reliable source on itself, providing that the material it is properly attributed to them and not stated as a fact, is not unduly self-serving, is not used as a source for defaming third-parties, and it is pertinent to their notability. Also note that we do not have "rules" in Wikipedia. We have content policies (WP:NPOV, WP:V, WP:NOR, and guidelines. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 19:31, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
See WP:V#Self-published_and_dubious_sources_in_articles_about_the_author.28s.29 ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 19:32, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
One of the criteria on the page you cited is that the material not be contentious, and there is plenty of non-contentious material sourced to Landmark which no one complains about (for example, who the vice president is); no one is suggesting the removal of that sort of information. Instead, I'm talking about material which is contentious, such as the customer satisfaction rate or the fraction of clergy who are favorable to Landmark. According to the policy you cited, we should not use Landmark itself as a source on that. Ckerr 00:49, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
The customer satisfaction rate may be contentious, but it is published by Harris. You can also cite the clergy testimonials, but not make quantitative assessments about percentages. All of the clery testimonials, by the way, are in the court documents. Sm1969 02:06, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
The other thing--even some of the stuff you are construing negatively is provided by Landmark Education, e.g., the 7500 volnteers. The only way that could be known quantitatively is through Landmark Education. In other words, you are welcome to challenge any specific link, but not just the number of links. Sm1969 04:27, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
I am disputing that a Corporate Website should be used to reference that they "said what they said", yes. Smeelgova 04:34, 21 November 2006 (UTC).
I am not construing anything positively or negatively. But it is not appropriate to reference a Corporate Website this many times in an article. There are often other places to find information. I am welcome to do whatever I see fit, especially in light of the Wikipedia Policy quoted above, which gives special warning about "controversial" companies. Thanks. Smeelgova 04:34, 21 November 2006 (UTC).
I don't believe it is the number of references that is the issue. The policy does not say anything about the quantitative references, but rather to use particular care. (It's not going to make a difference to the Google ranking of "Landmark Education" as #1 on a search for "Landmark Education.") Likewise, at this point, I'm not going to challenge the RickRoss web site for using articles in violation of copyright infringement in many cases as link targets. I believe the documents there are accurate thefts of intellectual property. Sm1969 04:38, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I have no idea to what specifically you are referring in this case. Smeelgova 05:04, 21 November 2006 (UTC).
As noted in the Judge Fadeley opinion, Rick Ross makes a living off of quoting other people's opinions. In the case of Rick Ross, he copies whole articles outright from magazine web sites onto his web site. That is copyright infringement, and it is against Wikipedia policy for us to be linking to them. However, since I believe the copies to be accurate, I am not going to challenge them at this point. Similarly, I request that you not challenge a link to Landmark Education solely because it is a link to Landmark Education. Sm1969 05:38, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Please give me a specific example as to what you are referring. Thanks. Smeelgova 07:07, 21 November 2006 (UTC).

Here is an example of contributory copyright infringement:

http://www.rickross.com/reference/landmark/landmark2.html "Do you believe in Miracles?"

Rick Ross does not own that material; Elle Magazine does. Sm1969 07:12, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Um, literally thousands of websites do this. It's called properly attributing the article to the author and magazine with the proper date. Thanks. Smeelgova 07:13, 21 November 2006 (UTC).
No, not if the copyright is owned by someone else. Rick Ross does not own the link target. That URL should point to the link at Elle Magazine, if it exists there. If not, it is contributory copyright infringement. It does not matter how many do it. It's like the analogy with speeding that I gave you--the rules (law) is enforced against only a small percentage, but that does not change the law. Sm1969 07:48, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Printed media is a different matter entirely than your video argument (which was also bogus, but that is another matter). Proper attribution is given to a previously published article. In the case of referring to the Landmark Education Corporate Company's Website, these are only personal statements from individuals, not previously published in any source. And, they are not reproduced in full, so we can only assume that the company is doing its own form of "original research" and excerpting certain parts. If the links in question went to other publications/journals in which those attestations appeared, that would be another matter. Smeelgova 08:23, 21 November 2006 (UTC).
No one disputes that "France 3" owns the video copyright; that argument is on point; I'm sorry if you don't understand copyright law. The statements from individuals are published in full, and it would not be too hard to contact the respective individuals, e.g., heads of universities. Where they are excerpts, the original is almost always on-line. Sm1969 15:31, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Table

An editor asked my opinion about the "Successive organizational names and Customer Registrations" table in this diff: [7]. Compared to the table in an alternate form, [8], the proposed version appears to take far more room and to use bold formatting to convey a small amount of data. The data on registrations could probably be handled in a more compact fashion, such as a line or two of text. Bold formatting is strongly discouraged by the WP:MOS beyond a few special uses. -Will Beback · † · 08:40, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

The data on registrations is already mentioned in a few other locations in the article. This change to the table is inappropriate to say the least, and it makes the table look like a form of advertising, rather than a simple historical chronology. Smeelgova 09:10, 21 November 2006 (UTC).

Advert?

I removed the Advert template affixed by user:Smeelgova as this is plainly ludicrous in an article which has four entire screenfulls of negative gossip, innuendo and uninformed opinion.

I also deleted the phrase about 'third party commentators' since anyone whe 'expresses their views passionately' is clearly by definition not 'third party'.

I am firmly committed to this article being factual, accurate, informative and balanced, and in compliance with Wikipedia's policies on NPOV, verifiability and reliable sources.

After user:Smeelgova's latest binge of over 100 edits to this page in a day,it is increasingly hard to see his/her activities as anything other than a blatant attempt to hijack Wikipedia to propagate a particlular extreme POV about this organisation and individuals associated with it.

I have repeatedly tried to get discussion moving on this talk page about an appropriate way to portray the "controversies" accurately and fairly, but the article continues to suffer from the attentions of editors who want to give undue weight to minority - and often completely uninformed - opinions, and who blur the distinction between opinion and fact. DaveApter 12:56, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I very much agree. It is painful to go through all these edits and NPOV them, as it is quite clear that these are made with a specific POV in mind. WP will be best served, if contributing editors make an effort to edit the article dispassionately and without POV pushing as the main motive. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 17:04, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Herein lies the difficulty with being NPOV. It's true that Smeelgova has made a very large number of edits in a short period of time (though not "over 100 in a day"); but Sm1969 has made a comparable, if not greater, number of edits in the same amount of time. The only reason I can see that you did not call this a "binge" as well is because you agree with Sm1969's POV, as you share strongly positive personal views on Landmark Education.
Just to be clear on the ojective facts (since I made the original observation). Smeelgova made over 110 edits in the 12 hour period starting 21.55 on Nov 20 (not all on the LE article, but almost all LE related). Sm1969 doesn't seem to have made more than 50 (and rarely that many) in any 24 hour period. DaveApter 10:56, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Yes, you're right; I'm not sure what I was looking at. However, their contributions are still of comparable magnitude, at least compared to editors like me who average maybe 5 edits a day. Ckerr 03:31, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
I am not defending Smeelgova's actions, but instead pointing out the fallacy of fighting fire with fire. Some pro-Landmark editors have made strongly POV edits in a misguided attempt to "balance out" the strongly POV anti-Landmark content. This is a hopeless battle with no winners, as the current state of the article attests to. (I don't think the article is that bad, as it stands--but given the number of hours people have put into it, it should be much better.)
I agree 100%. I appreciate your willingness, CKerr, to work towards a consensus on this page despite our differences in perspective. I also appreciate Jossi's efforts to bring a quality improvement to an article in which he has no personal axe to grind. I do agree too that attempts to "balance out" with strog POV content on both sides results in a poor article. I will put up some proposals for treatment of the disputed areas here in the next day or so. DaveApter 10:56, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
In short, I completely support the dispassionate editing of this article; however, in the past this has been used as an excuse (by both sides) to advance a particular POV. Ckerr 18:41, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
I would appreciate it if you do not make assessments on my POVs or my intentions (FYI, I have absolutely nothing to do with the subject of this article, and I have not a POV for or against it.) As in many articles about which there is controversy, pro and anti sides collide, but it is possible to help them come to terms with WP content policies. So, please help out if you can. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 19:26, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
This isn't the place to question anyone's POV or intentions. If we have complaints about an editor's behavior there are more appropriate places to address it. -Will Beback · † · 19:35, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
I agree. The talk page of an article is NOT the place to make accusations against individual editors and make assumptions about people's POV. We all come here with POV. That is besides the point. And for User:Jossi, I am disappointed by your comments above, assuming POV. If you do not wish for others to comment on their assumptions about your POV, please do not comment/make assumptions about others' POV. This is not the place for this. Let's all get back to discussing actual content, and stop personally attacking each other. This is all highly inappropriate. Thanks. Smeelgova 08:18, 22 November 2006 (UTC).
Smeelgova - it would be great if you actually followed your own advice on this point. DaveApter 10:56, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
There is definitely one statement above that I agree with. Given the amount of time put into this article on all sides, it should be much better. Sm1969 11:19, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Jossi--your comment seems to be addressed to me? If you thought I was referring to you with my comment, I wasn't--my point is that every editor thinks that Wikipedia policy is on their side and that they're being dispassionate, while the other side is clearly a mouthpiece. Hence the advice to "be dispassionate" alone is not sufficient to resolve this type of conflict. I think it's rather strange to say you don't have a POV; it's like saying you don't have an accent. (I've heard both Australians and Americans passionately claim that; I would love for them to meet each other and find out that their "neutral" accents are totally different!) Both are defined only in relative terms, and while there are certainly extremes of each, one cannot define an absolute point of neutrality in either. Ckerr 03:31, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Statements needing citation

I currently count 14 statements in need of citation in this article. Overall, the quality is somewhat lacking.

This is fair comment; I have just added 5 citations and removed 2 uncited items.DaveApter 11:31, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm currently watching a piece of journalism ("Voyage to the Land of the New Gurus") which makes me somewhat worried about the reliability of Landmark Education being a reliable source of information.

That video has numerous problems with it, even the translation from French to English. The way the video was made, they suppressed all of the favorable testimony to LE and did not invite LE's choice of guests to appear to refute the claims. The people videotaped gave diametrically opposed statements to how they are portrayed (Abgrall and the women in the video). The list goes on and on. You aren't seeing Landmark Education's right-to-reply which has been quoted numerous times. Sm1969 02:13, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Don't shirk the issue - unprovable statements have no place in the article. While "Voyage to the Land of the New Gurus" is focused on the cult aspects of the Landmark Forum and no doubt contains some bias, the footage I have seen is pretty shocking. Even assuming the best intentions of a company, using their own website materials; or uncited studies paid for by the company as a basis for much information is this article is highly suspect. Where's the NPOV? Where's the ability to prove or disprove the truth? I can see none of that in the statements in question, and strongly advocate their removal. CloCkWeRX 09:26, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Take for instance; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Landmark_Education#Evaluations_of_Landmark_Education

There are three listed academic studies, but only one is linked to. The topmost one:

University of Southern California

The University of Southern California (USC) Marshall School of Business carried out a case study into the work of Landmark Education Business Development (LEBD) at BHP New Zealand Steel.

The report concluded that the set of interventions in the organization produced a 50% improvement in safety, a 15% to 20% reduction in key benchmark costs, a 50% increase in return on capital, and a 20% increase in raw steel production

The USC makes the full study available[citation needed].

... sounds like rubbish. A "50% improvement in safety"? "50% increase in return on capital"? That's all well and good, but I don't have a link to the paper, I don't know what the data was before (if I'm a one man company and hire someone else, have I just made a 100% increase in manpower?); so how can I evaluate the truth of these claims?

This is one of the things we are up against with an article that suffers an on-going edit war. There was originally a note of how to obtain it from the University of Southern California. This was removed by editors who objected that it was "advertising". I put it back in yesterday and user:Smeelgova removed it overnight. I will re-insert it now. DaveApter 10:27, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

The second 'study'; which isn't cited, was paid for by the company itself.

This is one of the ones I have removed. DaveApter 11:31, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

In addition, it must be noted that on the website (http://www.landmarkeducation.com) it's 'free for grad students'. If some of the claims which have been made against this organisation are true; it would be worth checking any newer academic materials to see if the author is/has been a participant in a forum session or other training program.

CloCkWeRX 12:49, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Would it be a good thing or bad thing if the author was a customer?

Sm1969 02:13, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't know how you view Astroturfing, but I tend to look upon it as a negative way to promote your company in the public eye. It certainly feels as if that's exactly what is taking place. CloCkWeRX 09:26, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Why do you assume that any past customer who carried out a study would be guilty of Astroturfing ? This, incidentally, is one of the perennial bug-bears of the debates about Landmark. A substantial portion of the most vociferous critics are people who have never experienced any of their courses. This leads to the charge by supporters that they don't know what they are talking about. The critics retort that the accounts by people who have done the courses are invalid because they are incapable of objective judgement. A very small proportion of the people who have done Landmark courses think they are complete crap (of the order of 1% in my estimation). A larger proportion think the courses are excellent, but have reservations about some of the company's practices. It's undeniable that a majority (ie over 50%, but probably much more than that in fact) register for several more courses and recommend them to their friends. For supporters, this is evidence that they found them effective and good value; for detractors, it's evidence that their judgement has been compromised. If you want to get some idea of the range of results that people get from this training, take a look at the teamleadership.org website (which I happen to know is not orchestrated by Landmark Education!).
Incidentally, re-reading your paragraph above, I think you misinterpreted something - the "Free for Grads" button on the LE site was referring to graduates of the Landmark Forum, not University graduates. (and what was on offer was an internet social networking service, not any of the courses).DaveApter 10:27, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
In actuality, the "social networking service" (which is a bit creepy by the way - only associating with other people who have done The Forum - weird.) is not free. There is a monthly fee. Smeelgova 13:05, 23 November 2006 (UTC).
Your information is out of date - there used to be a monthly fee, but it is now free as noted above. I don't think your opinions about it being 'creepy' are appropriate for this page; and who said anything about only associating with other people who have done The Forum? This is an extension of one's network, not a replacement. DaveApter 13:18, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Substantiation of Labor Department Investigatation

Here is what the "Ongoing Enterprises" article says. Adding [citation needed] is not the right thing to do. Removal is correct, until it can be sourced. Sm1969 06:39, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Jimmy Wales has said with respect to biographies of living persons: 

   "I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random

speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information, but it is particularly true of negative information about living persons." [1]

He considers "no" information to be better than "speculative" information and reemphasizes the need for sensitivity: 

   "Real people are involved, and they can be hurt by your words. We are not tabloid journalism, we are an encyclopedia." [3]

While articles about enterprises are not as sensitive as biographies of living persons, the same general principles apply to articles about on-going enterprises.

While that may be what he said, the fact is there is currently a citation there. The [citation needed] was only added because you were not satisfied with it. In the meantime, I will search for a second suitable citation. Thanks ahead of time for your patience in this manner. Smeelgova 06:49, 23 November 2006 (UTC).
You do a Google search on "Roger Gayman" and you will see that there is such a guy working for the Department of Labor in San Francisco; however, nothing comes up in conjunction with Landmark Educaiton; furthermore, you go to the web site of "Fast Company" and do a search there and you also get nothing. Sm1969 06:57, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Very industrious. However, simply because a quoted statement is not yet available on the internet, does not mean that it is not citable or available by other means. I will keep you posted when I have more information on this. Thanks. Smeelgova 07:11, 23 November 2006 (UTC).
The standard, per Jimmy Wales, is that removal is "particularly true of negative information about living persons." [Here the "living person" is the "ongoing enterprise" where the quote is lifted from the "articles about ongoing enterprises." This should be removed until you can substantiate it. If you saw it in "Fast Company" you should know the page number, and then we can decide whether it is notable. Sm1969 07:34, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
The facts remain, that the quote has a citation already, and will soon have a second one. The fact that you could within seconds easily verify that "Roger Gayman" works at the Department of Labor in San Francisco, lends credence and verifiability to the notion that this investigation is actually taking place into Landmark Education's controversial labor practices. And an investigation by the United States Department of Labor is most certainly a notable event, especially when coupled with a prior 1998 investigation, and a very similar labor investigation in France that drove the company out of the country. Smeelgova 07:47, 23 November 2006 (UTC).
Without knowing anything about the terms of reference of the "inquiry" it is not possible to know whether this is notable or not. Possibly it's not really notable until we know the outcome. The unusual fact that people volunteer their time to a for-profit corpoaration is prima facie debate-worthy (one of the few aspects of the so-called Controversies that is). This citation does nothing to cast any light on the issue. When the Department of Labor looked into it before, they concluded that there was no cause for concern. I don't know what it was that caused the French government to declare the practice illegal, but I wouldn't want to live anywhere the government took it upon itself to lay down what I can and can't choose to do in such matters. DaveApter 09:45, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
By the way, thank you in this particular instance for sticking to a content debate, and holding yourself back from personally attacking editors or making assumptions as to their POV. It is most appreciated. Thanks. Smeelgova 07:47, 23 November 2006 (UTC).
I don't think I have been "personally attacking editors" as noted by Will Pittenger. You are predisposed to that interpretation. An investigation by the Department of Labor may or may not be notable. If "Fast Company" included it, I'm sure they had a reason. The fact that I can verify Roger Gayman says little, given that the official US State Department link you had up for 2006 did not have LE in it. Sm1969 07:52, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
That is a separate matter, and was a good faith edit on my part. And as we saw, the 2005 report does mention LE, we have been over this. It was quite interesting to note how quickly certain editors falsely assumed that the information was "forged", as opposed to assuming good faith and that there must have been some sort of reason as to why the two reports had differed. Perhaps acting under a certain "already always listening" in that instance... Smeelgova 08:00, 23 November 2006 (UTC).
The first one to use the "forged" terminology was William Connelley. Sm1969 08:22, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Interesting, thanks for pointing that out. In any event, "forged" was an erroneous classification, and a conclusion that was reached in extreme haste, as pointed out by the 2005 report which indeed does mention Landmark Education as a "sect". Smeelgova 09:04, 23 November 2006 (UTC).
For reasons I stated above in the paragraph discussing this item, it is not a notable fact and I am removing it again. Please address the points I made and secures some agreement before re-inserting it. DaveApter 09:45, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
One investigation may not be noteworthy, but multiple investigations most certainly are. Thanks. Smeelgova 12:51, 23 November 2006 (UTC).
Please see my comments above at [The key issue here], which user:Jossi seemed to endorse and no-one has refuted. Please do not put this item back until you have addressed this point and gained a consensus of agreement here. DaveApter 13:25, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Recruitment/Marketing section

Smeelgova, why do you keep reverting the change I made to the second citation? The one I put in from Fowler was relevant to issue under discussion and coherent, whereas the one you keep putting back from Lowell is not obviously pertinent and contains only a cryptic sentence fragment which barely makes sense.DaveApter 10:42, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

No, Fowler is already mentioned previously in the article. We should not be mentioning Fowler so many times, particularly when his own letter is an official document and property of Landmark Education, that does not lend much credence to his letter. Thanks. Smeelgova 12:52, 23 November 2006 (UTC).
Quite the contrary, Raymond Fowler, PhD., has been prepared numerous times to give court testimony on Landmark Education. He is one of the best expert witnesses on the planet for Landmark Education. Sm1969 17:33, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
He may well have been mentioned in other contexts, but so what? The fact remains that this is a relevant quote for this particular debate, and the one you prefer simply reads as "wierd" and contributes little to the article. Fowler is a highly respected psychiatrist who has put his comments on the matter attributably in the public domain. Your characterisation of his letter as an "official" Landmark document (whatever that means) is neither here nor there. I don't think this is a POV issue; it's a question of the quality of the article and relevance to the topic. DaveApter 13:08, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Fowler is a clinical psychiatrist, with no experience or direct objective research studies in any field relating to cults, mind control or brainwashing of any kind. He is most certainly not an expert on the subject. Therefore his own "personal assertions" after directly going through The Forum are moot. The other academic is a more appropriate citation. Thanks. Smeelgova 13:11, 23 November 2006 (UTC).
But the personal assertion of a journalist, with no relevant expertise of any kind, is appropriate? This paragraph is nothing about "cults, mind control or brainwashing". It's about the fact that some people have opinions about there being a "hard sell". DaveApter 13:42, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
The notions of "brainwashing" and "thought control" are extremely dubious to begin with, as he notes in his letter, occur only under extreme circumstances. The "cult" question has been addressed by courts and experts numerous times now, and continuously gone in favor of Landmark Education. Sm1969 17:35, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

I do not understand the latest round of deletions and the selective quoting. I would warn editors to keep their POVs at bay. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:05, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Jossi, do you have any specific advice about the recent round of reverts? Personally I have had enough of this for the moment and I am giving it a break for 24 hours. DaveApter 16:24, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
The "cult" question has actually not gone in Landmark's favor as many times as you may think, and Landmark has been labeled various negatively connotated things by various European governments. When I have attempted to mention this, I have been vigorously fought on this issue. I will keep trying to find more and more reputable sources for this information, especially as more information develops. Smeelgova 00:44, 25 November 2006 (UTC).

Here's what I have on the "cult" question:

  1. Self Magazine -> retraction
  2. Cynthia Kisser / Cult Awareness Network -> retraction
  3. Margaret Singer -> retraction
  4. Now Magazine -> retraction
  5. Panorama -> retraction (Netherlands)
  6. Infosekta -> retraction / correction (Switzerland)
  7. FACTS Magazine -> retraction (Switzerland)

In slightly related questions:

  1. German senate committee -> correction (World view / new religious movement)

What do you have going in your favor?

  1. Austrian government committee (maybe, and 2006 may be a correction)
  2. French government committee, now defunct, and per circulaire, told to rely on actual behaviour; further, France said they can not remove them LE from the list because the committee no longer exists!

The "Self Magazine" case established outright that the "cult" label is a triable question of fact. The fact that we have all the retractions thereafter, and, as Harry Rosenberg pointed out, "It is no longer possible for informed parties in the US to pin pejorative labels on us" indicate that such labelling is in violation of the Wikipedia content policy on libel.Sm1969 06:45, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

That is how you interpret the Harry Rosenberg quote. It could also be interpreted to mean that they are using similar "fair game" and legal tactics as Scientology uses. "Always attack, never defend.", or in other words, make your opponents "retract" their statements, for they will not have the financial resources of a company to fight legal battles in courts, appeal decisions, and so forth. Sue and initiate myriads of frivolous litigations, for the purpose of legal intimidation in order to control an image in the public space. There are many interpretations of this. As far as portraying the information above, as long as it is sourced and factual, it should remain in the article. Thanks. Smeelgova 10:07, 25 November 2006 (UTC).
To me, it always seemed entirely obvious that Harry's remarks were indended in the sense indicated by Sm1969 above, and I was surprised when they were quoted out-of-context with the spin that Smeelgova suggests here. (If that is what he had meant, surely he wouldn't have said so in public?).
There's another point: Landmark has a real dilemma when it is faced with publication of false and defamatory material. If they just let it go, it remains as part of the public record for those who have an agenda to damage the organisation to sieze on as being "sourced and factual". If the initial polite requests for retraction or clarification are stone-walled (sometimes they are and sometimes they are not) then they have to decide whether or not to escalate the legal process. If they do, they are accused of harassment. DaveApter 12:37, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

The "Cult" issue

A huge amount of time and energy is being expended on the question of whether or not Landmark is called a "Cult". This is completely futile for several reasons:

  1. There are several different definitions and usages of the term.
  2. It is generally perceived has having pejorative overtones, which may or may not have been intended by the original commentator.
  3. It is listed amongst the Wikipedia 'words to avoid'
  4. The problem is compounded where translation from another language is involved - for instance I have no idea how the Austrian 'Sekt' maps onto the complex of meanings and implications of the English word 'cult'. Does anyone else who edits this article?

More constructive and informative would be to describe specific (observable and measurable) characterisitics of LE which might be described as 'cult-like'. It is clear that it does not exhibit the most common and serious of them:

  1. It does not prescribe any specific lifstyle, clothing or diet
  2. It does not require on-going membership of any organisation
  3. It does not request the donation of money or other assets
  4. It does not isolate its customers from friends or family (in most cases the reverse is reported)
  5. It does not require the performance of duties (although in any given year about 1% of customers do choose to volunteer to assist the operations, most of them for a modest amount of time; perhaps 30 - 60 hours over the year).
  6. It does not restrict their options in life (generally it is reported that these are expanded).
  7. It does not conflict with any religious belief that may be held by customers.

About the only "cult-like" characteristic I can see is that some customers become extremely enthusiastic. Opinion divides as to the extent to which this is an understandable reaction to the benefits they got from the courses or something inisidious. DaveApter 12:37, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Citations

Smeelgova - I don't really follow your justifications for removing the citations I just put in. I was trying to address the [citation needed] flags which I think had mostly been inserted by yourself. All of the pages I referenced were places where the assertion in the article could be verified. Where else other than from Landmark Education are you going to get information on matters susch as how many people take their courses each year or whether the Introduction Leaders' Program is a pre-requisite for other Program Leader roles?

And how is it 'Original Research' to give USC's phone number where copies of the cited research document can be obtained? This was in response to a (legitimate) complaint on this page that there was no way of verifying the information quoted. DaveApter 13:56, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Smeelgova, your edits have little justification at this point. This was all sourced information, and Admin Jossi had stated that LE was an acceptable source on itself, as long as we made the attribution. Sm1969 17:31, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
My name is "Jossi" and not "Admin Jossi". My intervention here has nothing to do with my status as an administrator. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:53, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
My apologies for titling you "Admin Jossi." I've gotten the impression over time that Smeelgova rarely takes me seriously, but if Jossi reverts an edit, Smeelgova takes it seriously. Sm1969 20:23, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
We must strive to find other sources for this information other than a Corporate Website, on an article about a for-profit, privately held company. This really looks like advertising for the company when there are this many citations directly from the company's website. Some minor statistical information is alright, but we should really find other reputable sources. And yes, posting a phone number in an encyclopedia article is highly inappropriate. Smeelgova 00:41, 25 November 2006 (UTC).
Who says? You appear to be making up policies to suit yourself. You sprinkle the article with {{Fact}} flags to make it appear that statements which do not suit your POV are questionable, then - when the article is edited to indicate how the point can be verified, you remove the information according to some criteria of your own. DaveApter 08:41, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Reversions of Anonymous Comment

A few things: 1. I think it is clear that non-identified, non-logged in people should not make edits. Any anonymous edits should in my opinion be summarily reverted. We can't ask that person why they did it and it is an act of vandalism as far as I am concerned. 2. We should not make sweeping changes without discussion.

I have reverted the latest set of anonymous changes. People, please let's have some maturity about this process. Alex Jackl 15:41, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

I second that; I also wish to react with sham rage against whoever it was who mangled the Time Magazine blockquote and labelled it with "citation needed". The other depressing thing I realised is that the article has the exact same problem now as it had about five months ago, which is what caused me to get involved in the first place--that is, that the sections "Allegations of brainwashing", "Recruitment/marketing", and "Religious implications" all end with a strongly pro-Landmark statement. I recall objecting, months ago, to the lengthy double quotation of Raymond Fowler, as he is quoted on pretty much the same issue twice; this is especially problematic since his neutrality is suspect (his letter being an "official document"). I seem to recall there was rough agreement with my sentiment at the time, and one of the quotes was moved or removed altogether.
And now we've come full circle. Surely there could be no more frustrating article to edit? It takes over a thousand edits just to get back to where it started. If anyone makes stupendously imbecilic edits, I might come by to fix them, but otherwise I think I have better things to do than edit this black hole of an article. You probably do, too--and that goes for everyone. Ckerr 17:09, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
As I pointed out above, Raymond Fowler, past president of the American Psychological Association, gave a lenghty opinion on the subject matter, and has offered to testify as an expert witness numerous times, as cited in the court documents. There is nothing wrong with quoting him to give Landmark Education's point of view.
I agree. But two long quotes? Saying pretty much the same thing? It's just not good writing. I think the quote which ends the article sums up his view, and Landmark's, quite well. Ckerr 10:55, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
I originally put that in, and included it as an exemplar of the fact that opinion is divided on the subject of how excessive is the drive to sign up for more courses. I included him simply as a customer with a sourced citable comment on the subject, not as an "expert". The quote from him at the end of the article is on a different set of issues. Incidentally the 'Landmark Reformers' group set up a petition on this and they't got about 50 signitures after several months the last time I looked, so it doesn't seem to be all that much of a red-hot gripe. Also I see that Smeelgova has just taken it out again, as well as reverting your edit of this morning. DaveApter 12:59, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
The section on "brainwashing" can be libelous, and in violation of the Wikipedia content policy on libel. I can name about 10 expert witnesses who think that interpretation is absurd, and the only proponents have zero qualifications (Martin Lell, who else?) Thus, LE has a majority point of view against "brainwashing" (in addition ot the libel content policy), and I believe the article should reflect LE's majority point of view. Then, there are those who have retracted as part of a court settlement.
I'm sorry, but I fail to see how the section on "brainwashing" could possibly be libelous; this is something you've brought up numerous times before, but not that I've seen with justification, since the article only quotes what others have said. I also find your logic rather tenuous that because you can name 10 expert witnesses, Landmark therefore has the majority point of view. In addition to being original research possibly with systematic bias (depending on your sources), it's not exactly a statistically significant sample size. Ckerr 10:55, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
In the United States, the question of "brainwashing" has been found to be a triable question of fact, capable of being proven true or false. I'll have to get you a reference on that. Requoting factually false and defamatory material from other people is also libel, against the Wikipedia content policy of libel. The determination of majority/minority points of view is inherently subjective, and we have the quantitative tests from Jimbo Wales about identifying and naming people who hold a point of view. I don't know what a statistically significant sample is; rather, I look at the qualifications and number of people holding the point of view, to make an assertion about which are majority/minority points of view within NPOV, leaving the libel issue aside. Sm1969 03:09, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
I agree that this can degenerate to futile wordsmithing. It's similar to the "cult issue" - it's not clear what the word means, it's not clear who has attributably made the claim, or what they meant by it. I'm not sure that there's even enough tangible on the subject to even justify the inclusion of the section.DaveApter 12:59, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
I don't dispute that "brainwashing" can be a question of fact--I'm disputing that requoting defamatory statements for the purpose showing that people have made said statements can itself be defamatory. (To me that's like calling someone a racist for quoting a Victorian-era writer who referred to native people as "savages".) Anyway, I think since the brainwashing issue was mentioned in the Time Magazine article, that alone is makes it significant enough to mention, although I agree that it (and the cult issue) are quite slippery.
It's possible, however, that the main reason these things are so slippery is that anyone who makes a statement that is not slippery will soon have a date with Art Schreiber. If that's the case--and it's pretty much impossible to prove it isn't--then we should hardly ignore a point of view because its proponents are too scared to espouse it. Ckerr 11:53, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
The section on "recruitment/marketing" I am less certain about. LE's point of view is that it is word of mouth marketing, and even Pressman notes that LE is one of the greatest success stories in mass marketing. There is also expert testimony against there being anything to "join." That said, there is substance to discuss on LE's marketing practices, and the section should be balanced. I'm not so sure LE has a majority position within NPOV on the marketing practices, but I believe they do against "recruitment."
I'm not sure if one exactly needs to be an expert to report if they felt "pressured". Certainly in my Forum the majority of people I spoke to felt unpleasantly pressured. Anyway, I'm not saying this is proof that the majority of people feel pressured, only that it seems to be the most widespread criticism of Landmark. By the way, Lowell's quote in this section makes no sense. Ckerr 10:55, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
The section on "religious implications" is one, I believe, again, where LE has a majority position within NPOV. I can name about 10 members of the clergy in favor of LE who have given supportive statements and maybe one or two against (Paul Derenkowski and the Apologetics Index are quoted, and the Apologetics Index, does not really have much to say regarding religious or theological aspects).
I don't particularly doubt that they do have a majority point of view, but I think the exact numbers are very hard to tell. I think this section is currently fine. Ckerr 10:55, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
In short, User:Ckerr, I believe you think NPOV means both sides must be portrayed equally. That is not neccessarily the case. Within NPOV, the content policy distinguishes three levels of support: 1) majority, 2) significant minority, 3) insignificant minority. The majority positions are entitled to lengthier explanations. I don't believe they are portrayed as the "truth" let alone "The Truth." Sm1969 00:11, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
No, of course I don't think NPOV means "equal treatment". However, in cases where it is not entirely clear where what fraction believes what, it is better to err on the side of balance. I don't agree with your sentiment that majority opinions should automatically receive lengthier treatments; I recall one problem with this article, which has since been fixed, is that the refutations of the criticisms so outweighed the actual criticisms that it was impossible to tell what the criticisms actually were. The section is called "Criticisms"; if the rebuttals outweigh the criticisms, then the section should be renamed "Rebuttals of criticisms". Ckerr 10:55, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Silly wikilinks?

Whoever is adding these silly and not relevant Wikilinks: please stop. Also note that linking from within quoted text should be avoided, unless absolutely necessary. See WP:MOS#Wikilinking, and Wikipedia:Only_make_links_that_are_relevant_to_the_context ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:47, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

These appear to be contributions from User:Smeelgova who used to Wikilink addition tool, as noted in a user comment from Smeelgova; see this diff from User:Smeelgova http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Landmark_Education&diff=prev&oldid=90088362

Sm1969 03:13, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Jeez, guys, don't come down so hard on me! It was a simple experiment with a new Wikilink tool, and had nothing to do with POV or anything like that. Thanks for not assuming good faith. Yeesh. Smeelgova 07:49, 26 November 2006 (UTC).
The lack of assumption of good faith is an interpretation on your behalf. Jossi found them silly, and I merely identified the source. Sm1969 09:13, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
Smeelgova, you have the tendency to go a bit overboard with links, so please if you want to try new tools, please use the sandbox. Thanks. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:00, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

No consensus on succession of organizational names

No, we don't have a consensus (you and I) on the "succession of organizational names" for the following reasons:

A) Courts have upheld no successor liabilty, and several prongs of that test failed.

B) Rick Ross even acknowledged in his response to LE that he would keep Est, LE and the Forum separate, and there is some intent to keep them separate there

C) Many of the names are not notable (e.g., Breakthrough and Transnational having been in existence for a week and a few months)

D) The courses are not the same, and even "Time Magazine" has stated that.

E) Very large corportions, such as IBM, had previous names which are not mentioned at all.

This should be redacted from all sections, and in a few cases, the transitory names used only in footnotes. This manner of portraying things appears in no major journal and scarcely even in blogs. Sm1969 06:45, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

This was stable in the article for a while. It is all sourced information, does not take up much space, and is highly relevant. The previous names are an important part of the article, not to mention they help serve as an important navigational box. Thanks. Smeelgova 06:47, 1 December 2006 (UTC).
Stability is irrelevant. You have put in 2000 edits on LE and others don't have all day to spend editing Wikipedia. It is sourced, but does take up too much space, and gives undue weight to things that are factually in error, i.e., it is not the same corporation. Go look at other corporations that have similar facets and you will not see this at the beginning, e.g., the renaming of IBM. Sm1969 06:50, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
The amount of edits I put it are irrelevant. Please try to keep the discussion to the content at hand. Thanks. Smeelgova 07:25, 1 December 2006 (UTC).
It may not be the same corporation, but the organizations are very very highly linked. Virtually all of the entire executive staff are the same, and most who make high level decisions have been involved with the company since before there was a company. And IBM is not a good example. IBM is not a controversial company like Landmark Education, and has not been labeled as a "cult" or "cult-like" by members of the press and foreign governments. This is not a good comparison. Thanks. Smeelgova 07:25, 1 December 2006 (UTC).
These are separate issues. The amount of edits you put in is relevant regarding stability. You put in so many edits that it would take an army to refute them, which is why certain items remain "stable" but highly non-compliant with Wikipedia content policies, such as notability, undue weight, verifiability. This is a refutation to your stability argument. Thank you for acknowledging that it is not the same organization. Further, in a direct rename (as in "Borland" to "Inprise" then back to "Borland" all of the corporation is the same, including the assumption of assets and liabilities. IBM at one time was a very controversial company, from say 1960 to 1985, where it was considered a monopoly, and that has nothing to do with your argument for the succession of organizational names. Members of the press--where there is accountability--have been held to account in Canada, the Netherlands and the United States for their tortious acts of calling a "cult" when that was subject to concrete meaning, capable of being proven true or false. France is the only place that has retained that characterization, from a now defunct parliamentary committee.

IBM is a relevant comparison for corporate renames. This successioon of organizational names is both factually in error as they are not the same corporation and undue weight. Sm1969 08:47, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Landmark Dating and Evidence for Techniko

"Landmark Dating" is not a subsidiary, but a service they offer.

What evidence do you have for "Techniko"? Sm1969 06:48, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

The information is already sourced. Thanks. Smeelgova 06:49, 1 December 2006 (UTC).
See the citation and appropriate reference. Tekniko is and always was a subsidiary of Landmark Education. Thanks. Smeelgova 06:52, 1 December 2006 (UTC).
Tekniko is sourced, but "LandmarkDating" is not a subsidiary, neither is Rancord. The Japanese centers are fully owned. Sm1969 06:55, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Do you have secondary sources for this? Thanks. Smeelgova 07:04, 1 December 2006 (UTC).
The burden is on you for LandmarkDating and Rancord, in either bringing it in to the article or in preventing me from striking it, for you to provide sources that they are "subsidiaries." Sm1969 07:20, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
From where do you have this alleged information that Rancord is "fully owned"? And what do you mean by "fully owned"? Owned by whom? The centers themselves? Are they connected to Landmark Education in any way? Does Werner Erhard own them? Does Harry Rosenberg? Thanks. Smeelgova 07:23, 1 December 2006 (UTC).
Again, you can point to the LE web site and see the Japanese centers as part of LE. The burden of proof is on you editor to show that Rancord even exists in 2006 to bring it into the article. As you yourself noted, LE bought the Japanese operation from Erhard in 2001. Redacting. Thanks. Sm1969 08:49, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Rules of the Landmark Forum

I have removed the section on the rules of the Landmark Forum as they are not notable and frankly, out of date. I have renamed it the STructure of the Landmark Forum to better suit the content.

Just because something is sourced does not mean it belongs in an encyclopedia article on the topic. For instance , if the National Enquirer published that George Bush had a rule that he enver went to bed without consulting space aliens that would be a referencable piece of information about the topic of the article. However, you would not include because it is patently untrue (or at last a majority of people would assume it is not! :-) )

Likewise for if you were doing an article on HP you could find hundreds of articles mentioning Carly Fiori as the head of the company. Legitemate, sourced references that could be entered following Wikipedia's guidelines- they would just be wrong and out of date.

It takes notability and appropriateness to be included as well. If there is five lines on all the courses put on by Landamrk- a company that does courses - seven out-of-date and innacurate lines on the rules in ONE of the dozens of courses Landmark holds is totally out of proportion. Please let's use some judgement in attempting to stay NPOV. Please do not revert this back without discussion.

Alex Jackl 06:57, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

This information is highly sourced and includes recent sources. It is notable as a key part of the beginning of "The Forum", and has been commented on in multiple articles. Thanks. Smeelgova 07:49, 2 December 2006 (UTC).
If you read my comments above you will see that I don't doubt that they are sources- only that they are not relevant and non-notable. If we mention the rules then we need to restore all the course descriptions- that were taken out to "reduce size" yet are far more relevant and notable than a series of agreements at the beginning of the course. Alex Jackl 15:38, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Non-Neutral POV

Not to mention or even to reference the extremely widespread allegations against Landmark for brainwashing in the first paragraph is ludicrous and a perversion of what Wiki is all about -- presenting the truth about the topics of our day. I am convinced that cult members are monitoring this page and trying to whitewash out any attempts to add such a reference. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Wbroun (talk • contribs) 11:54, 4 December 2006 (UTC).

No, we had this conversation already regarding brainwashing, cult, etc. They should come later and all have legal implication (See Wikipedia's policy on libel) and should be given a full evidentiary response from the other side. Your edit is "marginally vandalism" in the words of one administrator. Sm1969 16:53, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Well, sorry bud, but the results of "this conversation" have led to ludicrous results, and you can take your vandalism accusation and re-examine it VERY carefully. You are trying to whitewash Landmark Education's cultural history, never mind your unfounded scare-tactic litigation-mongering. I suspect that you have ties to the cult. You can call my belief a "personal attack" if you want, but I have little doubt that ONLY a cult member would try to seek to bury Landmark's dubious history. Wbroun
Actually, the administrator agrees that it is vandalism and that the edit is unprofesssional. The New York State Supreme court has held that an assertion of LE (or any entity) being a cult is a triable question of fact and that it is plainly derogatory. Thereupon, "Self Magazine" and Margaret Singer retracted their assertions. That's pretty strong evidence--along with all the other retractions--that your assertion is in violation of Wikipedia content policy on libel. Please read the content policy on libel. There is nothing "dubious" about their history. Over 90% find their courses to be worth the time and money. I'll have to get the administrators involved. Sm1969 20:10, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Also, Wikipedia is explicitly not about presenting the "truth" but rather 1) verifiability in references and 2) presenting views according to the proportion of people who hold those views. Sm1969 20:14, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Ha! Says it all right there! The Landmark Empire Strikes Back! No, no one has ever accused Landmark of being a cult! Here's one of those "fringe" articles on Landmark's pathetic legal bullying around the world. http://www.informationweek.com/management/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=196601049 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.195.254.25 (talk) 16:46, 5 December 2006 (UTC).
Wbroun, any unsourced material may be removed from Wikipedia, and unsourced defamatory information should be removed. If the allegations you want to insert into the article can be verified with reliable sources then they may remain. But simply saying 'Check Google' isn't sufficient. Please be more respectful of your fellow editors. -Will Beback · † · 05:07, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
There are several issues in relation to the use of terms such as "brainwashing" and "cult".
  • They are ill-defined, or could be interpreted with a range of alternative definitions. There is not even a consensus that the term "brainwashing" has any meaningful definition outside the context of victims of prolonged forceful incarceration.
  • They carry pejorative overtones, but without an examination of the reasons for the characterisation.
  • There is in fact no notable source that makes these accusations and is prepared to stand by them. Wikipedia is not a medium for promoting marginal anonymous opinions from internet discussion groups. DaveApter 12:47, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
This is absolutely a lie and you know it, or you're too brainwashed by Landmark to look into it. There is hardly a major newspaper around the world publishing in English which has NOT at one point made reference to cult allegations. And yes, when they become public and widespread, become part of the fabric of history and culture [2] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.195.254.25 (talk) 17:03, 5 December 2006 (UTC).

Addition of POV tag

When an editor adds a POV tag, it is expected that the editor will point what specific text in the article is not NPOV, so that it can be addressed by other editors. Adding a POV tag under the argument "the article is not neutral" or "the article is a whitewash" or any other assessment made without providing details about what that means, is not appropriate use of the POV warning tag, as it provides no meaningful information. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:45, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh, now you're trying to delete any investigation into how this article has been manipulated. Are you a cult member? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.195.254.25 (talk • contribs)
Wbroun, going around accusing everyone with whom you disagree of being a cult member is disruptive. Civility is a requirement, not an option. Even if the other editors are cult members they still must be treated with common respect. Attack their edits if you wish but don't attack the editors. If your aim is to improve articles then you'll have to work in collaboration with other editors, even those you don't like. That's the way Wikipedia works. Keep your cool and you'll be far more successful. -Will Beback · † · 05:13, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
I don't see anyone accusing "everyone"; just those who have no valid reason to block references to the cult controversy in the first paragraphs of the Landmark Education article. Landmark [rm uncivil comment] are trying to whitewash this article. [rm uncivil comment] 207.195.254.25 17:14, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Landmark graduates may be trying to control this article

The closer you look at this pathetic article, the more it suggests that Landmark Forum graduates and sympathizers -- and Landmark has been accused widely of using abusive, cult-like methods to indoctrinate its novitiates -- are CONTINUALLY seeking to steer the article away from any hint of effective criticism of Landmark. Even on the talk page, criticism of Landmark is often stamped out. One of the worst examples is the use of Raymond Fowler as an authority which supposedly clears Landmark. Fowler is a Forum graduaute. But there are countless examples here. It's a miracle that any critique appears, but it is totally buried. The disclaimer about "passionate" views in the opening is an anemic excuse for valid, factual reference. I urge readers of this article to take what they see with a big grain of salt. 65.78.116.33 17:44, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Introduction & controversy

The introduction section says that the group is controversial, but it does not say why it is controversial. It should, especially since the section on the controversy is way down in the article. Thanks. 192.150.10.200 22:10, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

The introduction, or lead, needs to be a two or three paragraphs long that summarizes the article. See WP:LEAD. You may want to read that guideline and propose a different wording that improves upon the current wording of the lead. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:13, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the link. That said, I'm actually a somewhat experienced editor, but prefer to work as an anonymous coward on articles such as this one.
Just trying to point out that it is not a helpful summary to say that a company is controversial and not say why. Most controversies are a lot more self-explaining, so it is easy to just say a cold fusion has "controversies" surrounding it, since it is pretty obvious that the controversies center on whether the theory is true.
Here, the nature of the controversy is somewhat tricky to grasp. In fact, there is no summary of the controversy. There is a summary sentence regarding "cult" status in the legal section, and then a catalog of controversies in the criticism, some of which are around the cult question, others not.
Since there is an enormous history here, not even one-fifth of which I have read, I thought it would be most efficient for me to raise the issue and allow someone closer to the work to formulate new text. Thanks! 192.150.10.200 22:38, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Took the plunge and wrote the summary. 192.150.10.200 00:32, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. Are there any qualifiers about "Some course participants have sued Landmark, alleging that Landmark's actions have caused them psychological harm"? Is that just a few individuals or a norm? I am asking because I am concerned bout WP:NPOV#Undue weight. I would argue that almost any practice, such as Yoga, meditation, hypnosis, etc, will have some people that would claim deriving harm from these practices. As such, what in your opinion is the weight we should give to assertions made by a population of dissatisfied "customers"? Please note that I am totally unfamiliar with the subject. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:01, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
You're argument sounds totally bogus to me. You can throw WP:NPOV#Undue weight card at almost any objection to anything, which would be insane. I don't mean to be unkind, but I think you need to consult WP:NPOVFAQ again. Perhaps it's time for you to step back from this article for a while. You have been heavily involved with it. Why not detach a bit? Note well: I say YOU'RE ARGUMENT, not you personally. I will answer one of your questions: "What in your opinion is the weight we should give to assertions made by a population of dissatisfied 'customers?'" Answer: It depends. If the complaint is significant and verifiable, it deserves consideration. What did all those people who got sick at Taco Bell this week do? They complained. They were dissatisfied customers. Did their objections deserve our interest? Hell, yeah. They had e coli! Wbroun 02:00, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the excellent example. The Taco Bell article mentions the e-coli incidents in the History section, but not on the lead, for obvious reasons. This article describes two cases of allegations of psychological harm, that were both dismissed by the court according to Landmark Education litigation. So, my question about undue weight in the lead is very pertinent, if these are the only tow cases reported. If there are others, then we need to add these to the article. As for your request to "step back", I do not see why any editor that contributes in good faith and is not disruptive, should be asked to do that. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:23, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
When the majority of Americans who have heard of Taco Bell hear Taco Bell, they don't think e coli, except this week. When the majority of Americans who have heard of the Landmark Forums hear Landmark Forums, they think creepy human potential cult. Whether it's fair or not is another matter -- that's for the court of public opinion. But whether you like it or not, it's part of American and also some European cultural history now. There are HUNDREDS of examples of cult-related references to Landmark in respectable publications all over the world. You really need to let go of this article, jossi. You seem a little out of control, to be honest. Perhaps the question should be this: what good reason do you have for continuing to edit this article. On balance, what have your edits really done but simply extended circular arguments? It's time to go away and let other contributors have a go. You will survive, and believe me, this article won't suddenly collapse. Just my 2 cents. Wbroun 02:43, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
I see only two three such cases described in Landmark Education litigation. Are there any others? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:04, 6 December 2006 (UTC)]
In re-reading Landmark Education litigation, I see that ther are only two such cases. One was dimised by the court on a summary judgment and the other found no evidence of such harm. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:37, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Good work on this, Anonymous (192.150.10.200). I was losing my faith in Wikipedia in observing the ethical absurdity of the earlier version of the lede. It was truly an outrage of Doublethink, a recasting of recent history so deeply cynical and meant to shield Landmark, I swear that I could hear George Orwell rolling over in his grave, and baying for blood. I mean, for pete's sake, the organization's attempts to bully Google are all over the news this week. See: http://www.informationweek.com/management/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=196601049 for more info. It never ends. It's not like it's only some obscure blogger with an axe to grind trying to defame Landmark. Thanks for bringing sanity to the proceedings.Wbroun 01:19, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

In 880,000 Landmark Forum participants between 1991 and January 2006, there are two cases alleging psychological harm:

1) Stephanie Ney (jury verdict in favor of Landmark Education; upheld on appeal) x) Tracey Neff (sexual harrassment by LE employee; not course conduct/operation) 2) Relatives of person shot and killed by Jason Weed (case withdrawn and refiled). The author of the DSM (Diagnostic and Statical Manual of Mental Disorders), Dr. Harrison Pope ruled out the Landmark Advanced Course as the cause of Jason Weed's psychotic episode--he shot and killed a postal employee and was found legally insane. x) There are an unknown number of arbitrations filed against LE in the United States and LE requires all participants to waive jury trial and arbitrate. To say that LE harms people is not only unproven, but probably libelous, and definitely undue weight in the intro. Sm1969 01:45, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

(Not opinion)/(Opinon)?

Seems very non-standard to label all external links as opinion vs. not opinion. Why is one first-hand account a "published article" and another "published opinion"?

Also, the labeling itself seems suspect. I am deleting the "primarily opinion" label from the "Cherries" link: it appears to be primarily a list of links, roughly two-thirds of which are links to articles in standard major newspapers.

I'd suggest deleting all of these link-specific labels, and just leaving the links under the "Generally unfavorable opinions" and "Generally favorable opinions" headings. No need to go beyond that, I don't think . . .

192.150.10.200 22:56, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I do not think that we need to qualify these external links. Just a label and a short description of what it is will do. I would also argue that Wikipedia is not a web directory, and as such, we ought to reduce the number of links substantially. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:52, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
I removed some links as per WP:EL#Links_normally_to_be_avoided, and consolidated two subsections. It still needs to be pruned a bit more. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:05, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Looks good, thanks! 192.150.10.200 00:31, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Undue Weight in Intro: 880,000 versus 2 (or zero)

Landmark Education and its methods sometimes evoke intense controversy. Two course participants have sued Landmark, alleging that Landmark's actions have caused them psychological harm (one lawsuit was dismissed by the court on a summary judgment and the other found no evidence of such harm.) Some observers have claimed that Landmark Education is a cult, engages in cult-like practices, or uses techniques akin to brainwashing. Landmark has responded in court on several occasions, claiming these allegations to be false and defamatory.

This has several problems. The two lawsuits have failed, and of 880,000 participants in the Landmark Forum, they are an insignificant minority. The people who have claimed it is a cult or uses brainwashing are also an insignificant minority, and there they, too, have consistently retracted, particularly if they do so in an accountable medium: writing, not the internet. The list of entities that have retracted for providing factually false and defamatory information is fairly large. Sm1969 01:53, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Your comparison is an absurd apples and oranges one. How many successful lawsuits have there been against David Koresch? Exactly zero. How many "happy customers" -- well, ask some of the burnt corpses in Waco! Wbroun 19:19, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
As I gently suggested above with jossi, perhaps you, too, Sm1969, need to step back a bit from this Landmark article. Let it go, bud. And again, I don't mean to be unkind, but I think you also need to consult WP:NPOVFAQ again. I see a fierce pro-Landmark bias in your editing, which is worrying and not good for Wiki. I have looked carefully at your and jossi's involvement in this article, and it strikes me as almost obsessive. Why not give it a break for a few weeks? Check this out: WP:OWN I believe you have crossed the line between caring about a Wikipedia article and obsessively trying to sway opinion and represent a "tiny minority" opinion. And again, I am very concerned that you are demonstrating a bias. I have absolutely nothing against you personally, but feel inclined to believe that you need to step away from this article and discussion as a contributor.Wbroun 02:00, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
I think you need to make an attempt to quantify points of view (in numbers), where possible, to tell what a "minority opinion" is. Given the statement that 880,000 have done the Landmark Forum and there have been two lawsuits (2), both of which have failed, what do you think the minority opinion is? I could come back in two weeks, but I doubt I will have changed my mind about that. Similarly, I could quote the customer number of people who say that it is a "cult" or is "brainwashing" and show that, when sued for providing factually false and defamatory information, those points of view are consistently retracted. Who, precisely, in print media--where they are accountable--is saying that LE is a "cult" or does "brainwashing"? Sm1969 06:49, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
I have added anti-LE things, where accurate and substantiated, such as, for example, the refiling of the Weed case in 2006. I believe that quantitative data suggests that I am representing a majority opinion, on, for example, the "psychological harm" allegations. Two (2) cases in 880,000 participants is your basis for putting something into the intro? If anything, the "psychological harm" allegations are the tiny minority opinion. Sm1969 02:28, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Wbroun: As far as I can see, the only disruptive editor may have been you. But in Wikipedia we show understanding to newbies, so hopefully you will be able to put these behind you, and contribute to this article alongside others, avoid making personal remarks about other editors, and join in the collaborative effort that is the basis for this project. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:08, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Jossi, once again, I strongly urge you to take a good, hard look at WP:NPOVFAQ, and step away from this article. With every counter-objection, you dig yourself deeper into a hole of bias. Let it go. Your work on this article does not demonstrate a will to collaborate, in my opinion, nor does it show good faith. Your hope of labeling me a "newbie" is below you, frankly. Again, I think you need to go edit some other articles, and let others have a go at this one. I believe the article will be OK without your contributions. Again, nothing personal, and just my 2 cents. Wbroun 03:33, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
I will stop responding to these comments, as it only encourages you to keep making more comments that are not useful and inherently disruptive. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:41, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
In fact, I would stop responding to this ""entire discussion,"" if I were you, and carefully consider whether your biased admin work is hindering or helping to foster a collaborative spirit in editing this article. I believe it is you and Sm1969 who continue to cause disruptions to the progress of this article. You and your tagteam editing partner, Sm1969, have between you close to 150 mentions on this discussion page! Talk about an edit war. And that's without looking at the discussion archive. As Sm1969's more than 100 mentions on this page make demonstrate, this editor has tried to take ownership of this article; he or she has turned it into a personal crusade. A balanced, reasonable article has been completely and utterly derailed. Why is this happening? Could it be possible that some editors here are Landmark graduates with an axe to grind? I wonder. Wbroun 04:21, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Can you please stop? As I said before, I am not affiliated in any ways or manner with the subject of this article. But even if I was, in Wikipedia we assume the good faith of our contributors and remarks about the personal affiliations of editors are not welcome. Nobody is asking or challenging you on your bias, if you have noticed. Put all these comments aside, and join in the effort to make this article an excellent one. That is why we are here for. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:30, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Oh, there you go, quoting Wiki policies again. Assuming good faith counts for the starting point of a collaboration; once it has been well-established that an editor is NOT acting in good faith, it is fair enough to question that editor, or even an administrator. As you will see in WP:NPOVFAQ, I am actually dealing with this correctly, which is to discuss biased editing openly and in public. I can see that it really bothers you that I am doing this. Indeed, you have encouraged me to use a much more formal complaint policy. I would rather try to encourage you and, especially, Sm1969, to give up your attempts to control the Landmark article, and give up "ownership" of it WP:OWN. I guarantee you that this article would improve if you and Sm1969 gave yourselves a time-out from editing it. Again, nothing personal, and just my 2 cents. Wbroun 04:43, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
It's interesting that you object to being called a "Newbie" (after having made several personal attacks), and then switching 180 degrees to quoting NPOV policies, in a matter of two days, in a very different style of writing. Am I to assume that you are not a "Newbie" and that you have been editing under different IDs for a while now if you are not a "Newbie?" Sm1969 03:52, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Um, I missed the part where I object to being called a newbie? I merely called our Jossi on his attempt to mudsling. Oh, I see, am I being "Landmarked" here? I wish I was saying that as a joke, but it seems all too true. Wbroun 04:05, 6 December 2006 (UTC)


I move both the "2" and the "880,000" out of the intro. Intros should avoid too much detail. It's sufficient to say there's controversy and criticism, and then to go into details later. -Will Beback · † · 08:00, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

No, it is not "sufficient." Your patronizing, insulting editing has only deepned the controversy and made matters worse. Landmark's controversy is CENTRAL to its cultural profile. The lead should reflect that.Wbroun 17:59, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
No, most of the controversy at this point is Internet urban legend. Sm1969 18:15, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
I think most editors would strongly agree that it is poor writing to state that there is a controversy around an educational enterprise, but not state what the subject of the controversy was. That said, I am always delighted when a view contrary to my own leads to a surprising new insight as to what is really going on in the article. And that has happened here. It is true that the number of harm lawsuits is small and possibly insignificant. But it is also true that Landmark is controversial -- the content of the French documentary and the London Times pieces are not urban legends, and even if they were, the extent of the controversy is itself notable. If one doesn't think that the controversy has reached a notable level, then I would recommend a more objective look at the ratio of good-to-negative press. Read the referenced sources.
So we are left with the discrepancy between the apparently non-notable lawsuits and the clearly notable controversy. This discrepancy exists because the article doesn't do a very good job of summarizing the actual controversy -- which centers on the specific techniques of the courses that are perceived by some as pressuring to the point of being hypnotic or even coercive, and on the belief that Landmark is essentially a revision of Est, which is perceived by some as discredited.
So I agree that the lawsuits don't belong in the lead/lede. But a summary of the controversy does. I will try to add one later, but sadly, it took too long to write this comment ;-). 192.150.10.200 00:18, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Ok, the extent of the controversy is notable, but putting into the intro is another thing, and without the great deal of context needed to make it NPOV presenting both sides, makes it complicated. How LE (from its statements) sees the controversy, I believe, is in the media: the truth versus what sells. The French video was an explicit attempt to generate controversy to improve the ratings of the show: the sound effects, presenting things out of context, presenting it through a small-angle view, the selection of scenes, not having balanced reporters or expert witnesses from the other side. That's how you sell books and TV programs--pick an extreme point of view and show everything from that point of view. That's the same thing LE asserts that Rick Ross is doing, for his own financial gain. Sm1969 00:35, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Emerging consensus?
Seems we are starting to agree that:
  • The two lawsuits for psychological harm are not notable enough to include in the lead.
  • The extent of the controversy is notable enough that it should be mentioned in the lead.
  • It is complicated to write a concise NPOV summary of the controversy and represent both sides.
So I think the next step is to try and write such a summary and see how it goes . . . 192.150.10.200 19:04, 7 December 2006 (UTC)


The following three terms have been found to be the basis of defamation lawsuits: "brainwashing" and "cult" and "mind control." It's fine to mention these allegations, but they must be done in the appropriate section, with retractions and court findings. It is undue weight to put this into the introduction. The vast majority (over 90% of the customers) find the courses valuable per the surveys cited. These "brainwashing" and "cult" and "mind control" accusations are minority points of view, but notable, and carry with them the Wikipedia content policies on libel as mentioned above. Sm1969 20:50, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Sm1969 -- this comment section is for fresh, outside voices. You have already made your opinions abundantly clear above. This requesti for comment is aimed at people outside the current usual suspects. Please let others have an impact on this article by desisting from trying to dominate discussions, again and again. Wbroun 22:26, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
After you launched personal attacks on me and Administrators (jossi) in the last three days, I thought I would give some additional Wikipedia content policy information that you do not know about. Sm1969 23:53, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Dude, you're the one who keeps blanking out any thing with a hint of censure about your editing methods on your talk page. You have lost your credibility because you have tried to take over this article. See WP:OWN for additional guidance. This is about your behavior, not you personally. Wbroun 04:18, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
First, I'll repeat what I said above, but should have put here: ::I think most editors would strongly agree that it is poor writing to state that there is a controversy around an educational enterprise, but not state what the subject of the controversy was. That said, I am always delighted when a view contrary to my own leads to a surprising new insight as to what is really going on in the article. And that has happened here. It is true that the number of harm lawsuits is small and possibly insignificant. But it is also true that Landmark is controversial -- the content of the French documentary and the London Times pieces are not urban legends, and even if they were, the extent of the controversy is itself notable. If one doesn't think that the controversy has reached a notable level, then I would recommend a more objective look at the ratio of good-to-negative press. Read the referenced sources.
So we are left with the discrepancy between the apparently non-notable lawsuits and the clearly notable controversy. This discrepancy exists because the article doesn't do a very good job of summarizing the actual controversy -- which centers on the specific techniques of the courses that are perceived by some as pressuring to the point of being hypnotic or even coercive, and on the belief that Landmark is essentially a revision of Est, which is perceived by some as discredited.
So I agree that the lawsuits don't belong in the lead/lede. But a summary of the controversy does. I will try to add one later, but sadly, it took too long to write this comment ;-).


Now, as someone with training in this area, let me say something about libel/defamation. It is true that "brainwashing" and the other terms could be libelous, because they have been found to be statements of fact, not opinion. I might point out that all statements that meet wikipedia's standards for verifiability also meet this standard for being potentially libelous. All this means is that "Oliver Stone runs a cult" is a statement of fact that is potentially libelous, as opposed to "Oliver Stone made a terrible movie," which is a statement of opinion that cannot be libelous.
As a side note, statements made in or to a court have a special privilege in U.S. law. If you print that Mike sued Mary for stealing his stapler, well there's no libel if Mike did in fact say that in the suit.
Now if a local newspaper reported that "Joe Smith has accused his brother Jim of running a cult," we have an interesting situation, as it is a statement of fact that Joe said that. In the U.S., if Joe Smith, did in fact, say such a thing, it would be very difficult to find the newspaper liable for libel. There are extreme cases in which such an publication could meet the "reckless disregard for the truth" standard -- if the reporter and Joe colluded in making up the story, or if the reporter knew that Joe was totally crazy, or if the reporter investigated the story and found many of its elements to be demonstrably false and she failed to include that in the article. However, if we uphold the wikipedia standards for NPOV, no original research -- i.e, all of our statements of fact should be sourced -- and notability, there is really no real chance of creating a liability here. We should take special care with sourcing these allegations in the text -- so-and-so has alleged, etc. -- but our own standards will steer us clear of any real trouble. 192.150.10.200 00:55, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Some libel materials: [9], [10], [11] 192.150.10.200 01:03, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Very great. The issue is slightly more complicated, yet, because of some of the words used in France (in particular) and their translation from French into English. I have also had a basic course in tort law. In the legal sense, the average Wikipedia has little understanding of fact (legal) versus opinion (legal). We (as Wikipedians) must be careful that we report things accuratlely, including retractions, and with attention to what those words were intended to mean in their full context. I'll have to pull up the definitions of "cult" and "brainwashing" and "mind control" that the court accepted from LE as being statements/assertions of fact. I remember that "cult" had an authoritarian leader, which LE lacks; indeed, Wikipedia deleted Harry Rosenberg for being not notable. I remember that brainwashing was defined as "forcible indoctrination" with threat of force. I forget what they accepted for "mind control." Aside from undue weight (NPOV), the other major problem I have with putting these statements into the intro is doing it in proper context. These items are in the New York case of LE against Self Magazine around 1994.

Sm1969 01:11, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Please leave the RFC section open for other editors to comment. Involved editors can continue the discussion here. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:48, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

My bad. Sorry. 192.150.10.200 18:55, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

When an editor adds a dispute tag, such as {{advert}} it is expected that some comments about the reasons is described in talk. Dispute tags are not devices to assert a POV about an article's quality, but to encourage discussion. I see no reason stated about why this article is any different than Microsoft. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:31, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Hands Off The Article!

It's becoming increasing clear to me that this article is just an ongoing disaster and a continuing, petty battle of wills. This is more than an editing war. It's a complete breakdown of Wikipedian good will. The administrative work on the discussion has sometimes shown good intentions, but I don't see it leading to anything but more of the same. There is a profound ownership WP:OWN issue continuing here, which they don't seem to recognize, and it has really ruined the piece. Indeed, the editing history strikes me as totally dysfunctional. Even as the dispute resolution process tries to get on its feet, the usual suspects continue to manipulate, tweak, adjust, blank, and rewrite their agenda into this article. Why can't you leave your hands off the article for a while? I have, and I have strong feelings about it. Why can't you editors who seek to control the debate leave well enough alone? After all, it's your best intentions that have helped get us into this mess. What do they call that in Landmark jargon? Oh, yeah, running a "racket." Well, we need a "breakthrough," as the Landmarkians put it, because we're wracked with rackets. Please, those of you who have had a long history of editing this article, can you please consider keeping your hands off it for a while? Wbroun 03:01, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a collaborative writing effort. We do not usually ask editors to stop editing, on the contrary, unless they are disruptive of course. If you think that these type of comments will make editors "go away", you may be mistaken. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:25, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Jossi, you are not the only arbiter or even a reliable interpreter of Wiki policy. My suggestion is that editors AND ADMINISTRATORS with ownership issues stop [rm expletive] around with the article for a while. Let others have a go. Apparently that's too much to ask! Wbroun 15:26, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Please do not use foul language. Editors of Wikipedia are free to edit any articles they want to edit, as long as they do that within the spirit of WP content policies. If you have any complaints about specific editors, you may want to consider user filing an RfCs against them, or seeking dispute resolution. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:35, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
First of all, I wasn't talking about ANY editor. I meant people like you, who are trying to own WP:OWN this article. I really, honestly don't see you trying to resolve anything. And I have never encountered an admin so fond of quoting rules. Foul language? Since when did FOOKING become foul? As for your patronizing talking-down to me about Wiki policies, you may want to review them yourself. It's clear that you're totally out of touch with WP:IAR. Wbroun 19:14, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
See [12]]. And please stop. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:18, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Jossi, have you ever thought about "taking the course?" Just curious. Wbroun 19:27, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
No. What about you? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 13:25, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Believe me, I'm beyond help. Wbroun 21:30, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

RFC summary: Prominence of controversy reference in lead

This is a dispute about how prominently any reference to Landmark Education's controversies -- which is itself a controversial question -- should appear in the article's lead. Some editors believe some reference to issues such as brainwashing allegations should feature prominently in lead. Others believe that a brief reference at the end of the introduction is sufficient.

Comments
  • Come here via RfC. My initial thought, without even looking at the page is balance. Does the initial paragraph proclaim the glories of Landmark Edu (according to some). If so, adding in a really direct allegation would balance things out.
Looking at how things are, the lenght of the controversy, etc., I might add a slightly stronger tone, but in no way add the brainwashing in the initial paragraph, given weakness of the allegations (2 failed court cases, 1 court case saying "it's just an opinion"), and a former AMA president scoping it out. That would be serious Undue weight in my opinion.
I'll keep this page marked and participate in the dialogue. Sethie 04:17, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
  • I believe we should be comparing this entry to other business entries. We need to stop over-representing a very small minority opinion representing the "cult/brainwashing" contingent and have this page be more balenced. Please remember balance does not alway represent the mid-point between two sides- if one side if supporting genocide and the other saying "let's not" the balanced position is not killing half the population... Alex Jackl 14:56, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Oh, yes, a real objective opinion here! Check out "AJackl's" hack-job blanking of the intro. Can we have some new voices here? Wbroun 20:21, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Read above and below. And please remain civil in your comments about other editors. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:23, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Jossi, when are you going to start offering some objectivity in your attacks on editors? You label me "uncivil" while allowing to pass without comment dozens of enormous, hack-job blankings and reverts. The history of this article looks like what you find in a shredder bin. It's a shameful reflection of the sometimes total failure of Wikipedia. This article is CONSTANTLY moving towards become a big Landmark ad, and you sit back and mainly obstruct any editor who tries to object to that. Are you "taking a stand," to quote the Landmarko-zoids? Wbroun 19:25, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
  • I find it hard to argue against the 880,000 to 2 ratio. It seems that trying to put the cult alegations in the first paragraph of this article is an deliberate attempt to influence readers opinions about this company. People reading the article should be able to get facts in the first paragraph and what ever significant conjecture should come later in the article. Spruceforest 17:14, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Would you be open to sharing why you believe it "should" be summarized?Sethie 16:12, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Encyclopedia articles are summaries of reliable sources. Article introductions are summaries of those summaries. They should give an overview of the main points of the article, but they shouldn't go into details unnecessarily. -Will Beback · † · 19:34, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Will is right. But the dispute is about the composition of that summary, and what detail needs to include. For a good example, see Microsoft. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:38, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
  • As the intro stands, right now - it looks alright. However it could use perhaps one or two more lines detailing the nature of the controversies (cult allegations, brainwashing allegations, and labor investigations, to name a few). Smeelgova 22:22, 7 December 2006 (UTC).
(Smeelgova: this section is for non-involved editors responding to the RfC) ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:28, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
I see that, and will not comment any further in this section. However, how does that make it appropriate for User:Spruceforest to comment here? Confused. Thanks. Smeelgova 22:36, 7 December 2006 (UTC).
Could you please clarify? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:56, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Well, I was responding the Smeelgova's request that we include the allegations.... as I look through the cult section the only "strong" (for me) piece is the French governments assesment- the rest is dismmissed allegation, hearsay or actually saying it isn't a cult. When I read the brainwashing section- I see 2 failed court cases and a third which basically says, "No comment." So I don't see a lot of hard evidence to warrant a major mention in the inital paragraph.Sethie 03:22, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

As per the above discussions I am taking the advert off. This has been discussed twice on THIS talk page, and Jossi mentioned that when you tag an article with an advert you should justify your addition.

Since there is no discussion of it I am relating to it as vandalism and removing it. Alex Jackl 07:37, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

It is most certainly not vandalism. Let's all give the editor who originally added it the chance to respond here. Thanks. Smeelgova 07:39, 8 December 2006 (UTC).
This has been discussed already- there was ample time. Let us listen to your advice and not make changes. If you feel this is advertising please discuss the reasons and give people time to comment. If an advert tag is warranted ther emust be some compelling evidence for that. Please read the prior references to the advert tag and the non-existence of justification and discussion. Thanks. Alex Jackl 07:45, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Of the cited references, over twenty of the current citations point to various parts of Landmark Education's corporate website. As mentioned before, this is in violation of Wikipedia Policy, and is highy inappropriate for an encyclopedia article about a for-profit company. Thanks. Smeelgova 08:09, 8 December 2006 (UTC).
NOTE: I will not put the advert tage back in again, but I do feel that you are all being way too quick to remove this tag, and not giving the editor who put it in enough time to respond as to his reasoning here on the talk page. Thanks. Smeelgova 08:13, 8 December 2006 (UTC).
I feel for you, Smeelgova. But I fear we face a Sisyphus-like task. The quick removal of the advert tag is just the latest disgusting example of the damage that a couple biased admins and obsessive editors can wreak on a Wiki article. Remember -- we are dealing with a possible cult here. The forces of resistance are extreme, and that may be what we're encountering. I am growing convinced that Landmark Forum grads and adherents have colluded to steer and own this article. Who knows what lengths they are willing to go to? It may indeed be time to try some other methods of dispute resolution. But I think that may not even work. Landmark Education grads, I suspect, are desperate to control the outcome of this article. Wbroun 19:35, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Jossi pointed out that it is not a violation of policy to use LE's web site for quotes. Jossi even gave the specific guidelines. The number of links to LE's web site is irrelevant. What they are substantiating is what is relevant. Of course, if external web sites can be found that substantiate, they should be cited as well or in lieu of the LE web site. As we also discussed before, only LE is a possible source for certain data, such as customer participation statistics. So, if there are 500 links to LE's web site for customer participation statistics, the article just needs to note who is providing the source. Sm1969 09:22, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
I simply do not see what is the difference between this article and the article on Microsoft. Both are for profit companies, both are the target of substantial criticism, both have a lot of info sourced from the companies' websites and other self-published materials, both have links to their official websites, etc. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:54, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Sheesh! The whole tone of the intro is pure advertorial. It's about as obvious as the Himalayas. Wbroun 19:40, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Why don't you propose an alternative version? It would be much better than complaining. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:43, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Links to the home company don't make a page an advert for me. Text which says, "this is the best," "everyone has benefited," if you want more infor, etc. are what make a page an advert. Sethie 16:11, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

References Galore Added

I have added about a dozen or so references to the controversial public profile of Landmark from numerous high-circulation, respected newspapers, and one major wire service:

Among many recent articles: “Mixed view of forums.” Sunday Times (Perth, Australia). June 25, 2006 Sunday. Country Edition. Pg. 32; "Murder in Mexico: Chatelaine exclusive"; Canada NewsWire. July 27, 2006 Thursday 9:00 AM Eastern Time; DeKok, David. “Tuition expenses probed.” The Patriot-News. December 18, 2005; “New-school-to-open-amid-high-hopes.” The Miami Herald (Florida). July 16, 2006 Sunday; Mullally, Una. “Una, I'd really encourage you to do the London and do it.” Sunday Tribune (Ireland). July 31, 2005. Pg. N04; Hind, Purves, Watts. “Pete Signs Up for Cult Clinic”; Daily Star (UK). March 22, 2005. Pg. , 13; Beam, Ale. “A Harvard Forum For Self-Promotion?” The Boston Globe. November 6, 1998. Pg. D1; Pallister, David. “Libel Award of £20K Bankrupts Cult Watcher”; The Guardian (London). August 3, 1996. Pg. 12.

Before judging, please go read the articles for yourself. I have countless more I could add. I honestly don't see how anyone can argue that the idea of "controversy" is NOT a huge part of Landmark's public profile. Whether or not that's deserved is another matter. All I have ever wanted to see reflected in the intro was an accurate representation of how Landmark appears in our culture, as a whole. I feel the current intro, where I strove for balance, reflects fairly on both sides. Wbroun 06:57, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I actually agree with some of the Landmark-supporter editors that some of the new language you have added in the introduction section could be regarded as inappropriate. However I do appreciate all of the sources you have utilized in your citation, and perhaps we can work with this "2 sides" idea you have put forth. Do you know of hyperlinks for some of these sources, or places where we can read some of these articles online? Also, it would be helpful if you broke up each separate article into its own citation, for ease of referencing and fixing up the citation individually. In short, parts of your argument/idea in the intro seem valid, but the way you are attempting to put it forth with certain language won't last long here. Smeelgova 07:39, 9 December 2006 (UTC).

I would say the controversy is in the media representation. Both LE's web site and wernererhard.com have notes to that effect.

http://www.wernererhard.com/wernererharddebate.htm http://www.landmarkeducation.com/display_content.jsp?top=26&mid=658

Sm1969 08:45, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

The "Murder in Mexico" article is actually the "Untold Story of Lulumon". Sm1969 07:43, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
I found hyperlinks to some of the above articles, couldn't find the others, but it is interesting the number of controversial articles that have appeared in high-circulation media as of late. If others can find hyperlinks to some of the other articles in the blockquote above, that would be helpful, for discussion purposes. Smeelgova 08:00, 9 December 2006 (UTC).

Controversies

The recent changes to the introduction by Wbroun, might be appropriate in the controversies section, but give far too much weight to minority opinion for an introductory paragraph. I don't see consensus in the above discussion for this re-structuring.

Some time back I inserted this as the opening paragraph of the "Controversies" section, but it was deleted somewhere along the way in the course of the various edit wars this article has suffered.

Critics of Landmark Education make accusations which generally fall into one or more of these areas:

  • Questioning whether the courses do really produce worthwhile benefits, or produce harmful results (discussed in the section above)
  • Suggesting that participating in the programs may have harmful consequences
  • Speculating that the Landmark Education system may exploit customers (financially or otherwise)

I still think this is a fair, accurate and neutral summary, and I propose to re-insert it.

There seems to me to be on-going confusion in the way material is presented in this section between matters of fact and matters of opinion.

Virtually everything in the section is a report of opinion, and the references only serve to substantiate that one person (the one quoted) holds that opinion. In accordance with NPOV policy, we can report the fact that some identifiable population holds a certain opinion, but should give due weight in proportion to the size of the population which holds that view. There is substantial evidence that a large majority of the 880,000 plus customers of LE are broadly satisfied. There is no evidence that any more than a tiny fraction of that number of people hold adverse views.

Much of the criticism is based on factually inaccurate, or deliberately misrepresented, information. For example there is no evidence whatsoever of statistically significant incidence of harm occuring from participation in Landmark programs. And no-one is making financial profict from the operation. DaveApter 11:15, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Minority opinion? Are you a Landmark graduate? You see how many articles in recent big-circulation, respect papers REFERENCE the controversy?????? WTF?? If you don't make reference to the controversial cultural status of Landmark prominently in the lead, you are writing a deceptive entry. Wbroun 17:17, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Newspapers articles can be used as sources to illustrate the specifics addressed in these articles (provided that these are not op-eds), but not to make assessments as for such "cultural status", unless such cultural status has been reported by secondary sources. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:45, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. I have attempted to summarize the criticism section in the lead. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:33, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Looks good. -Will Beback · † · 20:35, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

More Editing Craziness

Unbelievable. I wake up today and look at the article and there is NO MENTION OF CONTROVERSY WHATSOEVER in the lead. All the references I dug up through tons of hard work have been buried. What a joke. It's obvious that Landmark Education's minions control this article. Reader beware: this article is completely skewed. Absurd. Sad. Exactly what Wiki is NOT supposed to be.Wbroun 17:16, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Notice: Article Submitted For Mediation

Please let the process play out, editors. Obviously, since I'm the one who submitted it for mediation, I hope that the parties named will agree to mediation. If not, the dispute resolution process goes up to Arbitration, I believe. I will be interested to see how Wiki handles this. Here's the link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/Landmark_Education Wbroun 17:55, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Not sure we have exhausted options before resorting to mediation. One RfC is not enough. If there is good will, if editors refrain from being uncivil, and assume good faith, I do not see why this dispute cannot be resolved by the collaborative editing effort. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:04, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Comment : Here is the comment I added to the mediation page, along with my disagree vote. The 3RR was on a totally unrelated issue, namely total lack of sourcing for negative information that was decided as a non-block. The RFC was initiated recently by user Wbroun, but that user appears to have ignored the true third-party comment. For these reasons, mediation is too soon. Further, the proposed rewrites of Wbroun are not neutral in tone and totally unprofessional for an encyclopedia. Sm1969 18:12, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Second comment: Jossi's tone is professional in his rewrite of the introduction. Sm1969 18:21, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Third comment: I have changed my position to agree on the mediation page.

As stated in Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/Landmark_Education I have removed myself as a party, and will recuse myself from editing this article if other involved editors agree to mediation. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:25, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

As stated above, the introduction of the article could use one or two more lines detailing the nature of the controversies (cult allegations, brainwashing allegations, and labor investigations, etc.), to name a few. Smeelgova 19:36, 9 December 2006 (UTC).
That will be for the mediators to mediate, amongst other disputes. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:42, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I guess we'll see what happens. As it stands, as a matter of interest, I could go along with present intro (which I did NOT write), which reads:

Landmark Education LLC (LE), describes itself as a training company, offering proprietary training and development programs based ontology in over 20 different countries. It is an employee-owned, private company, and based in San Francisco, California, and markets its introductory course as "The Landmark Forum". Landmark Education purchased the intellectual property of Werner Erhard and Associates, a successor to the controversial Est Training, and since its foundation in 1991 has developed other courses.

That seems fair enough, and I would be willing to withdraw more formal efforts at dispute resolution if the spirit of this intro stays even somewhat intact. I'm not going to get my hopes up! As understand it, if any one party refuses to mediate, the mediation request dies. Can someone clarify? Wbroun 21:23, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

That was my edit, Wbroun I am glad you find it acceptable. I would suggest that you continue pursuing mediation to address any other concerns that, by reading this talk page, seem to still be outstanding. Calling for mediation is not a trivial task and should not be contemplated as a such. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:27, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
I don't really have any other concerns, to be honest. I can't speak for Smeelgova or others. As I have said before, I don't disagree (or agree) that the allegations against Landmark may be unfair and unfounded. The present intro is fine with me.Wbroun 21:42, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

In any case, the mediation was rejected, because of what the chair of the mediation committee saw as my refusal to participate in the mediation. In any case, you seem to have found some common ground. Hope that it continues. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:16, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it's a good thing. :) I had not really expected the mediation to go forward, due to non-participation -- but you cannot proceed through dispute resolution without making an honest effort, so it was done in good faith. Wbroun 03:58, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Present Introduction Language

Landmark Education LLC (LE), describes itself as a training company, offering proprietary training and development programs based ontology in over 20 different countries. It is an employee-owned, private company, and based in San Francisco, California, and markets its introductory course as "The Landmark Forum".

Landmark Education purchased the intellectual property of Werner Erhard and Associates, a successor to the controversial Est Training, and since its foundation in 1991 has developed other courses.

The company markets its courses primarily to individuals. Its subsidiary Landmark Education Business Development (LEBD) provides training and consultancy to organizations.

Landmark Education is often criticized about whether its courses produce worthwhile benefits or produce harmful results to participants, its use of volunteers, and its origins. Controversy also arises from Landmark Education's use of litigation and/or threats of litigation.

Sm1969 21:30, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes! I could accept that! Are we having a "breakthrough?" Wbroun 21:31, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
We might be having a breakthrough. I would rather convert "describes itself as" to "is" and take out the "produce harmful results". I don't think there is enough evidence to support that "produce harmful results" as that is the 880,000 to 2 argument, really 880,000 to 0. I'm still thinking about this introduction. Sm1969 21:39, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Yes! Again, I agree. As long as the word controversial (or some synonym) is attached to EST and the linkage is made early, as it is here, in the intro, I am pleased. I have nothing against Landmark. I just want to see cultural history represented somewhat accurately.Wbroun 21:56, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
So, you are agreeing to: 1) change "describes itself as" to "is" and remove "produce harmful results." I would also remove "threats of litigation" because use of legal processes always requires a demand/threat first. In those cases, where "threats" were made, litigation would have ensued (if they were true threats). Sm1969 22:10, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
I believe we should revert to the intro that was there for many many weeks. It was changed without discussion and we should revert.
If we don't revert then: The section on litigation is innappropriate because there isn't that much frankly- if you take a big company they will often have some litigation going on for something. Frankly I am completely against having litigation mentioned in the introduction and second the changes Sm1969 recommended. Frankly there should be NOTHING about contraversy in the introduction. If you look at the IBM site you will notice that there is no mention of its legal battles with the LInux community even though those are much larger and numerous than Landamrk's and could impact MANY MANY more people. Many of us are fighting not to swing this site over to a positive POV about Landamrk but we would settle for a balanced one - which this article does not even come close to representing. I also don't like the the use of pretentious, abusive language by some of the new editors - it is innappropriate to this environment. Alex Jackl 03:49, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
OKay- I made the changes. I still think it is innapropriate to mention any of the "contraversies" given how much they are a minority opinion. I did however leave it in the spirit of compromise. I also think mentioning articles that have the "contraversy", well- a training and development company that make sa difference for poeple isn't good copy. A contraversial one with danger and talk of cults makes good copy. If there were no contraversy you would expect little media coverage of a company like Landmark at all... Alex Jackl 04:01, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
I don't think anyone is getting exactly what they want here. That's probably a good sign. Writing by consensus isn't always a pretty process, but this introduction offers the basic spirit of carefully measured and clear-sighted balance I can settle for, if not adore. Wbroun 04:23, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

At this point, I plan as an editor to move on to other articles on Wiki, and serve to good effect where possible. I have learned a lot through this ordeal and bear no hard feelings towards anyone here. I have not really encountered a serious dispute on Wiki, and I'm glad to see this one -- apparently -- resolve through informal processing. I hope this basic intro is stabilized. All best, Wbroun 04:28, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

PS: If someone wants to remove the Neutrality Disputed label (I put it there), I personally see no issue there. OK, I'm outta here! Wbroun 04:43, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
I have taken the litigation language out of the introduction again - this introduction points to the contraversy without making a mountain out of a molehill. If Landmark had more litigation I might be more sympathetic but these handfuls of cases in a 14 year history for an almost 100 million dollar company? Come on. It just isn't notable. Alex Jackl 04:56, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Please see consensus established above between User:Wbroun and User:Sm1969. Yours, Smeelgova 05:03, 11 December 2006 (UTC).
Hmmm. See above where I proposed taking out any mention of legislation for non-notability and Wbroun responded with what it took as assent. I see now that is not clear. So in the interest of good practice and civility, I ask other editors to chime in here on this matter. I strongly propose removing the sentence on legislation in the intro- it is non-notable as it is non-notable for a 15 year old, 80 million dollar company to have a handful, or perhaps 2 handfuls, of litigation associated with it. Alex Jackl 05:17, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
I only commented on the "threats of litigation" not "litigation" itself. There are three issues: 1) is the litigation notable, 2) is it so notable that it deserves to be in the lead, and 3) if it deserves to be in the lead, what should be said. I think the litigation is notable as it is unusual for corporation to sue for libel. It happens, but is rare. So, litigation deserves to be mentioned. However, all of the libel related litigation has gone in LE's favor, excepting cases that were dismissed as opinion (not triable questions of fact: Lell and Elle Magazine), and the experts making the accusations have retracted. In the Internet case against Rick Ross, there were many issues, but one of which was the differing standards on the Internet. The other case of outbound litigation is the DMCA subpoenas. It got press worldwide, but it is a single instance in 15 years, and I doubt you will ever see it again for the publicity it drew. On the inbound litigation against LE, all the cases so far (the 880,000 versus 2) have failed. I do not see litigation, thus, as a lead paragraph issue. Wbroun merely wanted connections to Est in the lead, which we now have. Sm1969 08:06, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
And yet it seemed above that after the consensus established between User:Sm1969 and User:Wbroun, the only thing removed from that sample paragraph as displayed above was the portion about threats of litigation the reference to the litigation itself was left in, in the original consensus on the intro paragraph. Smeelgova 08:14, 11 December 2006 (UTC).
Regardless of any confusion about what had apparently been agreed between Wbroun and Sm1969, I do not see that there is any broad consensus for inclusion of the reference to litigation in the intro paragraph. Neither do I see that the facts of the case justify the inclusion of this sentence. What conclusions would a neutral reader draw from this claim about a multi-million dollar per year company with almost a million customers? Thousands of cases per year? Hundreds? They certainly wouldn't assume that it's of the order of an average of one case per year or less. I am removing it. DaveApter 12:36, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
This was an established consensus that you are now stepping into. In any event, the amount of litigation that Landmark Education has been involved in, is highly rare and should be noted in the intro. Smeelgova 23:46, 11 December 2006 (UTC).
I don't see it is an established consensus. I merely pulled down the current text for discussion, which I blockquoted and started this section with. I then voiced some of my objections. At best it was a partial consensus between two of five editors. The fact that the litigation has gone mostly in LE's favor makes it not notable enough to be in the lead. That's what Sethie (a completely indepedent RfC respondent) concluded as well: undue weight. Sm1969 01:19, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Tekniko Licensing Corporation

Is there any supporting material that describes this company as a subsidiary? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:46, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes. Please see the multiple citations that I have provided. Smeelgova 21:41, 12 December 2006 (UTC).
The company is one of Landmark's "wholly owned subsidiaries" :

The qualified candidate would be accountable for managing all administrative and financial aspects of one of Landmark Education’s wholly owned subsidiaries, Tekniko Licensing Corporation. Working with Landmark Education Business Development, this person acts a liaison and resource for a wide variety of corporations that License Tekniko’s Technology for use in their corporations.

[14] Smeelgova 21:45, 12 December 2006 (UTC).

Thanks. Note that I have moved all quotes to the Ref section. Too many long quotes are not suitable for an encyclopedic article. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:42, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

References format

I would suggest we spend some time converting all references to the appropriate cite format. See format below:

  • Cite book: {{cite book | last= | first= | coauthors= | year= | title= | publisher= | location=| id = | pages=}}
  • Cite web: {{cite web |url= |title= |date= | accessdate= |publisher= }}

≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:11, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Do you mean parenthetical documentation? Would the "ref" style coding still be used? Smeelgova 04:30, 13 December 2006 (UTC).
Yes, the ref format stays. Example:
<ref>{{cite book | last = Blow | first = Joe | coauthors= | year = 1999 | title = My Memoir | publisher = Pinguing Books | location = UK| id = ISBN 1-234-4567-8 | pages=pp.12-22}}</ref>
≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:39, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Compare?

This: Compare Thought Reform (book), see "loaded language" and Scientology terminology. is in violation of WP:NOR, and deleted. If a notable source compares their jargon with these, please re-add with source. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:42, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Articles may not contain any unpublished arguments, ideas, data, or theories; or any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published arguments, ideas, data, or theories that serves to advance a position. from WP:NOR ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:44, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
The comparisons and use of the exact phrase "loaded language" appear in at least two published secondary sources. I have included a subsection with these sources. Smeelgova 04:58, 13 December 2006 (UTC).
Thanks,. But you need to curtail your extensive use of quotes. Summarize and move quotes to the footnotes. That is what I was trying to do before you reverted. I will fix these tomorrow morning after you have a chance to revise your work. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 06:17, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
You may not be aware of this, Smeelgova, but your edits have a tendency to be driven "to make the point" that Landmark is akin to Scientology, it is a cult, etc. What happened to good ole' NPOV? Is a neutral article on this subject too difficult a task? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 06:21, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
You may also not be aware of your tendency to "editorialize". The sources that you provided are no "Articles [that] have described these terms as "loaded language". That jargon is not mentioned in these articles. Please stay true to the quotes and do not add your own conclusions. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 06:27, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Though I appreciate your attempts at politeness in this case, I would most appreciate it if you debate individual points about content, and not me in particular. I would posit that almost all editors on Wikipedia have edits driven "to make the point" with regard to something. I am striving as you requested to utilize numerous cited sources. Smeelgova 06:28, 13 December 2006 (UTC).
I do not understand, these articles actually do refer specifically to "loaded language" or Robert Jay Lifton's criteria with regard to a direct discussion of Landmark Education. This is not editorializing at all. Smeelgova 06:29, 13 December 2006 (UTC).
First: use of the {{inuse}} template was not warranted: I was correcting your edit when you reverted me. Second: Yes, we expect editors not to push their POVs, and Third: you are using too many quotes, editorializing entries, adding original research in the section about Loaded language. For example, you added "Articles have described these terms as 'loaded language'" in reference to the previous section about jargon. That is a excellent example of original research: the quotes do not describe the jargon on the previous sction. I will fix these tomorrow morning as it is late now in this part of the world. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 06:35, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Please try to assume good faith here, in that particular case, I did not mean it to mean that the articles referred specifically to those exact terms. I have corrected this. Smeelgova 06:40, 13 December 2006 (UTC).
  • Could you at least thank me for adhering to your advice and utilizing secondary sources? You did not like my "Compare" edit, so I took your suggestion to heart and went out and found three very good secondary sources. I hope that you will see that I actually do listen to your suggestions and incorporate them into my edits. Smeelgova 06:47, 13 December 2006 (UTC).
  1. Thank you for the sources and the formatting.
  2. Removed reference to Lifton's book. That book is not referred to in the articles provided. In addition, Lifton did not "define" the term. "Loaded language" is a widely used term in many contexts;
  3. Removed the opening assertion that "loaded languages" is related to their Jargon. This and above removals due to violation of WP:NOR;
  4. Removed reference to Mona Vasquez interview. You may find a better place for it than the "loaded language" section
  5. Moved the section from "Jargon" to "Criticism"

≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:26, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Smeelgova, may you consider writing for the enemy and adding some material from this link to the article? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:06, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

  1. Thanks for acknowledging that I am doing my best actually to work with your suggestions. I have read writing for the enemy, you recommended the read to me before, and I have strived to try to adjust my edits accordingly.
  2. Robert Jay Lifton actually is directly referenced in one of the articles.
  3. The Mona Vasquez interview is directly relevant to the jargon section.
  4. The "loaded language" is also directly relevant to the jargon section - it addresses the use of jargon. I already myself removed the comparisons to the exact wording - which syntax was unintentional. Smeelgova 22:40, 13 December 2006 (UTC).
  1. These articles describe critical views, so they are better fitting at the criticism and controversy section;
  2. If one of the articles refers to Lifton, then summarize how Lifton is referred to in that article. Do not give a direct reference, as it is against NOR.
One of the sources is referring to "est" and not to Landmark
  1. Mona Vazquez's reference is not related to "loaded language". Maybe it is by inference, but that is again violation of WP:NOR
  2. Loaded language references have no relation to jargon (they do not refer to jargon on these articles. Adding that in that section is again violation of NOR.
I have two options: Revert to my previous edit, or let you address these concerns. I chose the latter. Hope you will respond by fixing these problems shortly. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:13, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Also, you have not responded about adding material from [this link]. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:14, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
  1. The articles go directly to the "loaded language" issue, and mention "loaded language" specifically.
  2. I have re-arranged and changed the syntax of the text in the article relating to Robert Jay Lifton's methods, so that it makes more sense and follows a logical progression.
  3. I have voluntarily moved the Mona Vasquez piece to a more relevant section.
And I have actually commented previously with other editors at length about the page referenced above, which is from a corporate website - please see Wikipedia's policy on this. Smeelgova 20:46, 14 December 2006 (UTC).

Disengaging

I have been reflecting about this article and my involvement in editing it. My current thoughts are that given that I have no personal interest on the subject, and the enormous difficulty in attempting to curtail POV pushing from both pro and con sides to have an informative and neutral article on the subject, it is not worth my time. Rather than tediously follow editors to correct their edits, I prefer to engage on articles whose active editors care for this project more than they care about their viewpoints. So as of this comment, I am removing this article and other related articles from my watchlist. If any of you would like my opinion on the article's status at any point in the future (as it related to achieving NPOV status, for example), please leave a message on my talk page. My last edit to this article is the one in which I state my opinion of this article, by placing the {{noncompliant}} tag. May you have an interesting time editing this article (a pun on an ancient Chinese curse). ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:32, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Seems like a very wise decision! Wbroun 17:25, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Be well! Perhaps the best places for resources on this particular subject will remain to be off-Wikipedia. Indeed - Google Users can simply search "Landmark Education" and find lots of great resources excluding the actual corporate websites of the for-profit company itself. Smeelgova 20:55, 14 December 2006 (UTC).
Indeed! Hey, what's your opinion on the Rick Ross website [15] ?? Wbroun 21:10, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
As far as that particular section of the site goes, it is most interesting. Not too familiar with that many other groups on that site. The Landmark Education litigation archive is most interesting, as are all of the older archived media articles. Smeelgova 21:25, 14 December 2006 (UTC).
I am sorry to see you go, Jossi. You added a lot of NPOV strength to the article. It will be more difficult without you but I understand your frustration. Alex Jackl 07:06, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

With regards to the removal of the reference to the civil case, this section refers to 3 cases have been settled. Once the outcome of the civil case is complete, it should be added.Spruceforest 22:28, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Removing drive by vandalism in intro

Restored the "ontology" part of the intro. I also the bulk of stuff that was in the "loaded language" section under jargon and the loaded language terms in the Jargon section. Jossie recommende dthe loade dlanguage stuff be moved to the criticisms section of the article and I agree, howeve rin the interest of not starting a revert war I left a reference to loaded language so that POV would be expressed there. Alex Jackl 07:06, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Ah, sounds good. I don't know who removed the "ontology" - it was not me, and I have no objection to you putting it back in. I have followed Jossi's suggestion and moved the "loaded language" section to the criticism section, looks like that is what you wanted as well. Glad to see that we can compromise on some of these things from time to time. Hope you are doing well. Smeelgova 07:21, 15 December 2006 (UTC).
Alex, why do you call that "drive-by vandalism?" First of all, editors don't have to be "approved" to make changes to any article in Wiki. Nor does every change (even on controversial articles such as this) have to be done by consensus. If that was the MO of Wikipedia, it simply would not exist. As for who did it user:fossa, it is recorded very clearly in the editing history. Your characterization of that as drive-by vandalism is a mean-spirited, unfair attack. Can you explain how Landmark's course is based on ontology? Wbroun 16:59, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
I have added the "citation needed" marker after ontology until this can be corroborated from secondary sources. Landmark Education claims that there courses deal in ontology - but it would be interesting to see if this is also verified in reliable secondary sources. However, User:Wbroun - I must suggest to you again that even if you do not agree with the tactics of other editors - you will get by much better if you argue with issues involving content, and try to improve the politeness of your tack a tad. Smeelgova 06:56, 16 December 2006 (UTC).
Okay- fair enough. "drive-by vandalism" was too strong. My apologies- I was being overly sensitive. Will go into ontology when I have a little more time (in van going to airport) Alex Jackl 13:45, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Would it not just be easier to have the legal disputes section read like this:

For details of litigation involving Landmark Education, see Landmark Education litigation.



For general discussion of legal matters not necessarily resulting in court cases, see Landmark Education and the law.

and just let the reader go on to those articles for more information? Given that we have separate articles on this on Wikipedia anyway, I don't see the need for us to get contentious over this legal disputes section and have so much detail on the main-page. Smeelgova 07:25, 15 December 2006 (UTC).

Agreeing with Smeelgova

Hmmm.. I agree.... I think that would make the page much cleaner and reduce it in size considerably AND handle Jossi's concerns about the number of quotes . That sounds like a good plan.... Alex Jackl 07:30, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
OK, great. I removed the text of that section from the subsection, but left in the brief mention of their most recent (and ongoing) active litigation regarding the French documentary. Smeelgova 07:33, 15 December 2006 (UTC).
I would prefer something more neutral like: "Landmark Education: Other Legal Issues". I don't think either Microsoft or Enron have as much detailed legal reporting as Landmark Education, but I haven't looked. I'm willing to be wrong on this. Sm1969 17:57, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Austrian classification

I am removing this section again, for the following reasons

  1. The fact that Landmark was removed from more recent reports indicates that there is doubt about the appropriateness of its inclusion in the first place.
  2. It is not clear whether the German word sekte carries the same derogatory connotations as the Enclish word cult.
  3. There is no indication of the criteria by which the list was compiled, or the qualification of the compiler, or the degree of knowledge they posess.
  4. Since Landmark has no operation in Austria, it is unlikely that the opinions of anyone there are based on any actual acquaintance with it.

It does not improve the article to keeep trying to pin ambiguous derogatory epithets onto Landmark Education. If you want to express that LE resembles a "cult" in some way, please indicate the specific defining characteristics that it posesses.DaveApter 14:25, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

This is from highly reputable and heavily referenced sources. Please see the article sect for more on your issues above. Smeelgova 10:02, 17 December 2006 (UTC). Please also note all of the numerous times that Landmark Education has appeared in the Austria report over the years. Clearly this is not a one-time deal, but a clearly thought out report by the government. Smeelgova 10:05, 17 December 2006 (UTC).
It actually only appeared on the Austrian report once, but the US State Department kept reissuing their reports annually. Sm1969 04:34, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
This is one of those things that is so NOT notable- the fact that there have NEVER - to my knowledge - been any operations in Austria this is only notable because some clerk in Austria decide to add LE to his list because he heard of it somewhere? Who knows- that aspect is all speculation. The point is that it isn't worth the space on an already large article and the point is already made. Alex Jackl 16:44, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
It is a classification by a Federal Government - and is notable because it is extremely rare for for-profit, privately owned companies to be classified in such a manner. And it is also notable for the number of times throughout the years that the classification has been upheld, from 1999 to 2006. Smeelgova 04:45, 18 December 2006 (UTC).
It is a classification by the US State Department of some unknown source in Austria. Sm1969 04:34, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
None of this bluster addresses my points above, or the more general observations of the whole cult non-issue. It would be great if you would engage constuctively with the debate, with a view to creating a balanced, compliant article. DaveApter 08:57, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
  1. The claim that Landmark Education allegedly did not have operations in Austria is irrelevant. The government of Austria classified Landmark Education in this manner, numerous times, for the benefit of their citizens who may have interest in seeking out more information on the organization. And just because Landmark Education may not have had a base of operations in Austria - does not mean that they were not actively recruiting new participants in the region.
  2. Please see the article sect for specific definitions of the meaning. In European languages other than English the corresponding words for 'sect', such as "secte", "secta", or "Sekte", are used to refer to a harmful religious or political sect, similar to how English-speakers popularly use the word 'cult'.
  3. The sourced citations clearly state that this classification originated from the Austrian Government. You are correct that at the moment we do not know the specific criteria for inclusion - and these would be important facts to include when more sourced citations are available.
  • The simple fact is that this classification by a foreign government of a for-profit privately-owned company with base of operations in the United States - is extremely rare and unusual, and therefore notable. And as mentioned above, the sources are reputable and the inclusion has stood now for many years. Smeelgova 09:07, 18 December 2006 (UTC).
    • I take issue with your use of the term "bluster". I would appreciate it if you could engage in a discussion of the content and issues at hand, rather than ad hominem continous personal attacks on individual editors. The better behaved and polite that you are with me, the more inclined that I will be to act the same towards you. Thanks. Smeelgova 09:11, 18 December 2006 (UTC).
Again, you do have libel issues with the term "cult" in the United States. Governments sometimes make mistakes, as they did with the wrongful disclosure of false information re Werner Erhard and his tax returns. It might be the same thing with Austria, given the disappearance from the US State Department's web site. (This is all independent of the Wikipedia content policy against libel that we have talked about numerous times.) Sm1969 04:34, 19 December 2006 (UTC)


Without knowing the criteria for the selection in the list, it is not a "fact" of any consequence whatsoever. DaveApter 10:02, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
And yet the classification by the Austrian Government in and of itself is indeed factual, relevant, and notable. Smeelgova 10:06, 18 December 2006 (UTC).
Only in your opinion. Perhaps ask yourself the question - would you be happy to include a reference to a similarly vague and insubstantial listing if it were one which was complimentary to Landmark? DaveApter 10:19, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Again, you are assuming something about my opinion, instead of directly addressing the issues themselves. And this is not vague at all, but a reputable citation from the United States Government. Smeelgova 10:23, 18 December 2006 (UTC).
Please take notice also regarding the Wikipedia content policy on libel. The term "cult" has been found to be a triable question of fact. Absent any clear meaning by the Austrian government or the US State Department of the term, I do believe we have a Wikipedia content policy issue on libel. Sm1969 06:32, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

It is true you believe there is a libel issue. However, is it actually true that we do?

We MIGHT have a libel issue if the Wikipedia Landmark Education article said "LANDMARK IS A CULT!" It doesn't say that. The wiki article merely REPORTS that OTHERS have said this. How could that be libelous? The Wiki article also reports that numerous people have looked at Landmark and found it NOT to be a cult (in their opinion).

If a Wiki article on the the KKK says "The KKK calims black people are 2nd class citizens," is that racist of THE ARTICLE?

How can reporting facts have anything to do with libel? Sethie 19:41, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Loaded language

This is just a report of pure uninformed speculation. DaveApter 14:30, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Please see all of the reputable referenced citations for this. Smeelgova 10:02, 17 December 2006 (UTC). Every single sentence in that subsection has a citation from a highly reputable source. Smeelgova 10:06, 17 December 2006 (UTC).
Why do you keep removing the entire section on Loaded Language? Clearly this is an issue that is mentioned again and again in reputable sources. Smeelgova 09:09, 18 December 2006 (UTC).
The "reputable referenced citations" consist merely of three opinions expressed by journanlists (or insingnificant individuals they interviewed) in the course of poor-quality sensational articles writted from a deliberately biased viewpoint. The only connection with Lifton's book on brainwashing in China is the coincidentaly use of a two-word phrase. Isn't this all very tenuous? DaveApter 10:14, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
The use of the phrase is not a coincidence. One of the articles even directly listed all of Lifton's eight criteria for mind control in a discussion of whether Landmark's methods ammounted to brainwashing. And your statement poor-quality sensational articles writted from a deliberately biased viewpoint is simply not factual - all the sourced citations come from reputable media sources. Smeelgova 10:24, 18 December 2006 (UTC).
DaveApter, ummmm, speaking of tenuous, your opinion of the articles have little to nothing to do with Wikipedia. There are only three questions here- does the source meet WP:V? Does the source meet WP:RS? And is Smeelgova's attempt to present and accurate representation of the meaninig expressed in the source? Looking over the section you deleted:
Sorry for the sloppy expression - what I meant by poor quality is that they do not (in my opinion) meet the criteria for WP:V or WP:RS (as a source of fact, rahter than opinion), and certainly are not examples of writing from a NPOV. DaveApter 12:39, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
If you think WP:V and WP:RS have anything to do with presenting "source of fact, rather then opinion," I do not believe you understand either and if you think that the SOURCES isn't writing from NPOV, I believe you do not understand NPOV as well.
I don't see why you have such difficulty in understanding the points I am making: Sources might be written from a paritisan POV, or a neutral POV. Surely it is informative to distinguish between the two?. DaveApter 20:59, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Saying Now Torronto, New York Magazine and the Pheonix Times don't meet WP:V, and that these sources are not writing from NPOV is, well I don't take your assertions seriously, at all. NPOV doesn't even APPLY to sources! A source can't violate NPOV! :) Whether a source presents fact or opinion is COMPLETELY and utterly irrelevant.
Once again, this encyclopedia is intended to be a presentation of facts. This can of course include facts about the opinions that are held by various groups of people, but is is important to distinguish between assertions about matters of fact and assertions that someone holds a certain opinion. For example, the Now Torronto article reports that Kevin Garvey thinks that "the techniques at the "conceptual core" of the Forum are similar to the thought reform techniques employed by North Koreans in the 1950s". It is verifiable that the article did indeed say that, it is presumably a reliable source for the fact that he said that, but is it a reliable source for this being a factual assertion, or is this a verifiable matter of fact? If not, does this content have a place in a wikipedia article? DaveApter 20:59, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
You gave yourself away when you said, "The "reputable referenced citations consist merely of three opinions expressed by journanlists (or insingnificant individuals they interviewed) in the course of poor-quality sensational articles writted from a deliberately biased viewpoint." Basically you don't like what the sources say. Tough! These sources do meet WP:RS and wp:V and so if you want to counter them find another source that contradicts what they say.Sethie 15:14, 19 December 2006 (UTC)



Some articles have written that the Landmark Education's coursework uses "loaded language" and "jargon" :
A former Erhard Seminars Training disciple made the comparison to "loaded language", in an article in NOW Toronto [84]. In an article in New York Magazine, the writer states that "the Forum drives its points home with loaded language, relentless repetition, and a carefully constructed environment." [85] In a 2000 article in the Phoenix News Times, the author specifically referenced the work of Dr. Robert Jay Lifton as relevant and discussed his eight criteria for answering the question: "Isn't this brainwashing?"[86]. In the Elle Magazine article "Do you believe in Miracles?", the author refers to the use of "a slick web of palliative jargon."[87] The London Times referred to this use of language as "eccentric jargon"[88].
This part is fine.
All of the above is just a bunch of subjective personal opinions held by commentators with no particular expertise - how is that justifiable content for an encyclopedia article? DaveApter 12:39, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Save such commentary for a blog. You are evaluating the content of the source as opposed to the source itself. Sethie 15:14, 19 December 2006 (UTC)


However, I do agree with DaveApter, as it stands now, the next part, however is not ok. It's too, well, loaded and draws conclusions. I'd say drop it or seriously re-write it:
"Loaded language" has been defined in Lifton's book, Thought Reform and the Psychology of Totalism: A Study of "Brainwashing" in China. One of Dr. Lifton's "Eight Criteria for Thought Reform" is entitled "Loading the Language"[89]
If one of the articles uses this book, then mention it. The problem for me is that the wiki editor who wrote this sentence is drawing the conclusion and not letting the sources speak for themselvesSethie 06:31, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Landmark uses Jargon (words with a specialised meaning); no doubt about it. So what? So do Mathematicians, so do Engineers, so do footballers. Detractors are constantly trying to tie this to accusations of "thought control" or "brainwashing". Is there a coherent case to be made for this? Not as far as I can see. The Pheonix Times article does indeed make reference to Lifton's book and does quote the eight criteria. Does it claim that Landmark meets these? No it doesn't, it merely raises the question, and insofar as an answer is suggested it is in the negative. DaveApter 12:39, 19 December 2006 (UTC)


Actually there is a fourth (at least) point and that is that the term "brainwashing" is a triable question of fact and thus the basis for a defamation claim. Wikipedia has a content policy against libel. Landmark Education has sued and defeated substantive motions to dismiss on the questions of "cult" and "brainwashing" and "mind control." Unless these terms are clearly hyperbole (and that is not the case if one is asserting experts are saying this), we have a Wikipedia content policy on libel. Sm1969 06:24, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
  • This is most certainly not original research. Every single sentence in this section is backed up by reputable secondary sources (not primary sources), and every single quote is taken directly from these reputable sources. Because of the quoting from reputable sources, it is not defamation. And even if it were, unlikely as that could be because the potential legal ramifications would be against those particular articles themselves - as these are fair use quotes from those articles - the statute of limitations on defamation has long since run out in the cases of the quoted material from those articles and sourced reputable citations. Smeelgova 11:15, 18 December 2006 (UTC).
      • Quoting from "reliable sources" sure can be defamation, against the Wikipedia content policy on libel. The statue of limitations is also irrelevant to the Wikipedia content policy on libel, and your republishing of the material is an instance in 2006. We do have a Wikipedia content policy issue on libel here. Sm1969 06:26, 19 December 2006 (UTC)


    • "Brainwashing" is another instance, by the way, of language that is subject to concrete meaning in the field of psychology, capable of being proven true or false. Where you want to make it appear as if an expert is opining this on the basis of expertise, we have a defamation case. As I keep reminding you, at least three of these terms have been held to be triable questions of fact: 1) cult, 2) brainwashing and 3) mind control. Please be aware of the Wikipedia content policy on libel. Sm1969 05:04, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Noncompliant

I have restored the noncompliant tag. There have been no significant improvements to the article since Jossi attached it. DaveApter 09:04, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Request for Comment: Inclusion of Austrian classification

  1. See 1999 Report, 2000 report, 2002 Report, 2003 Report, 2004 Report, 2005 Report, 2006 report.
  2. Notability: Highly unusual for a for-profit, privately owned company to be classified in this manner by a foreign government. Note how classification has endured in reports as linked above.
  3. Those of differing opinion on this issue claim Landmark Education did not have operations in Austria. Though this is an unsourced claim, it is irrelevant, for it does not change the fact that the Austrian government did indeed make this classification.
  4. For clarification on the term "sect", I refer to article Sect#Corresponding_words_in_French.2C_Spanish.2C_German.2C_Polish.2C_Dutch.2C_and_Romanian. Smeelgova 11:53, 18 December 2006 (UTC).
Smeelgova forgot to note that this information was struck from the 2006 report at the web site of the US State Department itself. The 2006 report referenced above is not from the US State Department, but the others are. Thus, if the US State Department were to change the report, it might not propagate to the other web sites that purport to copy it. Sm1969 11:57, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
We have no idea why the information does not appear at the State Department web site, but we cannot assume that it was "struck" from any record anywhere simply because it does not appear at one website. Please see [16] and especially [17] from the United Nations Refugee Agency, a highly reputable source. Notice that in the second ref there is a NOTE stating: The copyright for this document rests with the U.S. Department of State. - and this instance of the document actually does include "Landmark Education" and is from 2006. The United Nations Refugee Agency is asserting here that the information came directly from the United States State Department. But even regardless of the 2006 issue, we still have the fact that the classification has existed in every report since 1999 - which is still very unusual for a for-profit company to be classified as a "sect" by a foreign Federal government. This makes it notable for inclusion. At the most - we could put a mention that it does appear in the 2006 report as cited by the United Nations Refugee Agency, and they state that this information came from the State Department - but does not appear at the State Department website itself. Smeelgova 12:07, 18 December 2006 (UTC).
The other problem you have is the Wikipedia content policy against libel that I mentioned above and that we have mentioned numerous times. Sm1969 04:36, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Also, for that particular report, the State Department's web site is the authoritative source, no other. If the State Department were to change their statement, they would be the first to do so, and other sites might possibly not get updated. Sm1969 06:38, 19 December 2006 (UTC)


Libel has nothing to do with this. The section was highly cited. What does Lack of inclusion on a US website has nothing to do with this section? I'm putting it back in. The fact of the matter (accoriding to our sources) is people have expressed concerns about it being a cult. Some people have investigated this claim and this section provides some of the results. Sethie 19:18, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

RFC Is ,"... published a list of 200 groups it considers to be sects" correct? Is source for this classification reputable? If so, such classification is notable and should be included. Material on State Dept listing appears of limited relevance, and contains truncated sentence. If current state of classification is debated I suggest working from original Austrian documents. There is a German Wikipedia. SmithBlue 01:27, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Strong references removed for no solid reasons?

This long list of references, which took me a long time to organize, were cut for no apparently solid reason. These aren't blogs. They're not opinions by cranks. They are large newspapers, a highly respected wire service, some Sunday national papers, and large regional pubs such as the Boston Globe and Miami Herald. If these sources aren't respected on Wiki, I don't know what is.

Among many recent articles: “Mixed view of forums.” Sunday Times (Perth, Australia). June 25, 2006 Sunday. Country Edition. Pg. 32; “Murder in Mexico: Chatelaine exclusive”; Canada NewsWire. July 27, 2006 Thursday 9:00 AM Eastern Time; DeKok, David. “Tuition expenses probed.” The Patriot-News. December 18, 2005; “New-school-to-open-amid-high-hopes.” The Miami Herald (Florida). July 16, 2006 Sunday; Mullally, Una. “Una, I'd really encourage you to do the London and do it.” Sunday Tribune (Ireland). July 31, 2005. Pg. N04; Hind, Purves, Watts. “Pete Signs Up for Cult Clinic”; Daily Star (UK). March 22, 2005. Pg. , 13; Beam, Ale. “A Harvard Forum For Self-Promotion?” The Boston Globe. November 6, 1998. Pg. D1; Pallister, David. “Libel Award of £20K Bankrupts Cult Watcher”; The Guardian (London). August 3, 1996. Pg. 12.

The refs were attached, and quite aptly for logic's sake, to the last sentence of the intro. Even if that last sentence were to be cut, the references ought to remain somewhere in the article. Why? These references establish an important, recent, and globally manifest history of public questioning -- if not controversy -- related to Landmark, and that is obviously of signal interest to some editors here.

Why so many refs in a row? Consider the giant (and growing) Talk archive an indication that establishing firmly "public perception" or "media perception" or "cultural profile" is not easy here. Big statements need to be backed with big references.

I can see no Wiki policy that justifies their removal, but WP:Verify totally supports their inclusion. If there is a format issue (which seems a stretch), fine, reformat them. But any expungement of these references requires ironclad reasoning, and I see nothing that even comes close. And why on earth would a preponderance of relevant evidence (placed in a references section, mind you, not in the body text) from major publications be removed by anyone on Wiki in the first place? Wbroun 19:13, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't see that an arbitrary list of references adds to the quality of the article. If you think that a coherent point can be made about this content, why not write up a summary in an appropriate section of the controversies section, and reference the sources to the points being made there? DaveApter 11:18, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
I can't believe you want to have this battle, but I guess I should believe it. This is Wikipedia, after all. Arbitrary? There is nothing random about the references in the least. Since it's highly unlikely that you've even read them, I find the charge of arbitrariness remarkably, well, arbitrary, as well as high-handed. The point the references make is a general and important one. Why in heaven's name would you want to remove them, unless you were trying to hide something? They are totally necessary to establish's Landmark's controversial profile, and they are placed in a modest, non-attention-grabbing way. Have you read them? (And Wiki policy for verifiability does not require hotlinks, obviously, because only an infintesimally fraction of sources are hotlink). Wbroun 18:12, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm sorry you see my attempts to have a constructive debate as a "battle", and I don't understand why you feel the need to make your points so agressively. The point I was making is this: One expects an encyclopedia article to give a summary of the issues, and provide references to back up that summary. Simply saying that it's controversial and giving a reading list doesn't make for a useful article. And in an online article, hotlinks would be most helpful. There is already a completely disproportionate coverage of the so-called controversies. I am completely committed to the article giving appropriate coverage of these in accordance with the WP:NPOV policy. It is true that all sorts of accusations are thrown at Landmark, and it is clear that the majority (not all) are the result of either misunderstanding or deliberate and malicious misrepresentation. DaveApter 18:55, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Labor investigations

The "Labor investigations" section was deleted entirely, with this edit summary:

  • Finding of fact in favor of Landmark Education in the US / French issue is otherwise; should be merged into content on France [18]

It does not appear to have been merged elsewhere. The material appeared to have been sourced. Why was it deleted? -Will Beback · † · 07:08, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. I have restored this. This is highly notable and sourced information. Smeelgova 07:19, 20 December 2006 (UTC).
I think the two parts should be put in separate areas. The US investigation went in favor of LE and we don't know if it wasn't a standard labor department review (original research). The article it was in was incredibly biased, and again, the finding of fact went in favor of LE. In fact, I'm not sure that the original author (Hukill) even took the article in context. The French investigation is a different matter entirely and could have been an investigation into LE in specific, whereas the first one may have been general to many US companies. Sm1969 07:45, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
If you think it ought to be split then split it, don't delete it. Deleting sourced info isn't helpful. -Will Beback · † · 07:50, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
The information should not be split into separate sections. The investigation by the United States Federal Department of Labor actually did not go in Landmark's favor - more volunteer employees would have been needed to come forward and file an official complaint for the report itself to have actualy negative affects. The French investigation is relevant to this specific section - because both involve investigations by the Department of Labor at the Federal level of government. I will try to find more sources as to the United States investigation. Smeelgova 07:57, 20 December 2006 (UTC).
Do you have any information to back up these assertions? There is no evidence as far as I am aware to suggest that the 'investigation' was anything other than a routine matter, which discoved no irregularities. Where did the suggestions about "volunteer workers coming forward to file a complaint" come from. Nobody assists at Landmark unless they choose to do so, if they find they don't like it they can stop, and most report the experience as be enjoyable, fulfilling and instructive. The fact that the company is structured as a 'for-profit' corporation is frequently cited in support of the assumption that the 'volunteer workers' must be being exploited for the benefit of the shareholders, wheras in fact the beneficiaries are the customers, whe get the courses for a fraction of what they would otherwise cost. DaveApter 11:13, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

The article in Metroactive Features states essentially 2 things (please place comments below mine) :

  1. "the Department of Labor...investigated Landmark and determined its volunteers were employees subject to the provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act."
  2. "Who's heard of volunteers for a for-profit? In the end the Department of Labor dropped the issue, leaving Landmark trumpeting about its volunteers' choice in the matter."

There are 2 issues here. First, a determination was made by the Federal Department of Labor that Landmark Education, as a for-profit company is subjectal to the Fair Labor Standards Act - and that all of its volunteers are "employees", and subject to the provisions of the act as well. Secondly, we do not know why the Department of Labor "dropped the issue." However, this ruling was significant. All employees subject to the Fair Labor Standards Act in Landmark Education are thus, after this ruling, allowed to file a complaint and request an investigation as well as claim backwages for minimum wage, overtime, and double minimum wage for all past hours worked. More information at Filing a Complaint for Back Wages Under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). In fact, some of this information would be useful to include in that subsection for the reader as clarification of what the Federal Department of Labor ruling means. I will add this with sources. Smeelgova 11:34, 20 December 2006 (UTC).

We actually only know two things: 1) the DoL looked at the issue; and 2) They didn't take any action. Everthing else is speculation, assumption or rumour. What is the source for the assertion that "all of its volunteers are "employees", and subject to the provisions of the act as well"? Hukil is not a primary source for that because she wasn't a party or witness to the Enquiry. Neither is she a secondary source that meets the requirements of WP:V or WP:RS, because she doesn't provide any references that would enable a researcher to trace back to a primary source. For all we know, she might have heard a rumour to that effect, or even just made it up. There is plenty in the article which is pure assumption, and some of that is actually false. (For example, she assumes that Landmark assistants participate because they expect to become Forum Leaders, whereas in fact the overwhelming majority have no such ambition). Let us not lose sight of the fact that newspaper reporters are in the entertainment business. DaveApter 16:54, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
This is not speculation, this is based on a reputable secondary source, which clearly states that the United States Department of Labor ruled that all of Landmark Education's volunteers are actually "employees" and subject to the Fair Labor Standards Act. This is stated very clearly in her article. Smeelgova 00:34, 21 December 2006 (UTC).
A statement in a newspaper article with no supporting references (especially one littered with as many unsupported and incorrect speculations as this one) does not meet the requirements of WP:V or WP:RS. DaveApter 10:54, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
Metro Newspapers has a readership of 500,000, and is a very reputable paper. The New York Times, The Washington Post, Associated Press, are all reputable sources which do not necessarily always provide "supporting references". This is not a qualification for reputability of an article in a respected paper. Smeelgova 08:20, 22 December 2006 (UTC).
You are confusing two entirely different points: The New York Times, The Washington Post, Associated Press, are all reputable sources as you correctly point out, and are sometimes described as Newspapers of Record, so that assertions printed in them can be taken at face value unless a strong reason can be shown for suggenting otherwise. The size of readership is no guarantee of quality or accuracy (frequently quite the reverse!). If this were so, presumably the National Enquirer would be the most prestigious source! Do you suggest that we should be happy to reprint every claim made there in Wikipedia? I don't know about the rest of Metro's content, but this article in particular is clearly written in a sensationalist tabloid style and contains many innacuracies as noted above. DaveApter 11:28, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Metroactive is indeed a reputable source:

Metroactive is a Northern California meta-site specializing in arts and entertainment information and featuring content from three of the San Francisco Bay Area's leading publications: Metro, Silicon Valley's Weekly Newspaper; Metro Santa Cruz; and the North Bay Bohemian. Both Metroactive and Metro's weeklies have won national awards for writing, editing and design. website, Metroactive

  • Here is the actual citation for the article:

The est of Friends , Metroactive Features, July 9-15, 1998 issue of Metro, Metro Publishing Inc. Smeelgova 11:44, 22 December 2006 (UTC).

  • See also: Metro, Silicon Valley's Weekly Newspaper - (even before I started editing the article, there was a section on their excellent investigative journalism). Metro has scooped the daily press on a number of major stories, including the office romance of San Jose Mayor Ron Gonzales in 2000 and the Santa Clara County Grand Jury's plans to indict Gonzales in June 2006. The newspaper has helped launch the careers of several notable writers, including British television sensation Louis Theroux, conspiracy authors Jonathan Vankin and John Whalen and Vietnamese-American author Andrew Pham. Smeelgova 12:05, 22 December 2006 (UTC).
  • Their various associated papers have won over 14 awards for writing editing and design at the California Newspaper Publishers Association Better Newspapers Awards and the National Newspaper Association's awards. Smeelgova 12:05, 22 December 2006 (UTC).

Labor Investigations: Original Research and Error

This has two problems: 1) The DOL finding of fact was in favor of Landmark Education and 2) they are doing it voluntarily. The world is now well familiar with this business model, and all of open source, for example, is based on it. (Anyone can file any complaint asserting anything.)

[3]. Investigations in the United States dealing with these complaints are handled by the Wage and Hour Division of the United States Department of Labor[4].

Sm1969 15:29, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Please see discussion above. Smeelgova 00:34, 21 December 2006 (UTC).
Also, this is not original research, and even if it were, I can find additional secondary sources for this. The United States Department of Labor website is not the primary source, but the Fair Labor Standards Act is the primary source, and I have not cited that directly. Smeelgova 00:59, 21 December 2006 (UTC).
No, the primary source would be a "Department of Labor" ruling, but the article itself says the DOL itself dropped the issue. This is not the first time you have had way off interpretations and inferences. Sm1969 05:09, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
When did the DOL allegedly "retract" their own ruling? Do you have sources for this? If so, this is not justification for deleting the entire section, but rather more information should be added for clarification. The very fact that there have been numerous Labor Investigations is notable. Smeelgova 05:12, 21 December 2006 (UTC).
We have no idea what "Drop the issue" means. The section should remain, because the investigations themselves are notable. And the ruling and the dropping of the issue are 2 separate points. The reader can see that clearly within the blockquoted portion. The ruling means that "volunteers" are actually employees, and subject to the Fair Labor Standards Act. The "drop the issue" most likely means that the Department of Labor decided not to pursue a case against Landmark Education further in Federal Court. But the ruling still stands. Smeelgova 05:12, 21 December 2006 (UTC).
Drop the issue means at least they decided not to pursue a case. No, the ruling does not "still stand" because it says they "dropped the issue." Clearly, LE offered opposing evidence (choice in the matter) and they dropped their initial opinion. "Ruling" might not even be the right word. It might be Tracy Hukill's word. Sm1969 05:26, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
The article is very clear. There was an explicit ruling prior to 1998 which stated that Landmark's volunteers are subject to the Fair Labor Standards Act. Smeelgova 08:18, 22 December 2006 (UTC).
See the discussion above regarding the unreliability of this as a source. DaveApter 11:28, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
Indeed. See discussion above regarding awards won by the paper and reputability as a source. Smeelgova 11:58, 22 December 2006 (UTC).

Heidegger versus Synanon

This paper has several references to Heidegger:

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=278955

Do you have any references to Synanon?

Sm1969 09:57, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Took out references to Synanon since there is apparently no connection between Landmark and this group. Alex Jackl 07:10, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

It remains unclear?

Does the cite support the statement "It remains unclear what role the investigation played in the official ending of Landmark Education operations."? Or is that OR? Tanaats 18:11, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

This is an interesting question. According to sourced material, this is a chronology of events, but I'm sure there is more detail: France 3 documentary is broadcast May 24, 2004, then French Federal Labor Department investigations, June 2004. By July 2004, the official French branch of Landmark disbanded, and they continue to recruit new members in France, with offices based out of London. It will be interesting to see if/when more French media articles about this chain of events are translated to English... Smeelgova 06:46, 23 December 2006 (UTC).

The Recent Revert Cycles

Actually, this stuff has even more problems than just WP:V and WP:RS. It is seriously overweighting insignificant minority opinions. For example, Mona has nothing specific to say regarding vocabulary. "Stern" does not further elaborate on someone's suspicion. Xenu can make up anything it wants. The Labor Department conclusions are Smeelgova's original research. Sm1969 08:10, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Mona's statements were indeed very specific, and relevant to the "religious implications" section. "Stern" is a very reputable secondary source. The Labor Department issues are sourced with reputable citations. These are not my conclusions, these are the only options in a Labor Department investigation, the next actions would have been to open a case in Federal Court. Check the citations if you wish. Smeelgova 08:18, 23 December 2006 (UTC).

Smeelgova, the first three sources in the Religious Implications section I looked at were secondary sources. One you misquoted, which I corrected. I think this is misleading. Wouldn't it be better here to redact it entirely until you find original documents and sources? Is Scientology still putting out an "enemies list"? And is EST which no longer exists still on it? Did they add Landmark?Mvemkr 08:45, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I have corrected this, thank you for pointing this out. It was not Landmark that was listed, but "The Forum". However, the report was put out when Landmark was in existence, and not EST, (1992), therefore it stands to reason that this reference to "The Forum" referred to Landmark, as it was from 1992. Smeelgova 09:19, 23 December 2006 (UTC).

I can see your reasoning, however it may not be as in LA there is another organization called "The Forum" that has nothing to do with Landmark.Mvemkr 20:36, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

No, Tracy Hukill is not a reliable source and it is your conclusion that the next action would have been to open a case in Federal Court. The whole intent of the FLSA was to prevent people who were being paid from "volunteering"--in other words being pressured by their employers to volunteer. The people who assist/volunteer at LE were never PAID employees "volunteering" on the side (under "pressure" from LE). They were always pure volunteers. Otherwise, you would have to impute backwages for all the people who work at Wikipedia in non-paid capacities, and you would have to impute backwages for all the people who develop open source software. These individuals did the volunteering with no expectation wages and never worked in any paid capacity. Both Smeelgova and Tracy Hukill are misinterpreting the FLSA (if that's what she meant to say). Sm1969 08:51, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
Please stop insinuating what you think I am interpreting. I am simply citing reliable secondary sources. Please see the detailed discussion on the reputability of the source, in the section above. And no, this is in no way similar to Wikipedia and its contributors. Wikipedia is a non-profit. Landmark Education is a for-profit, privately owned corporation, whose volunteers are actually "employees" subject to the Fair Labor Standards Act. This is not my interpretation, these are simply the facts. Smeelgova 09:18, 23 December 2006 (UTC).

Supreme Court Interpretation of FLSA and References after LE "Ruling"

From the United State Supreme Court, FLSA Interpretation (still cited today):
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=330&invol=148
WALLING v. PORTLAND TERMINAL CO., 330 U.S. 148 (1947)

Section 3(g) of the Act defines 'employ' as including 'to suffer or permit to work' and 3(e) defines 'employee' as 'any individual employed by an employer.' The definition 'suffer or permit to work' was obviously not intended to stamp all persons as employees who, without any express or implied compensation agreement, might work for their own advantage on the premises of another. Otherwise, all students would be employees of the school or college they attended, and as such entitled to receive minimum wages. So also, such a construction would sweep under the Act each person who, without promise or expectation of compensation, but solely for his personal purpose or pleasure, worked in activities carried on by other persons either for their pleasure or profit. But there is no indication from the legislation now before us that Congress intended to outlaw such relationships as these. The Act's purpose as to wages was to insure that every person whose employment contemplated compensation should not be compelled to sell his services for less than the prescribed minimum wage. The definitions of 'employ' and 'employee' are broad enough to accomplish this. But, broad as they are, they cannot be interpreted so as to make a person whose work serves only his own interest an employee of another person who gives him aid and instruction. Had these trainees taken courses in railroading in a public or private vocational school, wholly [330 U.S. 148, 153] disassociated from the railroad, it could not reasonably be suggested that they were employees of the school within the meaning of the Act. Nor could they, in that situation, have been considered as employees of the railroad merely because the school's graduates would constitute a labor pool from which the railroad could later draw its employees. The Fair Labor Standards Act was not intended to penalize railroads for providing, free of charge, the same kind of instruction at a place and in a manner which would most greatly benefit the trainees.

Here is a DOL opinion letter from 2005 referencing that Supreme Court Decision: http://www.dol.gov/esa/whd/opinion/FLSANA/2005/2005_08_26_6NA_FLSA.pdf

Sm1969 09:30, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Thanks for the citation. I don't see the relevance and it does not change the fact that the United States Federal Department of Labor ruled that Landmark Education's volunteers are actually employees subject to the Fair Labor Standards Act. Smeelgova 09:32, 23 December 2006 (UTC).
  • Quoting the last link you gave: You describe the program as a "private, voluntary, self-assesment and peer review process developed by the Organization to promote, pursue and recognize excellence in Christian ministry and mission." - yet another religious tie here? Again, I fail to see the relevance and this does not change the facts of the ruling by the DOL. It is simply a completely different case. Smeelgova 09:35, 23 December 2006 (UTC).

No, I am saying the 2005 link cites the 1947 Supreme Court Decision (which would not be cited if it were overturned). Early on in the history of the FLSA, the US Supreme Court ruled that whether the entity one volunteered for was A) non-profit or B) for profit (a factor Smeelgova cited) was irrelevant. This is why the DOL dropped its case as noted in the Hukill article. Sm1969 09:39, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

And the case you cited also debate whether or not the work performed by the volunteers was vital to the organization itself. In the case of Landmark Education, it most certainly is. As seen in the France 3 documentary, volunteers clean the toilets, do simple financial work, and even supervise other volunteers. This is vital work to Landmark Education, and thus the cases you cited are not relevant and wholly unapplicaple to this particular situation. Smeelgova 09:43, 23 December 2006 (UTC).
I'm also inclined to invoke WP:Libel/Articles Regarding Ongoing Enterprsise in defense to a 3RR, but that's another story. Clearly, Smeelgova, you are interpreting the status of this "ruling" given that the DOL dropped the case after LE protested, as Hukill herself acknowledges.
Nonsense, go back and read the full 1947 US Supreme Court Decision, particularly the paragraph I cited which is on point. Sm1969 09:49, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Sm1969 09:46, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

This is in no way libelous. It is even humourous that you would suggest that. We have even blockquoted the relevant section of the Metroactive article, to deliberately show what it states, which it state in very clear language. The fact that the DOL did not wish to pursue the matter beyond the ruling does not negate the ruling - these are 2 separate issues. 1 - The DOL ruled that Landmark Education's volunteers are employees subject to the Fair Labor Standards Act. 2 - The DOL did not pursue the matter further than that. The ruling by the DOL still stands. Landmark Education's volunteers are actually employees subject to FLSA. Smeelgova 09:50, 23 December 2006 (UTC). In any event, the statute of limitations for libel has run out on the Metroactive article, and therefore also on quoting any portion of it. Landmark never initiated legal actions against Metroactive - most likely because the information they reported was factually true and accurate. Smeelgova 09:51, 23 December 2006 (UTC).
It is libelous (in violation of the Wikipedia content policy) to insinuate that LE violated the law--that's a prime case for being factually false and defamatory. The DOL dropped the issue could very well mean that, when LE brought forth the opposing arguments, as cited in the 1947 US Supreme Court decision, the DOL dropped its issue. Nonsense also on your requoting of Metroactive material--that's the same tort/Wikipedia content policy violation today. Try on this possibility: LE never initiated any issue because the US Supreme Court adjudicated the issue 50 years earlier and the DOL had no case, which is why Hukill says the DOL dropped the issue. Sm1969 09:55, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
You are inferrring way too much on why you think things did or did not happen. There are 2 very simple facts here: 1) The ruling that Landmark's volunteers are employees and subject to FLSA. This does not necessarily state that Landmark is breaking the laws perse, though it would certainly seem so, but this is not libelous, and it is not libelous to requote an article written over 6 years ago. 2) The DOL "dropped the issue". It does not say that they changed their ruling on the classification of Landmark's volunteers, it just says that they dropped the issue. The classification still stands. Landmark's volunteers are employees subject to FLSA, as per the DOL ruling. Smeelgova 10:01, 23 December 2006 (UTC).
The test of libel is whether the current publication of assertions is A) factually false and B) defamatory. No, the classification does not still stand. I don't think you understand what a ruling is by an administrative agency. When LE offered opposing legal arguments, the DOL "dropped the issue." You are inferring too much, and you keep changing your arguments. Sm1969 10:07, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
My argument has always been the same. The ruling still stands. "Dropped the issue" does not mean, "dropped the ruling". Dropping the issue and determining the ruling that the volunteers are employees subject to FLSA are 2 very different things. And we are not reporting the current publication of assertions, we are reporting the determination made as of 1998, as per the DOL ruling in the Metroactive article. Nowhere in the current Labor section does it say "this ruling still applies to this day." It just says that the ruling was made as of 1998. All of the language is framed in the past tense. Everything in that section is factually accurate. Smeelgova 10:11, 23 December 2006 (UTC).
I can see you and I are going nowhere with this, but we do agree that we disagree about the meaning of certain language in the article and WP:V and WP:RS. I recall dealing with you and contributory copyright infringement regarding a reference to piratebay.org. Sm1969 10:21, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
Can you at least agree that there was a ruling by the DOL as of 1998 that they stated that Landmark Education's volunteers are employees subject to FLSA, as per the Metroactive article? This is all that it states in the section as it stands right now. Smeelgova 10:23, 23 December 2006 (UTC).
No, there is no justification for stating that "there was a ruling by the DOL as of 1998 that they stated that Landmark Education's volunteers are employees subject to FLSA", purely on the basis of an unsubstantiated assertion to the effect within this article. The only thing that would justify this would be sight of a copy of the DOL's findings. I've already pointed out above that we have no idea what is the source of Hukill's claim, and that the article contains much which is questionable or false. We are just going round in circles. DaveApter 12:20, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
As stated in the section above, the Metroactive publication is highly reputable, and has won numerous awards for its reporting and investigative journalism. But, as you asked, I have added more information and sources, to satisfy your specific request that: The only thing that would justify this would be sight of a copy of the DOL's findings. Smeelgova 10:07, 24 December 2006 (UTC).
I looked at the evidence you sited and the DOL investigation upheld exactly the US Supreme Court interpretation I referenced above and that Hukill referred to in stating that the DOL agreed to drop the issue. That's why. Further, the DOL investigation you reference Smeelgova gave says it outright: Section 12: NO VIOLATIONS. This issue now has really become not notable. The DOL reviews many companies for exempt/non-exempt status. Sm1969 10:12, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
Unfortunately, your assessment of the documents is incorrect. If you will read further, you will see that the DOL advised Landmark to keep records for its volunteers, which the DOL clearly refers to again and again in the documents as "employees". And no, it is not common for for-profit companies to be investigated this many times in different countries for the same type of questionable labor practices. This in and of itself makes this issue notable. Smeelgova 10:19, 24 December 2006 (UTC).

Well!

Merry Christmas, guys! Things still look surprisingly civil, and I have to say I'm pretty happy with the article, from the quick glance I had--it seems to be clearer, and have better balance, than it has at many times in its history. I'm also pretty happy with the fact that I no longer really contribute to it. I have to say, having ceased editing for several weeks now has definitely helped me see the article less myopically, and the spirited debates and dozens of edits a day seem even less consequential than they used to. Ckerr 08:52, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Merry Christmas! Sm1969 09:25, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Scientology in "Religious Implications"

The section on Scientology belongs in the "Religious Implications" section. The issue has been raised in Stern (magazine), the Frankfurter Neue Presse, in a study on both organizations by Norbert Nedopil, on France 3, and by Susan J. Palmer at the recent 2006 CESNUR conference. Though indeed, more could be said in the article itself about the history and the mentions of Scientology/Landmark Education, all that we are doing currently is reporting that issues were raised, and citing the appropriate reputable sources. Smeelgova 08:31, 29 December 2006 (UTC).

You could mention Scientology in connection with Werner Erhard or possibly even est, but that's 20 years ago. The references you gave are sourced and vacuous:
  • The mention and then correction/retraction by Palmer is meaningless.
  • The study by Nedopil is *not* to compare the two organizations but to evaluate certain criteria. Scientology was the other entity evaluated.
  • The "Stern" magazine article is on "Block Training" in the context of Scientology.
  • The "Frankfurter Neue Presse" is another opinion which is a vague insinuation.
  • Mona's comparison was another vacuous one and she gave no examples but said, in Smeelgova's words, "all of the terminology was the same."

At best, these are insignificant minority opinions within NPOV guidelines that do not belong in an encyclopedia.

Sm1969 16:38, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Your statement that these are insignificant minority opinions within NPOV guidelines that do not belong in an encyclopedia. - is clearly your opinion. The referenced are sourced and certainly not "vacuous". The mention by Palmer is notable and recent, it is not a "retraction" but a clarification by Palmer, referencing a comparision by another journalist - who did not issue a retraction. The study by Nedopil clearly compares the two organizations, going back and forth from one to the other. The "Stern" and "Frankfurter Neue Presse" are not vague insinuations, but clearly articles dealing with Landmark which compare Scientology. The Vasquez comments are not "vacuous", but were featured to 1.5 million people. I have provided sources from each of the statements, and did not draw conclusions, but merely cited the sources themselves. Smeelgova 16:48, 29 December 2006 (UTC).

Yes, this is an opinion as it must be. The example they gave for NPOV / insignificant minority was the "flat earth" theory.

  • The Palmer issue is a clarification that no relationship exists.
  • The Nedopil study purpose is not to compare the two organizations, but to evaluate separate organizatoins on common criteria.
  • The "Stern" article is not comparing LE to Scientology, but the "Block Training." It's interesting that you chose Scientology as the organization to draw out and cite in an encyclopedia.
  • The Vasquez comments I said were factually false and defamatory when Smeelgova originally put them in the Voyage article (e.g., "all the same") and yet, even today, we have not one example of where they are the same.

This is a collection of innuendo and vague insinuations (Palmer, Frankfurter Neue Presse) and material quoted out of context (Nedopil, Stern). Sm1969 16:56, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

The Vasquez comments are most certainly not factually false and defamatory, as it is ridiculous to assume that comparing one organization to another is defamatory. If, as you say, the purpose of the Nedopil study was to evaluate separate organizatoins on common criteria, then this in and of itself is notable. The German papers make direct mention of Scientology in their articles. The Palmer issue directly mentions and discusses Landmark Education and Scientology in the statements, as recently as 2006. Smeelgova 17:05, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
  • It seems that we are going in circles here. I would prefer to get feedback/comments on this topic from some editor who is not actively involved/has not contributed recently to this article. Clearly the fact that multiple individuals in different publications have compared Landmark Education to Scientology over the years is notable and should be mentioned in the article, under the appropriate section, "Religious Implications." Smeelgova 17:05, 29 December 2006 (UTC).
One importnat point here is that it may be that there is a resonable justifictaion in linking est to Scientology in some obscure way but that is AT LEAST once removed from Landmark and probably three times removed since I believe the connection has to do with the Scientology people getting pissed at Werner Erhardt in the early 70s for "squirreling" or "stealing" Scientology stuff. Given that that kind of reference MAY belong to an article on est but certainly not Landmark. Seems more like a "Werner Erhardt - 70s" thing than a Landmark thing.Alex Jackl 06:43, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Syanon

There is no evidence that there is any link here at all. Does anyone even know of any cross-over. Putting [citation needed] on it is not a compromise. Any evidence at all would make me more likely to be able to stomach it but there is none. Even one of the people championing including it admitted that they had no evidence that it was linked. We have enough ocntention o nthis page - lets not post just unfounded rumors. I am willing to be wrong about this but it just occurrs like somebody had a thought they might be linked so lets put it on. If that is the case it should be removed and stay removed. I think Smeelgova, you would agree that is not a good criterion. Alex Jackl 06:38, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I will not put it back in myself unless given evidence/citations that points towards relevance. But I don't really know much yet about Synanon. I believe that User:EstherRice has researched this academically a bit and might know more than I do about supposed relevance/connections between the organizations. Smeelgova 07:08, 31 December 2006 (UTC).
I appreciate that User:Smeelgova - It is not even about doubting User: EstherRice It is just that when (s)he talked about it she talked about how the styles of brainwashing were similar not any kind of real connection. You can imagine this strikes a particular cord when there those of us clear that no "brainwashing" is going on at Landmark- that makes that a SUPER-spurious link. Now even if that were the case it would be bad link because it is totally original research on her part. Now I am not one to play the original research card because that is designed to stop extrapolation happening in these articles, not to keep experts from including encyclopedic material. See [[19]]. Now if this is one of those cases where an old EST trainier went and started something then I can see the link to est possibly but again that is ancient history as far as Landmark is concerned and would then go on whatever the appropriate est page is. Thanks! Alex Jackl 16:13, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
Understandable opinions. Perhaps User:EstherRice will share her views/sourced citations with us as well. Smeelgova 00:55, 1 January 2007 (UTC).
I added this to Esther's talk page and then realized it would probably be useful as a clarification on the talk page itself. I think we need to keep framing our conversation here so that we get a fair and accurate article. This is my opinion and what I believe to be true!
Hi Esther. I don't know how familiar you are with Landmark Education, or if you have just heard about it. I have quite a bit of experience both in participating in and around the company and in researching its past. I am writing this to try and explain why I reverted you Synanon reference on the Landmark page (and I was the editor that did it). I am not trying to convince you that "Landmark is a good thing" or "est was a good thing" or anything like that - I am extending an olive branch by explaining my point of view so you are not left with that your content was spuriously deleted. There are two core issues that have made the Landmark site so volatile:
(1) There is a group of people who see Landmark as the SAME as est and believe it is nothing more than an "est in Sheep's clothing" :-). These people also believe est was a cult and a bad thing. I personally (just so you know) have no real opinion about est and Werner Erhardt- I will leave that to the historians and the people who had a real experience of it. However, I am one of the group of editors who believes that the link between est and Landamrk, while noteworthy and interesting in itself, is primarily of historical interest and of little primary importance on the Landmark Education page. Coming from that world view you can imagine that anyone attempting to draw a link to Landmark because there might be a link to est is met with considerable skepticism.
(2) The basis of your comparison is that the "styles" of the Synanon Game" and Landmark's programs are similar. This is possibly the most divisive point between the editors of the Landamrk page and where the greatest gulf is. One stance is that Landmark is a cult of some kind and utilizes cult-like practices. On the other side (of which I clearly am a part of) is that there is NO or poor evidence of that and it isn't. I know NOTHING about Synanon but am willing - looking through the links on the Synanon page and taking you at your word- to believe it is a destructive and hurtful organization. But the horrible activities described on the Synanon page- humiliation, emasculation, forced marriages, shaving of heads- that is crazy! Nothing like that goes on at Landmark. People get fired from Landmark if they make an innappropriate pass at someone. Because of the bad press- primarily from its relationship to est- Landamrk is extremely sensitive to creating a professional safe environment for its courses. There is nothing like that kind of stuff going on. If you were going to accuse Landmark of being manipulative in its marketing practices or pressuring people to buy their product - that kind of stuff has happened on occasion. It is aggravated sometimes by well-meaning people who volunteer and overly enthusiatically press people to register. Landmark tries to manage that and sometimes fails. That is literally the worst of it. There is nothing more sinister.
Now there are editors who disagree- they claim that Landmark is harmful and manipulative. That is why we debate and discuss and use the Talk page. It is my firmest belief that the opinions about it being harmful are old conversations and if people saw Landamrk as it is today with unfiltered views they would go - "Oh, that isn't bad" or "Wow- that is actually pretty great!". Perhaps I am naive and overly optimistic in saying that. This long winded response is to atteppt to give you a sense of why people have some of the stance they do- from this editor's point of view.
Alex Jackl 16:10, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Martin Leaf

Martin Leaf was neve a 'counsel' of Landmark Education, and the cited sources do not indicate that he was. He was merely an employee of a legal firm that they engaged for one of their cases. DaveApter 12:40, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Okay. Smeelgova 12:42, 3 January 2007 (UTC).

Introduction

The introduction has been worked on very carefully over many, many months with much contraversy. These changes are abrupt and ther eis absolutley no discussion about them on this page. I am reverting them back and request that if you want to make a change to the introduction you discuss it and reach consensus on this page. I understand that the WIkipedia motto is to be bold but please do not be upset if I just revert it back if you just change something we have worked on for so long. Polite protocol is to discuss on this page. If you don't you risk having your changes regarded as vandalism. Alex Jackl 07:08, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

My other point is that this article has been criticized for its innappropriately large number of citations and quotations. We need to cut back on that not just add to it. No one is disputing that fact- it doesn't need a citation. Alex Jackl 07:11, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Though I am of a different opinion, I will wait on this and see if perhaps the original editor who put in the citations/references will comment. Smeelgova 07:31, 6 January 2007 (UTC).
I appreciate that. While just adding a citation in one domain is not a big change or issue, the article has been cited by WIkipedeans as being overly citation and quote heavy. Given that it is not a disputed fact that Landmark has drawn criticism and thare is a whole section of the site devoted to that it is hardly necessary to add more citations in the introduction. Also, if you look at standard practice across Wikipedia you will find rarely is there much, if at all, citation going on in the introductory paragraphs. Alex Jackl 16:16, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
On the other hand, User:EstherRice and User:Wbroun have a point - much criticism has not just been voiced by expert commentators, but also by the media. Perhaps an extra sentence saying this, instead of all of the citations, would be appropriate in the introduction. That being said, those citations are all from reputable secondary sources, and if they found their way into other parts of the article, they would be reputable and verifiable sourced citations. Smeelgova 16:26, 6 January 2007 (UTC).

Jan 07 reverting

Please discuss current reverting - some of the changes - not all - look to be improvements to article. SmithBlue 14:03, 11 January 2007 (UTC)


"marketing" vs. "providing"

I agree with Smeelgova about anonymous edits- they should be reverted. If you can't bother to sign on you shouldn't expect your edits to be treated with much courtesy. However one change that is positive and which I have re-instated is the "provides" vs. "marketing". The emphasis on "Marketing" is actually deceptive in that it makes it sound like Landmark is a marketing company rather than one that provides programs. Fixing accordingly. Alex Jackl 23:42, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I refer you both to Assume good faith And further suggest that content over-rides contributor (Ok if A. Hitler starts editing then maybe not). I find "automatic" reverting uncivil and not kind to new contributors. I see now that the editor involved has warned the user for vandalism. Oh dear. SmithBlue 01:53, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Understanding

One change I made though is that I took out "Understanding" as a Landmark term defined in its literature because it is not, and the link attached to it was to an old Landmark web page detailing the history of Werner Erhardt NOT about vocabulary. *shrug* Alex Jackl 14:24, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I just went to these links and they are sufficently useful and informative about the subject matter that they certainly should be kept. These are not eggregious. There is only five links! If there is such a desperate need to rduce link count we can remove some of the citations to stuff only peripherally related to Landmark as opposed to these links which are spot on related. I really think these should be kept in or it justified on this page why to take them off. Alex Jackl 03:06, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Please read Wikipedia:Spam#External_link_spamming. There is no need to link to this many sub-pages of a for-profit, privately-owned company's website. These are all pages that the reader can navigate to from the main pages provided already. Thus this is redundant information, and amounts to link spam. Smeelgova 10:47, 17 January 2007 (UTC).
I did read it and I agree with Alex Jackl Those links point to relevant information and reference not promotion of a product per se.Mvemkr 16:39, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Not promotion of a product? LOL. That is the only thing that they are doing. Linking to 2 official sites, as is policy on Google by the way in top hits, is the best way to do this. Any more and it amounts to Wikipedia:Spam#External_link_spamming. All of the links go to a for-profit company, advertising a product. To assume anything else is biased. Smeelgova 16:42, 17 January 2007 (UTC).
I just thought those links made it easier for a reader to find those particularly relevant sections of the Landmark website.Mvemkr 18:58, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
The Landmark Education website itself [20] makes it particularly easy to find relevant sections of their own website. That's why they pay their webmasters the big bucks. Smee 19:27, 18 January 2007 (UTC).
  1. ^ Sweden: International Religious Freedom Report 2006, US Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor, 2006, Section I. Religious Demography.
  2. ^ O'Brien, James. GQ Magazine. May, 2005
  3. ^ Filing a Complaint for Back Wages Under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), United States Department of Labor, retrieved 12/20/2006.
  4. ^ Wage and Hour Division, United States Department of Labor, updated August 15, 2006.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Landmark_Worldwide/Archive_5&oldid=571403246"