Talk:Landmark Worldwide/Archive 10

Scientology

In 1992 the Church of Scientology (which has the classification of a religious organization in certain jurisdictions, such as that of the United States of America, but not in others) included Werner Erhard, EST (Erhard Seminars Training) and "The Forum" on a list of "Suppressive Persons and Groups".

Scientology has a special procedure that new Scientologists must go through if they have previously participated in either Erhard Seminars Training or in the Landmark Forum. Scientologists refer to the procedure as the "Est Repair Rundown".

The German Stern (magazine) has compared Landmark Education to the Church of Scientology. The Frankfurter Neue Presse, stated that: "They are suspected of having connections with the Scientology Church."

In 2003 a Bavarian Study on Scientology compared the practices of Landmark Education and of Scientology. The objective of the description and assessment of the Scientology and Landmark organizations was the investigation of the psychic, physical and social effects of the psycho- and social-techniques applied by those organizations respectively upon members and participants. The third objective also included the presentation of legal problems, conflicts or violations by the two organizations, along with pointers as to possible paths of resolution.

In 2004, Mona Vasquez appeared in the documentary "Voyage to the Land of the New Gurus" addressing what she saw as extensive and precise similarities between Scientology terminology and the jargon utilized by Landmark Education. A member of Scientology for seven years, Vasquez wrote the book Et Satan créa la secte [Satan Created the Cult: Memoirs of an escapee].

In 2006, Susan J. Palmer discussed Landmark Education at a CESNUR conference. She referenced a statement by journalist Martin Mireille who had stated that Landmark Education is "a branch of Scientology". However, in Palmer's remarks, she rejects this assertion.. </nowiki>

Request Deletion of Section

The disposition of this section is also overwhelmingly aligned on by the editors. I am proposing that the entire Scientology section is removed as a non-notable, minority-viewpoint, POV content. Alex Jackl 21:01, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

{{editprotected}} I have unprotected the page. Everyone may edit, but please bear in mind to discuss before reverting whenever possible. CMummert · talk 02:34, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks CMummert! In the spirit of their request could some of the other editors chime in on this section... Alex Jackl 12:13, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

The Scientology section is a random collection of unrelated statements, all negative, and all relatively vague. It should be deleted. Sm1969 02:59, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Do we have a better place to refute alleged connections/parallels between Scientology and Landmark Education than in a reasoned and well-sourced section in the body of the Landmark Education article? -- Pedant17 05:46, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

• The talk page is the place for debates not the article.Mvemkr 15:48, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
  • One debates on the talk-page. One presents non-minority opinions and studies and facts within the body of the article. -- Pedant17 05:31, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

If the allegations were noteworthy you are absolutely correct but since it seems clear they are irrelevant, POV spin, and non-notable.

I suggest Nedopil as a notable commemtator, for example. -- Pedant17 05:31, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

NO. I don't mean to sound harsh but we want to stick with NPOV representations in this article and not break WP:UNDUE. If you can find a notable, appropriate link to Scientology to Landmark Education beside the founder of a predecessor organization's personal issues with it then I might give you more credence.

The section in question contains more than personal issues. Let's put it back. -- Pedant17 05:31, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

But the truth is Scientology has ZERO relationship to Landmark Education:

Forget "relationship". Concentrate on links, influences, similarities, and differences. -- Pedant17 05:31, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

• Werner Erhardt took Scientoiology courses in the sixties. (Werner Erhardt page MIGHT be a place for that if anyone thought it notable enough)
• Scientology and est had a tiff around Werner using their technology I think (not my area of expertise) (Maybe on Werner Erhard page or Scientology page if people thought it notable. )
• Landmark is using technology Werner Erhardt had in the 80s and has purchased the right to it. (that is already in the article)

There should be nothing on Scientology on the Landmark Education page as a majority of editors expressed in the two sections above.

The mere presence of editorial work, referenced and ordered and reflecting a substantial body of public opinion as to perceived linkages, suggests that a section on Scientlogy can only enrich the Landmark Education page. -- Pedant17 05:31, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree there is not a current notable citation that has been put forth and until there is one I think the this section should be removed.Mvemkr 15:48, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Why the requirement for a single "current" citation? Wikipedia covers the history of everything. Citations slightly pre-current remain valuable. -- Pedant17 05:31, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

In reviewing this whole article, the whole series of Scientology references is clearly "slanted" to advance a biased Point of View and violates Wikipedia policies. This is not the purpose of Wikipedia. The references should be removed. Simplyfabulous 20:20, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

The "slanting" does not appear "clear" at all. Pending clarification, let's put the Scientology stuff back. -- Pedant17 05:31, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Loaded language

This whole section is essentially uninformed speculation, which is actually inaccurate and should be removed.DaveApter 14:19, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

• This is clearly not "uninformed speculation", as every single sentence is highly sourced to a reputable secondary source. It is extremely unusual for a for-profit, privately owned company to be analyzed in this manner utilizing this methodology, and should be noted as such. Thanks. Smee 18:40, 20 March 2007 (UTC).

You say "it is highly unusual for a for-profit, privately owned company to be analyzed in this manner using this methodology". Thank you for your unsupported opinion. Now- what methodology? What analysis? In what manner? You keep making these grandiose statements, utilizing weasel words. and insuating things without saying exactly what you mean. Please explain what the above sentence means. Thanks! Alex Jackl 03:39, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Please see all of the heavily sourced citations in this subsection. That is what I am referring to here. Smee 03:53, 21 March 2007 (UTC).

I have reviewed them and find no manner of analysis or methodology. Random citations that mention vocabulary or "loaded language" or some reporter who is not a subject matter expert repeating something she read off the internet- not what I would call a reputable source! do not a cogent argument make. Please explain how these references actually prove anything. Thanks! Alex Jackl 04:27, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I see no "loaded language" and the content is sourced. Please refrain from removing sourced content. If there have been various sources making the comparison between LE and SC then it does belong in the article. Sfacets 04:57, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Let us consider this in the age of spin: Language and its dynamic definitions and appeal are the nature of all public teachings and marketing techniques. Movements fracture and join due to wording and terminology. Religions schism because of it. What makes that surprising or unimportant to all those here? Religions and Philosophies and (their word) mental "Technologies" ARE their terminology. Theology isn't an example? This isn't a new type of scrubbing brush they're selling, virtuous or malevolent.

Regardless... if they are revolutionary or they are regressive and hackneyed, their use of terminology in teaching is an essential aspect of their definition.Zortyl 06:43, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Religious Implications

I don't think this section is needed. For anyone in any religion there are "religious implications" to countless things. For an Orthodox Jew a door knob has religious implications on Saturdays. For a conservative muslim woman a hug has religious implications. For any number of Christian denominations, listening to the radio has religious implications. It may be notworthy that people from various religions have opinions about Landmark Education, but the section as it is currently written seems to imply that there is a religious status to Landmark makes no more sense than saying that a doornob has a religious status. Triplejumper 21:38, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

The religious fervor with which graduates of Landmark Education attempt to proselytise in itself gives Landmark Education significant religious implications. The section could profit from expansion rather than deletion. -- Pedant17 05:46, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

See above. POV. First, I disagree,. Second, even if I agreed "hard sell" does not equal "religion". (unless you worship Money which some in our society do!)Alex Jackl 15:37, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree about the "distinction" between "hard sell" and "religious fervor". "Hard sell" occurs in specific situations and often involves sales-droids. Whereas religious fervor sweeps through entire groups of people and can pervade their entire existence. I suggest that Landmark Education has more to do with the "religious fervor" category, and that mentioning (at least) religion as a point of comparison or similarity adds to our understanding of Landmark Education. -- Pedant17 05:31, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Please see my comment above about compliance with the WP:NPOV undue weight policies. DaveApter 14:39, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree that this section is not needed. Timb66 06:16, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Few sections count as "needed". We could redistribute the content of the "Religious Implications" section into other existing or potentially new sections. But deleting the text doesn't help anyone. -- Pedant17 05:31, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I must say I agree with Pedant17 here. That section heading as always bothered me. perhaps we can come up with a more approriate heading or redistribute the info. Mvemkr 16:22, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Bad Links

On the article there are references to outside sources that are bad links, 7, 15, 17, 31, and 42. They all go to pages that do no contain the cited content. Triplejumper 23:20, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps this was already fixed but 31 and 42 do seem to be valid links. I agree on the first three:

• 7 is a l;ink that is no longer good and ther eis also no ocntest on the question, I believe.
• 15 links to a site no longer available.
• 17 links to a site no longer available. Alex Jackl 06:43, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

When possible link to original content

There are a number of citations to news articles that could just as easily to to oringal sources, but instead go to a third party page. For example references 2, 47, 75, and 76 are listed as articles but the links go to Rickross.com. This does not seem nescessary when the articles cites are already available at their original sources. Triplejumper 23:20, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Agreed- this is Wikipedia policy anyway.. this is just a given. Those links were put in to link farm Rick Ross's sites not because they were the original source. That is a no-brainer change once the site becomes unprotected. Alex Jackl 13:47, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Please don't edit-war

I reverted the wholesale revisions made yet again by user:EstherRice, while preserving some of the subsequent edits by user:Lsi john.

The material that Esther wants to re-instate has been extensively discussed on this page, and there was general consensus that it was spurious for reasons that have been adequately explained above. Principally that it violated wikipedia policies in giving undue weight to minority opinions, that many of the sources do not meet reliability stantdards, and that in many cases the points being made in the article are not in fact substantiated when the content of the citations is examined. Contrary to what Esther suggests above, no-one suggested that it should be removed "because they didn't like it".

Please engage with the arguments before making extensive changes, or is that too much to expect from someone who claims to be able to pronounce on behalf of "the majority of people on the planet"? DaveApter 16:50, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

That is precisely the level of the objections. Your final statement is taken out of context, and missed the intended humour of my earlier comment. However, if one were to expose a group of people who do not know of Landmark but do know the true definition of jargon, what do you guess would be the result? This is presumably why the word was chosen (before 'terms') in the first place.

The material is being removed precisely because people having some affiliation with or loyalty to Landmark do not like it. The discussion of the claimed majority above at points like this makes it clear. A quick glance at the history of this page also makes it clear that there is no concensus, but rather control by a group who want to remove all of the criticism, despite the sources etc. being valid by normal standards here.ER^Talk 01:39, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree completely. When an editor comes in and reverts back to something several edits old, their actions are potentially disruptive. This is especially true in cases where there were technical corrections, spelling corrections, grammar corrections, which were not controversial. Such meticulous edits take time and reverting them in the name of a cause is disruptive and does an injustice to any editor who got caught in the edit war.

Reverts should be limited to the most recent version (or oldest edit in a series by the same editor).

Lsi john 18:04, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

There were no corrections of the kind claimed above; instead, we had removal of the entire criticisms section and introduction of PR-style information.ER^Talk 01:39, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Even if there were minor edits and corrections after the large edit/deletion; It is perfectly reasonable to make a complete reversion nevertheless. If I made minor moves and corrections just after a major deletion I would have to accept reversions to my edits and I would probably explain to the person that I was not just trying to protect the major deletion. Only if it is not too much trouble, try to keep legitimate minor edits. But othewise its fine to just revert. The minor corrections are easier to re-do as they can be found in the archives and no actual proofreading needs to be done. Jeffrire 05:42, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

The enthusiasm for reversion seems at odds with the Wikipedia norms of WP:REVERT such as:

Suggestions for the article

I suggest some editors learn to accept well sourced views and facts. They are not going away. Jeffrire 15:21, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree - are you explaining to us something you are learning? This kind of self-evaluation belongs on your talk page not on an article talk page. Please regard WP:Civility! There are many sides to every perspective - from mine your edits represent a blatant disregard for facts in favor of your POV. I don't make sarcastic comments about it and I request you don't either. Alex Jackl 05:13, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

User AJack. I am being civil and I am reminding editors to accept NPOV policy. There is no sarcasm in my line at all. I am being perfectly straightforward. If you wish editors to lay down and accept the deletion of well sourced facts and views - and just let it slide, then I think you need to re-assess your motivations for being here. If I were to repeatedly delete well sourced facts, I would have to face the fact that I would have an unconstructive aversion to certain facts and views in that case. And in that case I would most likely be unconstructive as an editor. Lets keep unreasonable deletes in check please. Editors seem to be generally fine discussing the finer points of how facts are presented. But the zealous removal of well sourced facts is something we should all guard against as a group. Jeffrire 07:24, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Partridge ref

Hello Mvemkr. You removed the sourced view of Partridge on the basis that you think its spurious[1]. Would you care to elaborate? Jeffrire 11:54, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

When I checked out the reference what I read was an individuals opinion which in itself is not a problem but when I looked for what their criteria for LGAT was there was none. Exploring further the reference was to an Anti-Cult site in New Zealand also maintained by a single person and no criteria for why he deemed certain programs cults. I found that reference to be not notable and highly POV and contrary to what has been discussed previously regarding this page. Mvemkr 15:57, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Hello Mvemkr. Its the Partridge ref that I am working on. The cults site is only corroboration. Here is more [2]. As you probably know, Landmark is also a successor to EST, which is also known as a LGAT [3]. But its the Partridge view that I am focusing on here. He states what I had included onto the article. He's a PhD and his book is peer reviewed (many contributors). Its a reliable source and I'm giving you the extra bits of information to explain why Partridge (and many other people) hold the view. Jeffrire 02:09, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Jeffrire, I did review The Partridge ref and it is a view of est, which is not Landmark Education; just as the 2007 Washington Nationals are not the 1975 Montreal Expos. So I do not see how it was relevant or appropriate for the context of "Religious Implications" in which you had cited it. Mvemkr 00:35, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Given the close connections between est and Landmark Education, comment on the one does not preclude application to the other. Given the inclusion of the discussion of LGATs in Partridge's work (suggestively entitled New Religions: A Guide; New Religious Movements, Sects and Alternative Spiritualities) it does not seem inappropriate to include this referenced linking of Rosenberg/Erhard's methodology in the context of a section entitled "Religious implications". Given the frequent association of est and of Landmark Education with the concept of LGATs, one might well expect a discussion of Large Group Awareness Trainings -- however brief -- in an article purporting to give encyclopedic balance in its treatment of the subject of "Landmark Education". Given the academic credibility of Partridge, his comment appears suitable as a reference for the fact that some people regard Landmark Education as having something to do with LGATs. Given the reputation of Partridge's publisher (the Oxford University Press) the case for the inclusion of Partridge's albeit tentative-sounding view on the possible identification of Landmark Education as an LGAT strengthens. -- Pedant17 07:01, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Jeffrire,

• This article is right at the max length for a wiki article.
• Landmark has been identified, with counteless references, as using LGAT techniques. One more reference won't add any value.
• The number of references and footnotes is incredibly long.

Sometimes less is more

• You Rock!! is two simple words.
• You are the most incredible and wonderful person on this great planet that I have ever had the good fortune of knowing and I will truly consider our friendship to be a blessing forever. uses more words, but really doesn't add more value.

Though, I'm not familiar with the specific Partridge ref that you're discussing, I would like to ask you if you feel that adding more information to this article actually improves it? Is there something you would consider taking out, in order to add that reference?

The purpose of these articles is to provide factual information which informs the reader in a neutral way. It is not to provide a location where every single fact known to mankind can be found.

Just my 2 cents. Lsi john 02:19, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Its a reliable source that gives a view. The article requires what Krator mentioned; More explanation. Max length is neither here nor there. I read something about summary style the other day. I think it applies. Jeffrire 03:47, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Jeffrire, I am neither picking on your link, nor making any suggestion of its value. I am neither saying your link doesn't qualify nor am I saying that it shouldn't be used. I'm asking if you feel it brings significant value to the article. An article needs to be more than a collection of usable facts. It needs to have flow and tell an unbiased story about the subject.

Maximum length is there for a reason. Generally everything that needs to be said to describe a subject can be said within the maximum lengh limitation. Articles that exceed that limit, are generally redundant and overly wordy. Certainly there are exceptions. In this case there are already several other Landmark-related articles. Many of these articles repeat the same information.

Do you believe that your reference adds significant value to this article? And if so, hypothetically speaking, if you had to remove another citation in order to include yours, pick a citation in the article that brings less value than yours?

I'm not suggesting that you would have to remove one. I'm asking you to look over the article and evaluate your reference and explain why it brings significantly more value to this article than the information that is already here. I am not saying it doesnt bring value. Im asking you, in your words and from your perspective, to explain what value it brings.

Thank you. Lsi john 04:08, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Hello Lsi john. The choices you are presenting me seem to be unnecessary. If a solid reference helps to explain an aspect of the article then of course it can be added according to the main WP rules. Why is Landmark considered a LGAT? Which aspects of LGATs are relevant to Landmark? Are there any similar terms that are applied to Landmark? All this can be added to the article when I present the sourced information. There's plenty of space as long as summary style is used. Thanks for the suggestions though. Jeffrire 05:05, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

You are quite welcome. I am sorry that you have chosen to ignore my question and merely repeat that since it qualifies as WP:RS that it can be included. While you may technically be correct, that logic will lead to a very poor article. If we include everything that can be included in every article, the articles will be unreadable.

My question was very simple. What is it about your link that you believe adds significant value to the article? Repeating that it meets wiki standards for inclusion does not address that question and my question is actually part of the wiki standard.

"nor is Wikipedia a dictionary, a newspaper, or a collection of source documents"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Five_pillars

When another contributor questions the value of a citation, explaining your justification is polite and shows respect to the other contributor.

It is possible that the other contributor did not realize the value. Merely citing a rule, to defend inclusion, will not convince the other party and will not help anyone move toward compromise or understanding.

Lsi john 05:24, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Jeffrire, you gave a bunch of IF's.. Does your link explain why Landmark is an LGAT? Does it do it better than other sections of this article already explain it? My questions are real. I honestly am interested in your answers. I am interested in contributing to and producing high quality unbiased articles. If you have information which adds significant value, then it should be included.

Perhaps I misunderstood. I was under the impression that someone removed a link you put in. Lsi john 05:27, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

A missing link adds no value to an article. Since the "Landmark Education" article at the time of my writing contains no instances of the string "LGAT" and only generic "See also" and "Category" links to Large Group Awareness Training, adding a sourced reference with a comment increases the scope and impact of the article, provides a degree of justification for the bland generic links, and subtly increases the neutral viewpoint by contrasting with the null view on the matter. -- As for concerns about the length of the "Landmark Education" article, we can fork out (say) the section on jargon and the section on courses into separate articles, freeing up "virtual" space for bold and expansive editing (and for re-incorporating previously spurned material). -- Pedant17 02:12, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

There a billions of "missing links" in this article. You will notice this article includes no links on bread baking, or the Loch Ness Monster. The article is better for missing these links. What value is added by adding any content on that? How does it expand the understanding of Landmark. It is mentioned and that is probably as notable an inclusion as it deserves. You also seem to think Landmark is VERY IMPORTANT- why do I sau yhat. Why spin off articles on it? A company's jargon having its own encyclopedia article. It was recently tried by Smee and others and overwhelmingly defeated in an AFD. It just isn't notable enough. A Wikipedia article for a company's jargon? Come on. This all just attmepts to put non-notable, biased, POV material back into Wikipedia after it has been removed by consensus over and over again. I, by the way, am not that against the Partridge citation- I htink it is unnecessary and I wouldn't add it but it is OK. Alex Jackl 04:21, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Hello AJack. I'd like to see the precise details of that crushing AFD defeat. A link would help. Also, I would say Landmark is significant enough to have its own article which includes all relevant views and criticisms, and explanations for why those criticisms exist. It also seems to be necessary to explain why Landmark is considered to be a LGAT. Jeffrire 05:22, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, each company meets LGAT criteria, because the author says so and there is no way to disprove them, because there is no single concise universally accepted definition for LGAT.

Therefore, I agree with Jeffrire. Lets, once and for all, get a good scientific definition included in this article, that shows exactly and specifically why Landmark's practices are LGAT. Once Jeffrire provides us with a nice clear, clean, crisp, scientifically verificable method for determining LGAT, we can begin getting references which show the falacy of this terminology and how other authors have mis-applied the term to other companies. Otherwise, Jeffrire, anything you have, will simply be more RRacR and it won't add significant value, other than what is already in the article. The term pretty much means whatever each author wants it to mean (within some broad limitations). Lsi john 12:34, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I can live with that but let's do it here first- that is what talk pages are for. Given this is likely or at least my be contentious let us work out all the kinks here. Get consensus and then put it in the article. A good strating point would be for us to look at the Wikipedia article on LGATs.Alex Jackl 15:30, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Working out "all the kinks" on a Talk-page provides a recipe for inaction. We need only add appropriately-sourced references, then debate their individual appropriateness if really necessary. -- Pedant17 07:01, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

The article on "Landmark Education" does not seem a suitable place to spend time evolving a single definition of "LGAT" - scientific or otherwise, crisp or limp. We have the Large Group Awareness Training article in which to present possible definitions, and we can link to that article. On the other hand, I would encourage content in the Landmark Education article which demonstrates use -- appropriately and/or inappropriately -- of the term with reference to Landmark Education. Such content may emerge over time, thus the sooner we provide a base for it in the Landmark Education article the better. Setting out with the aim of showing the fallacies of this usage or its mis-applications does not sound likely to enhance the neutral point of view we strive for here -- Pedant17 07:01, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

The current article on "Landmark Education" does not explain the extremely cryptic links to Large Group Awareness Training. A properly-sourced reference to the labeling would improve the article slightly. -- Pedant17 07:01, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

When articles expand with the information provided by Wikipedia's thousands of keen editors, some people object to individual article becoming too long. In such cases, we can "spin off" new articles by forking. The spinning off of Landmark Education and the law provides an example. I note that nobody has raised any objections to my suggestion of spinning off an article on Landmark Education courses. I suggest that such an article would not want for material or perceived notability. -- Pedant17 07:01, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Some history

Hello. Nice to meet you. The link is Articles_for_deletion/Landmark_education_jargon. When the consensus declared that the "jargon" content that had been added by Smee was non-notable and removed from the article and it was obvious that the consensus was strongly against that inclusion Smee(supported by Pedant17 and EstherRice) then went and created a whole new article that housed all the old non-notable material. This was clearly POV pushing and the article was soundly defeated as you can see from the link. I agree with you 100% that Landmark is significant enough for its own articles and criticisms should be included. The LGAT definition is a fuzzy one and it is not a generally accepted term because it has been mostly appropriated by those labeling things they call LGAT as cults. As a result you will see less acceptance of the LGAT term here. We still mention it because people have referred to Landmark's courses as "LGAT"s it at best applies to only some of Landmark's courses and has become somewhat of a pejorative term.

What may seem 'obvious consensus" to some may not seem so evident or consensual to others. -- The link to the deletion debate shows that an administrator made a decision to delete -- it does not by any means show that "the article was soundly defeated as you can see from the link". -- Pedant17 07:01, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

What most of the editors on this page are struggling with is to keep as minority viewpoint from overwhelming the page. This is clearly a contentious issue with strong feelings on both sides so we are attempting to really talk things through on these pages before making any changes in the article. Unfortunately there is a core of users who keep trying to wholesale re-introduce content that was deleted before and when thwarted at that here spin off pages with that same content. You can follow this process by going through the archives of this Talk page. Obviously those representing the minority viewpoint will say that we are secret spies for Landmark hawking Landmark's POV and advertising. The more reasonable eyes looking at the article the better it becomes.

I would posit that most of the Wikipedians who edit the Landmark Education article do struggle to keep the different minority viewpoints from overwhelming the page; however, they disagree strenuously as to which opinions to brand as "minority". In such circumstances, a more tolerant and less deletionist approach seems called-for. -- Pedant17 07:01, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Glad to have you on board - we have found the more voices outside the core editors of the article the more obvious the balance points become. That is how Wikipedia works and it becomes less of an user vs. user battle, and this page is slowly straightening out because of it - welcome! Alex Jackl 11:13, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks AJack thats helpful. From what I see from the little detail of the AFD, the jargon page in itself may not be necessary. However, if the information has 7 reputable sources then it has a high significance somewhere and this article seems to be the place. I would suggest that the term "obscurantism" will apply though considering the pseudoscientific nature of the subject. That will also need explaining. From what I understand, Landmark is a minority activity and its promotion is fringe (just those wanting to promote). The majority would be the scientific skepticism view on the psychological techniques and perhaps the sociological views of Landmark. I think thats the best way to consider the matter of balance. Jeffrire 11:23, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Allow me to posit my point of view on this: Landmark Education is a private company that puts on seminars on a variety of topics. There is no "psuedo-scientific" nature of the subject at all. Landmark Education doesn't even pretend to put forth a scientific body of knowledge. At best Landmark Education's courses could be referred to as "applied philosophy". Even treating it like sociological/psychological phenomena is already relating to it from what many of the editors believe to be a minority view point. Landmark doesn't claim to be, and indeed directly asserts it is not, therapy. It is a series of courses that are philosophical in nature. In an encyclopedia article my thought is that the company should be described, the courses it offers described, and some history given. Much more than that is probably overkill. I am very interested in Landmark's pedagogy but I believe that is because I have been involved in Landmark's course design and delivery. I am not clear that that is notable in an encyclopedia article. I am by the way "pro-Landmark" in the sense that I think they deliver a very good product and I enjoy participating in their programs. I just think there is "much ado about nothing" in some of these article debates (on my side sometimes as well) and we need to keep stepping back and thinking form the whole of Wikipedia and making sure people adding content actually are knowledgeable on the topic. Alex Jackl 12:48, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Anyone can produce pseudo-science -- even private companies who see their own product as non-scientific. We evidently need to add a section -- or a new article -- on the view of Landmark Education content and attitudes as pseudo-science. -- Given the wide interests and incisive research-skills of Wikipedia's editorship, limiting future topics as "probably overkill" does little to encourage bold editing in the spirit of NPOV. As for proposals to make "sure people adding content actually are knowledgeable on the topic", this smacks of elitist censorship. Wikipedia (unlike Landmark Education) welcomes well-researched input to its content from any netizen -- Pedant17 07:01, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Only elitist in the sense that someone who writes on a topic should be informed on it. Don't twist my word into being about some kind of censorship- but when an article has been worked on by dozens and dozens of editors and crafted to a place and then someone deletes most of the article and put some hearsay and opinion in its place that is not good for the article. As an example - one of the articles I monitor and work with is "Education". Frequently people come in a delete paragraphs and replace them with "Education in the US sucks and doesn't work". Wile this is a valid opinion- it doesn't belong n the Wikipedia article on Education. There are places in the article where it talks about the pedagogy used and conflicts regarding that but that is just vandalism. There are also articles I watch where people don't like something- like the George Bush article where it has been locked at times because people wanted to put their opinion instead of encyclopedic content. You may not like Landmark Education for some reason- which is none of my business- but that dislike is not a basis to put hearsay and original research into the article.Alex Jackl 12:48, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your clarification as to "knowledgeable on the topic" meaning "informed". I accept that informedness makes for better contributions. -- Hearsay and opinion, as possible sources of or as possible providers of impetus towards informedness, profit from good references and citations and through them become Wikipedia-worthy and more than mere hearsay/opinion. We do tolerate hearsay to the effect (say) that Landmark Education has little to do with est/Erhard -- based on the flimsy assertions of people too close to the action to evaluate the matter dispassionately. And we may put up with surveys of opinions on Landmark Education covering the "converted" -- those who have "completed the Landmark Forum". But a balanced and NPOV article requires more than such slanted hearsay and opinion and welcomes hearsay and opinion from different sources and/or from different viewpoints -- referenced and cited to at least an equivalent standard. -- Pedant17 04:37, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I have been driven to participate so heavily in this article primarily to counter what I see as vandalism and editing by people who don't really understand the subject and are pushing some POV. *shrug* This is just my POV. Part of what makes Wikipedia great is that we can put that aside and work together. If you have any questions about Landmark or its pedagogy please feel free to email me. Alex Jackl 12:03, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Landmark is known as a LGAT. Thats not in dispute. LGATs are known to use techniques such as meditation, neuro-linguistic programming, biofeedback, self-hypnosis, bizarre relaxation techniques, mind control, body touching, yoga, trance induction, visualization and in some cases, intense confrontational sessions akin to the "attack" therapy methods that emerged in the 1960s and 1970s. They are pseudoscientific. Their theories are pseudoscientific and they are not effective for their claimed effect, and they are potentially harmful in some cases and actually harmful in others. I think that much is obvious. I don't intend to "vandalize" the article with such information. I do intend to explain such techniques according to any reliable sources presented. Jeffrire 13:08, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

As I said above the question that Landmark has been referred to as an LGAT- the issues you brought up above is the very reason why the term has been de-emphasized. It is the techniques that you refer to that have been exaggerated in their application to Landmark. There are also a lot of valid techniques and pedagogy that are used that are not "psuedo-science". Do you understand Landmark's pedagogy and instruction style? That is the question. Calling something psuedo-science without an analysis of the specifics is just hearsay and innuendo. Alex Jackl 16:01, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

One can term something "pseudo-science" for the first time without invoking hearsay -- and recall that in the field of popular culture (where Landmark Education operates) hearsay can prove a valuable and significant factor. As for innuendo, Wikipedia encourages good references, and if these convey innuendo, Wikipedia simply reports and replicates that innuendo, entirely appropriately, as expressing published and cited judgments. Such activity seems inevitable in writing of an alleged "applied philosophy". -- Unfortunately, few serious researchers have carried out "analysis of the specifics" of Landmark Education, so the generic studies of LGATs have particular value in presenting and summarizing Landmark Education in an encyclopedia-article. -- Pedant17 07:01, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

This is probably not the place for it but I fundamentally disagree with your statements above. Wikipedia is not a collection of references- however well -sourced- on innuendo and rumor. That is one of the frustration I have with some of the suggestions yourself and Smee have brought up. Just because somebody said it or published something does not mean it belongs in an encyclopedia article on that subject. The degree to which the citation is RELEVANT to the article is absolutely essential. Also - which citations you pick to include and which to not include do shape the tenor of the article and the degree to which is it NPOV or not. There is no question that the term LGAT has been used to describe Landmark Education. However, it is a broad, sweeping term that does not have precise meaning or agremeement in the professional community at all. Some researchers have carried out specifics and inevitably their results do not match what is "commonly" held about LGATS . See the main article for that. The other thing I disagree about is that Landmark is in the "field of popular culture" and therefore hearsay is somehow more relevant. Landmark Education is an educational company whose courses deal with what it calls "transformation". It is in the field of "educational organizations". Alex Jackl 12:48, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

You appear to object to "references ... on innuendo and rumor". The unreferenced innuendo that "transformation" enhances and profits the customers of Landmark Education would have no place in the Landmark Education article on that basis. We would need to exclude (say) the rumor that "rackets" rob humans of opportunities, too. On the other hand, innuendo and rumor reflecting the observed behavior and outcomes of multiple persons who have encountered and recoiled from the sort of innuendo and rumors which Landmark Education and its boosters put about, when such behaviors and outcomes have a basis in statistics or in repeated patterns, qualify them for discussion in this Wikipedia article. -- Not only do sociologists use the term LGAT to refer to Landmark Education and its ilk -- they practically originated the term to apply to just such phenomena. The LGAT-connection already merits discussion in the article on Landmark Education on that basis. If it has become a "broad, sweeping term that does not have precise meaning" then it behoves us to point out in what specific ways Landmark Education and its ancestor-trainings and /or the "LGAT" term have evolved away from each other, and when. Such analysis has a place in the Landmark Education article. I look forward to your providing details in the Landmark Education article on how '[s]ome researchers have carried out specifics and inevitably their results do not match what is "commonly" held about LGATS'. -- I agree with you in rejecting the absurd notion that Landmark Education 'is in the "field of popular culture"' -- but Landmark Education does operate within the field of popular culture. How could it do otherwise -- targeting as it does the hearts and minds of large numbers of people? The fact that popular culture has not assimilated it does not mean that popular culture cannot comment -- it does, massively and rejectionally, and hearsay (as usual) serves as its tool and agent. This flip-side (but equally valid application) of Landmark Education's"word-of-mouth" advertising-technique deserves a place in our overall examination of the phenomenon we call "Landmark Education". -- You assert that "Landmark Education is an educational company" and that it 'is in the field of "educational organizations".' Such "what's so" claims may actually have a degree of merit, but these identifications by no means close the field of classifications for Landmark Education LLC or for its products. As editors of an NPOV encyclopedia, we need to take a much broader view than that espoused (say) in mere company literature and marketing propaganda. -- Pedant17 04:37, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Landmark Education jargon appears sufficiently notable to have a place in the Landmark Education article, and that material could function equally well in a separate article. Wikipedia already has a List of Islamic terms in Arabic and an article on Scientology terminology and a List of Microsoft codenames. And bear in mind that Landmark Education transcends the mere label of "company". -- Pedant17 07:01, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Landmark "transcends" the mere label of company? Why? Don't get me wrong- I think the company is a decent one and I think , in my personal opinion , that is does far more good than harm- but it is just an educational company. How does it "transcend" that? I understand some editors seem to have some kind of axe to grind with regard to it but that doesn't make it any more notable...Alex Jackl 12:48, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

The company "Landmark Education LLC" appears in a registry of commercial enterprises somewhere in the bowels of the bureaucracy -- fine. Its subsidiaries and/or associated companies worldwide have similar status -- that much remains uncontroversial. But when those "companies" act in non-traditional ways (like relying on "volunteer" labor and selling unproven products) matters become more interesting to observers at large. And when the concepts/teachings/methodology known as "Landmark Education" emerge into public scrutiny, we have moved far from the the idea of a mere "company" -- even a so-called "educational company". -- Some people -- even admirers of Landmark Education -- may actually have a greater interest in the ideas and speculations of Landmark Education than in the company structure and in the administrative and managerial office-holders. I suggest that such "non-company" stuff has notability, and that we need to take this into account in editing and evaluating this article. -- Pedant17 04:37, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Forking or "spinning off" articles allows for a richer more varied and more nuanced expansion of the content of Wikipedia, untrammelled by the limitations of a paper-based encyclopedia and with all the advantages of hyperlinking. I do not think you could approve the removal of such Wikipedia-worthy material of interet by invoking a spurious "consensus". -- Pedant17 07:01, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

• In the paper, "The Promise of Philosophy and The Landmark Forum", the authors (one of which is Steven Zaffron, CEO of Landmark Education subsidiary Landmark Education Business Development), twice used the term "large group awareness training". They cited the studies of both Denison and Finkelstein, Wenegrat, and Yalom, in making this assertion:

Denison, Charles Wayne (1994), Children of EST a Study of the Experience and Perceived Effects of a Large Group Awareness Training., University of Denver, pp. Ph.D. Dissertation

Finkelstein, P. (1982). "Large Group Awareness Training". Annual Review of Psychology. 33. Calvin Perry Stone: 515–539. ISSN 0066-4308. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)

So, the term can most certainly be applied to Landmark. Smee 14:03, 30 April 2007 (UTC).

Jargon

There is no citation which justifies a prejudicial word like jargon in a section heading.

"Main Entry: 1jar·gon Pronunciation: 'jär-g&n, -"gän Function: noun Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French jargun, gargon 1 a : confused unintelligible language b : a strange, outlandish, or barbarous language or dialect "

There is no indication that their terms are strange, unintelligible, outlandish or barbarous. There is no citation included in the article to justify this term.

The article needs to remain neutral and Jargon is not a neutral word.

Lsi john 17:14, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

• Most (as in the majority of people on the earth) would argue that jargon is the appropriate word. Be that as it may ...ER^Talk 17:20, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Google finds 171 references to "Landmark jargon" and about 293 for 'Landmark Education jargon". Granted the quite specific nature of those search-strings, it becomes apparent that a significant group of people sometimes associate some Landmark Education language with jargon, and thus with possible connotations (though the word has other definitions) of the "strange, outlandish or barabarous". But compare a more thorough dictionary entry, in this case from the American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language: Fourth Edition. 2000 at http://www.bartleby.com/61/98/J0019800.html :

Jargon:

1. Nonsensical, incoherent, or meaningless talk. 2. A hybrid language or dialect; a pidgin. 3. The specialized or technical language of a trade, profession, or similar group. See synonyms at dialect. 4. Speech or writing having unusual or pretentious vocabulary, convoluted phrasing, and vague meaning.

One might conclude that the word "jargon" has no necessarily negative or prejudicial connotations. -- Pedant17 07:01, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

One might, but others might think otherwise. Of the 4 definitions 3 are pejorative. I believe definition 3 applies, but for the sake of clarity it is best to avoid a loaded term like that. You also want to check the degree to which WP:RS is in play on those "293" Google results. Alex Jackl 12:20, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Language-usage does not operate on a basis of majority-votes on the number of separate definitions. Non-historical lexicographers often tend to arrange their definitions in order of perceived popularity, but in evaluating them we need to take into account the context, as well as the seepage of connotations between ostensibly separate usages. -- What one regards a pejorative and what not remains an individual matter. Someone could regard all 4 of the definitions given as pejorative; someone else none of them. I suspect the third definition given fits Landmark Education jargon best, but for the sake of clarity we can subsume the other meanings as well -- each of them. I persist in my conclusion that 'the word "jargon" has no necessarily negative or prejudicial connotations'. -- As for evaluating the google-test results in terms of "reliable sources" -- that misses the point that the phrase has become widespread in the overall noosphere. (NB: Whereas Google found 171 references to "Landmark jargon" and about 293 for 'Landmark Education jargon", the other day, it finds a mere 47 for "Landmark terminology" and just an initial 2 for "Landmark Education terminology".)-- Pedant17 04:37, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

When to revert

Do

See also Wikipedia policy should follow the spirit of ahimsa

• Reverting is a decision which should be taken seriously.
• Reverting is used primarily for fighting vandalism, or anything very similar to the effects of vandalism.
• If you are not sure whether a revert is appropriate, discuss it first rather than immediately reverting or deleting it.
• If you feel the edit is unsatisfactory, improve it rather than simply reverting or deleting it.

Don't

• Do not simply revert changes that are made as part of a dispute. Be respectful to other editors, their contributions and their points of view.
• Do not revert good faith edits. In other words, try to consider the editor "on the other end." If what one is attempting is a positive contribution to Wikipedia, a revert of those contributions is inappropriate unless, and only unless, you as an editor possess firm, substantive, and objective proof to the contrary. Mere disagreement is not such proof. See also Wikipedia:Assume_good_faith.
• Generally there are misconceptions that problematic sections of an article or recent changes are the reasons for reverting or deletion. If they contain valid information, these texts should simply be edited and improved accordingly. Reverting is not a decision which should be taken lightly.
• There's sometimes trouble determining whether some claim is true or useful, particularly when there are few people "on board" who are knowledgeable about the topic. In such a case, it's a good idea to raise objections on a talk page; if one has some reason to believe that the author of what appears to be biased material will not be induced to change it, editors have sometimes taken the step of transferring the text in question to the talk page itself, thus not deleting it entirely. This action should be taken more or less as a last resort, never as a way of punishing people who have written something biased. See also Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/FAQ
• Do not revert changes simply because someone makes an edit you consider problematic, biased, or inaccurate. Improve the edit, rather than reverting it.

-- Pedant17 07:01, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Agreed! We should take these guidelines very seriously. Alex Jackl 12:10, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes I agree. If someone deletes a whole load of stuff, then the best way to improve it is to revert so that the sourced information reappears. Of course if its not been arranged too vexatiously, then try to keep the other minor improvements if there are any. Reversion in some cases can be the major part of improving the article. Jeffrire 13:06, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with Jeffrire's comment too, so have reverted the article again. Let's make a sincere attempt to start from this more comprehensive version as a base, and not simply revert the article to get rid of well-sourced points that the topic and its adherents don't like.ER^Talk 13:14, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

YEs- if you look at WP:Consensus and the related pages they are an excellent guide to the whole Revert, Edit, Discuss style of editing. I don't prefer it because I think it leads to edit warring more than the consensus building model does but I understand it. I just reverted ER's wholesale revert. This kind of revert is the worst kind. Ignores the talk page, no consensus. It is BOLD but anyone who does those kidns of reverts should expect BOLD action to follow immediately. I think REVERTS are serious but I think this revert by ER is an example of a revet that should be immediately reverted back. Please lets keep our changes slow and measured so editors have a chance to respond and also don't have to be full-time employees paid to work on these pages. I certainly don't have that luxury- so let's keep the pace down a little please. By the way the page is in a stable state right now... this is a good starting point and many editors have gotten us here. Please don't do massive weeping reverts. Alex Jackl 13:22, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Please read the text at WP:BRD. Specifically

• You want to find out who has a particular page on their watchlist, and/or is sufficiently interested, and then discuss with them. In a way, you're actively provoking another person to make an edit, so you're going to need all your tact to convince them that you are acting in good faith

1. Boldly make the desired change to the page.
2. Wait until someone reverts your change or makes another substantial edit. DO NOT Revert back!
3. Discuss with the reverter (don't go for discussion with too many people at once). Once you reach agreement, start the cycle again by making the agreed change.

• Wash, rinse, repeat. If no one reverts after a couple of days, congratulations! You got out of the impasse and got changes done.

It does not say to keep reverting back several revisions old.

That type of reverting is distructive and counter productive. Numerous spelling, grammar and other changes are lost in those abusive types of reverts. Reverts should be limited to the last edit (or sequenece of edits by one editor if a large revert is truly necessary).

Once you have been reverted, it is then incumbent upon you to discuss it with the person who reverted you and come to a concensus. It is not appropriate to re-revert. That could easily be considered violations WP:TE or WP:POINT.

An admin once said, regarding revert wars: "you will not obtain the edits you want by reverting".

1. Please make the case for exactly why you believe an old version should be reverted over numerous edits.
2. or please make a case for individual changes that you wish to make.

WP:BRD seems unsuitable as a model for multiple editors changing several areas of text and with many assumptions not held in common. I suggest that we drop bulk-deletion from our tool-kits in the refinement and expansion of this article. -- Pedant17 04:37, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

We have already discussed the word Jargon. It is uncited, prejudicial, leading and is unacceptable.

But see above for counter-suggestions. -- The word "jargon" is none of the things you claim. It just seems that way to you. -- Pedant17 04:37, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Lsi john 13:33, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

You are both self-confessed PoV pushers for the subject of the article and none of the above comments have any validity in terms of logic, sincerity, or the reality of what is happening here. I also note that the Landmark partisans never make a direct response to comments like 'hey these are real and authoritative sources' etc. etc. but continually come up with red-herring arguments that have nothing to do with the actual flow or comments but are solely intended for presentation as diffs. for the benefit of possible outside parties who can't be expected to bother going through the actual flow and history of edits or the discussion (quite sensibly, I must admit: I don't think I've ever gone through the whole discussion page; I find the kind of diversionary, off-the-point, and circuitous arguments espoused by the Landmark people here quite tiresome). This discussion page gives ample evidence of other editors who want the criticisms left in. Why not accept that the material is valid insofar as the normal application of wikipedia policy? Why try to eliminate everything? I boredly anticipate more off-the-point illogic in reply.ER^Talk 13:58, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

As is obvious from the above discussions, I disagree with User:EstherRice's above opinions and truly believe that the article as it currently stands, while not perfect, is better than many times in the past in terms of its appropriateness as a encyclopedic article. However, I do apologize for characterizing ER's revert as vandalism. That was overly harsh and did not follow WP:AGF. I take my characterization of it as vandalism back. Alex Jackl 14:21, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

-outdent- Your claim is interesting, though unfounded. I know nothing of Landmark Education and I have no opinion of Landmark Education. There is nowhere that I have confessed to being a POV pusher. That is a typical tactic used by people who have no real arguement to make. Unless you are saying that neutrality in an article is POV. In which case, yes, I am pushing a Neutral POV.

Your reverting, with the comments "undid whitewash" clearly demonstrates that you are 're-inserting' POV into the article which you believe was white washed away.

In fact, wiki articles should (in a manner of speaking) be whitewashed. That is the definition of Neutral and WP:NPOV. In contrast, your edits (and edit comments), are clearly self-proclaimed to be "putting back in bias" which you believe has been removed.

A truly neutral article, if one could actually exist, will list facts, provide descriptions, provide opinions and opposing opinions in order of majority view, and will leave any decisions or conclusions up to the reader. Lsi john 14:09, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Yawn.ER^Talk 14:12, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. I have no opinion of Landmark. Do you? What is your opinion of them? Lsi john 14:13, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Yawn. From your user page: For the record, I am a graduate of a Personal Growth seminar company. Well, maybe it wasn't Landmark. est, perhaps? Hardly non-partisan. I would be happy to see the article in a balanced state, which it most definitely is not right now.ER^Talk 14:16, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

No, not Landmark, not est, and not any company related to them. I know nothing of Landmark. Lsi john 19:23, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

How do you translate I am a graduate... into a confession of pushing a POV? What about the rest of that essay, where I am a self-proclaimed NPOV editor? In the interest of full disclosure, I declared my background. I believe that there are bad companies and good companies. I believe that there are companies which are both bad and good. I believe that those facts should be reported/represented accurately and fairly. What about you? What is your opinion of Landmark? What is your background? Are you writing objectively? Do you have any personal experience with the subject matter? Lsi john 14:47, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

By the way, many of the academics and scientists who write opinions about Landmark (and others) are also Graduates of those programs. It is one way of evaluating the trainings. Does that make them self-confessed POV pushers? If so, do you suggest we begin filtering out their opinions? Lsi john 14:52, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

We should treat mere "opinions" from whatever source with the contempt they deserve, paying much more attention to grounded and referenced research uncontaminated by too-close a personal association with the subject-matter. -- Pedant17 04:37, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Lets stop debating each other's motives and debate article content. If you have something you feel should be in the article, lets discuss it and its merits. Lsi john 14:54, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I do, by the way, have an opinion about Landmark Education. I am, in general, for it. I make no mystery of that and have said that from the beginning- see my talk page. I have nothing to hide. However, I am nNOT a "self-confessed POV pusher". That is insulting and innacurate- I have never said any such thinng. I am also a dedicated WIkipedia editor and I truly believe in Wikipedia. I will always be up front about my bias and will strive to make great articles in Wikipedia wherever I am editing. I wish all the editors would be as up front in their biases. Thanks! Alex Jackl 14:21, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Creating a consensus on what represents a balanced article

The majority of editors and administrators who have weighed in on the subject feel that there has historically been undue weight given to criticism/controversy/brainwashing/cult/scientology.

While Penant17 and EstherRice contend that the article has been white washed, note that all of these topics remain in the article (The exception of scientology where it was agreed by a majority of editors that the connection between Landmark and Scientology was a weak one that did not belong in the article).

I do not think anyone who edits on this article and is personally Pro-Landmark thinks that the article should be devoid of criticism. My evidence for this is that the controversial topic remain in the article.

I do not think anyone who edits on this article and is personally Pro-Landmark thinks that the article should be devoid of criticism. My evidence for this is that the controversial topic remain in the article. As the talk page guidelines say, this is a discussion page about the writing of the article not a debate about the topic of the article. Given the positions of the of the involved editors are so divergent, we really need to have a dialog about what represents a balanced article. I do think that we as a group of editors can do that and I am requesing suggestions on how to accomplish that.Triplejumper 20:19, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

The majority of editors and administrators who have weighed in on the subject feel that there has historically been undue weight given to criticism/controversy/brainwashing/cult/scientology.

Editors come and go. Times change. Wikipedia changes. Even Landmark Education changes sometimes. Historical views of weightings likewise remain subject to change. Wikis operate like that. -- Pedant17 03:08, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

While Penant17 and EstherRice contend that the article has been white washed, note that all of these topics remain in the article (The exception of scientology where it was agreed by a majority of editors that the connection between Landmark and Scientology was a weak one that did not belong in the article).

What topics remain? -- Some have vanished entirely. -- And the current state of the debate on the multiple and on-going connections and similarities between Scientology and Landmark Education does not reflect any sort of definitive vote by editors. -- Pedant17 03:08, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I do not think anyone who edits on this article and is personally Pro-Landmark thinks that the article should be devoid of criticism. My evidence for this is that the controversial topic remain in the article.

As the talk page guidelines say, this is a discussion page about the writing of the article not a debate about the topic of the article. Given the positions of the of the involved editors are so divergent, we really need to have a dialog about what represents a balanced article.

Leaping forward to the idea of balance at this stage presupposes that we know what needs balancing. It may help to have that debate prior. At the moment we cannot even view the range of material available for our judgment. -- Pedant17 03:08, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I do think that we as a group of editors can do that and I am requesing suggestions on how to accomplish that. Triplejumper 19:13, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree. At the moment, we cannot even agree on whether we have consensus! I suggest that we need a list of the editors who have made comments, with an indication of their opinion on whether the fraction of negative content is too high, too low or about right. I don't have time to do this at the moment, I'm afraid. Timb66 22:25, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

You would need to include editors who have made edits. You would need to ignore mere opinions about fractions and revert to solid arguments. You would need to define what one can regard as "negative" while allowing for a spectrum of material that may even embrace the "positive". -- Pedant17 03:08, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I have reverted some of the changes made by EstherRice pending the decision on consensus. I do not have time to do any more today. Timb66 22:45, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Reversions of edits made according to consensus does not encourage the ideal of consensus. I suggest you revert your reversions in order to allow a consensus to develop. (Consensus does *not* get "decided"...) -- Pedant17 03:08, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I am clear that this article as it stands now, after Timb66's changes, is coming closer to have a balance- there is still too much negative but that can be adjusted over time. EstherRice and Pedant17 and Smee may have a LOT to say but history has proved out the minority and non-notable nature of the POV axe they keep trying to grind all the time. That is my two cents... Alex Jackl 23:27, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

One cannot bask in the glow of a temporary mythical Golden Age and call it "history". Nor does the repeated assertion that a "minority ... POV" exists provide any evidence of a single unitary viewpoint, let alone whether one can regard it as minoritarian, significantly minoritarian, or majoritarian. -- Pedant17 03:08, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Pedant17, please do not intersperse your comments on other editor's comments. Please correct these and put all your comments in one block. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:26, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree, please put all your comments in one (or a few) larger blocks. I counted 16 inserted comments -- it makes the discussion extremely hard to follow, especially for those who may read this page in the future. Thanks. Timb66 09:05, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Sometimes the most effective comments come in large blocks, sometimes not. Indented points and queries highlight matters at issue and make the substance of debates easier to identify. -- Pedant17 02:12, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

McCarl article needs checking

1/the journal is not peer reviewed or indexed-& I get a "Can't find server" error when I try its link. 2/SSRN is a very reputable archive, but it's policy is to include and preserves any paper sent to it. 3/None of the authors are notable by WP standards 4/ At least one of the authors is an employee of the Forum. DGG 00:25, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks DGG. I'll check up a bit more on the repute of the source. Actually I think on its own its inappropriate. Its basically a pov rather than an account of the situation. It should be placed with other povs for balance. Jeffrire 02:48, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

You must be joking- this is a published paper in an academic journal, properly sourced, and EXACTLY ABOUT THE SUBJECT MaTTER of the article. Give me a break. Yes- one of the four authors is a course designer and executive of Landmark Education. It is not unusual to have papers written by experts in their field. Alex Jackl 05:10, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Please tone it down AJack. I'm presently checking the source and I will urge others to do likewise. I personally have no problem with it being presented in the meantime. Jeffrire 07:27, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Two of the authors are genuine academics working in sociology: Steve McCarl, Joyce McCarl Nielsen. On the other hand, "Contemporary Philosophy" is not held by our university library (U. Sydney). I can't find it on Google and the URL given on SSRN [4] seems to be dead. Timb66 23:58, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes I can't find it either, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Well it leaves a big question mark. Perhaps someone can provide an answer. I'd apply patience. Jeffrire 00:23, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Patience is in short supply around here! If the article cannot be verified then I suggest it be removed, or at least given less prominence in the article (eg relegated to a footnote). Timb66 22:32, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually yes, thats a reasonable suggestion. I'll change the heading of this subdiscussion accordingly so people remember to check. I have no problem with it being absent from the article. We can be persistent with it on the talkpage until the question is resolved. Jeffrire 11:07, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Constructive suggestions

Hello all. Perhaps starting afresh: Here are some suggestions that may help us work towards some determination of what should be presented in the article and how. Please feel free to make comments under the specific headings Jeffrire 05:44, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

• Reliability

• Weight

• Relevance

Jeffrire makes a good point; perhaps going through all disputed points would be beneficial. However, the people who are e.g. able to edit the page from the workplace would have to make allowances for those who can only make a more occasional contribution rather than jumping in with an artificial concensus.ER^Talk 15:30, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Comments on the on-going edit war

Over a period from about 16th March to 13th April about half a dozen different editors made changes to the article by removing material which they regarded as irrelevant, biased, poorly sourced, or violating the undue weight principle of the WP:NPOV policy. All of these changes were fully discussed on this talk page before being implemented and received general consensus.

On 13th April Esther Rice did a bulk revert which cancelled the whole of these updates. A few hours later user:AJackl restored the state to the one that had resulted from the earlier collaboration. Since then there have been repeated reverts by Esther, user:Pedant17, user:jeffrire, user:Gilliam and others (sometimes anonymously) to re-establish the version prior to the one that had wider approval.

These are often accompanied by a) re-iterations that the material was ‘cited from reliable sources’, b) accusations that the other editors are ‘attempting to whitewash’ the article, c) accusing anyone who disagrees with her of being a ‘POV-pusher’, or d) claims that they are ‘restoring NPOV’.

There are frequent condescending lectures on the need to ‘preserve well sourced material’, or ‘comply with NPOV’. I would appreciate it if you would show enough respect for other editors to acknowledge that we agree with those principles. Where we differ is in our evaluations of whether the sources in question are in fact reliable or notable, whether they do support the assertions in the disputed material, and whether or not the material you are so keen to include violates the undue weight principle. There has been detailed discussion of all these points on this page, but you appear to me to prefer repetitions of your own already stated opinions and sarcastic dismissal of others, rather than constructive engagement in the debate. DaveApter 17:24, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I have just completed reading this talk page from top to bottom and I am frankly tired. The various sections have been broken apart by people inserting their comments inside other people's comments. It has made this talk page difficult to follow. With that said, I agree with most of the assesment by DaveApter above. Prior to the 16th of March- This article contained huge swaths of quotes from sources critical of Landmark Education added primarily by one user. While the sources of text may or may not have been reputable, the points were made redundantly and repeatedly to the point where the criticism and controversey section comprised fully 2/3 of the article. If you go back in the history of this file (I know that it is tedious) you will see that this one particular user: Smee on some days spent 19 hours adding Landmark-critical material to the article as well reverting others edits. They did this repeatedly until several weeks ago when someone reported them for violating WP:3RR twice within the same day. Since then, multiple editors have used the talk page to collaborate in bringing the article back into balance. I think that the version of the article from 17:25, 11 May 2007 by DaveApter represents the balance that many editors have worked hard to acheive. That is what I have to say and I request that my comments here be left intact and not be subdivided by other editors. Triplejumper 21:46, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree that edit warring should be avoided. Thats what we need to work on now.

• If it is the intention of editors to reduce the size of the criticisms then it should be done so on the basis of majority vs minority view. That is a subject for constructive discussion. It will likely lead closer to a decision on the size and weight of specific critical views.

• If reversions were undertaken on the basis of NPOV or restoration due to the sources being reliable then thats fine. I also took this approach. We do need to make it clearer that the weight and presentation of those facts are up for constructive discussion.

I suggest that all relevant edits that are supported by reliable sources should stay in the article no matter what their size or weight until we have constructively discussed each point in turn. All feel free to contribute to discussion. Jeffrire 05:31, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

You last point is at the core of the issue. The bulk of that material, added predominatly by one editor, reflects a minority point of view. In my view, putting them back in the article is precisely the wrong way to proceed, given that the majority of editors disagree with their inclusion (see these talk pages). Timb66 22:49, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Well whatever its status its weight needs to be discussed and its size and prominence adjusted accordingly. Even if it were a minority view it still needs to be in the article. So removing it is wrong. Condensing it would be the way to go, but thats only when we have determined exactly what weight to condense it to. Jeffrire 02:00, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Make the distinction between (1) a majority of Wikipedia editors at a given period of time in the past; and (2) other majorities. -- Pedant17 02:22, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Pedant17, I have reverted your edits to this talk page because you inserted them as multiple (12) small blocks that broke up the earlier posts, despite being requested not to do so. Please respect this request and at least discuss the issue here before rejecting it. The argument against is that it breaks the flow of this page, fragments postings that others have spend time creating as a coherent whole, and makes it extremely difficult to follow the discussion, especially for newcomers. Do you have a strong reason in favour? Thanks. Timb66 07:57, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi Timb66: If you wish to read my reasoning for editing with standard indentation, you could re-insert my edits which you deleted from this talk-page, and which included just such reasoning. -- If you prefer not to become an exemplary poster-child for the suppression of debate, you could re-insert my edits which you deleted from this talk-page, and which engaged in debating specific points which you made. If you wish not to incur the wrath of Wikipedians who take a very dim view of the removal of material from Talk-pages, I suggest that you re-insert my edits which you deleted from this talk-page, and which as of now form a relatively invisible but lurking part of this talk-page, indicting your actions by their absence. If you wish to contribute to the overt purpose of this talk-page (improving the Landmark Education article), why not re-insert my edits which you deleted from this talk-page, thus encouraging us to discuss enhancing the article rather than to bicker about formatting the talk-page? -- Pedant17 03:17, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi Pedant17. Ok, I see your point. Here are your comments, as requested. To see them in their original context, see [5] Timb66 10:51, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Which consensus has eroded and given way to a different concensus since then. We need not remain stuck in the past. -- Pedant17 02:22, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

This sense of history belongs less on the Talk-page (devoted to discussions on improving the article) and rather on the history page (which more accurately reflects that user:Pedant17, for example, has made no edits in the Landmark Education space since 2007-04-09 -- let alone reverts. But an accurate sense of history could well enhance the Landmark Education article: addressing for instance more details of its origins, timings of alleged course revisions, and explanations for the suppression of historical landmarkeducation.com material from the Internet Archive. -- Pedant17 02:22, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Indentation makes arguments more readily followed while militating against wordiness. -- Pedant17 02:22, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Much of Wikipedia comprises heroic editing efforts by individual users, adding and assembling diverse material. More power to their elbow! -- You make an excellent case for spreading comment and analysis throughout an article. In the case of Landmark Education, such comment and analysis could redily and plausibly and balancedly comprise approximately 99% of the article. -- Pedant17 02:22, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

We can expect Wikipedia articles to grow . We can expect that subsequent editors will correct any alleged imbalance by adding equally meritorious material -- not by deleting on any grandiose scale. The policy suggests: "If the page can be improved, this should be solved through regular editing, rather than deletion." -- Pedant17 02:22, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

When "bringing the article back" results in imbalance, you can expect re-balancing efforts. -- Pedant17 02:22, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

No doubt the version of 17:25, 11 May 2007 represents a state that some might regard as "balanced". But such matters seldom remain static and fossilized. -- Pedant17 02:22, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Making formulaic "requests" does not always "work" outside Landmark Education environments. -- Have you ever seen this: "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed by others, do not submit it"? -- Pedant17 02:22, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Until such time as we agree on minorities and significant minorities we have no reliable basis on which to remove anything. -- Pedant17 02:22, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Any questions about sourcing as above

Hello all. If anyone has a particular question about a particular well sourced fact, then please state the source here and we can discuss. Just as above with the Danish source. If you find one that does not comply with NPOV policy just state the name of the source here as a section and we can discuss. Thank you. Jeffrire 13:22, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Does it have to be only about the well sourced facts? What about questions regarding poorly sourced or trivial facts? Lsi john 13:29, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Any sensible questions are fine. If you have a question about any of the sources, simply state the source and point out anything you are worried about. Jeffrire 14:59, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok. I asked because it looked like you only wanted questions about the well sourced facts and might not be interested in questions about any facts that might not be well sourced or relevant. Thank you for clarifying. Lsi john 16:10, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Edit wars

Edit wars accomplish nothing beyond getting blocked, page protection and stress. If editors cannot find common ground, please follow the dispute resolution process to that you can be helped in finding it. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:27, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Jossi. Yes patience has its limits. Thats what the resolution process is for. I have no problem with the article being frozen as is. Jeffrire 16:36, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Request_for_comment

This article has suffered from a protracted edit war since April 13th. Both sides in the dispute claim to be upholding the policies and guidelines of wikipedia and accuse the other of flouting them. 15:13, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Statements by editors previously involved in dispute

• The article was in a reasonably balanced state for a period of six months up to May 2006, when Smee (aka Smeelgova) embarked on a sustained 11-month-long onslaught, flagrantly using the article as a soapbox for advocacy of a particularly extreme POV. During this period Smee made many thousands of edits, removed much informative material, and inserted extensive coverage of minority opinions. He carried out many repeated reversions of other editors’ work and violated 3RR on may occasions. After a 3RR violation on 21st March, Smee undertook to refrain from editing this article. Over the next few weeks a number of editors removed various sections which they felt were violations of the undue weight policy, or were poorly supported by the citations, or both (after full discussion on the Talk Page and reaching consensus). On 13th April, Esther Rice made a wholesale reversion to cancel the previous 3 weeks editing by multiple users. Since then, she and a few others in turn have made this same block reversion about 16 times. As far as I can see, nothing they have said on the Talk Page answers the reasoning given for the original removal of the various items.DaveApter 15:13, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

The above analysis by User:DaveApter belongs not on a talk-page or in a request for comments, but rather in a Wikipedia article along the lines of Trends and variations in the editing of the Wikipedia article on Landmark Education. It would need some counter-balancing before it would comply with the WP:NPOV policies, though. For instance, we should clarify that "many thousands of edits" can vastly improve an article, especially in building up a body of work which represents mainstream opinions and features impeccable citations. Similarly, we should point out that when "a number of editors" remove whole sections on the basis of what they "felt", disputes and even edit-wars may ensue. We would need to make plain that "wholesale reversion to cancel out the previous 3 weeks editing" may involve bringing back on-line valuable material expressive of majority opinion. We would need to examine carefully the use of words and phrases such as "a number", "much" and "few"; and their corollaries "minority" and "consensus". And above all, we would need to stress that merely dismissing reasoned discussions which have taken place on the talk-page does nothing to address the specific points raised in such discussions, which appear as of the time of writing to have gone unrefuted. -- Pedant17 04:14, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

• That seems to sum it up. There are more details there than I'm specifically aware of, but the general overview seems to be accurate. I have specifically reverted and requested users not to revert to old text. My requests have been ignored. (see article edit history and discussion history). Lsi john 15:32, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

• COMMENT I agree with the above completely. These wholesale revisions to past views of the article are an attempt by a few minority view point editors to skew the article to their POV. They have hidden behind Wikipedia policies like WP:RS to justify and protect their right to put non-notable and non-relevant content into the article. I am starting to feel like we will need to start involving admins again as we have in the past. That has always corrected the page with editors like Smee then apologizing and then starting up again or sending in sock-puppets or a new editor to do their same thing again. The majority of editors here are prepared to compromise and work things out as long as we realize that we need a fair compromise. This is like global warming where 95% of the scientific community unquestionably believes that climate change is real and a serious matter, and extremely vocal 5% believe it is not. An article on climate change should be 95% serious content on climate change and 5% on the extreme minority view point. That is an extreme obvious case - in this case it might be 15%- 85% or 20-80 but none the less. The point remains. Wikipedia page editing should not be an endurance contest where serious editors get worn down by prolific and minority view editors that seem to have too much time on their hands. My comments are a little strong but I stand by them- lets create a great article. Alex Jackl 20:46, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

This diff shows it all: [6]. I invite anyone to read through this diff to examine the large amount of information that is deleted. Count how many of those pieces of information are verifiable and reliable according to NPOV policy. I suggest any reliable information should get pasted back in block by block. That way we get to hear some editor's lengthy objections and get them stored on the talkpage, and other editors get have all that reliable information back in the article. Doesn't bother me how much complaining gets done, just as long as reliable information gets presented. If there is any unreliable POV in the article we can get rid of it or source it properly. On with the Wiki process. Jeffrire 16:09, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Characterizing one's fellow-Wikipedians as "a few minority view point editors" does not appear helpful. Notability and relevance can come into dispute, but we have some guidelines to help us. In particular, I submit that in this field of popular culture the mere existence of a body of well-sourced facts and judgments suggests that one cannot dismiss that body of evidence as a mere "minority" view. Indeed, the tendentious marketing material from the Landmark Education website and the frequent unsubstantiated personal testimonials seem much more minoritarian. -- Someone has already "created" the Landmark Education article, but we can improve it by enriching it with multiple significant alternative viewpoints. -- Pedant17 04:14, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

• If you look above, there had been a discussion ongoing about each of these sections before they were removed, and what is under dispute is whether the sources were reliable or not, and whether they complied with Wikipedia's NPOV policy. Louislouislewee 00:09, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
• COMMENT: -- I am not involving myself with this article anymore in depth, taking an extended break. However, it is interesting how DaveApter cannot talk without personally attacking me. He cannot get his point across without being polite and discussing content, not editors, in order to frame the issues at hand, as outlined in WP:NPA. This article is still not on my watchlist. I just thought that this OBVIOUSLY INAPPROPRIATE behaviour should be pointed out - it is quite amusing, considering the high number of reputable sourced material that I had added to the article in those months. Smee 22:58, 15 May 2007 (UTC).

That really all belongs on his user page. Did you have any comments about the article itself? Lsi john 01:15, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

DaveApter's last revert/removal of sourced information of the article had 44 citations in his version. Last I checked, the last version that I had edited had at least (55) citations. This shows that sourced information is continuously being removed from the article. This is not simply a case of violations of WP:NPA through ridiculous assertions when I had worked very, very, very hard in the past to find lots and lots and lots and lots of reputable citations to back up material added to the article, it is also a case of removal of sourced material from the article. Smee 03:45, 16 May 2007 (UTC).

This is a complete misrepresentation. I do believe that Smee worked very hard- but it was to keep asserting the same things over and over again- always hiding behind Wikipedia RS policies to justify keeping material most of the other editors thought was not notable or not relevant. That, in itself, is a misuse of Wikipedia's policies- using Wikipedia polices and guidelines to justify bad content is NOT in the spirit of Wikipedia. ON top of that the changes resulted from a methodical attempt at consensus building that succeeded after the page was locked out from tampering and other editors started to emerge that weren't scared away by the edit war. Then a reasonably stable consensus was created and then EstherRice and sometimes Jeffrire would wholesale try to revert to the pre-consensus edit-war version instead of attempting to build consensus. I thin kit is noteworthy that the "independent" editors all tryto restore the same version form that pre-consensus time. Lets not spin what is happening and tell the truth about it. Alex Jackl 20:46, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Smee tried to expand the horizons of the Landmark Education article with relevant and interesting material. In what way can you characterize the reult as "bad content"? -- Pedant17 04:14, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

• I agree that what DaveApter did was to restore the work of multiple editors which had been block-reverted by EstherRice.Louislouislewee 00:29, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

... and this resulted in suppressing valid and valuable material from the Landmark Education article. -- Pedant17 04:14, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Hello AJackl. You made this large reversion [7]. Could you please explain to me why you think removing over 10 RS compliant pieces of information can be considered allowable using consensus? I have been providing sections for you to make comments and air your grievances. So far you havn't provided a single piece of evidence to support your activities. Right now you are deep into information suppression territory. Your diffs are very telling as is your lack of reasonable discussion. If you cannot provide a WP rule that allows consensus to trump NPOV and RS, then the information will simply get un-suppressed again. Jeffrire 03:06, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Why are you insisting on using attack tactics and deliberate misdirection to get your way? You have NOT provided sections in an organized manner until this week (BTW: something Dapter has been trying to do for months and months and your team ignored) until just recently and frankly I have commented it to death as anyone who reads these histories knows full well. I suppose you are hoping your miscasting will full new readers or editors that have just jumped on. I will make some comments below but I have commented fully and completely on the content and want other editors to get a chance to. Don't be rude son- no reason to play the game this way. Let's keep with WP:Civil. Alex Jackl 12:49, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

AJack. Read my comments again. I havn't attacked anyone, and I am not insisting on attacking anyone. I have provided a section for people to fill in as regards reliability and weight etc. Nothing happened thereafter. No editor pasted any parts of deleted text into the discussion page. I had to do it myself. If you want to accuse me of being rude, I suggest you do bring it up on my talkpage. This discussion page is to determine the reliability and accuracy of facts. Thank you. Jeffrire 15:05, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Reliability and accuracy are a good start, AND lets not forget relevance, notability, significance, triviality and NPOV. Being accurate and reliable isn't sufficient for inclusion and doesn't justify cherry-picking a bunch of quotes out of articles to establish what you say is 'obvious when taken together'. Please address all the questions, not just RS and V. Lsi john 15:14, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

• It looks like this has gotten out of hand. I'm sorry, but I don't see how DaveApter's comments were an attack on Smee. Any editor has a right to voice their opinion, and content doesn't get into an article without an editor placing it there, discussing one brings along the other.Louislouislewee 00:22, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

• • comments -- I respectfully disagree with User:Smee assertion about DaveApter and personal attacks. Having a legitimate complaint about another editor as it relates to having a balanced article and asking for comments about it does not equal a personal attack. In fact I think that it is a bit of a smoke screen to play the personal attack card. As for my response to Dave Apter's request for comments, whether the material removed was highly sourced, it was excessive, redundant and in many cases quoted multiple paragraphs of the original source material. So much so that at times it comprised 2/3 of the article. It is not a question of whether the material was sourced; it is a matter of whether it’s inclusion in the article adhered to the policies about balance and minority point of view. Multiple quoted paragraphs about labor investigations that result in no actions, allegations of brainwashing that have never held up in court and are only obliquely referred to in the articles from which they are cited have all been used to promote a severe pre-existing bias against Landmark Education. Triplejumper 16:17, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

• • • If material shows redundancy, edit it selectively rather than bulk-suppress it. If the material quotes extensively, ask whether it needs to provide context and detail: one can often justify such extensive quotation. It you regard two-thirds of an article as all of a piece in some way, that may suggest that it expresses a mainstream view. If you for some reason think that other views should have relatively greater prominence ib comparison, then bring in sourced and relevant solid material which redresses the balance(s) -- rather than reaching for the easy option of deletion and re-deletion. If you want labor investigations to produce action, dwell on the French case, but feel free to compare and contrast other cases in different jurisdictions. If you think "allegations of brainwashing" need upholding in courts of law I could suggest a long and intensively litigious career for you. If you detect "a severe pre-existing bias against Landmark Education" in the expressions of the world at large, I might recommend taking that bias seriously and dealing with it as a recognized and real phenomenon in its own right... I feel a new Wikipedia section/article on Landmark Education bashing coming on... -- Pedant17 04:14, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Hello Smee. I think we are going to have to put up with all sorts of accusations for the long term. If thats the way some editors want to behave against Wikiquette, then thats their behaviour. I don't mind presenting each piece bit by bit. If editors give good comments then thats fine. If they rant, accuse, and drivel then there's nothing I can do about it apart from point them towards NPOV and Wikiquette recommendations. The only work I need to do to maintain sanity in the actual article is say that something complies with NPOV policies. I'm thinking long term. The way I see it is those well sourced deleted NPOV compliant edits got into the article partly because of some editors make unjust complaints and deletions concerning those facts. Its likely that even more similarly solid sources will be found in this process whether some editors like it or not. From what I can see from goings on here and on similar pages, the more proponents complain about a particular well sourced fact, the more relevant its likely to be, and weighting can be adjusted accordingly. NPOV policies rule. Jeffrire 04:39, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

How strange that none of the people opposed to including the reputable citations chose to participate in the above discussion under Constructive suggestions.ER^Talk 11:13, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Dave Apter made a detailed set of constructive suggestions for the improvement of the article (see the top of this page and archived pages), and no-one seems to have seriously contested it. I think we should go with those suggestions. I would like to see more credible sources, as well, from more organizations than just individuals giving an account. Spacefarer 21:03, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Time and again people try to step back and determine the overall structure and scope of the Landmark Education article -- you refer to one of the more recent attempts. But such projects inevitably restrict and prescribe/proscribe matters. Wikipedia doesn't respond well to that sort of approach. Wikipedia operates best when amalgamating the contributions of multiple editors; and who can tell where someone else's ideas and insights will take us? Compare organic growth with planned economies. -- Pedant17 04:14, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

• I agree, DaveApter's suggestions seemed well-reasoned, and seemed to have consensus amongst the editors discussing them.Louislouislewee 00:35, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

If one ignores the counterblasts, it might indeed seem that a consensus existed. If. -- Pedant17 04:14, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

True Esther. We have given rather a lot of concessions. Perhaps I'm not being rigorous enough by not letting obviously solid facts in immediately. I'd better keep that in check. There are other avenues for keeping information suppression out of an article. Jeffrire 11:23, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

This article probably needs to be protected again at some point and go into mediation. As far as I can tell in this instance, DaveApter merely restored the work of multiple editors which were wholesale reverted by EstherRice. EstherRice has, in the past, added references to unfounded references to Synanon, which is totally ridiculous. 66.243.153.70 17:40, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

A reference to Synanon is not totally ridiculous, as a partisan using an IP to pretend to be an outsider would well know. Both come from the same general tradition; thinking about it I realised that the biggest difference is that Synanon had people captive for long periods, thus was capable of producing more overtly bizarre behaviour; Landmark only keeps its marks in captivity for one, two, or three days; no doubt advanced 'courses' go beyond that. However, it certainly tries very strongly to exert influence outside the courses per se.ER^Talk 10:56, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Bear in mind, however, that "restoring the work of multiple editors", decoded, may mean "deletion of the work of multiple other sets of editors". -- The assertion that anything seems "totally ridiculous" probably indicates that such assertion has a between 1% and 99% chance of seeming ridiculous to some person or other. -- Pedant17 04:14, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Comments

• While I have made some minor edits, I have noticed a protracted editing war with wholesale reversions of the article based clearly on biased Points of View. Although the site is not now (or ever will be) perfect, it at least now reflects some balanced thought. I request that the wholesale reversion cease and the focus be on fulfilling the original intent of a People's encyclopedia.Simplyfabulous 00:48, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the gradual change suggested by Jeffire. I think that is the only way we will reach some kind of consensus. But we must be mindful that a minority point of vierw is not given too high prominence in the resulting article. Timb66 12:05, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Hello Timb66. Sorry but you are being extremely vague. Could you explain to me what you mean by minority source, and give me a specific example? Jeffrire 13:27, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

He said minority 'point of view', not 'source' ;) Peace. Lsi john 17:02, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Danish reference (in the section on Religious Implications)

Hello all. I added this piece of reliable information to the article [8]. If anyone wishes to discuss, do so here. Jeffrire 01:30, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

In the spirit of working on one block at a time, I have edited the part that you added for style. Comments welcome. My opinion is that it is sensible to include this information, although I do not have a strong opinion. Timb66 12:29, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I suggest that we continue to work on this section on religious implications (and I have modified the talk heading accordingly; hope that's ok). I would like to see discussion on whether the other existing parts of this section should be edited, removed or added to. For example, I prefer not to have red links (links to non-existent Wiki pages), especially for people. Also, why is the word "after" in italics? Timb66 12:36, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Hello Timb66. Why don't you want red links? For my part it looks like an opening for possibly helpful WP articles. Also, why would you restrict the Danish source to religious implications? Jeffrire 13:30, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I guess red links on people imply that they are notable and should one day have a page.

A very valid and often entirely justifiable implication. -- Pedant17 04:14, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Something funny happened when I was making the edits, somehow versions got mixed up and at one stage the whole section appeared as a footnote, maybe an editing clash? Not sure what happened, but anyway I thought I was editing the text that you inserted. Anyway, after reading the Danish paper in full, in which Landmark was only a small part, the current text looks balanced and a fair summary to me. Timb66 08:53, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Relationship to Landmark Education litigation

What is the relationship between this page and Landmark Education litigation? What is the point of working hard to improve Landmark Education while some editors are busily putting exactly the same negative material on Landmark Education litigation? Should we at least agree to delete material here that also appears on that page? Why is there a need for two (or three!) pages in the first place? Is there any limit to the space that the anti-Landmark brigade want to take to push their views? Timb66 01:47, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

-reply by Pedant17 (originally inserted into Timb66's comment - extracted here for clarity (twice)

"What is the relationship between this page and Landmark Education litigation?"

Both form part of Wikipedia, and each should reference the other via appropriate links. -- Pedant17 04:14, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

"What is the point of working hard to improve Landmark Education while some editors are busily putting exactly the same negative material on Landmark Education litigation?"

"Information wants to be free." Attempts to suppress information militate against freedoms. Do you have some bias against what you perceive as "negative material"? -- Pedant17 04:14, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

"Should we at least agree to delete material here that also appears on that page?"

We can minimize duplication of material through judicious use of linking and cross-linking. -- Pedant17 04:14, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

"Why is there a need for two (or three!) pages in the first place?"

The setting up of pages may result from the growth of existing pages. (Some editors even object that we should eliminate material entirely whenever a Wikipedia article exceeds its optimum size!) -- Pedant17 04:14, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

"Is there any limit to the sapce that the anti-Landmark brigade want to take to push their views?"

No "anti-Landmark brigade" exists, just as no "Landmark-dupes cabal" exists. Wikipedia editors bring and balance their interests to the Wikipedia project and all act in good faith.Fortunately, no overall space-limitations trammel the growth of cyberspace at this point. -- Pedant17 04:14, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

-

That article is problematic as a substantial part of the content is sourced to primary sources, such as court records. Unless material is described in secondary sources, primary sources should be used with caution, if at all. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:43, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Revert to older versions

Please do not revert to old versions of this article. There have been numerous spelling, grammar, punctuation and content changes by numerous editors which are all adversely affected by backward reverts beyond the most recent edit(s).

Though there is no rule preventing it, simple courtesy suggests that we, as editors, use revert sparingly, in order to contest a specific recent edit. It is unproductive to use it in order to re-instate a preferred version of an article.

Thank you. Lsi john 16:21, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Hello Lsi john. You mentioned something about numerous improvements in your edit summary [9]. I've looked high and low and can't find any. Could you please provide diffs to show which improvements you mean? Right now it seems the only big improvement is the maintenance of balance referred to by Esther Rice. Jeffrire 17:25, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Due to the numerous back and forth reverts, many of them have been lost. Editors on both sides of this issue are being unprofessional and reverting to old versions. Nothing personal, Jeffrire, but your last revert was no exception. You didn't merge in changes, you reverted to old wording and simply claimed it was the best way. As editors we can choose to work together or we can choose to work independently. One way will work toward compromise, the other will simply keep the edit warring going. One way we get to be right, the other way we get a good balanced NPOV article. I am choosing not to play the revert war. I reverted Esther and asked that people not revert to old versions. You chose to revert back to the older version anyway. Thats up to you. If you wish to go back through my edits, I know that I made several grammar, spelling and context changes. I have no desire to go find them again. Other editors have made similar changes and edits that have been lost.

Suggesting that all editors wait until everyone has had a chance to get off of work and review discussions is one thing, brute force reverting to days-old text is quite another.

I'm here to help create good NPOV articles. I'm not here to repeatedly correct spelling and remove the same POV text. Until everyone stops reverting to their preferred text, this article will never stabilize. Lsi john 17:41, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm in the middle of compromising. Please provide specific diffs here then we can work on adding them if necessary. I restored well sourced information and I have every interest in improving the article further. Your cooperation will be helpful. Jeffrire 19:50, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Repeated use of undo on the part of user User:Lsi john (2007-05-14; 2007-05-06 -- three times) may not gel too well with asserted "choosing not to play the revert war". -- Pedant17 03:17, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I did not say I never reverted. I said I am choosing not to play revert war. Some editors are choosing to revert an old version of the article as the 'only option' and to 'remove whitewash'. This is not in keeping with the spirit of cooperation and goes against the guidelines layed out in both WP:3RR and WP:BRD. It also causes corrections and content changes by other editors to be lost. Not once have I reverted to an 'old' version. When I edit, I edit going forward. When viewed in context, my edit history here speaks for itself. Lsi john 03:46, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, you did not say you never reverted. On the contrary, you stated that you reverted, while at the same time expressing disapprobation of other reversions or potential reversions. I'll add "choosing not to play revert war" to my list of weasel-word phrases worthy of raising red flags. -- Pedant17 04:14, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Some editors actually revert (rather than "choosing" to revert) to versions which happen to include fuller detail and interesting and relevant extra material expressing major strands in the spectrum of public opinion on the matter of Landmark Education. This accords with the spirit of Wikipedia, honors the guidelines of boldness and contributes balance to the article by fostering a {{WP:NPOV | neutral point of view]]. It does not cause the loss of "corrections and content changes by other editors" -- it merely relegates these to the archives whence you or other editors can readily retrieve and re-apply them. -- Pedant17 04:14, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

(Above in response to a comment, since removed, which read: :::: Some editors are choosing to revert an old version of the article as the 'only option' and to 'remove whitewash'. This is not in keeping with the spirit of cooperation and goes against the guidelines layed out in both [[WP:3RR]] and [[WP:BRD]]. It also causes corrections and content changes by other editors to be lost.

-- Pedant17 01:45, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I applaud your determination not to revert to old versions. On the other hand, your edit of 2007-05-14 reduced the article-size from 47,468 bytes to 36,478 bytes; your edit of 13:44 on 2007-05-06 reduced the article-size from 48,904 bytes to 36,640 bytes; your edit of 04:24 on 2007-05-06 reduced the article-size from 48,919 bytes to 36,640 bytes (once again); and your edit of 03:03 on 2007-05-06 reduced the article-size from 48,904 bytes (once again) to 36,640 bytes (once again). As you say, "[w]hen viewed in context, my edit history here speaks for itself". -- Pedant17 04:14, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

(Above in response to text, since removed, which read: :::: Not once have I reverted to an 'old' version. When I edit, I edit going forward. When viewed in context, my edit history here speaks for itself. [[User:Lsi john|Lsi john]] 03:46, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

-- Pedant17 01:45, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Whatever time-zone one edits/works in, many other Wikipedians will inhabit a quite different time-zone. -- Pedant17 03:17, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

</nowiki>

-- Pedant17 01:45, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not the one who requested this. Check the edit-comments and commentary from other editors. Lsi john 03:46, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I realize that. But you know how shirty some people get when fellow-editors insert indented comments in appropriate places. -- Pedant17 04:14, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

The editing of a Wikipedia-page does not have a goal of stabilization. Perversely, the spate of reversions to an old, stripped-down version of the Landmark Education article has introduced a stifling stabilization which must inevitably give way to improved versions. -- Pedant17 03:17, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Nothing personal Admin I mean LSI, John, but you are only making the claim of reversion from improvements of style etc. as part of a campaign to make summaries that don't correspond to the actual edits. As Jeffrire points out above, nothing in the history supports the claim.ER^Talk 10:49, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Landmark

Jeffrire, you appear to be quite a good researcher. You're finding quite a bit of information which suggests this company is a blight on humanity. I'm amazed that in all your research you haven't come across a single reference which portrays Landmark in a positive light. Considering your research skills, this speaks poorly for Landmark. Based on this article, I'm not sure why Landmark hasn't been shut down. Have you considered collecting all this information and filing a class action lawsuit against Landmark on behalf of all its graduates? Lsi john 13:40, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Hello Lsi john. Please refrain from sarcasm. I know that the situation is about presenting good sources here. We are actually working on putting together an encyclopedic article based on fact - NPOV policies. Believe me, if I find a reliable science source that states landmark education is helpful according to empirical studies I will be the first to present it. Jeffrire 14:58, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Interesting limitations. Lsi john 15:15, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Hello Lsi john. You made some changes [10] after AJackl's edit summary about request for comment and reducing changes [11]. I think you need to accept that your changes may well end up being steamrollered out on account of the amazing and relentless power of NPOV compliant and RS edits that are going to come back any time soon. Restoral of NPOV oriented information is imminent. I suggest you refrain from making insignificant changes or any changes at all until that large amount of well sourced edits gets allowed back in. Some editors may consider your actions to be an attempt to "cap" or seal in the current information suppression. I'm not going to stop you from doing it. Just trying to improve your standing in the eyes of other editors. Jeffrire 05:25, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Jeffrire, as I said above I liked your idea of working on the article one block at a time, so I don't understand why you then increased the article by 33% in one go. That is way too much to allow any discussion on individual points. The problem with that material is that, while some of it may be well sourced, several editors feel it reflects minority viewpoints and is being given too much weight. A 33% increase (which means 25% of the final article) is a lot! Timb66 08:57, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Well Timb66, I understand what you are saying but your main argument for deletion is built on weak foundations and only by a -claimed- consensus. Unfortunately such an alleged consensus was always in doubt. It was a claimed consensus a long time ago and since then it has definitely shown itself to be no consensus whatsoever. In addition to that, information can be added according to RS regardless of consensus. So it can get in to the article under whatever weight. Weight is an issue and requires an activity to be conducted in context (within the article). So firstly, deleting the information is just wrong. Continually deleting it is clearly information suppression. Including the information is the only realistic way to deal with the weighting issue. Which is why well experienced editors are reverting the information back into the article with such a strong sense of realistic justification. I suggest that if you want to present yourself as a reasonable editor, simply allow the presentation of Wikipedia compliant information into the article, and work on ensuring its accurate weighting together with the editors who kindly spent energy supplying the information with RS and NPOV as the objective. Please allow the article to be supplied with RS information and we can work on the whole article and discuss any of the points (critical and otherwise). Jeffrire 10:30, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

You say that I (and others) are deleting material that is well sourced and reliable, I say that you (and others) are including biased and non-neutral POV material that skews the balance. Please do not say that one argument is weaker than the other. I did not say we have a consensus. We clearly don't. We have a disagreement and both sides deserve to have their opinions respected.

Above you wrote: I suggest any reliable information should get pasted back in block by block. That way we get to hear some editor's lengthy objections and get them stored on the talkpage, and other editors get have all that reliable information back in the article. Doesn't bother me how much complaining gets done, just as long as reliable information gets presented. If there is any unreliable POV in the article we can get rid of it or source it properly. On with the Wiki process. I completely agree with your proposal and I don't understand why you have changed your position. Timb66 10:51, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Hello Timb66. We are way past that now. After my suggestion, other editors placed all of the said information back in the article. And it was justifiable because its such a lot of useful information. In addition, you and others made no realistic attempt to discuss any part of what I was suggesting. I have to say I disagree with you entirely on the notion that non-neutral material (all material is non neutral anyway) is to be deleted irrespective of RS. Clearly if it is a reliable piece of information then it can be in the article regardless of weight at first, and then weight be adjusted if need be. I respect your opinion, but your action is basically to ignore NPOV and RS and to insist on keeping critical information out of the article. I am pushing for reasonable action on RS material - which is to include it according to NPOV policies and then to work on improving the article through discussion. Right now you seem to be blocking inclusion (information suppression) so that information cannot be presented in context, and so we end up nowhere near any kind of agreement on weight. So naturally its totally justifiable to have all that information right back in the article where it belongs. Jeffrire 12:20, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, Jeffire, how can we be way past that now? You posted your suggestion two days ago! And on what basis do you say that I made no realistic attempt to discuss what you suggested? Please look at this page, you will find that I endorsed your suggestion. What more discussion did you expect? I am finding it difficult to understand why you have switched from your patient (your word) and constructive approach. Timb66 14:02, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I have changed my position based upon consensus and NPOV policies. Firstly there is no consensus for discussing point by point as can be seen by the instances that it keeps getting quite rightly placed in the article. Secondly (actually this is the priority) the information is RS compliant and anyone will be perfectly within their rights at any time to put it into the article whether you want to spend months arguing back and forth over it or not. The information can be presented. Exactly how you would like it presented depends upon adjustments when it gets there. Jeffrire 15:22, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

WP:RS is a requirement. WP:RS is not, and cannot be used as sole justification for inclusion. Material can be challenged on the basis of not satisfying WP:RS, in which case an argument for [{WP:RS]] would be appropriate, but an argument for inclusion solely on the basis of WP:RS is invalid. Material must meet numerous standards for inclusion and citing any one in particular, as justification, is an invalid argument. If, for example, relevance is challenged, RS is not a valid counter-argument. If notability is questioned, RS is not a valid counter-argument. So, unless RS is being challenged, your claim that RS is the priority justification, is exactly wrong. A valid argument for inclusion, must address all of the requirements WP:RS WP:V WP:N relevant, significant, etc etc. , not just one. Lsi john 15:43, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, the information can obviously be included on the basis of all of those things. Its reliable, verifiable, highly relevant, and if it is minority (as some of you have been arguing) it can be included also. The information satisfied all requirements. I am starting to get the feeling that a form of vexatious litigation is now being presented to me. Its up to you to continue. Its not me conducting such behavior. Jeffrire 15:51, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

And THAT is the fundamental basis of the problem here. It's so obvious to you that you aren't addressing that as a question. The editors who delete the material, clearly add comments which indicate they challenge things like 'relevance' or 'notability', and the counter arguments don't address those questions. The counter arguments say revert because its reliably sourced. Only when editors stop assuming its so obviously and highly relevant, and start addressing the specific challenges, and explain why its so obvious, will this discussion start moving forward to compromise. Lsi john 15:59, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

None of those editors are moving the information to be discussed here. Why not? Here I will do it for you Jeffrire 16:32, 17 May 2007 (UTC):

Thank you. Though I wasn't aware it was solely my responsibility, and I thought that it has been asked, just not answered, above several times. Lsi john 16:52, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Jeffrire, I have commented on the majority of your sections below. I find the majority of the items below to be unacceptable for one of two reasons. Either they are not significant or notable or they do not accurately and fairly reflect the content of the article they are citing. Cherry picking a special comment out of an article, to reflect a viewpoint is the definition of POV writing.

For the record, I will also say that I do not know who was wanting them in or out. And, this was my first reading of the material in question.

I do not know precisely to what materials you refer when you state that "this was my first reading of the material in question". Had you previously deleted all or part of the material in question without reading it? -- Pedant17 04:14, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Lsi john 20:25, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I posted them in to show that you would not be able to find a single valid complaint about them. I was right. Taken all together they show a major view that LE is considered to be manipulative and cultlike. Whether you want to use the sect/secte synonym or not, the views are relevant. They are all written in a way that includes significant qualifiers. They seem to be written quite accurately. I believe anyone can take all of those pieces of information at any time and justifiably place them into the article. Jeffrire 02:08, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

WP:OR - "Taken all together they show a major view that LE is considered to be manipulative and cultlike." -Jeffrire

If that statement doesn't meet WP:OR, I'm not sure what does. It is not our job to collect enough miscellaneous facts to demonstrate that anything is a cult. The fact that you made this statement is suggestive in itself, and seems to imply that you are collecting information to lead the reader to your conclusion that LE is considered to be manipulative and cultlike.

Strangely enough, when I read our article, I come to your conclusion, yet when I read the full text of many of the articles being cited here, I come to a completely different conclusion. NPOV? Lsi john 13:54, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

LSi john. There is no OR. They are straight statements taken from reasonable sources. If I were to bring each piece of information together in one section and state "Therefore, as you can see, Landmark Education is a manipulative cult according to everyone including most likely Jimmy Wales" then that would be OR. I havn't even come close to such behaviour. The statements have been found by another editor and taken from reliable sources. Its all acceptable and I am not pushing for any particular view. Please take into account the NPOV Wikipedia point of view at least at some point. This so called discussion is starting to look a bit pointless and I am starting to feel a bit silly having to explain this really basic stuff. Thank you. Jeffrire 15:16, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

The OR was in your statement above. Your argument and justification for a conclusion, by requiring that we take them in total in order to see the conclusion, was OR; and I believe it illustrates the perspective from which you are editing, nothing more. Lsi john 15:31, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

• The sources and views below are verifiable and comply with NPOV policies. The information is critical and I can understand some people wanting to see the back of it. However, this is Wikipedia and all relevant views are to be included. Removing this information time after time after time as has been done over the past weeks, is totally unconstructive editing and tantamount to vandalism. If you have a problem with the way Wikipedia works, then perhaps you should take it up with a group of administrators, or try to get the rules changed in your favour. Right now the rules favour the inclusion of the information below. Jeffrire 02:56, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

• So far you have failed to address a single objection. And the consensus is overwhelmingly against the material. Lsi john 03:37, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

To which "overwhelming" "consensus" do you refer? -- Pedant17 04:14, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

---

Views from Scandinavia

In a 2002 article: "Psychogroups and Cults in Denmark", the researchers assert that some people have thought of Landmark Education as associated with "cultic groups" due to the "high level of one-sided sales pressure that many people report."

On June 6, 2004 Landmark Education ceased operating in Sweden. As in France, the causes of the closure included a diminishing public interest in participating, evinced in connection with very critical articles in the press and on television . The airing of two documentaries on national Swedish television by the broadcasting corporation TV4 on October 28, 2003 and on March 15, 2004 called "Lycka till salu" (Happiness for sale) in the program series "Kalla Fakta" contributed to the termination of the organization there.

Please discuss here:

1. I can't read Scandanavian, could you provide a translation in order to verify that the material is being accurately quoted?
2. Note: The links here are not-standard and should be corrected. Duplicate links should be 'named'.
3. Three of the links yields 4 = not found. Are there new links?

Lsi john 19:47, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I help you. The article in Swedish is called "The cold facts about Landmark Education" and it exists. Google for it with Kalla Faktas uppföljning om Landmark Education. Its accurate and can be included into the article at any time. Jeffrire 10:59, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Anything can be included in any article. Things which don't meet wiki standards and guidelines can also be removed. This material is not an exception to those rules/policies and guidelines. Lsi john 13:44, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

• COMMENT The question isn't whether it is real or not the question is relevancy as has been said again and again. Just becaue a blog mentions George Bush does not mean that blog should go on the George Bush article. There ar elot sof articles and pop media jouranlism that mentions Landamrk - it just isn't that relevant. Alex Jackl 13:07, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
• The paragraph about Sweden establishes no more than that public interest declined after the airing of a couple of sensationalistic TV programs, but we have no idea of the fairness or otherwise of the treatment in these programs. What place does this have in an encyclopedia? DaveApter 16:14, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

No business at all. And by including it, we might inadvertently be collecting idle speculation, accusation and innuendo and then accidentally (and improperly) lead the readers to a conclusion. Lsi john 16:21, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

If by some remote chance we inadvertently collect idle speculation, then a valid counter-objection could conceivably give some remote grounds for removing or balancing out the material. If by some remote chance we inadvertently collect accusations, such accusations may have foundations -- or not. No need to fear accusations. -- If by some remote chance we inadvertently collect innuendo, such innuendo forms part of the body of evidence of the discussion of Landmark Education in popular culture. We can boldly accept such material, and process it at leisure. -- Heavens forfend that any reader of Wikipedia should ever reach a conclusion! To prevent such heresy, we insist on referring to original sources and on accommodating alternative viewpoints. -- Pedant17 04:14, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

• It shows that in addition to published articles and papers, there are even documentaries about Landmark which warn the public of various risks. The view exists and the source can be quoted in the article. Jeffrire 02:50, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

• So far you have failed to address a single objection. And the consensus is overwhelmingly against the material. It can be deleted at any time. Lsi john 03:37, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

So far you engage in nothing but sophistry Admin john, sorry, I mean Lsi johnER^Talk 11:10, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Ester, I'm sorry to see you stooping to personal derogatory remarks. It truly weakens your position and dramatically reduces your credibility as an editor. I've not been deceptive in any of my arguments and your personally directed sarcasm is counter productive to article development.

If you do not have anything to contribute to the discussion which is related to the points raised, perhaps you could spend some time reading about civilized communication, assuming good intentions from your fellow editors, sticking to the poing and not personally attacking your fellow editors and inappropriate overall behavior. Since you and Jeffrire seem to be unfamiliar with some of the guidelines for what not to include in articles, may I respectfully recommend the guidelines on: notability and original research and neutral points of view. I have read all those and found them to be very enlightening. Lsi john 12:53, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Whatever sticking to the poing means, I agree!ER^Talk 16:16, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Here is the differences link where sticking to the poing raises its odd head.ER^Talk 16:19, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

---

Governmental classification

Austria

In Austria in 1996, the Federal Ministry of the Environment, Youth and the Family published a list of 200 groups it labelled cults (in German: Sekten)

In the International Religious Freedom Report 2005, the government of Austria included Landmark Education among the "sects":

The vast majority of groups termed "sects" by the Government are small organizations with fewer than 100 members. Among the larger groups is 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 include 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.

The International Religious Freedom Report 2006, however, did not list Landmark Education among the examples of cults, although the wording makes it plain that the list is not intended to be comprehensive.

Please discuss here:

1. The first reference is unverifiable

1. 1. The referernce gives publication details for a government publication. For a transcript, see http://www.ilsehruby.at/Sektenbroschuere.html -- Pedant17 04:14, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

1. The Austria reference does not call L.E. a sect, though I can see how someone could mis-interpret it as such.
2. The 2nd Gov report, is irrelevant. There are probably countless reports which do not list L.E.

Lsi john 17:07, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

• The 2006 report doesn't mention Landmark. The Austrian government took it off the list. This is an example of POV pushing by the editor who originally put it in the article. It is like shouting an accusation or insinuation and then whispering your retraction. It is fundamentally pushing a POV not to mention that it is essentially irrelevant to the subject of the article. Triplejumper 23:03, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

The 2005 ref does mention Landmark (So is Lsi john lying?) so it can be included. Its a report and not a list. There was no retraction in the 2006 version so the view remains. It can be included in the article at any time. Jeffrire 11:03, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

• COMMENT I can tell you are getting desperate- as people bring out the ame arguments that killed that content the first five times people tried to assert it you are falling back to "Well it is reliable and they didn't EXPLICITLY retract last year's list." They don't have to. They issue the list/report regularly and they had Landamrk on for that one report and then they dropped it. That should tell you something- that could become an argument that they realized LE wa snot a "secte/cult" and they no longer list it because of that. Truth is it is not notable- Austria never had Landamrk in its borders and it was one mention that was quickly expunged in later years. Nuff said!Alex Jackl 13:07, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

• Reply. I am very relaxed. Its a Friday night and I've had a good fortnight. The Austrian report stands. Its an historical document as such. There is a view represented in the document. Its a solid report. It can be presented according to Wikipedia guidelines. Pretty simple really. Its one of those inevitable things that one just has to accept according to normal reasonable guidelines. Never mind. This is an encyclopedia after all. Jeffrire 15:21, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

• All the Austrian report actually says is this: Allegedly a "break-through" can be obtained by a seminar of the LandMark Education, by which the participant can gain understand of their life and master their future independently of the past. – hardly an official government evaluation as a "cult"! DaveApter 19:07, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

The Austrian brochure says more than that:

Psychogruppen

Diese Gruppen bieten die positive Veränderung des Lebens an - dies mit auf die Psyche einwirkenden, jedoch nicht dem Standard der wissenschaftlichen Psychologie und Psychotherapie entsprechenden Methoden. Der Unterschied zu anderen Typen von Gruppen liegt darin, dass in den Psychogruppen mit Hilfe der jeweiligen Psycho-Techniken an der Veränderung der eigenen Person gearbeitet werden muss. Die Ausprägungen erreichen bei den einzelnen Gruppen unterschiedliche Ausmaße.

LANDMARK EDUCATION

1971 wurde eine Organisation mit der Bezeichnung »Erhard Seminar Training (EST)« vom US-Amerikaner Jack Rosenberg ins Leben gerufen, der sich nach Werner Heisenberg und Ludwig Erhard »Werner Erhard« nannte. 1981 wurde die Organisation verändert und nach eigener Darstellung 1985 ein angeblich »... völlig neues Programm, das ein paar Ideen aus dem est-Training benutzte, aber weit darüber hinaus ging.«, entwickelt: »Das Forum«. Rosenberg verkaufte die Rechte an seinen Seminar-Trainings an Mitarbeiter, die die Organisation »Landmark Education« gründeten.

Die Seminare nach Jack Rosenbergs Methoden dauern 60 Stunden und werden zumeist innerhalb von drei Tagen abgehalten. Die Kursteilnehmer müssen vorher unterschreiben, dass sie wissen, dass sie hohen psychischen Belastungen während des Kurses ausgesetzt sein werden. Außerdem ist über die Vorgänge beim Seminar Geheimhaltung zu wahren. Angeblich kann durch ein Seminar der »Landmark Education« ein »Durchbruch« erzielt werden, durch den der Teilnehmer sein Leben neu verstehen und seine Zukunft unabhängig von seiner Vergangenheit bewältigen kann.

You are correct – it does say more than the single sentence I extracted. It also says that it was derived from a program developed originally by Jack Rosemberg who also designed the est training. (a matter of fact not disputed, and already covered in the article).

It classifies it a as a "psychogruppe" – which may sound alarming but means no more than "mind development group" and the sense is most closely matched by the English phrase "human potential training". They define the term as follows: "These groups offer a positive change in life by first creating a shift of attitude. The difference from other categories is that these groups emphasise the necessity of the individual working on their own self-development by means of the techniques they offer. The different groups vary in the extent of their reported results." I see these descriptions as being neutral and reasonably accurate – where did you get all that stuff about "gives details highlighting its dubious activities", or did you just make that up?DaveApter 13:54, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

This official Austian government publication classifies Landmark Education in a context and gives details highlighting its dubious activities. This in a publication which bears the signature of Dr. Martin Bartenstein, Federal Minister of the Environment, Youth Affairs and Family Matters. Let's not dismiss it out of hand. -- Pedant17 04:14, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

• Sekten is cults in Austrian German. Thats what their view is and it can be included. Jeffrire 02:48, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

From the range of groups covered by the report, I can’t see the word ‘sekten’ having any connotation other than "minority belief group" and certainly not in the pejorative sense of the English word cult. I have no objection to this reference being included as long as we detail what they actually say rather than your idiosyncratic interpretation of it.DaveApter 13:54, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

• So far you have failed to address a single objection. And the consensus is overwhelmingly against the material. It can be deleted at any time. Lsi john 03:37, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

So far you engage in nothing but sophistry Admin john, sorry, I mean Lsi johnER^Talk 11:10, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Ester, I'm saddened to see you drop into name calling and pointed personal remarks. Saying that I'm engaging in deceptive arguments is tanamount to calling me a liar, and that type of vulgarity really doesn't belong here. Did you wish to actually address any of the points raised, or were you just popping in to deliver inappropriate PA sarcasm? Lsi john 12:53, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

---

Belgium

A Parliamentary Inquiry of the Belgian Chamber of People's Representatives into cults and their dangers listed and discussed Landmark Education in an official report of 28 April 1997.

Please discuss here:

• Is there anything relevant that came from this report? Is the only significant thing that L.E. was listed in the report? Being listed as casual mention, does not meet Notability or Relevance. Lsi john 17:12, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

The Inquiry details the dangers involved and explicitly mentions Landmark several times in various places in the document. It can be included into the article at any time. Jeffrire 11:04, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

COMMENTI concur with lsi john and all the arguments that have been made against this already. This is par tof a general theme that is ridiculous. That Landamrk Education HAS been called (mistakenly as confirmed by dozens of cult experts - see all this discussion) is not a question. It is mentioned in the article and does not need to be surrounded by examples. It is not notable.Alex Jackl 13:07, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Reply Sorry do I hear that you say some experts admit to making mistakes? Can you support that statement with anything? If so, please present it. Jeffrire 15:24, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

If you detect a "ridiculous" "general theme", we can presume a non-minoritarian view (ridiculous or not) -- one appropriate for presentation in a Wikipedia article, accompanied by countervailing material if appropriate (and available). -- "Cult experts" occur commonly on different sides of the cult-labelling divide: one cannot definitively dismiss the classification of Landmark Education as a cult as "mistaken" tout court. -- If editors of Wikipedia did not "surround" allegations of culthood with reliable and authoritative examples, other editors would rapidly dismiss such claims as unsupported. Better have too much evidence than too little.. -- Pedant17 04:14, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

• There is no specific analysis of Landmark here, and since it never operated in Belgium, the chances that the functionary who included it in the "list" knew anythign whatever about it is remote. Totally non-notable. DaveApter 16:14, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

• There is a general analysis of a group of cultic activities. Landmark is specifically stated (in several places) as one of those cults. The information can be included at any time. Jeffrire 02:46, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

• Notability does not require a specific analysis of a subject. Speculation on the alleged ignorance of the weight of the Belgian civil service does not make for a convincing argument. The list of officials and parliamentarians who participated in assembling the report (see that report itself) does not necessarily equate to a "functionary". And the fact of inclusion on a list implies a wider context and a general knowledge that makes this mention interesting and significant. -- Pedant17 04:14, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

• So far you have failed to address a single objection. And the consensus is overwhelmingly against the material. It can be deleted at any time. Lsi john 03:37, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, another very strange exercise in logic from

Admin john Lsi johnER^Talk 11:10, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Again with the inappropriate personally directed attack/sarcasm. Please refrain from such vulgarity as, although it is humorous, it is not productive to the article discussion. If you don't have anything to add which directly addresses the discussion, then say nothing. Lsi john 12:53, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

This is really a waste of time, none of the points in the discussion below from Landmark employees and partisans ('graduates') makes any sense, and I'm afraid it is below any sense of my own human dignity to follow Admin john Lsi john and repeat the same sentence at the end of each sub-section.ER^Talk 11:10, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry that you feel working as a team is a waste of time. I believe what you are actually trying to say is that "the concerns being raised don't make sense to you", which means you don't understand them. That, I'm afraid, is a personal issue which really isn't related to the article. Based on the your stated inability to understand the concerns which have been raised and Jeffrire's continual failure to address them, perhaps you both might want to read some of the wikipedia guidelines for creating good articles. I believe it would be helpful for both of you to become familiar with what should and should not go into good wikipedia articles.

Additionally, your repeated sarcastically attacking admin remarks, while humorous, are rather unprofessional and dramatically weaken your position, by demonstrating that you have nothing to contribute but sarcasm and personal attacks. Lsi john 12:53, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

As you have admitted yourself, it was the name you were using on wikipedia before choosing Lsi john. Since the relevant history seems somehow to have been magically deleted, forgetfulness will prevail. However, the relevant history is quite recent and the original choice of user name was a definite policy violation (see [12], under the second sub-heading); it is just a shame that the violation was not directly brought up at the time.ER^Talk 15:26, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I see. So you acknowledge that you are trying to use what several admins have classified as a common and innocent newbie mistake, as some evidence of what, exactly? If you are going to attempt to discredit me, you should at least use the correct username. By the way, continued reference to a one-post username, in an attempt to discredit, is pretty clearly bad faith editing. I request that you stop it. Thanks. Lsi john 15:52, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

No intention of continuing, but it still should be remembered. Using a name like 'Admin ...' expresses a rather obvious intention, by the way.ER^Talk 16:02, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Indeed it does. I am an admin on at least 7 different networks. Your point? Lets stick to the article and not digress into your perceived conspiracies and evil misconducts, shall we? Lsi john 16:07, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

---

Germany

In 1994 a report of the Senate Committee of the State of Berlin in Germany included Landmark Education in a report on cults with the sub-title "entities espousing a world view and new religions". Landmark Education sued for correction and, on May 14, 1997, the Berlin court (Volksgericht 27A) endorsed a new classification-scheme which now represented Landmark Education as a "Providor of Life Guidance"(Anbieter von Lebenshilfe).

Please discuss here:

• I contend that it is not noteworthy enough for the article especially since the classification was changed. Triplejumper 18:52, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

• • The change in classification functions as an example of the red-herring logical fallacy. The second edition of the Berlin report continues to list Landmark Education in its analysis of cults and to discuss it at some length -- Pedant17 04:14, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

• I, too, don't see this as significant. It's a brief mention, LE sued, won, got a new classification.. and .. so??? It's trivia. Please see Not an indiscriminate collection of information and Avoid lists of isolated facts. This is an isolated fact that does not tie into the article. Lsi john 19:23, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

• • The matter of the revised classification may indeed seem like trivia -- though it does (interestingly) demonstrate the enthusiasm of Landmark Education to dissociate itself (inappropriately) from religion-based analysis. But the core inclusion of Landmark Education in the report -- and the non-"brief" discussion of its activities, merits mantion in a Wikipedia analysis. -- Pedant17 04:14, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

• I think it should not be included. It seems that this is an isolated fact and many other points that keep being put in the article that make it POV as well. Spacefarer 02:50, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

• • If this seems like an isolated fact then we should do more work to demonstrate/translate the detail of the Berlin Senate report (see below), not propose its non-inclusion. -- Pedant17 04:14, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

• It's basically a non-issue since the classification was revoked, and even worse with the attempted smear to Scientology. This should be redacted outright. 76.102.99.53 08:03, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

• • Nobody "revoked" the classification of Landmark Education in the Berlin Senate report. The classification simply changed between editions -- allegedly in accordance with the intention of the compilers of the report. -- Readers can readily verify -- though we could also point it out -- that although the Church of Scientology functions as a much-respected and widely-valued religious body in certain jurisdictions, German law and officialdom regards it as a mere commercial entity worthy of special monitoring. Pointing out that the Berlin Senate report classifies Landmark Education alongside Scientology and various other groups does not constitute an "attempted smear" -- it simply demonstrates, succinctly and accurately, the tenor and rationale of the German report. -- Pedant17 04:14, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

• The article details the risks and side effects of cults. Under that main heading it goes into deep detail about Landmark and its lengthy seminars and restrictive methods. Its a solid document and is accurately represented in the lines above. It can be included into the article at any time. Jeffrire 11:06, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

• COMMENT Dude- Unlike Swedish, I read German. Have whoever translates for you do it again because this does NOT go into detail about Landmark and its restrictive methods. You are either misinformed by someone or deliberately lying. I will take the case , for purposes of WP:AGF that you were misinformed. It is not accident that the Berlin report first called it a cult and then when called on it , took the cult lable away and called it a providor of life assistance. Nuff said! More later- I need to work for a living. I suspect all of these are the same. Alex Jackl 13:07, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

• Reply Whatever the language. The structure of the article is clear. The title is ""Cults" the risks and side effects"". They talk about the main problem, the various characteristics, the current situation, the market and the critics, they list the various followings including Landmark, and they then outline various preventions, and they give a detailed appendix. Its there for all to see. Jeffrire 15:33, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

• Pages 69 - 73 of the Berlin Senate report at http://www.berlin.de/imperia/md/content/sen-familie/sog_psychogruppen_sekten/risiken_und_nebenwirkungen_1.pdf include the following:

Dennoch werden Seminarteilnehmer instruiert, in ihrer Werbung für das Forum möglichst wenig vom Seminar zu erzählen, könne man doch die Inhalte nicht wirklich beschreiben ... Die erhebliche zeitliche und damit psychische und physische Beanspruchung wird zusätzlich dadurch erhöht, daß in den Nächten zwischen den Seminartagen ?Hausaufgaben" zu erledigen sind. ... Kommunikation nur nach Aufforderung durch die Leiterin, keine Zwischenbemerkungen, keine Kommunikation mit dem Sitznachbarn, Sprechen nur im Stehen und ins Mikro, keine Notizen oder sonstige Aufzeichnungen; ... Landmark verspricht Verheißungsvolles: Mit Hilfe des Landmark Forums gewinnen Sie Einblick in die grundlegenden Vorstellungen und Hypothesen, die unser Leben gestalten und steuern, Einblick in die eigentlichen Strukturen, die unser Denken und Handeln, unsere Werte und unser Sein bestimmen. Man beruft sich auf Ontologie", auf Namen wie Husserl und Heidegger als Grundlegung, zitiert Erich Fried, Ortega y Gasset und Platon. Die Realität sieht etwas schlichter aus. ... Ein von Landmark selbst beauftragter Gutachter faßt zusammen: Im Landmark Forum werden eine Reihe von Techniken angewandt, die psychotherapeutischen Methoden entlehnt sind und die in vielen Seminaren oder Veranstaltungen mit Großgruppencharakter verwendet werden. Dazu gehören die leiterzentrierte Gruppenstruktur, die Art der Fragetechnik, die Mischung von Hinterfragen, Motivieren und Konfrontieren, die Anwendung von Suggestionstechniken und Entspannungsübungen, die Ermunterung, Emotionen zu zeigen und zu empfinden ... Raum für eigene Interpretationen bleibt dem Teilnehmer kaum. Der Gutachter formuliert in diesem Zusammenhang: .... Der Seminarstil erschien rigide, direktiv, leiterzentriert, z. T. fast autoritär. ... Der Gutachter weist auf Gefahren hin: Problematischer erscheint mir hingegen, daß gelegentlich Widerstände, die von einzelnen Teilnehmern gegen eine Hinterfragung oder gegen eine Offenlegung eines konkreten Problems artikuliert wurden, nicht ausreichend berücksichtigt wurden. Dies ist auch dann problematisch, wenn sich die Seminarleiterin als ?Coach" bezeichnete, dessen Aufgabe es sei, Widerstände zu überwinden. Die Möglichkeit, daß sich hinter dem Widerstand ein bislang nicht bewältigtes Trauma verbirgt, welches zu einer Dekompensation führen könnte, kann bei einem solchen Vorgehen nicht ausgeschlossen werden. ...Landmark betont, daß die Schilderung privater Probleme fakultativ sei. Das gilt allerdings nur für das Auftreten vor der Gesamtgruppe von ca. 100 Teilnehmern. Darüber hinaus werden Partnerübungen initiiert, die ähnlich private Äußerungen intendieren und denen sich der einzelne nicht entziehen kann. Die partielle, für manchen Teilnehmer offensichtlich auch selbst unerwartet intensive Preisgabe der Privatsphäre der Teilnehmer wird in manchen coaching-Situationen von heftigen emotionalen Ausbrüchen und vielen Tränen begleitet....Das Maß an menschlicher Nähe, das für die Mitteilung persönlicher Probleme eigentlich notwendig ist, wird durch die Gruppendynamik `Wir-machen-das-hier-alle-So` ersetzt. Die Voraussetzung für eine sehr persönliche Mit-Teilung wird zu ihrem Resultat. Eine neue Welt tut sich auf, Kausalitäten scheinen umkehrbar. Diese überraschende Nähe zu einer großen Gruppe wildfremder Menschen fällt manchem schwer einzuordnen, da sie in aller Regel nicht im bisherigen Erfahrungsbereich des Teilnehmers lag. Manch Teilnehmer leitet davon eine besondere Qualität des Seminars und eigene Persönlichkeitsveränderung ab. Mancher ist einfach nur verwirrt oder verunsichert: Im Verlauf des Forums war eine gewisse emotionale Labilisierung und Haltsuche bei den Teilnehmern festzustellen, die sich auf das Forum bezog. ... Die Dynamik der Gruppe wird an vielen Stellen des Seminars genutzt (z. B. zur Werbung für den Folgekurs, zur Werbung neuer Teilnehmer, zur Disziplinierung einzelner Teilnehmer). ...Die Werbung für Folgekurse wie auch für neue Teilnehmer ist integraler Bestandteil des Forum-Seminars selbst. Der Gutachter weist auf diesen Zusammenhang hin: Als problematisch muß jedoch angesehen werden, daß die Werbung für weitere Kurse und auch die Ermunterung zur Anwerbung weiterer Teilnehmer in Zeiten ausgeprägter Emotionalisierungen erfolgte, in denen ein rationales Abwägen der Vor- und Nachteile sicher erschwert war. Landmark Education nutzt fast ausschließlich die effektive und kostenneutrale Werbung ehemaliger Teilnehmer im Freundes-, Verwandten-, Bekannten- und Kollegenkreis. Sogenannte Assistenten von Landmark Education veranstalten bisweilen in Privatwohnungen Werbeabende für das Forum-Seminar. Seminarregeln (z. B. Verbot von Notizen) werden dort oft verschwiegen. Die Rahmenbedingungen und Warnhinweise, die im Anmeldebogen unterschrieben werden, sind vorab nicht bekannt, denn dieser wird erst nach der Anmeldung zugesandt. Erst dieser Bogen weist dann darauf hin, daß jeder Seminarteilnehmer für seine Gesundheit selbst verantwortlich ist und den Veranstalter von jeder Haftung freizeichnet. ...

Translation(s) invited. -- Pedant17 04:14, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

• So far you have failed to address a single objection. And the consensus is overwhelmingly against the material. It can be deleted at any time. Lsi john 03:37, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

To which "overwhelming" "consensus" do you refer? -- Pedant17 04:14, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

---

Sales and marketing practices

In an article "The Best of Est?" published in Time Magazine on March 16, 1998, Charlotte Faltermayer wrote:

Critics say Landmark is an elaborate marketing game that relies heavily on volunteers. Says Tom Johnson, an "exit counselor" often summoned by concerned parents to tend to alumni: "They tire your brain; they make you vulnerable." Says critic Liz Sumerlin: "The participants end up becoming recruiters. That's the whole purpose." Psychiatrists who speak on Landmark's behalf dispute these claims. But Sumerlin says a 1993 Forum turned her fiance (now her ex) into a robot. She organized an anti-Landmark hot line and publications clearinghouse. Landmark officials made sounds to sue her.

In 1996, Jill P. Capuzzo from The Philadelphia Inquirer, Weekend took the Landmark Forum and reported:

I made some eye-opening discoveries about myself and how I function in the world. [...] One of the most irritating aspects of The Forum is the hard sell to sign up future participants.

Please discuss here:

• The first article was overall very neutral and contained both positive and negative commentary and information. Why are we only quoting the critics? Based on my read of the top article, the citation here gives a very unbalanced representation of the article. It looks like a cherry-picked quote in order to help the reader form a negative opinion of Landmark.

• • Wikipedia editors do not only quote critics. I included a quote from Faltermayer's article in my analysis of statistics of participation -- but someone deleted that information. -- Feel free to add non-critical quotations as appropriate -- especially if they relate (as the quoted passaege does) to the topic of the stated subheading: "Sales and marketing practices". This particular quote looks like a cherry-picked quote intended to express comment on the topic of the moment.That sort of cherry-picking provides essential brevity in the construction of the discussion of specific topics such as "Sales and marketing practices". -- Pedant17 04:14, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Similarly, the second reference is from scooponlandmarkforum, which pretty much says it all. We're getting the scoop!!!! I'd rather have the facts than a scoop. Thanks. Lsi john 19:35, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

• In that section I just corrected the title of the article by Jill Capuzzo in The Philadelphia Inquirer. In doing so, I noticed two things: the quote in the Wiki article is quite selective. Most of Capuzzo's article is descriptive, and perhaps best described overall as neutral to pro-Landmark. I don't think the Wiki quotes accurately reflect the content and tone of the article. The second thing is that the article is stored on a website called The Scoop About the Landmark Forum, which is maintained by pro-Landmark people and contains many links to other artciles (including a follow-up article by Capuzzo) and various other mostly (but not entirely) pro-Landmark articles, experiences, opinions from psychiatrists, etc. None of this is currently referenced in the Wiki article, as far as I can see. These two facts together, while only a single instance, throw some doubt on the repeated assertions that the "deleted material" is reliable and well-sourced. Timb66 11:08, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

• Its a useful article. It has a discrete section on critics. It details the critics of Landmark. If you want to take anything non-critical I suggest you use the article in other parts of the wiki article. In any case there is no need to have deleted it from the article so many times. The information can go back in at any time. Jeffrire 11:11, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Anything can go into an article, and things which do not meet wiki standards, can be deleted. Lsi john 13:42, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

It meets Wikipedia standards. Jeffrire 15:34, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

• It's true that some people do find the 'invitations to register' somewhat pushy - at least on occasion. On the other hand others don't. Some time back, this section had one citation referencing each view and thus was balanced. Somewhere down the line someone remove the reference to the 'non-pushy' opinion and replaced it with a second critical one. NPOV?? DaveApter 16:14, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

• • Deleting things can disrupt WP:NPOV, indeed. On the other hand, adding appropriate material tends to promote NPOV. -- Pedant17 04:14, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

• No idea about other details. If you can find any other reliable sources to go with this one then go ahead. This can be insterted into the article nevertheless. Jeffrire 02:43, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

• So far you have failed to address a single objection. And the consensus is overwhelmingly against the material. It can be deleted at any time. Lsi john 03:37, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

To which "overwhelming" "consensus" do you refer? -- Pedant17 04:14, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

---

Allegations of brainwashing

Three court cases involving Landmark have included the claim of brainwashing; none resulted in Landmark being ruled as brainwashing anyone. Each had a slightly different outcome:

1. In Ney vs. Landmark Education et al. (1992), Stephanie Ney sued Landmark claiming she suffered a mental breakdown following participation in the Landmark Forum. The court ruled that while her participation may or may not have played a part in her breakdown, this had no relevance as Virginia law did not allow her to claim damages since she suffered no physical harm.
2. In Been vs. Weed and Landmark Education (2002), Jason Weed claimed that the Landmark Advanced Course had caused him to experience a psychotic episode in which he killed a postal service employee. The court ruled that Landmark did not precipitate his psychosis in the Federal criminal trial of Weed. There is an ongoing [as of December 2006] wrongful death civil suit against Landmark and others by the family of the deceased.
3. In Landmark Education vs. Lell, Landmark sued Martin Lell for using the word "Brainwashing" in the title of his book on Landmark Education (Das Forum: Protokoll einer Gehirnwäsche: Der Psycho-Konzern Landmark Education [The Forum: Account of a Brainwashing: The Psycho-Outfit Landmark Education], Deutscher Taschenbuch Verlag, Munich, 1997, ISBN 3-423-36021-6). The court ruled the description "brainwashing" a matter of opinion, and let the title of the book stand.

In 1999 Landmark Education asked Dr. Raymond Fowler, a psychologist and past President of the American Psychological Association (APA), to evaluate the effectiveness, safety, and appropriateness of the procedures in the Landmark Forum. Fowler reported that he saw nothing to suggest that the Landmark Forum itself would cause harm to participants, and that the course had none of the characteristics associated with a cult, and that the Landmark Forum did not place individuals at risk of "mind control", "brainwashing", or "thought control"..

Please discuss here:

• In cases 1 & 2, someone filed and lost. Where is the story there? People file law suits all the time. If there were convictions then it would be notable. Tossing around speculation and innuendo doesn't belong in an encyclopedia article. At worst this is misleading, at best (as above) it is WP:TRIVIA and a collection of insignificant and irrelevant information. Is it about Landmark? yes. Is it reliably sourced? Yes. Does that mean it should be in the article? No. Without a finding against Landmark, it simply isn't significant, notable or really relevant to an article about a company.

• • Just as every story has (they say) two sides, so court-cases tend to have two sides. The very fact of taking them to court can (and does) make some cases notable. (Some journalists may even refer to such impending cases as "landmark cases"...) Reporting only cases resulting in findings against Landmark Education would not give an NPOV view of the arena. -- Brainwashing has little relevance to articles about average companies, but the Landmark Education article covers more than just a mere company. -- Pedant17 04:14, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

In case 3 it's even more irrelevant in the context of a law suit. Though it might be useful on the basis of countering claims that Landmark is a cult, as Dr Fowler seems to have clearly said LE has none of the characteristics typical of a cult and doesn't place individuals at risk. But unless someone is claiming that LE is a cult, then even this information is irrelevant trivia. I could write a book and say Landmark doesn't design computer networks, but I'm pretty sure nobody would say that should be cited here. Lsi john 19:43, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

• • I think that the above is a great example of the imbalanced POV that has been discussed over and over. Three examples of court cases in which alegations of brainwashing did not hold up, followed by an unequivical statement by the head of the American Psychological Association say that Landmark is not in any way, brainwashing, mind control or thought control. What is the point? I think that brainwashing is a moot point. I think the above was only put in the article to cast Landmark in a negative light. It is like the tactics of Sen. Joseph McCarthy. Triplejumper 20:39, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

The opinions of Dr Fowler as a private individual (and not in his capacity as anything to do with the American Psychological Association) have little relevance to this article. His testimonial (mere opinions) appear published only on the Landmark Education web-site -- a biased source. His opinions (unsubstantiated by the peer-reviewed research one might expect of a scientist) remain subject to all the limitations of a casual observer or individual participant. Give me a journalist with minimal training in objectivity any day. -- Pedant17 04:14, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

• 'Allegations' says the whole

thing to me. Anyone can say a course is one thing or another. The article should stick with facts and findings from reputable groups and organizations. Spacefarer 03:06, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

• • Could one write (for example) a good Wikipedia article on McCarthyism without discussing allegations? Could one write a thorough Wikipedia article on Landmark Education without discussing allegations? -- Pedant17 04:14, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

• The information above details the cases, and details the findings. It can go in at any time. Jeffrire 11:12, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Anything can go in at any time. And anything which doesn't meet standards for acceptable content 'can be removed' at any time. The question on wiki is not whether something can go in. The question is whether or not something should go in. This material should not, as it is not significant or particularly relevant (unless you want to change the section title to Lawsuits filed and thrown out of court. Lsi john 13:40, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Your suggested title for a sub-heading may not meet NPOV requirement. -- Pedant17 04:14, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

• There are two instances quoted of attempts to sue Landmark for allegedly prompting a mental breakdown. Apart from the possibility of these cases being opportunistically motivated, and the fact that the courts did not uphold the contention that Landmark could be established as a cause, two cases out of almost a million is clearly statistically insignificant (and in any event is vanishingly smaller than the number of instances that would be expected from a random sample of this size drawn from the population at large). And incidentally, neither of these cases actually reference the section heading of “brainwashing”. DaveApter 16:14, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

• • Statistically speaking, how does the number of cases brought against Landmark Education in the general "brainwashing" category compare with the number of such "branwashing" cases brought against the average company? -- Pedant17 04:14, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

• The Lell reference is simply a subjective unsubstantiated opinion that one customer (out of one million) made in a book he wrote – furthermore, a claim that is somewhat suspect as Lell never sought or received treatment for his alleged brainwashing. Don't the claims to be promoting NPOV look a bit thin when you are trying to include this sort of isolated claim and trying to suppress the thousands of accounts of people who report dramatic positive results? DaveApter 16:14, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

They are verifiable sources that show specific court cases. They are admissible. Jeffrire 02:41, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

The Lell case resulted from an individual not only participating in the Landmark Forum with approval and enthusiasm, but from his going to the trouble to write a detailed account of his ordeal, and from his validation by a well-known publishing-house and by a recognized expert in the field who wrote the introduction to his book. The fact that Lell practised self-therapy by writing his book rather than seeking out one of the hordes of therapists clamoring to treat cases of brain-washing lends weight rather than suspicion to his situation. At least Lell's subjective musings appear in substantial and extended book form: They have a little more credibility than the alleged thousands of briefer and less balanced accounts of satisfaction, and a lot more credibility than the guided subjectivity exhibited by those answering Yankelovich's biased questionnaire. -- Pedant17 04:14, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

• So far you have failed to address a single objection. And the consensus is overwhelmingly against the material. It can be deleted at any time. Lsi john 03:37, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

To which "overwhelming" "consensus" do you refer? -- Pedant17 04:14, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

---

Use of "loaded language"

Some articles have reported 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.

In an article in New York Magazine, Vanessa Grigoriadis states that "the Forum drives its points home with loaded language, relentless repetition, and a carefully constructed environment."

The Times referred to Landmark Education's use of language as "eccentric jargon".

Please discuss here:

• Ok, here goes:

1. nowtronto: That is a very long article. There is nothing in the article which supports or explains shakes or pretending. More over, if he was pretending to be a client, then he acknowledges that he is not giving a subjective opinion.

If you object to the subtitle of the article, I suggest addressing your complaint to the the sub-editors of the publication. The sub-title appears here as part of the standard referencing aparatus. -- I do not see why pretense implies anything about subjectivity -- or even objectivity. -- Pedant17 04:14, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Also, are we being objective and NPOV in reporting the content of this article? Did anyone think to cite this part?

Daniel Yankelovich, a Connecticut-based researcher, conducted a survey of 1,300 Forum participants. Seven out of 10 he surveyed found the Forum to be "one of their life's most rewarding experiences."

Third-hand information already included elsewhere in the article and exhibiting the doubtless inadvertant use of loaded language may not seem so worthwhile quoting in a section on "Loaded language". -- Pedant17 04:14, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

or

two Harvard University business school professors have written a glowing market study of The Forum.

Would that factoid *(allegedly relating to marketing) have any relevance to a discussion of loaded language? -- Pedant17 04:14, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Who is Kevin Garvy and what are his credentials which make his statement credible?

"Kevin Garvey, a well-known critic of est and Erhard authored a series of articles for Our Town, a New York City newspaper."

If he is a well-known critic, then that should be included in the article so the reader knows he is a well known critic and therefore probably not a random impartial source as might otherwise be conveyed by our article.

2. nymag: This article is an overall positive review of Landmark. How did we end up with the citation we did? Hand picked for a reason? What about this:

"It's about change. It's about transformation. It's about taking your self-esteem, self-hate, and self-destructiveness; your desires, depressions, and frustrations; your passions, envies, and anxieties -- everything you have come to feel makes you you -- and having it all just disappear, like a train pulling out of a station. The past is past, the Forum says, and has no bearing on the future, which is yours to invent. "I saw," says Carole Vaporean, a financial reporter for Reuters, "that I could create, over time, the world that I wanted for myself.""

or this

"at CNN, Landmark has been popular among on-air talent and upper management, including former executive vice-president Gail Evans"

Lsi john 20:20, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Feel free to include such material. In the section about "Loaded language", you will need to establish a connection with loaded language. Elsewhere, you will need to bear in mind that personal testimonials add very little substance to verifiable information. And note that if, as you suggest, the "nymag" article seems like "an overall positive review of Landmark", then its status as an NPOV source may come into question. -- Pedant17 04:14, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

• Wikipedia uses jargon. Almost any discipline or large organization has their own meanings of words and create acronyms. It does not seem notable to mention as a section. Spacefarer 03:10, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

• Yep and Wikipedia allows its own article to have the word cult or cult-like inserted in its article [13]. Its a verifiable source and can be included at any time. Jeffrire 11:14, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, and NPOV requires that when we put things in an article they accurately represent and reflect the situation. Using prejudicial or suggestive words, based on locating a limited one (or two) sources from a myriad of opinions (the overwhelming majority of which don't use that verbiage), indicates that it is not representative of the general consensus and opinion of the industry as a whole. That makes it POV. There are dozens and dozens of sources on this subject. With only 1 or 2 of them using the word 'jargon', it is not reasonable to conclude that it should be used here. Using the term in a section header adds bias, not neutrality.

If a substantial body of opinion notes the use of "jargon" in connection with the practices of Landmark Education, then the Wikipedia article on Landmark Education can "accurately and fairly reflect" that that opinion exists. Associated discussion and examples can round out that "accurate and fair" reflection. -- Please provide a list of the "myriad of opinions" which discuss Landmarckian language without using the concept of "jargon". -- Pedant17 04:14, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

You have said we can use it. I have said why we should not use it. Now its up to you to explain why we should use it. Why is jargon better than terms in the section header? Lsi john 13:35, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Please supply an example of any suggestive word according to Wikipedia guidelines. Also, suppy the aleged myriad of other sources that may argue against any such view (each view can be presented). Jeffrire 15:37, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

• Personally I don’t object to the word “jargon” – all that means to me is ‘’words used in a specialised way which differs from everyday usage’’. Landmark does use the words (for example) ‘’distinction, possibility, authentic, integrity, racket, strong-suit’’ in ways that differ from everyday language – but are sufficienly close to get the general drift. But so what? Mathematicians, engineers and footballers all use jargon. The notion that is being put across that this is something that is devious or underhand or manipulative simply does not follow. And note that all these three press articles are simply reporting the opinion of some random member of the public with no particular expertise or authority – why does this qualify for inclusion in an encyclopedia entry?DaveApter 16:14, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

It gets included because its a set of corroborating verifiable sources. Jeffrire 02:39, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Discussion of Landmark Education's jargon qualifies for inclusion in an encyclopedia because it interests commentators. Discussion of Landmark Education's jargon qualifies for inclusion in an encyclopedia because Landmark Education itself highlights the use and "power" of language and words. -- Pedant17 04:14, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

• So far you have failed to address a single objection. And the consensus is overwhelmingly against the material. It can be deleted at any time. Lsi john 03:37, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

To which "overwhelming" "consensus" do you refer? -- Pedant17 04:14, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

---

Religious implications

In 1993, two years after the emergence of Landmark Education, Rev. Dr. Richard L. Dowhower conducted a survey of clergy to assess their opinions of cults, entitled "Clergy and Cults: A Survey". The 53 respondents came from the Washington, DC area and included 43 Lutheran clergy and seminarians, one Roman Catholic and one Jewish clergyman, and an Evangelical minister. The highest percentage (28%) of those questioned about "The cults I am most concerned about are", gave the answer of "Scientology, est/Forum, Lifespring".

In James R. Lewis' 2001 book (published 10 years after the establishment of Landmark Education), Odd Gods: New Religions & the Cult Controversy, Werner Erhard, Erhard Seminars Training and The Forum are discussed. Odd Gods describes the spiritual influences of the coursework, including Zen Buddhism, Abilitism, Subud, Dianetics, Scientology and Asian spiritual leaders.

In 2002 theologians Deacon Robert Kronberg, B.Th. and Consultant Kistina Lindebjerg, B.Th. of the Dialog Center International in Denmark discussed the religious aspects of Landmark Education, stating: "Also we see a large number of people joining groups, such as Landmark and Amway, which become controversial because of their sales practices."

Specifically, Kronberg and Lindebjerg posited that Landmark Education's courses seem to fill a void in the lives of disillusioned young adults, who have not found answers in religion: "Landmark seems to appeal to young people between 20 and 35 in liberal professions who are disillusioned with or discouraged about their lives. Landmark seems to be a scientific substitute for the need for religious answers to life's fundamental questions."

Please discuss here:

I think that this is written with an intention to manipulate people opinions. The above says that two theologians discuss the religious aspects of Landmark Education. It is actually commentary on society and how people have not found answers inside religion. They do not discuss the religious aspects of Landmark and even if they did it is totally subjective. I suppose Amish people could discuss the religious aspects of a mustang convertable but that would not mean that there is any religious significance to that car. Triplejumper 20:55, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

If the introductory/commentary material around the quotations strikes you as offending against NPOV, re-write it accordingly. -- Pedant17 04:14, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

• It seems this material is anacdotal and at least could be written in a more NPOV. Landmark says it is not a religion and it is not recognized by any government or entity as such. Spacefarer 03:15, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

• • The material seems so anecdotal that various publishers thought fit to include it in their productions. -- The Landmark Education article does not suggest that one should regard Landmark Education as a religion: that could become the topic of a separate subsection. The text merely points out some religious implications. Rewrite the non-quoted sections which allegedly exhibit a lack of neutrality if they offend you.. -- Pedant17 04:14, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

• Some people have speculated that Landmark has some religious connotations or in some way is at odds with traditional religions. True. However this speculation is obviously unfounded – we can see this very clearly from the fact that large numbers of devout believers of many different faiths who take landmark courses every month. Many of them (including priests, bishops, rabbis, brahmins, monks, nuns etc etc) have gone on record saying that there is no conflict with their religion.DaveApter 16:14, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

We are not interested in whats true. Its a fact that these views exist so they can get into the article. Jeffrire 02:35, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

The alleged fact that "large numbers" (how large?) "of devout believers of many different faiths" undertake Landmark Education courses does not disprove the idea that Landmark Education has some religious connotations; nor does it disprove the notion that Landmark Education stands "at odds" with traditional religions. Personal testimonials from religious persons have all the deficiencies of personal testimonials from non-religious persons. The article needs to go into more detail in these respects. -- Pedant17 04:14, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

• So far you have failed to address a single objection. And the consensus is overwhelmingly against the material. It can be deleted at any time. Lsi john 03:37, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

The concensus does not exist. How many times have you, Lsi john, wasted space on this page by repeating the above comment in this poor excuse for a discussion? Apparently nine.ER^Talk 12:38, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

You must have missed the part where Jeffririe repeatedly fails to address any of the concerns raised, but simply repeats 'the material can be included at any time'. I was simply addressing her comments with a reply. Is that wrong? Lsi john 12:55, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Reinstatement of critical views

OK after presenting you with the information on the discussion page, there have been no attempts to improve rather than delete these valid sources and comments are really getting unproductive [14]> Excuses and denials are really not productive and calling the views minority does not exclude them from the article.

So in order to prompt people to make suggestions about how to present the information, the critical views above can be reinstated into the article and any adjustments to be made can be done in the article with discussion here. Jeffrire 06:32, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Please make a serious and patient attempt to engage in discussion here. I have removed the 15kb of material that you have inserted. Timb66 07:51, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

How does removing material make it easier to discuss that material seriously and patiently? -- Pedant17 04:14, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Please make a serious and patient attempt to engage in discussion here.

Yes, that would be a change, but not for Jeffrire.ER^Talk 12:02, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

What is happening here is not the deleting critical views- it is keeping a small minority view form over and over again reinstating old materials that the consensus has agreed upn. ANyone readig this for the first time- please take the time to work through this.Alex Jackl 14:14, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Have we determined which minority and how small yet? -- When will we know whether "the consensus" changes or vanishes? -- Pedant17 01:45, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Protection

The article has been protected in an extremely one-sided (WP:Spam) state. The teachings of the topic per se appear to make its proponents unlikely to be satisfied with any real concensus.ER^Talk 19:00, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

The page protection is not permenant. It is a temporary solution to stop revert warring and it is intended to encourage discussion and dialogue between all parties. It is not intended as a one-sided anything. The quicker we reach compromise and concensus, the quicker the admins will be willing to unprotect the page. I encourage and request that everyone put everything in the past behind us and work together going forward. Lsi john 00:13, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

As the protecting admin, I'd like to make it clear that the protection is not an endorsement of the current version. It is a temporary measure to stop the edit warring, while the parties pursue dispute resolution. Thanks. Trebor 00:17, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Trebor, thank you. For my part, I'm looking forward to everyone coming to the table in good faith and working together to find a compromise that all the editors can live with. Lsi john 01:42, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I think its fine to have the article protected with the results of all the bad behaviour showing. Jeffrire 03:04, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Agreed though Jeffrire is one of the primary examples of that behaviour. We need third party help in getting irthe POVists from trying to control this page. Alex Jackl 14:26, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

No POVists edit here -- only good-faith Wikipedians like yourself. -- Pedant17 01:45, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Proposal

So far, looking back over the past few months, it is clear that we are getting nowhere doing it the way we have been doing.

My biggest objection so far, has been the wholesale reverts (back to old preferred versions) being done, which lose changes made by other editors. I have no objections to revising the material in a way that is acceptable to everyone.

Before going the next step to MedCab, I would like to propose the following:

Lets address ONE-AT-A-TIME, the material that Jeffrire and EstherRice wish to include. Up to this point, many editors on both sides have been looking at it as an all-or-nothing situation. My suggestion is for Jeffrire and EsterRice to post ONE part of their version and we discuss it.. and modify it.. HERE.. instead of on the article page.

I request that Jeffrire and EstherRice decide on one point and I request that we all work on that one point and hammer it out until we have a concensus on it, then ask an admin to insert that part into the article and then work on the next part, until we get through the entire list and establish a compromise and concensus.

If this is agreeable to everyone.. then lets proceed.. if not, then MedCab or AfC is our next step. I'd prefer to try and hash this out here amoungst ourselves first.

Thoughts? Lsi john 19:10, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

-

I agree with the proposal of Lsi john, which was also proposaed (but then retracted) by Jeffire (see above). Timb66 23:48, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Lsi john. Well sourced information was placed into the article with no deletions [15]. Your highly unconstructive behaviour has already been noted concerning the piecemeal effort to discuss [16]. In my view you seem incapable of working constructively and considering your behaviour, your above proposal is just a plan for more of the same vexatious anti-NPOV activity. Your history speaks for itself. Jeffrire 03:04, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Jeffrire, I'm sorry you feel that way. Its very obvious that including the material is important to you. I'd like to take your points, one by one, and work toward compromise. I've asked that everyone forget the past and begin anew. I still have hope that you will constructively participate in the discussions. It would be nice if you were to select one point and begin a discussion, but if you'd prefer someone else can select one. Lsi john 03:19, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

You can take my points all at the same time because you have zealously removed large amounts of well sourced information from the article all for the same reason. Its the reasoning (or lack of it) thats the important factor here. Your activities are unreasonable. I'm very much accepting of this problematic situation due to the nature of the situation. As we all know millions of people realize that Landmark Education is a cult. Which of course does lead its members to volunteer for all sorts of cult activities such as promotion, censorship, and so on. I'm expecting the same sort of activities to continue here because Landmark Education will continue to be a cult and its followers will continue to act unreasonably, especially regarding the more includable critical views. Dispute resolution is something we just have to accept. Jeffrire 03:27, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I have zero first-hand knowledge of Landmark Education. The only second-hand information I have, came from my limited wiki-experience so far. Before I got to wikipedia, the only place I had even seen Landmark Education mentioned was on the Rick Ross website. I have no pre-conceived notions about Landmark. I do not know whether Landmark is, or is not, a cult. Though I think I understand now why we have had such friction in our history. Lsi john 03:40, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Please consider pursuing dispute resolution. The current page protection will give parties some time to file an informal mediation with the Mediation Cabal, so that an experienced and willing editor can assist you with your dispute. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:12, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Jossi, up to this point it had been an all or nothing situation, with neither side giving much ground on compromise. Justanother re-added an NPOV version of one of the items just before the page was protected. I had hoped we could use that as a model and try a 'compromise' discussion before moving to MedCab. However, if you think that MedCab would be better, I have no objection. Perhaps a neutral third party overseeing the compromise would be more acceptable to other editors. Lsi john 03:19, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Sure Jossi. Third opinion, mediation, arbitration are the way to go. Jeffrire 03:17, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Hopefully, you will be able to resolve it with informal mediation. Good luck. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:22, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Jossi. Never been through the process myself so I'll take my time with any mediation applications. The article can stay as is for weeks if need be. We'll get any well sourced information into the article some way, but I'm not going to let selfish censorship efforts turn simple NPOV editing into a mountain of red tape to navigate. Personally I'm going to enjoy presenting the information in the article. I like editing Wikipedia. Jeffrire 08:04, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Medcab

Hello all. I started the application [17]. Feel free to contribute. Jeffrire 08:36, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Continued attempts to subvert the article into an attack piece

It’s a puzzling (to me) but unavoidable fact that there are some people who harbour an implacable hostility towards Landmark Education. Some of them have such a deeply entrenched attitude on the subject that attempting to discuss the merits of the position is no more profitable that trying to engage the Pope in a logical debate about the existence of God. Even more puzzling (to me) is the fact that some of them have a passionate evangelical zeal to foist their extreme views on the world at large. The uncontrolled platform of the internet gives them ample scope, and from time to time we see attempts to subvert Wikipedia to serve the propagation of their message. Like many other groups who are convinced of their own access to “The Truth” on some topic or other, they seem to be convinced that anyone who disagrees with them is either stupid or dishonest, or possibly both. DaveApter 13:54, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia: We are not interested in truth - only fact. If its a fact that a relevant source has a view then it can be presented, whether its viewed as the psychospiritual answer to all their problems, or whether they see Landmark Education as a mass marketed cult. Its those facts that count. Jeffrire 15:18, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

And yet you have repeatedly declared (and demanded) that your cult-truth be inserted into the article, in complete disregard to the fact that sectant properly translates to sect. And you have repeatedly disregarded NPOV by cherry-picking one statement out of an otherwise very positive article on Landmark Education. I submit that, by your actions, you have been selecting the 'facts' that you wish to use to prove your view of the 'truth', and I request that you start compromising on your hard-line views and help form a consensus wording for your 'facts'. Hopefully MedCab will finally resolve this issue. Lsi john 20:05, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I've not demanded anything. I've suggested that you have to accept NPOV policies, and stop trying to make consensus work against them. Some good sources go to the fact and the explanation for why Landmark Education is considered to be a cult/manipulative/potentially harmful. Its not a question of whether they exist. Its simply a matter of accepting them and putting them in the right context. Your actions were not working towards how to present the information, you were about deleting the information in toto. I started MedCab in order that you and other proponents stop sedulously deleting the fact that people see Landmark Education as a cult. I'm working with due process to help NPOV policy be maintained in the article. Jeffrire 02:44, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

As I've already asked both on your talk page and in the Mediation, will you please stop accusing other editors of wishing to violate NPOV. You have made it plain that this is your opinion, but to continue repeating the accusation is a violation of no personal attacks. The issue is that I think that I am upholding NPOV and you are violating it to propagate your own POV, whereas you think the converse. I feel that due allowance should be made for the fact that you are an extremely inexperienced Wikipedia editor and have spent your brief time here battling in highly contentions topics, but please do try to show a little more civility. DaveApter 10:08, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I am referring to specific instances of deletions of well sourced facts e.g. [18]. I have made no personal attacks. I am also being civil. What is happening though, is I am being accused of many things, including being inexperienced. If you don't like me pointing out where there are problems with the article, then there is nothing I can do about it. Perhaps you could go to ask for assistance at the village pump? Jeffrire 11:45, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Where's the beef?

Jeffrire, you say (repeatedly): "Some good sources go to the fact and the explanation for why Landmark Education is considered to be a cult/manipulative/potentially harmful"

All of these accusations are made ad nauseam on unmoderated discussion forums and the like, but clearly those don't count as reliable sources of course. The following have been put forward at some time or another to justify the expression of that opinion:

• Louise Samways mentioned Landmark in a book she wrote that had 'cult' in the title - in fact when you check out what she actually said, she didn't call it a cult, she said that she was suspicious of it because it claimed to get rapid results (which it does) and used hypnotic techniques to get them (which it doesn't).
• Cynthia Kisser of the original Cult Awareness Network, published a leaflet describing the (pre-Landmark) Forum as a 'Destructive Cult'. When asked to either substantiate that or retract, she stonewalled until Landmark sued. In cross examination she eventually admitted that she actually knew almost nothing about it and that it was not her opinion that Landmark was a cult, and published a statement to that effect.
• Margaret Singer mentioned Landmark in a book Cults in our Midst. When pressed for clarification, she said she never called it a cult. The reference was removed from subsequent editions.
• The Austrian Government report is cited, but what it actually says is : "Allegedly a "break-through" can be obtained by a seminar of the LandMark Education, by which the participant can gain understand of their life and master their future independently of the past". ( you can see a fuller discussion above [here]).
• The French ministry did include it in a list of cults. That's a fact, and could be included - so long as the context is provided: the populist nature of the ministry involved, its subsequent discrediting and disbandment, the criticism from the US State Department, the large number of other organisations stigmatised by it, the lack of clear critera, accountability or appeal procedures etc.

Anything else you have to support your viewpoint?

And as for being "potentially harmful" - what evidence is there for this suggestion? There is none. If it were harmful there would be tens of thousands (or more) of well-supported instances to prove it (and the operation would probably have folded or been shut down years ago. But there aren't. On the other hand there are loads of doctors, psychologists, academics, businessmen and clerics saying the opposite.

One final question - you made an accusation of "pseudo-science" a couple of times. What did you have in mind? Can you give an example of a purportedly scientific claim that Landmark makes? Thanks. DaveApter 10:08, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I think we could include all the information from the above, as long as its appropriately presented and reliably sourced.

So, what is the answer to my question: where are the authoratitive reliable sources that say that Landmark is a cult? DaveApter 15:04, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

On the subject of pseudoscience, you may want to read up on the subject before making statements about claims to science. The WP pseudoscience article seems to cover it pretty much, and gives a list of characteristics that are very much part of Landmark's background. That may help. Jeffrire 11:52, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't help. I didn't make any "claims to Science". I asked you a question and you didn't answer it. Also, I looked at the WP article on pseudoscience and can't see anything there that I recognise as "characteristics that are part of Landmark's background". What did you have in mind? DaveApter 15:04, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I should be clearer. Its not a clear subject at the best of times. I only meant that you don't have to claim to be science to have pseudoscience as a characteristic. Unlike my statements about the cultlike nature of LE, I'm not actually referring to sources. To me it looks pseudoscientific. I have no intention right now, of adding the pseudoscience label to LE. But its worth looking for yourself if you want to know more. I imagine its a relevant view that LE is pseudoscience, but I don't have any sources for that view. Do you? Jeffrire 15:12, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

None whatsoever. Thanks for clearing that up. DaveApter 16:51, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Secondary source to add to the article somewhere...

In the book, Cults, Religion, and Violence, David G. Bromley and J. Gordon Melton note that Landmark Education has been listed as "dangerous" by a government commission in France in 1996, and in Belgium in 1997.

---

• This info is backed up to a secondary sourced citation, and should be added to the article when it gets unprotected. Smee 10:13, 22 May 2007 (UTC).
  • That's actually a useful reference - you can get a real sense of the breadth of the qualification for being a dangerous cult used in France and Belgium - and the scatter-gun approach they had to compiling the reports. Those two reports also, for example, list the quakers as "Dangerous"!! (And incidentally there's no other mention of Landmark in the book apart from its appearance in that glossary). DaveApter 07:36, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Where is the rest of it?

I read the article a month or two ago, and it seemed fairly balanced. Now it all seems slanted to the side of LE. It is like the whole article has been neutered since I read it last. I was going to use it to get a recruiter off of my back, but now, it is absolutely useless for that. There are virtually no criticisms of Landmark in the article, and yet, when go to the Landmark site, I can sense that something isn't right, that there are New Age or other themes floating around. Don't get me wrong, the site is quite enticing and has all sorts of promises, but that still doesn't negate the red flags I see.--65.190.103.147 01:27, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes 65.190.103.147, you may consider the article to be temporarily out of order. There is currently a dispute resolution process going on in order that we have less of these problems in future. It'll probably take a while. As it is, the disclaimer at the top of the article states that the lock is not an endorsement of the current version. If you need access to more accurate information for your own purposes, there is a history tab that can take you to prior versions that provide a richer variety of sources. Jeffrire 03:31, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually the article as it is right now is pretty close. I have to say that unidentified user smells of a sock puppet. What does it mean "get a recruiter off his back"? What "red flags"? Please sign in to Wikipedia as a user and join the discussion. Alex Jackl 04:41, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Apology

I couldn't understand why the mediation request didn't seem to be listed, and inadvertantly created a second one. I now see that they only get listed once a mediator has accepted the case. I've removed the extra tag. Sorry for the confusion. DaveApter 07:36, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

When unprotected: Request

Please add {{LGAT}} to this page when it is unprotected. Thank you. Also, talk page archiving is quite needed here.

--User:Krator (t c) 11:36, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Mediation and archive

Mediation is now open, and I hope we can find a way to resolve these disputes. If anyone wishes to be formally involved, they should go and add their names and an initial statement over on the main page. I will also arrange for a bot to archive old threads on this page, as it's making my head swim! Chrislintott 09:28, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Please refrain from vandalism

Hello Lsi john and others. Please note that the edits that I have reinstated [19] are well sourced. All relevant views can be included on Wikipedia. This has been explained many times already. If misguided, destroying the integrity of an article cannot be considered vandalism. However, so much is so obvious already. So the only thing to explain to Lsi john et al is that such deletion is vandalism. If you want to seem at least a little bit helpful or constructive, please suggest at least some sort of a suggestion about how to correctly present/adjust/add to the well sourced edits. Thank you. Jeffrire

You're such a landmarkee! :D