Talk:Landmark Worldwide/Archive 3

This article needs a fresh start!

Unless you want your grandchildren to still be haggling over this, this needs a fresh start! This article has been closer to being NPOV in the past than it is now.

To begin with, all participating editors need to have an overriding commitment to reaching a consensus on a well-written, well-organized, clear and concise encyclopedic article (according to Wikipedia's standards, not your own) where all points of view can agree that they are fairly represented. Some research may be needed to apprise yourself of the background needed to do that.

Since there was a message that the previous talk page was too long, I have moved it to Archive 2.

This entire article needs to be scrapped and begun anew. I suggest first developing an outline of sections and subsections to be covered, then fleshing out the outline. Some sections which have been previously deleted should be considered for re-inclusion. Kat'n'Yarn 17:13, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

To get the ball going, I've reworked the introduction, followed by a reworked "Origin and Evolution" section. There are so many problems with this article it's hard to know where to begin. But, for one thing, it's too long and there's a lot of promotional material and material the average encyclopedia reader isn't interested in that can just be cut. Kat'n'Yarn 18:41, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

And then I consolidated all the corporate sections into one. I've left the list of corporate officers and associations, etc. for now. However, considering that the article needs to be reduced to 2/3 it's present length (52K to 34K), we should consider cutting them. Isn't all that on Landmark's website? Kat'n'Yarn 20:47, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Use caution when using a company website as a source

This is where what's already been written can't be salvaged. Wikipedia's guidelines on Reliable sources states:

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

I think a few allowances can be made, but the present article relies wholesale on Landmark Education's website. "Wikipedia articles should use reliable published sources." See also Neutral point of view. Kat'n'Yarn 03:18, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Persons Associated with Landmark Education

I originally started by attempting to clean up the Management article, however, the more I look through this entire article the more I notice bizarre additions of people all over. As I mentioned in a previous discussion, I researched other major company's articles for comparisons sake and found the following: I researched other major companies to see what their articles said about their management persons/structure and found very little (please see: Tony Robbins, The Learning Company, Target Corporation, and Wal-Mart). At most, I discovered a list of Wal-Mart board members and a link to a very brief biography of the company's CEO. Even Tony Robbins article gave only a minimal description of Mr. Robbins personal life. While the heads of a company are pertinent and important to an informational article about a company—the slew of disjointed employees is not, and calls into question the NPOV of that article. Thus, I've removed a number of unnecessary persons from this article due to the fact that they have little to nothing to do with Landmark Education at present and the fact that they may have been involved at some previous point is neither pertinent nor standard information for other similar articles Blondie0309 18:18, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

• The previous commentator has committed several acts of vandalism to various articles of wikipedia, notably [1], and [2], and [3], which were then later corrected by AntiVandalBot. As to the user's above comments, this is an encyclopedia article, and not a newspaper. Past influential members are historically relevant, especially those who continue to remain active in the organization and/or are friends or relatives of current influential members of the organization.Smeelgova 23:58, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I looked at Blondie's deletions. As much as we need to shorten this article, I agree that persons significant in the history of the organization are appropriate under the "See also" section. Encyclopedia's don't live in the present moment. I don't understand Blondie's statement that listing them is POV, although I'd like to hear about it if there's something I'm not thinking of. Kat'n'Yarn 01:37, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Substantial revisions needed in "Landmark Education Vocabulary" section/article

(also posted on Talk:Landmark Education Vocabulary)

The "Landmark Education Vocabulary" article, and related "Vocabulary" section of this article, do not follow a number of Wikipedia guidlines:

• The "Landmark Education Vocabulary" article should be renamed and moved to "Landmark Education jargon" as "vocabulary" is not an accurate description. Also be sure to modify all links to the page.
• The current article content is not aceptable as uncited original research. Personally, IMO it's a public service to define these terms, but can you post them elsewhere and then link to that site under "See Also: External Links"?
• Reliable published sources should be used as a basis for the article's content, e.g., the metro article, and any other published works which refer to the subject.
• In order to make the article NPOV, fair representation needs to be included on the published work of cult experts (for lack of a better term) regarding "loaded language." Kat'n'Yarn 19:43, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

The term 'Jargon' is also inaccruate. While Jargon is a form of terminology, Wiki says "Jargon can be distinguished from terminology in that it is informal and essentially part of the oral culture of a profession, with only limited expression in the profession's publications." The way Landmark Education makes distinctions with their language is core to their program. Their use of words in a particular manner hasn't developed informally as a lingo, it's a purposeful terminology, and therefore not precisely 'jargon'. The broader term of 'Terminology' of which jargon is a type, would be more accurate. Pato 9:13, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. Terminology is used to describe specialized language in more widespread and traditional fields. Scientists use terminology. Data processing uses terminology. Use within a specialized group is most commonly called "jargon". Can you find any published sources which establish a precedent of referring to Landmark Education's verbage as "terminology"? I don't recall ever hearing that reference, but "jargon" has been used many, many times. Kat'n'Yarn 22:12, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

While I agree that "vocabulary" is not necessarily the best word, it is the word that Landmark uses, and if I were trying to find information on the topic, I would do a search for "Landmark Education vocabulary", because that's what it's called. (For example: the Democratic People's Republic of North Korea is not particularly democratic, but that doesn't mean its article should be renamed.) I think the page should be moved back to "vocabulary", and I think "vocabulary" should be one of the words on the vocabulary page, since vocabulary has a special meaning in Landmark. I also disagree that its lack of sources is a serious problem; anyone who has attended the Forum is in some sense an "expert", so I think this is a case where original research is justifiable, since it is verifiable in a way that most original research isn't. Ckerr 14:01, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Since the article concerns Landmark's unorthodox use of the English language, Landmark's own use of the English language should not be the basis of deciding what language should be used outside the Landmark context. I again note that Wikipedia's guideline is to base articles on published sources, not personal opinion. The purpose of Wikipedia is not to allow everyone to form an article on their own personal "expertise", unless it's published. That is precisely what the policy on original research is designed to eliminate. Wikipedia makes no exceptions in allowing some original research. Kat'n'Yarn 01:31, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the term "jargon" is inaccurate and misleading. In the Harvard Business School Case Study: "Landmark Education Corporation: Selling a Paradigm Shift", Karen Wruck & Mikelle Eastley (1998), the authors use the word "distinction" in discussing the terminology of Landmark Education. Never do they use the words "jargon", "vocabulary", or "terminology". The term "distinction" is also used in "The Promise of Philosophy and the Landmark Forum", Steven R. McCarl, et al. Contemporary Philosophy 23, 51 (2001). While I don't think the word "jargon" is appropriate, some mention might be given of the participant's confusion in understanding some of the terms. User:Sketchjoy 02:30, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I feel an irrestible bold cutting urge coming on

I wanted to allow a few days for comments, so I wouldn't send everyone into shock. Unless there are objections, I'd like to do some bold cutting, reorganizing, combining, summarizing to shorten the length of the article, not particularly change its content. The article is presently 52K, the recommended maximum length is 32K (see Wikipedia:article size. We need to get the job done! Kat'n'Yarn 00:37, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Initial cut to reduce article size posted

I’ve reduced the article to 41 K, mainly by cutting the detailed course descriptions and promotional material. See What Wikipedia is not: “Wikipedia is not a soapbox or a vehicle for propaganda and advertising.” It still needs to lose another 9K of fat. The entire last portion of the article needs to be researched and rewritten, so hopefully the size can also be reduced there. Some notes - -

If I inadvertently cut anything which was reliably sourced and of high priority, please put it back and discuss it.

“Wikipedia is not a repository of links … excessive lists can dwarf articles and detract from the purpose of Wikipedia.” Can we agree to limit both the lists of favorable and unfavorable opinion links to five? I’ve already cut the unfavorable list, but I’d ask the “favorable” editors to edit that list. Preference should be given to websites which link to/archive multiple published articles in their entirety, not those which contain excerpts, a single article, or opinion.

I’ve cut the section on Large Group Awareness Trainings and added it as a related topic link at the bottom. As background information, est and Lifespring were the grand-daddies of LGATs. When spinoffs became numerous, the term was introduced to collectively refer to all similar self-development seminars. It’s analogous to referring to chickens, ducks and geese as “fowl”.

I cut the section on Continuing Education Credits, since they don’t seem to be universally accepted. It sounds “lame” and unspecific to say they’re sometimes accepted. Memberships mean nothing more than one pays their dues. In a full corporate biography, they should be listed. However, it’s not common practice in an encyclopedic article. I cut the paragraph on philosophical aspects, just because it wasn’t sourced and once I’d cut the extraneous information about Erhard lending Flores some money, it was superficial. However, a researched more meaningful paragraph on philosophic contributions to Landmark Education’s programs would be interesting, and could possibly be long enough to warrant a separate article. I’d warn, however, that some of the philosophic contributors might be controversial. It wouldn’t be NPOV to include only the non-controversial ones. I left the “Key ideas” sections in as placeholders, although they currently are awkward.

I consolidated all the program information into a “Programs” section, and added the “Assistants Program”, without which Landmark Education probably would not exist. I consolidated all the “studies” into an “Assessments of Effectiveness” section. I did add a subsection on “Other opinions.” Initially, I was looking into whether the previous Post hoc section should be reinstated. In checking the source cited on the Skeptic’s Dictionary page, I found that Dr. Michael Langone did not say anything about post hoc in the referenced article. He did, however, say something else, which I quoted. The section is now reasonably NPOV, although all the studies need to be researched to see if they are accurately represented.

All the controversies in the current article have been reduced to straw man arguments and then knocked down. That is not, by any stretch of the imagination, NPOV. It’s probably best to take those topics one at a time.

Let me ask a question. Was there a reason for grouping all the lawsuits together? It seems to me it would be more logical and meaningful to include them in the sections they are relevant to, e.g., the Cynthia Kisser lawsuit should be included in the section “Is it a cult?”

I’d like to say that there’s no need to go into every detail of the controversies, which tends to try the reader’s patience. After the main substance has been presented, the article would be improved by agreeing to skip the nitpicking. Kat'n'Yarn 01:29, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I'd say this is mostly an improvement. The article was definitely too long and somewhat unstructured. I'm a bit busy at the moment, but I'll get back before the end of the week. In answer to your question "Was there a reason...", I think the answer is "Not really, it was just the way the sequence of inputs from different editors worked out." I agree that the Kisser section would make more sense in the "cult" heading.

I'd been thinking of archiving this talk page as it was clearly getting over-long, but my understanding is that it's usual to leave some recent material to provide a sense of continuity. But maybe a clean break is called for, and anyway people can look at the archive pages if they want background.

I'm one of those people who, when they see something that needs to be done, does it. Kat'n'Yarn 03:51, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree there's maybe an excess of links, but not to sure about your suggestion to reduce to five, as that seems a bit arbitrary. DaveApter 20:05, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Any number would be arbitrary. Do you have another suggestion? We still need to work out whether "favorable" or "unfavorable" gets higher billing. We could alternate them from month to month. Kat'n'Yarn 03:51, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Balance in current article

Having had another look at the article, what seems to me to be missing now is any sense of what the whole operation is about or why anyone would bother. It now seems to be disproportionately involved with disputes about the validity or otherwise of the operation. There also seems to be an excessively detailed account of the historical issues. DaveApter 20:22, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Personally, if I were writing the article from scratch, I'd prefer more of a general overview of who and what Landmark Education is rather than a list of courses. I don't look at anything as finalized, just on the way. The history is important, but that's not saying it can't be treated differently. Again, information from published sources should be primarily used. As I said above, I hope the controversy sections can be shortened. That wasn't something I could do just by cutting. It'll take some time to do research to treat them properly. I may begin with "Is it a cult?" which, it turns out, is quite easy to make NPOV. Wait and see.  :) I'm trying to get this into a generally improved ballpark, we can go back and do the fine-tuning. Kat'n'Yarn 03:51, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Given that the topic of this article generates quite so much controvesy and emotion, A section outlining possible reasons, sources or ways of understanding the controvesy might help explain the one of the impacts of Landmark. And help settle down some of the editing and edit turf wars going on? I dont have the expertise to even kick it off. Any takers? 203.217.88.50 11:54, 7 September 2006 (UTC) Craigster, 7 August 2006.

I think that would just get us off track, never to return. It's been going on for years on several discussion boards. There is one school of thought that the zealousness of Landmark supporters goes overboard and creates an "equal and opposite reaction." If all editors would just stick to Wikipedia's guidelines, we could get this done. Kat'n'Yarn 19:52, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

PERSONAL OPINION: I want to state so that anyone reading this is clear that this new talk page is almost irrevocable POV assault against this Landmark article and is spun to an unbelievable degree. The sheer scale of changes done in the last six weeks is staggering expecially given all the really hard work that was done by dozens and dozens of people over the last two years to reach a compromise on this very clearly polarizing topic. Even then some of us felt it still was strongly leaning to the negative POV but at least a consensus of sorts had been reached. This latest wave of changes has been a extremely clear attack on the NPOV of the article towards the negative. I haven't had the time to fight this wave of POV attacks so I was shocked, when I returned to the page, by the blatant disregard for consensus that Kat and Smeelgova have displayed.

Alex Jackl 15:53, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Cuts by User:Nsamuel

The "Other Programs", i.e., Assistant's Program and ILP were removed by User:Nsamuel as superfluous to reduce size of article. In all fairness, I don't agree that that information is superfluous or a necessary cut. I already cut the program information to the bone. I think further cuts should be made elsewhere. Kat'n'Yarn 04:51, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

User:Nsamuel also made three other cuts, all four labelled as minor, when only one was. I've reverted the article, keeping the one minor correction, pending discussion. Kat'n'Yarn 05:47, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Running battle on characterization of Rick Ross

I know this has been a running battle, but if other editors are going to refer to Rick Ross as a self-styled expert, it would be fair to refer to Landmark as a self-styled education company. While Rick Ross did choose the profession, he has gained expertise through long experience, and has been widely recognized as an expert.

BTW, this article has gotten 2K longer than it was when I first cut it's length. It needs to get shorter! Kat'n'Yarn 22:31, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

I get your point and would simply note that Landmark Education is not refered to in the article as a "recognized authority" on education. Perhaps a more neutral title can be given. In the past, terms like "recognized authority" have been shuned as they offer a point-of-view. Typically, titles which are a function of education or accredidation have been used as they are basically non-pov. Ross poses a problem in this area because he doesn't have typical education accredidations. Perhaps something like: "exepert witness on cults" is more appropiate in that it is incontrovertable and conveys a level of knowledge in this area. --Tealwarrior 01:29, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

"Self-styled" is also pov. There needs to be something to identify who he is. If you like "expert witness", so be it. Kat'n'Yarn 02:50, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

In it's disambiguation page, Wikipedia currently identifies Rick Ross as a Consultant, and that's a more neutral term, assuming no one sticks "self-styled" on it. I'll change it in the article. Kat'n'Yarn 02:05, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Rick Ross's expertise is not "undisputed". Many feel he has an anti-cult bias. Didn't he lose a lawsuit for kidnapping a new recruit from an alleged cult? --Uncle Ed 14:48, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Article still has problems

While I think the article has been improved, I think it is still missing something, and I believe a few changes would help its self-expression:

• In "Other opinions", there needs to be some mention of whether or not Landmark is an LGAT. It currently reads as a non sequitur.

That's more properly discussed on the talk page, if neceesary. It's analogous to discussing whether an orange is a citrus fruit. I don't know of any reason why everything needs to be controversial. Kat'n'Yarn 01:13, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Well Landmark education is listed not once but twice in the page on LGATs, so it must be one! But the article currently makes no sense unless the reader has prior knowledge. Instead of the list of other alleged LGATs, why not say "LGAT (a term which is often applied to Landmark and similar encounter groups)"? Ckerr 18:10, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't know if you're referring to the LGAT article (which also needs more work) or the Landmark Education article. In the latter, there is an explanation the first time the term is used, "... (LGATs) (a term which collectively refers to est, Lifespring, and similar encounter groups) ..." I also think the term is reasonably self-explanatory. Landmark has been referred to as a LGAT in published source(s). Are there any published sources which refute it? Kat'n'Yarn 03:45, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

The trouble with the LGAT debate is that it's basically vacuous because there's no clear definition of what an LGAT is. In the literal semantic sense, it applies by definition to any training session which takes place in groups of say 50 or more people and which is intended to "raise awareness". (Clearly Landmark courses are on this definition). But so what? The notion that there is any more than this in common between these various groups that have been so-described has never been established as far as I am aware. DaveApter 15:20, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I'd basically agree with your definition, which is the reason I don't understand the debate over whether Landmark is or is not a LGAT. If you want an example of an LGAT program, go look at a Landmark program, or any of the other est/Lifespring spinoffs. However, there are some scholarly articles on LGATs as a collective, which deal with what they have in common. I'm not going to go look them up right now, but I'd suggest a search on Google and Rick Ross. Kat'n'Yarn 17:13, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

• In "Is it a cult", I propose the following (minor) changes of wording:

On the other hand, some commentators argue that Landmark Education's programs are not harmful and that Landmark Education is not a cult or sect by either the strict or the pejorative definition of those terms. [Previous version implied that no critics of Landmark had actually attended it, which is untrue.] For example:

• Dr. Raymond Fowler, a retired CEO of the American Psychological Association, upon studying Landmark Education on his own behalf, said "I saw nothing in The Landmark Forum that I attended to suggest that it would be harmful to any participant." [2]

I'm working on a major revision of the "Is it a cult" section, based on research (which I'm still working on) into published resources. The Fowler letter, per se, is problematic, in that it isn't a published source. I'm looking for references to it in published articles. I don't see any reason to mention whether anyone's opinion is based on having attended a Landmark program, since the relevance of that is Landmark POV. Is Dr. Nedopil's opinion published? Kat'n'Yarn 01:13, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I think it may or may not be relevant. If someone has thoroughly and professionally researched Landmark, then their opinion will be valuable even if they have not done it; however, Landmark supporters argue that most of Landmark's critics are armchair proselytizers who have no idea what a Forum is like. It is hard to argue that someone does not know what the Forum is like if they've actually done it, and for this reason I think it's reasonable that, all else being equal, the opinion of someone with first-hand experience should carry more weight. Ckerr 18:10, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Both sides of that argument have been argued for years. Both sides are POV. If you're going to bring it up, you need to present both sides of the argument. In the interest of keeping the article of a reasonable length, I suggest that there is some nit-picking that doesn't need to be brought up. Opinion is opinion. If a reader wishes, they can further research it and make up their own minds as to which opinions are more valid. It's not our job to try to convince them. Attempting to characterize some opinions as more valid and some as less is POV, especially since there is also controversy as to what constitutes validity. Kat'n'Yarn 03:45, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

If you can come up with attributable opinions of notable sources who say that Landmark is a cult, and also what they actually mean by cult in that context, it will be a great service. There is plenty of vague and anonymous comment about it on various discussion forums etc, but little that is either specific or authoratitive. The so-called cult experts go to great lengths to avoid actually making an attributable statement. For example Cynthia Kisser was happy to publish leaflets describing the Forum as a "destructive cult" but was not prepared to either justify or retract the statement, and it took hours of cross-examination under oath for her to admit that she knew virtually nothing about it and to admit that she did not consider it to be a cult; Margaret Singer was not prepared to issue a clear statement until legal action was taken and then retracted rather than defended it; Rick Ross publishes anonymous defamatory comments on his website and defends them on the grounds of "free speech" and "privacy" rather than being accountable for the content. DaveApter 15:20, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I said this is easy to make NPOV. I'm aiming at beginning by saying it's a matter of continuing concern, cult-awareness groups have always had many inquiries on Landmark, but, essentially (quoting Cynthia Kisser) it's a matter of opinion, it can't be proven either way. There's very little expert opinion either way. CAN never had a public opinion on whether any group was a cult. Cynthia Kisser said, personally (not acting on behalf of CAN), she thought it might be. Rick Ross said it isn't, based on not having a dominant leader. Margaret Singer stated no opinion. Still researching it. (I don't agree with your assessment of Cynthia's Kisser's/Margaret Singer's/Rick Ross' activity and opinion, but I don't think we need to go into it.) I think the main point is that there's always been a lot of concern, but that the controversy remains unresolved. Kat'n'Yarn 17:13, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

As a point of information, many cult awareness groups do not decide which groups are and are not cults, as a matter of policy. Instead, they prefer to educate the public on unsafe practices to look out for in any group. Kat'n'Yarn 17:13, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

• Dr. Norbert Nedopil, a sect expert from the University of Munich, in a 2002 study [3] said that Landmark Education is definitely not a sect, nor sect-like in any way. In that study he reported that: "On the basis of empirical investigation, it can be said that to the largest extent, Landmark Education does not present risks to the health, free will and legal integrity of its participants. Nor, is there any evidence that the Landmark Forum is harmful." Dr. Nedopil stated that he could not discern any form of behavior which would put the Landmark Forum near a so called [psycho] sect. [4] [Removed "for example" and "and", which I felt gave undue authority--and besides, you shouldn't start an independent clause with "and".]

I have added the publication with the findings of Dr. Nedopil, who is a professor for forensic psychatry, to de:Landmark Education#Literatur. The study describes and compares Effects and risks of unconventional psycho and social techniques used by Scientology, Landmark and the treatment of drug addicts. A German, cult critical website lists the complete directory, as well as the 17-page abbreviated version of the study. As it appears, this summary version is available in English in the net. I suppose that the conclusions published by the japanese possibility lovers have been translated from a German webpage published by LME. --KaPe 11:36, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

• In "Landmark in France", does anyone know what has happened since 2002? Has MILS been without a director for 4 years?

who is w/o director?? --KaPe

The article mentions the France 3 television broadcast from 2004. The french magazine LePoint described, that a tv reporter participated with a hidden camera. They summarize, the broadcast would alarm and churn up. -(It did)

On its website, the MILS presents since June 2004 a two page description of Landmark. It mentions (translated): "Landmark Education declaired itself as Organisation for Professional Education in october 1997 (protocol of nullity for the declaration issued in februaray 2000 by the National Inspection Group because of non-observance of the applicable regulation)" and mentions, that LME offer 20 different activities for customers, with fees totaling roundabout 6.000 EUR. As essential characteristic of the methods used, they name as established:

• un vocabulaire spécifique favorisant l’adhésion exclusive à la « technologie » Landmark,
• un recours systématique à la confession publique et à la culpabilisation,
• des violences verbales et psychologiques,
• une forte incitation à recruter rapidement d’autres stagiaires.

(jargon use to favor exclusive adherence to the Landmark "technology"; public confession and incrimination; verbal and psychological violence; heavy incitation to rapidly recruit other participants). The operation in France is still down; no courses are offered. --KaPe 13:13, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

• In "Religious Implications", I strongly suggest that the plethora of links straight to the Landmark website be removed. There is a page containing links to all the individuals mentioned. I propose replacing the list with "A list of some clergy and religious professionals supportive of Landmark can be found here."

That section also needs drastic revision. Much has been left out. I've mentioned that according to Wikipedia guidlines, the Landmark website should be very sparingly used as a source. Kat'n'Yarn 01:13, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I noticed in a previous discussion you asked pro-Landmark people to do that, which they haven't yet...I think you've given them long enough. Ckerr 18:10, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Go to it. Kat'n'Yarn 03:45, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

• Under "Lawsuits initiated by Landmark":

• Cynthia Kisser's deposition is quoted in considerable detail. Do the five questions that follow the first one contribute any new information? I would say no, and I would delete five of the six lines (leaving "Q. Do you, Cynthia Kisser, say that ... the Landmark Forum is a cult? A. No."). If she said no to some questions and yes to others, that would be interesting (and alarming!), but giving the same answer to the same question six times is perhaps unnecessary.

What's been quoted from Cynthia Kisser is taken out of context and misrepresents Ms. Kisser's statements. Kat'n'Yarn 01:13, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

• If Margaret Singer never actually claimed Landmark was a cult, how can she issue a retraction? Perhaps "clarification" or just "statement" would be a better word here.

Neither CAN, Cynthia Kisser (acting as CAN's Executive Director), or Margaret Singer ever said whether Landmark was or was not a cult. Only quoting part of those opinions is misleading and POV. Kat'n'Yarn 01:13, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. This entire section, to me, reads very strongly pro-Landmark POV, as I've said in a few previous discussions. I think it needs a complete rewrite. Ckerr 18:10, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

• In "Registration pressure", it sounds like Jill P. Capuzzo is the only person who has experienced registration pressure--the article clearly states that other participants didn't. I propose inserting the sentence "Landmark has been criticised by some for using excessive persuasion to encourage participants to sign up for additional programs. For example, in 1996... (etc.)". This will then make the opening to the second paragraph ("Other participants have had different impressions") not make it sound like everyone but Jill is fine with the way Landmark does things.

I would propose that the area of bringing guests/registration pressure is the most widespread criticism of Landmark. While there are a few dissenting opinions, there's a question as to whether there even exists anything of a meaningful controvery on this matter. Kat'n'Yarn 01:13, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

No one seems to dispute that there is a strong push for participants to sign up for additional programs; the question is just whether it is offensive or not. Supporters usually explain it by saying that it's how they do business, since they don't do advertising, and see it as a necessary evil (or, in the most extreme case, "they explained what other possibilities are available to us!"). So I think there is genuine controversy over whether or not they're doing anything improper, but perhaps the article should not make it sound like opinion is evenly divided. Ckerr 18:10, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

But how many people say "we love it that way, we wouldn't change a thing, enrollment is not out of proportion"? There's even an internal reformation effort going on focusing on reducing enrollment. Kat'n'Yarn 03:45, 3 September 2006 (UTC) Correction/clarification: reducing the emphasis on enrollment, not reducing the number of enrollments. Kat'n'Yarn 17:13, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

The point is that some people sometimes complain about feeling pressurised, and some people don't have that experience. The fact that there are plenty of repeat customers would suggest that most regard it as at most a minor irritation. Trying to estmate a portion going one way or the other would be original research. DaveApter 15:20, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

It should be based on published articles. However, there also is such a thing as consensus reality. Kat'n'Yarn 17:13, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I intend to make these changes after suitable time for discussion. Happy editing. Ckerr 13:45, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

This article is a mess as it stands now

It may have been longer than ideal a few weeks ago, but it was reasonably informative and reasonably balanced. The recent extensive cuts have been disproportionately of material about the principles and methodology of Landmark's courses, whilst leaving substantially unscathed reports of various critical opinions (and even adding material which puts a positive spin on them).

A more appropriate title for the present incarnation would be "Disputes and arguments about Landmark Education". A rough analysis of the content at present is:

40% Criticisms and Controversies

30% links and related topics (many of them pretty tenuous)

20% Studies

4% Origin and evolution

3% Summary of objectives and claimed results

2% List of course titles (uninformative)

1% Corporate structure

User Kat'n'Yarn made an admirable call for the principles which should underlie the edits to this article (opening paragraph on this page), but it is not at all clear to me that recent changes have improved its balance or its neutrality; nor making it any more of a "well-written, well-organized, clear and concise encyclopedic article".

I'm inclined to think that deleting the article completely and starting from scratch would be the best way to go, but I'll have a try at addressing some of the major shortcomings .

All of us have points of view, and a good start to being able to contribute to a collaborative venture which is consistent with Wikipedia's NPOV policy is to make a clear and straight declaration of where we stand ourselves. My position is that I did the Landmark Forum about four years ago, and have done several other courses since. I found them all challenging, beneficial and good value for money, and my impression is that somewhere between 90% and 98% of the other participants did so too. I'm not doing any Landmark courses at the moment and I've never worked for them. I think the organisation itself has its shortcomings and its peculiarities, as does any enterprise created by human beings, but none of them seem to be to be catastrophic. My committment to this article is the one articulated by Kat'n'Yarn: that it be a "well-written, well-organized, clear and concise encyclopedic article". Though no doubt our opinions on what that would look like are entirely different.

The rest of you who have written on this talk page presumably have strong views on this subject? I invite you to declare what they are, as well as what is your experience and knowledge of Landmark Education. DaveApter 14:17, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

DaveApter's "Call to Share"

Not to be rude, but my personal life and feelings are no one's business. I will say, however, that I'm an experienced researcher, and that is the approach I'd like to bring to this article. It's entirely possible for one to "have" a point of view and to be able to separate themselves from it, which is what this article needs.

Relax! I didn't ask about either your personal life or your feelings. I invited you to declare your opinion and your experience of Landmark Education. I agree that it's possible to separate oneself from one's point of view. However it's not at all easy because, by definition each of us sees the world from our own point of view, so this tends to occur to us as "just the way things are". Declaring our point of view can empower us in being objective. You plainly do have strong views on Landmark and Werner Erhard, or you wouldn't have suddenly appeared here and made over a hundred edits, pretty well exclusively on topics related to them. DaveApter 16:05, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

My opinion and experience of Landmark Education are about my personal life and feeings. You're welcome to do things your way, but, as an experienced factual researcher, I'm just fine at being objective and separating myself from my point of view, no sharing required. It's what I do. I hadn't originally planned on the editing I've been doing, in fact avoiding this article like the plague seemed like a good idea. But then I realized how far off-base it had gotten. As I said, when something needs to be done .... Kat'n'Yarn 05:33, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I have no doubt that you sincerely believe that. DaveApter 17:11, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

That was uncalled for. Let's stick to talking about the article, okay? Kat'n'Yarn 04:14, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

My apologies. I had no intention of causing offence. DaveApter 15:44, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I concur that the article still needs an enormous amount of work. Roll up your sleeves and take on a section. Kat'n'Yarn 17:26, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Balance of the Article

As I indicated above, about 40% of the article is about controversies and lawsuits. This is way out of proportion. More appropriate would be a brief summary of the areas of dispute, who holds the various views and why, and references where more can be found out.

Controversies and complaints are minuscule in proportion to the hundreds of thousands who participate in Landmark programs and are highly satisfied. I would suggest that the entire section be deleted and replaced with a brief summary, and we then discuss on this page to reach a consensus of what to re-introduce.

Some more meaningful information about what is in the courses and the underlying philosophy would be useful. I'm working on that.

For today I've just done a few bits of minor cleaning up:

Summary

I removed 'for profit' as it's both redundant and misleading. I removed '- among those who have taken the courses, outside observers, the press, and experts.' as this is almost devoid of information, and only serves to talk up the extent of the controversey

Structure

The list of corporate officers duplicates entries already given elsewhere in the article.

Assessments

I moved out of the "commisioned by LE" section the Marsall Business School and the ISPI study. If anyone has sources that indicate that LE did commission these, feel free to re-categorise them and add the citations.

Programs

I removed the paragraph about not publishing peer-reviewed work or requiring teaching experience, as these are absenses not facts. It was also POV as it implies that this is other than would be expected, whereas both are the norm for adult self-improvement education. DaveApter 15:41, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

• Landmark Education is, simply put, a for-profit corporation. To state this is simply stating a fact.

As I say, it is both redundant (unless specifically stated otherwise, corporations are assumed to be 'for profit') and misleading. There is a deliberate confusion between the usage of 'for profit' as a technical legal/accounting classification, and its implied everyday usage to indicate intention and practice. The emphasis of it here and in other critical articles gives a misleading impression that (a) the purpose of LE is to make profits, and/or (b) that shareholders do in fact draw profits from the company. As you know, neither of these is the case. DaveApter 16:49, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

The text reads Landmark Education LLC (LE) is an international for-profit corporation any inherent meaning associated with this statement other than the fact that it is an international for-profit corporation, would have to be the reader's personal POV.Smeelgova 21:19, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

• Any organization that is incorporated is a corporation. This includes many not-for-profit organizations. Clarification is needed. Kat'n'Yarn 05:45, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

• I agree RE: your I removed '- among those who have taken the courses, outside observers, the press, and experts.' commentary.
• The list of corporate officers is provided as a summary tabular format, so that the reader may more easily research information about these individuals. Not all of the officers are mentinoned in other locations of the article, and even so, it is appropriate information for the Structure and financials section, which could be expanded as well.

The article is too long and needs to be reduced rather than expanded. It's not normal practice to have long lists of directors in articles about corporations, and most of these individuals have little public prominence. The content of the articles about them is for the most part poor quality anyway, sourced principally from Pressman's book which is a dubious collection of unattributable gossip and rumour. DaveApter 16:49, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

• The continual disregard of Wikipedia's guideline on Reliable sources is becoming very tedious. "Wikipedia articles should use reliable published sources." This is an extremely important tenet to Wikipedia. Your opinion of a reliable published source is irrelevant. Kat'n'Yarn 06:02, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

It is not a question of my opinion about a reliable source, but a question of whether the book qualifies as one. Wikipedia's guidelines state:

A primary source is a document or person providing direct evidence of a certain state of affairs; in other words, a source very close to the situation you are writing about. The term most often refers to a document produced by a participant in an event or an observer of that event. It could be an official report, an original letter, a media account by a journalist who actually observed the event, or an autobiography

Pressman's book is none of the above; neither is it a secondary source since it does not cite any identifiable primary sources. It is an abuse of Wikipedia to present quotes from there as if they were "facts". DaveApter 14:20, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

You're going to be difficult, aren't you? Pressman's book is obviously not a primary source, so let's not waste effort debating that. However, it is obviously a secondary source, which is defined by Wikipedia: "A secondary source summarizes one or more primary or secondary sources." I'd have to go find which pile my copy is in to check it out, but I'm sure it uses primary and/or secondary sources. Wikipedia prefers the use of secondary sources. I think the main point made about published material is that, generally speaking, pubishers exercise editorial oversight and fact-checking. While not infallible, generally speaking, a published work has to have met certain standards. If you have evidence and want to debate specific citations from this book, I'd be open to that. However, there is absolutely no unbiased ground for discounting the entire book. Kat'n'Yarn 20:23, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Please don't accuse other editors of bad faith.

My point about Pressman’s book is that it doesn’t count as a secondary source because he doesn’t cite his own sources. There is no bibliography or set of footnotes or references back to identifiable primary sources to enable researchers to trace and verify the claims. If it’s being quoted as an exemplar of opinion or hearsay, that’s fine, but as a justification for the assertion of alleged facts, it doesn’t meet wikipedia’s criteria for being a reliable source DaveApter 13:58, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I went to a lot of trouble to dig up my copy of Outrageous Betrayal and thumbed through it. While the author didn't use an academic format, many sources are mentioned. Furthermore, I saw much material which I recognize as being available from other published sources, from court documents, by interviewing many people who were intimate with est and Landmark. In other words, while it would take time, the information in the book is verifiable from other sources. This writing style is commonplace in biographies. There are even biographies of George Washington which are similar, and no one challenges whether they qualify as secondary sources. Regarding this and many of your statements and objections, I'd appreciate it if you wouldn't waste our time making inaccurate, unfounded, and frivolous statements and objections. BTW, the Wikipedia guidline is not something to hide behind while you're operating out of bad faith. Kat'n'Yarn 22:19, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Please don't accuse others of bad faith, or characterise serious attempts to further the discussion as "inaccurate, unfounded, and frivolous". You might take your own advice about "hiding behind wikipedia guidelines". Readers can draw their own conclusions about the double standards you employ. You seem to have a remarkably relaxed attitude to the WP:RS policy that "Partisan, religious and extremist websites should be treated with caution" - Many of the references added by yourself and smeelgova are from Rick Ross's websites, which are clearly partisan and extremist by any standards.

The guideline is not "don't accuse others of bad faith." The guidline is "assume good faith", which I did, until it became blatantly obvious that my assumption was false. I've added very few references to this article, don't remember if any of them came from Rick Ross' website. It's your bias that thinks he's extremist. He has an excellent archive of published articles, although it's really irrelevant that they're archived there. The fact that they're published is what's important. It just makes it convenient to web users if they can find them online. Kat'n'Yarn 04:34, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

You're right, I did use the legal documents regarding the Kisser case as references for information about the Kisser case. I was referencing what was there, not where it was. Do you know of anywhere else they're posted online? Kat'n'Yarn 05:00, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

And btw, what are your grounds for removing the Marshall business study and the ispi award as "improperly sourced"? The former is a published document from a front-rank university, and the latter is published by a reputable international association with over 10,000 corporate members from all sectors of industrial life. DaveApter 18:36, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Ain't got proper citations. I was just demonstrating that I'm serious about not allowing double standards of removing the material you don't like for any excuse you can find, while leaving what you do like no matter how substandard it is. I think it's best to leave all of it the way it was until we can make meaningful revisions. Kat'n'Yarn 04:34, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

• It is a given fact that Landmark Education does not require its employees/leaders to have any sort of credentialing/accreditation (accept for participation in all of Landmark's programs).Smeelgova 16:02, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Sure it's a fact, but not a noteworthy one. It's the norm rather than the exception that adult personal improvement organisiations train their presenters internally. Stating it implies a spurious significance. And incidentally you are mistaken if you are under the impression that "participation in all of Landmark's programs" qualifies one as a program leader. The program leader training is extremely rigorous, and leaders have to pass very demanding performance evaluations before being appointed. DaveApter 16:49, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I will agree to disagree with you on this above point, and leave this section out in order to try and trim down the size of the article.Smeelgova 21:19, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

• This is a notable fact, in that Landmark Education is different from traditional education, where teachers have not only preparatory education, but also licensing and independent oversight. There are members of Landmark's faculty who don't even have college degrees. This article needs much more than a few minor cuts. It's extremely inaccurate, unsourced, and POV. It needs to be rewritten. Kat'n'Yarn 06:09, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

If by "traditional education" you mean school teachers and college lecturers, of course that is the case. If you mean privately owned training organisations, it is simply not true: the norm is for the presenters to be trained internally and rarely do they have school or college teaching qualifications, and Landmark is simply in line with normal industry practice in that regard. DaveApter 14:20, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I think most people mean school teachers and college lecturers by "traditional education." I think we concur that there is a difference between traditional education and Landmark and other experiential "educational" organizations. The point is, you can't expect the average enclcopedia reader to know the difference, and, as long as Landmark uses the word "Education" prominently, the article needs to make it clear that Landmark does not define "education" the same way it is traditionally defined. Kat'n'Yarn 20:31, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Landmark Education's Corporate Website as a Source

• Landmark Education's corporate website does not constitute as a neutral source of NPOV information, as it comes directly from the company's POV.
• At present, at least 8 citations from the reference section use the Landmark Education Corporate Website as a source.
• These citations and accompanying sourced material should either be removed from the article, or a notation should be appended to the material alerting the reader that the source is from a Landmark Education Corporate Website.Smeelgova 16:02, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Most of them are reprints of material published elsewhere from notable sources. I agree that it would be preferable to locate the originals where possible. DaveApter 16:55, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I was going to leave the studies section alone for the time being, while we work on the sections which are worse, but, before adding additional studies to this section, all the studies need to be checked to see if they have been published and are available in their own right. Landmark's interpretation of them on its own website is not a reliable source. Kat'n'Yarn 06:35, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't think you understand what NPOV is: NPOV is characterizing positions and who has them. Landmark Education's web site is Landmark Education's point of view. The purpose of an encyclopedia is to state all of the significant points of view. Sm1969 07:55, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

NO, NPOV is having a NEUTRAL point of view. See WP:NPOV. This encyclopedia could not possibly state all significant points of view about Landmark without dedicating an entire server to Landmark. An encyclopedia article is not a discussion group. Kat'n'Yarn 08:15, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Neutral point of view simply means that you A) cite the significant points of view and B) who the supporters are and C) how they substantiate them. Wikipedia recognizes (from the NPOV page) three levels of significance: majority opinion, minority opinion and insignificant (need not be included). You can indeed state all of the significant points of view about the various FACETS of Landmark Education. Landmark Education says X and they use facts F1, F2 and F3 to support it. Opposing opinions say Y, and they use facts F4, F5, F6 to support their position. Encyclopedia writing is fairly boring and unemotional. There is no such thing as a single "neutral point of view" but rather X and F1, F2, and F3 and Y and F4, F5 and F6. We don't try to blend X and Y to come up with *A* "neutral" point of view, but rather cite the opinions and who holds them and how they justify them. There are several areas that fit (or could fit) this model quite well, and I've been working on this article on and off for probably close to two years now. For example:

Area-1: Results (LE cites the studies and customer testimonials; opposing points of view cite no empircal research) Area-2: Lawsuits (LE cites the three in the US against them); opposing parties cites their points of view; we shold also add the court's point of view where it exists Area-3: cult (LE cites the libel cases; opposing parties cite their points of view); here, we typically try to define the term "cult" so that we can test and contest the asserted facts.

The key point is that you don't represent any side as the truth. That's a judgement for the reader.

That actually is not an overview or definition of "Neutral point of view", it deals with how to treat different points of view. The point I'm trying to make is that we don't have to have diarrhea of the mouth about absolutely everything. If you're going to present something controversial, then, yes, you do have to present all points of view about it, fairly. However, there is absolutely no reason we have to argue over absolutely every little detail in the article. That's just argumentative. Would that really make an interesting encyclopedia article? We also have the option of just leaving out some of the debate, as long as we leave all points of view out equally. Kat'n'Yarn 20:41, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Please make your point without resorting to scatalogical metaphors - some people find them offensive. DaveApter 15:31, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

• • I'm going to take the position, which is entirely in accord with Wikipedia's guidelines, that Landmark's website can be used as a source for basic information about who/what Landmark is and what it does, if that information is not available from published sources. However, unpublished material on Landmark's website should not be used in areas of controversy. Kat'n'Yarn 01:09, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

It's convenient to be able to check out the content of various sources online. In many cases items have been published offline (or had been online previously and no longer are), and these are re-printed on Landmark's own site. I can't see why you should be trying to impose a blanket ban on such references. And I can't help noticing you don't suggest applying the same policy even-handedly. Almost all of the negative references in the article point not to original publications, but to reprints on extreme POV sites such as Rick Ross, Apologetics, Rants&Raves etc! DaveApter 15:31, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I want to second this- There is a VERY inconsistent approach to what "published" means. Wikipedia does in NO way say that you have to remove an organization's own links in an article ABOUT the organization. It says "USE CAUTION". If we are applying as stringent a rule as has been suggested we need to basically delete all Rick Ross site material. But that wouldn't make sense either. Published material includes material published on Websites. Therefore material cross-posted to Landmark's web site is valid material- and needs to be looked at crtiically because it is on a POV site, by definition. Ditto with the Rick Ross stuff. Alex Jackl 15:43, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy on the issue

From Wikipedia:Reliable sources :

Company and organization websites

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

• I agree RE: above comment: unpublished material on Landmark's website should not be used in areas of controversy., and it seems that the above Wikipedia:Reliable sources Wikipedia Policy is in-line with this line of thinking as well.
• At present, 10 citations from the reference section use the Landmark Education Corporate Website as a source. Smeelgova 20:32, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Are these references NPOV

I was reading this article (a friend of mine wants me to do the Landmark Forum) and I noted that; this artical Outrageous_Betrayal and this artical Steven_Pressman have been completely written by User:Smeelgova. Both Articles look like advertising (and if anyone can tell me how to mark the pages as such I would love to know) Mark1800 07:16, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

• Search is my friend, I figured out how to do it. Mark1800 07:23, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

In accordance with Wikipedia's policy, please do not engage in personal attacks. Both these articles are comparable to other similar Wikipedia articles, and are NPOV. (There's a difference between NPOV and not agreeing with your own personal POV.) They aren't advertisements just because you say they are. I removed your tags. Please discuss specifics if there's something you think isn't neutral. Kat'n'Yarn 08:02, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Didn't mean it to be a personal attack (have changed heading), I just noticed they look like adverts. I have noted on the pages my opinion and request we take this discussion there Mark1800 08:07, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

• I must also state that I resent these personal attacks from user Mark1800 as well. I am most certainly not Steven Pressman. I have taken care to accurately cite multiple sources in sourced, blockquoted referenced citation format when citing sources, in order to make sure I am not adding my own POV to articles, but simply information from reliable sources.Smeelgova 12:56, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

• As to the substance of Mark's comments, I agree that Outrageous Betrayal looked like an advertisement. Mostly that seemed to be due to a quotation at the end of the introduction which sounded like a short bit of promotional copy from the dust jacket. Its selection and placement made it look like Wikipedia was trying to drum up sales for the book. I removed it and the remainder of the article seems relatively neutral, except perhaps for the use of the term "muckraking". -- Beland 22:08, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Bias

I'm losing my patience on this. This article fails badly to present controversy fairly, and, instead of improving, it keeps getting worse. Using characterizations to downplay, dismiss, or discount controversial aspects is not, by any stretch of the imagination, fairly representing them. If you want to do that in your own lives, fine, but that is not allowed on Wikipedia. Kat'n'Yarn 10:54, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

• What would you recomend?
  • I was hoping to see a good faith effort made to rewrite the article in accordance with Wikipedia's guidelines, especially researching and citing published sources, and being much more neutral. However, all that's happened is that about 6K of biased in Landmark's favor and completely unsourced information has been added to the article. I'm doing the research necessary to rewrite the "Is it a cult?" section. Is anyone else doing anything constructive along the lines of doing what needs to be done? I suppose I could issue a warning. I'm entirely within my rights as an editor to just remove everything that's not NPOV and that's not properly sourced. There wouldn't be much left. I have absolutely no intention of spending my life on this. We're going to get the job done one way or another. Kat'n'Yarn 20:59, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
    • I suspect one of the issues you are going to have is just how much space do you devote to each section. You will get accussed of bias even on that.
    • BTW: IMHO. The section labled Courses offered by Landmark is 14 lines of valuable real-estate that is easily available on the Landmark website. That section you could cut to just say 'Here is a list of courses offered by landmark' or just mention the Landmark Forum. I mean you don't see a complete list of every product sold by a company on a normal company wiki entry. Mark1800 22:05, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
      • I actually agree with user Mark1800's above statement on this point. I have shortened the "Courses" section as recommended above, with a link to Landmark Education's Corporate Website. Where possible, if information seems to read like a direct advertisement straight from Landmark's Corporate Website, it may be advisable to simply make a brief notation and refer the user in that direction.Smeelgova 22:15, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
• You could just have this page be a facts and figures page and link it to a controvery page. That would reduce the page length.
  • I thought about something like that, just have a very short summary of the controversial items in the main article, and have a separate article to go into more depth. However, Wikipedia frowns on that as "forking". The main article would be improved, but there would be another article made up entirely of controversy, which wouldn't be good. Kat'n'Yarn 20:59, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
• It appears to me most of the controvery is in

1. History, each person has thier own version of what is important.
2. What it does and how it does it, again each person has thier own version.
3. Does it work or is it a rip-off, again each person's experience is different.

• The bit I'm unclear about is why this raises such strong emotions in people.
  • Take the question over to alt.fan.landmark. This isn't the place for it. Kat'n'Yarn 20:59, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Ugg, I went there, I'm not going back. There is some nasty stuff over there. I think I might go back to Military history, at least we only argue about millions of people dieing, not actively trying to murder each other (virtually speaking). LOLMark1800 22:05, 14 September 2006 (UTC)Mark1800 22:30, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
      • Well, then, you certainly wouldn't want to turn this article talk page into the same thing.  :) Kat'n'Yarn 01:14, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

It’s a fair question and deserved better than a flippant response.

Except for the fact that Wikipedia's guidline recommends that we discuss the article, not express opinions about the subject of the article. We spend an awful lot of time discussing subjects which would be unnecessary if more editors followed Wikipedia's guidelines. Kat'n'Yarn 03:37, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

• On the supporters’ side, they are sometimes passionate because they got valuable results themselves out of doing Landmark courses and they would like others to have them too. In some cases they believe that the world has the potential to work better than it does at the moment, and that what is available in the courses has the potential to really make a difference.

• Some of the detractors no doubt sincerely feel that Landmark is harmful in some way or another, and assume for themselves the role of saving people from what they regard as a danger. DaveApter 13:47, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Bias, Bias, Bias, Bias Bias! Kat'n'Yarn 03:37, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I was actually quite fine with Kat'n'Yarn's response. It injected just the right amount of humour. I'm clearer now having gone to alt.fan.landmark that my point 3. above is a primary driver for most of the arguments. Mark1800 06:31, 20 September 2006 (UTC)