Talk:Landmark Worldwide/Archive 7

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

Summary of Current State of Play

(Re-inserted attempt to get a sensibel discussion going!) DaveApter 17:24, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Once again this talk page has got over-long, so I have archived it. Looking through the archived pages, it’s pretty clear that the discussion has gone round in circles with the same points being made over and over again, and more time being spent on re-iterating editors’ own viewpoints than seriously working towards a consensus on the structure of the article.

At present the article is a total mess, as a result of the POV-pushing and edit-warring over the last seven months. It is also much longer than it should be.

My request is that we work together to establish a consensus on this page regarding a desirable structure for the article, and then find acceptable references to build the page in that form.

I propose that an acceptable encyclopedia article on Landmark Education would provide readers with informative content regarding:

1) Broadly what it is about: what it offers and how it delivers it; why people do the courses, and what they get from them.

2) A summary of the ‘controversies’ surrounding the operation: what are the conflicting opinions on the various areas of debate, who hold these opinions, and what is the supporting evidence.

Does anyone disagree with this as a satisfactory ‘big-picture’ overview of what the article should deal with? (Please start the discussion in a new section below to preserve the flow of this overview paragraph – thanks).

My suggestions for how these areas could be dealt with are:

What is it about?

This section of the article should address the following questions:

• What issues do Landmark courses deal with?
• What is the methodology?
• What results do participants report?
• How does it differ from conventional academic philosophy?

(again - please discuss below).

Why the controversies, and what are they about?

This section as it stands is way over-large and violates the WP:NPOV policy by giving undue weight to minority views, and by reporting opinions as though they were facts.

A “controversy” by its nature is a matter of conflicting opinions.

What are the disputed matters? I’d say they are:

• Does it really produce worthwhile results?
• Is it sometimes harmful?
• Is it a rip-off, or a money making scam?

The concerns over the Assisting Programs would be quite properly discussed under the latter two headings.

The fact that some commentators have applied adjectives such as “cult” and “brainwashing” is not in itself informative, unless we know what they mean by the words, and what evidence they draw on to justify the description. It seems to me that the majority of those expressing critical opinions on Landmark Education actually know very little about it, and quite disproportionate weight is given to uninformed speculation and hearsay.

I have replaced the compliant tag, since the article certainly hasn’t improved since Jossi placed it there; in fact it’s deteriorated substantially. DaveApter 11:29, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Discussion on the overall structure

I don't have any immediate edits but agree that this is a good overall high-level structure. Alex Jackl 05:06, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree that due to the POV-pushing and edit-warring by individuals with conflict of interest, in violation of WP:COI, (as discussed in Archive 6 (Jan-19 2007-Jan-22 2007) and elsewhere previously) the article currently is not as good as it could be. However, we should not rely on Landmark Education's website to advertise more about their programs and "coursework". That is also in violation of Wikipedia policies. Smee 17:52, 22 January 2007 (UTC).

Please look at other org web pages and that will get you up to speed on what a common Wikipedia article on an organization looks like. If you like I can point you to some. Harvard University, or IBM are both good organizational articles. Alex Jackl 18:00, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Those are not good examples. Harvard is not a for-profit, and IBM is nowhere near the same industry, not to mention being a much larger company with less criticism about its practices: (labor practices, cult allegations, etc, have not been made with regard to this company, at least not in the last 15 years.) Smee 18:03, 22 January 2007 (UTC).

I disagree- what would you consider to be better examples? As you yourself have admitted the cult allegations are unfounded. You have said it is "newsworthy" because of the claims. Not a single person has ever called Landmark a cult officially- no court ever supported the accusation, etc. IBM has had FAR more labor investigations than Landmark. I know you are focused on Landmark but if you take a look around it is not unusual. What DOL does is it investigates companies- that is a part of its job. The question is were either IBM or Landmark ever penalized and found guilty of infraction and was an action taken. The answer with IBM is I don't know. The answer with Landmark is NO. As we can see form the documents you have provided.

So given all that- it seems clear. IBM is a good example. And Harvard is as well. Both LE and Harvard are Educational Organzations catering to Adults. Perhaps I should look for some sample articles of private colleges. Okay let's get three at random: The_University_of_Chicago, MIT, and Georgetown_University. Alex Jackl 19:08, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Ha ha ha. You are attempting to liken prestigious and illustrious educational institutions and large reputable established companies with one that is, well, shall we say - none of the above. This is silly. Smee 19:14, 22 January 2007 (UTC).

Well, we all know your POV, Smee. The fact is you are not dealing with the legitemate question of what web sites would be a good model. The key to moving beyond bias is to understand we have one. Let's work together to create a neutral, fair article on Landmark. I have worked hard to manage my positive leaning bias. Though, to be clear, my bias is not overwhelmingly positive- I have experience with Landamrk Education and it isn't all a bed of roses. As I have said in the past no human organization is without flaws. Let's just be civil and try to create an encyclopedia-quality article here instead of a three-ring circus. You have ignored my valid comments about how the labor stuff and the cult stuff is minor. Fine, we will leave you with your POV and all the other editors can make their own determination. Now does anyone else have other suggestions as to what quality articles they would recommend as a model for the site?Alex Jackl 19:25, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

An example from a higher-quality article would be the article Scientology. And no, the cult debate and labor investigations are most certainly not minor issues at all. Both are extremely rare and unusual for for-profit companies, especially in so many instances and sources. Smee 19:35, 22 January 2007 (UTC).

• First off two, or three or four labor investigations of an international 80-million dollar company is hardly a lot- go find an expert you trust and ask them and they will let you know. The fact that they all ended with "no violation" and "no action taken" makes it even more un-notable (if that is a word:-)). The cult thing is one we keep fgoing in cricles about in these articles. It is UNUSUAL. It is therefore worthy of SOME space in the article but is hardly definitory. Alex Jackl 19:51, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
• I think the Scientology article has many of the same flaws as the Landmark one does but it indeed should be in the mix as a model. It is however a little out of type since Scientology declares itself as a religion, has "followers", and a set belief system which people who "join" this thing are supposed to follow. None of these are the case with Landmark Education. Landmark's business model is one for offering courses. It is a tuition per course based organization that offers courses. You can't "donate money" or "tithe" or whatever people do with religions. Thus it is much more like an institution of higher learning than a religion/cult/whatever like Scientology. I would recommend that we keep that article as a reference but it isn't the best.... Alex Jackl 19:49, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Scientology is actually a very good example. They would contend that no one donates or tithes to them, they also pay for coursework as the main way that the organization receives its funding. And many would argue that Landmark does have "followers", and that it does have "a set belief system", and that people do "join" this thing, and that they are "supposed to follow" key rules and doctrines. In any event, some other interesting related articles that could be utilized for comparison, but that are not yet as detailed or good as examples as Scientology, are Amway, Quixtar, Multi-level marketing, Herbalife, Mary Kay, Mannatech, and Forever Living Products. Smee 19:59, 22 January 2007 (UTC).

Aren't all these articles on multi-level marketing companies? How do you connect Landmark to these companies? There is no money being passed down for "selling " things. You have either staff on salary or people who assist- none of whom get financial compensation based on sales. They certinaly don't build "networks" or whatever you call thoses structures MLMs use. It is a company that provides courses for tuition and has salaried employees. The only unusual thing about Landamrk is that it has a huge base of people who are part of the assisting program- who could be thought of as volunteers- who recieve no financial kickback. Alex Jackl 20:17, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

They are simply good articles for comparison and modeling, though of course Scientology is the most detailed and oldest on Wikipedia out of the bunch... Smee 20:19, 22 January 2007 (UTC).

Okay. I think we should focus on articles of organizations more closely related to Landmark in terms of types of organizations. I will wait for other editors to kick in - I think our positions are clear.Alex Jackl 20:35, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

These are "related" in terms of types of organizations. They are all very heavy sales-emphasis, and of similar sizes and controversial practices, with histories of lawsuits, and federal investigations. Good comparison articles, just not as good as Scientology, the mommy... Smee 20:40, 22 January 2007 (UTC).

I have not been on this article in months. I am really taken aback by the weight of opinions on both sides. Please remember this is an encyclopedia not a sensational magazine. As a reader I am looking for very specific things about Landmark Education: What is their course offering; what do the people who have participated in their programs cite as the results they've produced; if I were to participate in their course offerings, what could I expect to attain? Then, of course I would at the minimum want to know if the company was credible. I view an article such as this as I might view something like Trip Advisor when planning a trip and picking a hotel. I want to hear what the hotel says it offers, and then balance that with what a customer experiences. Anything else is superfluous. Nsamuel 19:39, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Discussion on the 'What is it about?' sections

What issues do Landmark courses deal with?

Landmark Education's work deals with issues that have always engaged human enquiry. It is a dialogue on those issues and on what allows for them being dealt with in the face of our humanity. Some of these issues include:

• Who am I?
• What is the source of my complaints in life?
• How can I deal with them?
• What are my options and range of choices?
• What is possible?

What is the methodology?

• A Socratic dialog
• It challenges conventional thinking, and calls for thinking outside the box.
• The design facilitates participant's exploration of their lives

What results do participants report?

Participants report dramatic shifts in:

• communication and relationship
• personal productivity
• freedom to act
• ability to contribute to others
• clarity of choice
• and even more...

How does it differ from conventional academic philosophy?

• It is Applied Ontology rather than academic philosophy.
• It is available to all regardless of education or aptitude
• It is directly applicable to action in one'e everyday life
• It has very rapid results

Proposals read like Advertising, plain and simple

• I see, so basically you feel that this Wikipedia article should just be a big advertisement for Landmark's products? Very interesting... Smee 19:15, 24 January 2007 (UTC).

• Not plain and not simple. Just because you don't understand how Landmark's education works is no reason to deride it. That is the refuge of the ignorant. The fact that you think a biased interpretation of a two TOTAL labor investigations warrants paragraphs and paragraphs of text and then you get all "sneering" and uncivil about people's attempts to describe what Landmark does... maybe you should just stop editing these pages?

"Rapid results" could be argued about, but it is what the vast majority of Landmark's customers say about it. I know you would rather hold on to your misguided belief that ths is a harmful cult but let other people speak their truths. You don't know Landmark. If you want criticize have it be constructive criticism. Assume GOOD faith. That is the Wikipedia way. Don't cut at people's contributions because you don't like them. Lets's be civil and try to be constructive instead of destructive. Alex Jackl 19:42, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

• I am simply stating that the language, wording, and content of the proposed sections above reads almost exactly verbatim like the advertising used on Landmark Education's website. Not encyclopedic whatsoever. Smee 19:47, 24 January 2007 (UTC).
• Just to be clear on the bias - I would say "Yes, the content of the proposed sections reads much (not almost exactly) like the SOURCE CONTENT that can be found on the Landmark Education site which is the authoritative source on Landmark Education's content." Same thing- different viewpoint. You have a tendency to turn everything into sales- even stuff that is just content. I think we should let some other players talk on these things for a while...Alex Jackl 20:21, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
  • the Landmark Education site which is the authoritative source on Landmark Education's content. No, a Web site for a for-profit privately-owned company like Landmark is not a good authoritative source for anything but advertising. Smee 21:29, 24 January 2007 (UTC).
  • Wow. Well. Okay that is a clear statement of POV. As long as we understand your edits are coming from that POV we can understad them a little better. I don't know there is anything to do with that except note that given your bias against for-profit and privately-owned enterprises maybe you should not edit a web site about one? Alex Jackl 06:50, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
    • And perhaps given your bias towards self-improvement large group awareness training for-profit privately-owned companies of gurus living in the Cayman Islands, perhaps you should not either? Smee 07:13, 25 January 2007 (UTC).

It would be great if you would make constructive suggestions in this debate user:Smeelgova. All user:AJackl did was to propose a list of topic headings - how they should be treated still remains to be worked out. If you think some of them are inappropriate, please say which ones, and why. You haven't disputed the suggestion that "What it is about?" is an area that should be dealt with in the article. Do you have any suggestions for other topics that should be included under this general heading? DaveApter 14:48, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

• • • The links added to further explain courses offered are in lieu of adding lengthy narrative on each program in this article. I've added the links so as to shorten the article vs. advertise. Nsamuel 21:58, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

We do not need so many links to a corporate website in an article about the company. Readers can simply find out more from Landmark's corporate site. Smee 03:20, 23 February 2007 (UTC).

Discussion on the 'Controversies' section

Labor Practices

Smee said: "... And no, the cult debate and labor investigations are most certainly not minor issues at all. Both are extremely rare and unusual for for-profit companies, especially in so many instances and sources. "

Two, or three or four labor investigations of an international 80-million dollar company is hardly a lot- go find an expert you trust and ask them and they will let you know. The fact that they all ended with "no violation" and "no action taken" makes it even more un-notable (if that is a word:-)). The cult thing is one we keep fgoing in cricles about in these articles. It is UNUSUAL. It is therefore worthy of SOME space in the article but is hardly definitory. Alex Jackl 19:51, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestion. I have spoken with "an expert", and found that it is indeed quite unusual... Smee 20:50, 22 January 2007 (UTC).

The pdf's that you linked to indicate that the original complaint to the DoL was not from a Landmark volunteer, but by Liz Summerlin - who is identified in the Time Magazine article as an anti-Landmark activist. There have been recent posts on the discussion forums on Rick Ross's sites encouraging participants there to file complaints against Landmark. This whole thing looks like a deliberately contrived campaign, especially since the DoL has apparrently concluded that no action is necessary. The 'Asssisting Program' is a legitimate topic for discussion, but this line of enquiry seems spurious. DaveApter 12:20, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps that was the case for the Colorado investigation in the 1990's by the United States Department of Labor, but certainly not for the 2006 investigation by the United States Department of Labor, out of the Texas District Office. But it is interesting to note that you leap to see conspiracies in every corner... Smee 16:38, 23 January 2007 (UTC).

As you yourself have pointed out- Let's remember it is about the content not the contributor Smee... no need to make personal comments about editors. On the content of what you said: Texas is no different. Same "no violation" and "no next action" result. You can build as much of story around it as you want and while I agree the investigator clearly had questions- the end result of the investigation is what matters. The truth is it is unusual how dedicated people are to the work that Landamrk Education does and for some people if they can't understand it - they attack it as a bad thing. No one is forced to do anything. People go into the assiting program in Landamrk because they want to and because they want to make a difference and get the training doing so provides. It is an amazing thing! I did say I would keep quite on this topic for a bit and let other editors speak so tata for now!Alex Jackl 05:43, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Please do not insert POV interpretations into the Labor Violations Investigations. Some instances for certain subsections of the law did not find violations, but other subsections did have violations. Smee 18:09, 24 January 2007 (UTC).

Actually Smee is technically correct - there were some violations found in minor techical issues with the actual staff. My point was that none of the matters regarding people who assist are violations. Alex Jackl 18:35, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Let's not delete reasonable entries in the Labor section. Given how much there is contraversy on the interpretation of the facts we may need to take the whole piece on labor out - right now it occurs for me as a massive distortion of the facts and a non-issue taking up too much space in the article. Smee would have a different view I am sure, OR we can be reasonable in editing each others work. I am committed that we can do this in a civil manner. Alex Jackl 18:49, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

There is no interpretation of the facts. There are the facts. The Federal Department of Labor has ruled that "assistants" are actually "employees":

1. "Minimum wage violation found. Volunteers (Assistants) are not paid any wages for hours worked while performing the major duties of the firm."
2. "An overtime violation resulting from the firm not paying the additional half time to non-exempt salaried employees."
3. "record keeping violation resulting from keeping a record of hours worked for non-exempt salaried employees, and for assistants that are actually employees."

So clearly, your assesment that no violations were found, only applies to certain sections of the law, but violations were found for other sections. Smee 19:01, 24 January 2007 (UTC).

Scientology and Religions

Smee said: "And no, the cult debate and labor investigations are most certainly not minor issues at all. Both are extremely rare and unusual for for-profit companies, especially in so many instances and sources. "

It is however a little out of type since Scientology declares itself as a religion, has "followers", and a set belief system which people who "join" this thing are supposed to follow. None of these are the case with Landmark Education. Landmark's business model is one for offering courses. It is a tuition per course based organization that offers courses. You can't "donate money" or "tithe" or whatever people do with religions. Thus LE is much more like an institution of higher learning than a religion/cult/whatever like Scientology.Alex Jackl 20:01, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

1. Many would contend that Landmark has "followers"
2. There is indeed a "set belief system" inherent in their teachings and practices
3. Most people do not "donate money" or "tithe" to Scientology either. Scientology makes money through offering personal self improvement courses to people - the exact same way Landmark does! They too have "tuition based courses"

Please do not comment in-between my points, but below. Thank you. Smee 20:17, 22 January 2007 (UTC).

"Many" is innaccurate by the way. At least you should acknowledge that this part of your POV on it- I would and many - perhaps most - of the editors of this article would contend that that is a minority viewpoint held by a very vocal but generally uninformed group of POV holders. So let us ignore "Many" for now and say "Some"

1. Landmark has courses and program participation. All of these are defined agreements. Nobody goes on a list of "believers" or "Church members" or anything like that. It just isn't accurate- do you have any notable references by informed authors.
2. Well do you have any authoritative references that show that Landmark has "set belief system"- the LE Forum syllabus is quite clear that this isn't case. There is certainly a pedagogy - as one would expect from a professional education company.
3. So does Harvard- hardly a basis for comparison. Alex Jackl 20:30, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

• At best I could acknowledge that there is a conflict over just how many individuals think that Landmark could be compared to a religion like Scientology. There is certainly a "set belief system". Individuals go on a list of "graduates" that Landmark brags about. Landmark keeps calling these individuals about more courses, sort of like a membership list (Scientology maintains a database on all its members and files). We are not talking about authoritative references here, this is the talk page, and at any rate, comparisions have been made in multiple sources, yes. Harvard is not what we are discussing at the moment, you are changing the subject, we are discussing Landmark's similarities to a religion like Scientology. You stated that Landmarkians do not "tithe" or "donate", and I stated that neither do Scientologists. Just like Landmark, Scientologists pay money for more and more courses, not for just being members. And some would say that like Scientology, in Landmark there is always just one more course to take, the next one is the best one, I swear, the next, you gotta take this seminar - some would say it is eerily very similar in Scientology with their "levels" of coursework... Smee 20:38, 22 January 2007 (UTC).

I have been watching this conversation on and off for a while and I dissagree with Smeelgova.

The phenomenon that Smeelgova is pointing to with such suspcion shows up alot around all kinds of companies. See Below:

Seemlgova says:

1. Many would contend that Landmark has "followers"- so does Apple with thier Macintosh Computers

[1] "Written by Wired news journalist Leander Kahney, The Cult of Mac is an in-depth look at Mac users and their unique, creative, and often very funny culture. Like fans of a football team or a rock group, Macintosh fans have their own customs, with clearly defined obsessions, rites and passages. From people who get Mac tattoos and haircuts, to those who furnish their apartments out of empty Mac boxes, this book details Mac fandom in all of its forms." I don't know what a Landmark Education hair cut or tatoo would look like.

[2] [3]

Seemlgova says:

1. There is indeed a "set belief system" inherent in their teachings and practices

[4] " # 8 of 10 things Google has found to be true" "Though Google is headquartered in California, our mission is to facilitate access to information for the entire world, so we have offices around the globe. To that end we maintain dozens of Internet domains and serve more than half of our results to users living outside the United States. Google search results can be restricted to pages written in more than 35 languages according to a user's preference. We also offer a translation feature to make content available to users regardless of their native tongue and for those who prefer not to search in English, Google's interface can be customized into more than 100 languages. To accelerate the addition of new languages, Google offers volunteers the opportunity to help in the translation through an automated tool available on the Google.com website. This process has greatly improved both the variety and quality of service we're able to offer users in even the most far flung corners of the globe." -- I suspect that there is a segment of security minded or socially conservative people who do not 'believe' that anyone should be able to have that kind of open access to information.

1. Most people do not "donate money" or "tithe" to Scientology either. Scientology makes money through offering personal self improvement courses to people - the exact same way Landmark does! They too have "tuition based courses"

I am not sure what is meant here. As far as I know- NO ONE "Dontates money" or "Tithes" for the company Landmark. . I am guessing however what Smeelgova is refering to here is the "Landmark Assiting Program and that people are not paid. This doesn't seem to be rare at all either. People volunteer at for profit corporations all the time and have diverse reasons for doing so. See Below:[5]

"'Financial services is one industry in which students commonly work unpaid internships. Although paid summer internships in finance exist, it is more common for students to seek unpaid internships first in order to be more competitive for the coveted paid internships available in this field. One student who did an unpaid internship in investment banking offered the following insights:

"I was an investment banking intern and I mostly worked with senior bankers to put together material for meetings with clients. That involved a lot of work with Excel, including overviews of a company's financial figures, projections, etc. It also involved extensive research into the background of a company and its competitors. The investment bank was specifically focused on the wireless sector and published monthly research reports that I also helped compile and distribute.

"I was mainly looking for an opportunity to learn more about investment banking and see whether it would be a field I would want to pursue. The internship gave me a good look at what the industry was about and introduced me to the lifestyle and the duties of an entry level position in the field. I also decided to take the unpaid position because it was a great way to get my foot in the door and get some experience as a sophomore. It's difficult to find a paid internship in investment banking with no prior experience as a freshman or a sophomore and this experience gave me the opportunity to get a head start." Spruceforest 21:08, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I was not the one who initially made the use of those quoted phrases, with regard to Landmark's followers, belief systems, and paying for course after course after course. That was User:AJackl. And you cannot make a comparison between unpaid laborers and unpaid internships - that is - unless you want to consider them both employees? In one instance, the unpaid laborer expects in return "coaching" and "self-improvement". In the other, the unpaid intern might expect a paid job and/or a recommendation/reference on a resume. Smee 21:26, 22 January 2007 (UTC).

Smeelgova and I dissagree about internships and neither of us can say what anyone person's motivation is for taking an unpaid internship with a for profit company. As for the issue of following or beielf system, I picked two of many possible examples of for profit companies that have "followings" (Harley Davidson or any number of auto manufactures could be another) and companies that have corporate values that can be percieved as "beliefs" (Ben and Jerry's Ice Cream)Spruceforest 23:53, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Not sure where this discussion is intended to lead. A really nice template has been posted above by a mediator and is being totally ignored. Under each point for "Controversies" there is the opportunity to voice a viewpoint (supported by references) and then post the rebuttal to that viewpoint (with references). The disagreements are not going to be resolved here - but each side should be made available with the opportunity for interested readers to learn more about the issue beyond the encyclopedia article. I suggest focusing your energies there. Forget other articles or the definition of religion for the time being. Also, what happened to the tone of civility that DaveApter introduced? Nposs 07:41, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

COMMENT: - Nposs, it should be noted that Daveapter is not a neutral uninvolved "mediator", but an individual with his own staunchly positive POVs about the organization. This article has been worked on for a long time, has lots of good reputable citations, and should be worked with from the existing current model. Smee 16:37, 23 January 2007 (UTC).

Smeelgova's comment about neutrality can be confirmed by a quick look at the page history. Some editors constantly try to remove his contributions, which include reliable or noteworthy citations, he or occasionally someone else puts them back. The nice thing is that it all proceeds rather politely and the article stays in equilibrium. The less nice thing is that it wastes people's time.ER^Talk 11:35, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Another attempt to get a constructive discussion going

Can we please cut back on the interpersonal battles, and try to move towards agreement on how to improve the article.

I had hoped that someone else would make a start on filling in within the overall framework, but here are my suggestions to get the ball rolling:DaveApter 15:29, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I have moved some material around to more logically order the page and reflect some of this work. I was relatively conservative: I just moved the content stuff about what Landmark actually does up higher in the article and moved the legal disputes and labor stuff into contraversies (which they clearly are). None of that should be inflammatory and starts to organize the article a little more like DaveApter's suggestions. I agree in one domain (folks mark your calendars) with Smee that we should make gradual changes to the website rather than a wholesale replacement but I agree with what others have said that the website is now currently a litlte bit of a mess. It is getting there. Let's just discuss things here and give opposing or neutral editors a chance to comment before adding any any dramatically new material. Alex Jackl 16:15, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Your move was inappropriate. It is obvious that we should first describe the history of the organization, before filling up loads of space with "content". Smee 16:44, 28 January 2007 (UTC).

I have changed back your reversion - I invite you to check out other Wikipedia sites and be responsible for your bias. You want a super brief overview that includes the 100,000 foot history- which we have- and then you want to talk about what it is. Look around a little bit. If you wish I owuld be happy to compile a list of reference articles and you will find that in general it follows the model I have described. As to the legal and labor disputes not being contraversy- are you kidding? COme on - they are clearly contraversial and paint an extreme POV on Lndamrk that many of us think innaccurate. Many of us don't even think they are noteworthy and you seem to think they are important. That alone makes it contraversial in my book. I think we should bring in some other opinions since we seem somewhat polarized. Alex Jackl 17:54, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I invite you to be responsible for your bias! The legal and labor disputes are completely separate issues, these are not "controversy" show me one sources that has stated that these are "controversy". Look at any other article on relevant topics. History of the organization is described first. Smee 18:06, 28 January 2007 (UTC).

I am doing my best to proceed that way. It is difficult to do because it SEEMS that you operate that:

(1) There is something wrong with the oprganization this article is about, (2) That it is a "topic" rather than an encyclopedia article to give infomration about an organization, in which describing the organization is probably the first order of business. (3) That you think a section labeled "labor dispute" in which a 15-year old company making ~70 million in revenue or so a year has had TWO labor investigations- NEITHER of which ended with the Department of Labor taking any action (no matter what the investigator opined in the report itself)- is either notable or non-contraversial. Or that a "legal" section where one of the references is to a website put up just to create a POV platform for lawyers hired to engage against Landmark Education is NOT contraversy or criticism?

I think we need some less involved parties to weigh in. Alex Jackl 18:16, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I have created a new section below for this debate, I am finding it VERY confusing to discuss issues in-between all of Daveapter's subsections and headings... We have been over all of your points time and time again. I will not respond to your personal attacks and accusations about what you think my thought process is like. I will state again that I was not the individual to bring up your conflict of interest. Please continue the discussion about your inappropriate lumping together of investigations by sovereign governments into this company, and legal disputes in the "criticism" section, below. Thanks. Smee 18:19, 28 January 2007 (UTC).

Does it really produce worthwhile results?

• Clearly these are claimed, but are they objectively measurable, or merely subjective?
• How reliable and widepread are they?

Is it sometimes harmful?

The 'cult' and 'brainwashing' issues

• These accusations are made but by whom, and on what evidence?
• To what extent does Landmark meet the objective criteria for being a "cult"?

Adverse reactions

• There are a small number of accusations of adverse mental stability and behaviourable problems in Landmark Graduates:
  • Are they statistically significant?
  • Is there any evidence of any causal link?

Dependency

• Are people drawn into excessive time and money committments?

Is it a rip-off, or a money making scam?

• Is there any evidence of anyone gaining financial advantage from Landmark's operations?
• Are the courses high-priced or poor value?

The Assisting Program

• Are participants in this program being exploited for the profit of others?
• Do they actually derive any benefits from it for themselves?

DaveApter 15:29, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Current article

• All of these issues are already raised in the current article. If individuals do not think it is perfect - fine. But it has been worked on for a long time and should be tweaked as the model to base things off of. Smee 17:06, 25 January 2007 (UTC).

I stopped editing this article a while ago as it was too intense an environment for my liking. My assessment of the current version is as follows:

• Sources: The article relies very little on scholarly sources. Most of the sources are either self-published primary sources, newspaper articles, or primary sources. Wikipedia's NPOV policy provides that articles should utilize the best and most reputable sources. WP:RS provides that scholarly sources are to be preferred. Surely there must be good scholarly sources that describe LGATs in general and Landmark in particular. The article could benefit from exploring some of that literature.

• Tone: The tone of many sections in the article, reads very much like a piece of investigative journalism rather than an encyclopedic article, and in many cases dangerously close to violating no original research. Wikipedia's lack of acceptance of original research states that editors should not synthesize viewpoints or draw conclusions of from primary sources. Rather, Wikipedia articles should document what reliable sources state about their subjects, using fairness of tone. The article could benefit from a more encyclopedic tone overall.

Hope this is of help to involved editors. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:57, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

• In the Prem Rawat article, I count about at least over half of the citations used do not come from scholarly sources. And some of the other sources are up for debate as to whether they are "scholarly" or merely secondary sourced-books... Smee 18:15, 25 January 2007 (UTC).

We are not discussing that article, are we? This page is to discuss this one. If we can have 50% of citations from scholarly sources and secondary sources such as books, in this article that would be excellent. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:37, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

In any case, note that I am not interested in editing this article. I was just offering my assessment, with the hope that it would be useful for involved editors in their quest to improve this article. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:39, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for offering your assessment. Smee 19:01, 25 January 2007 (UTC).

Fisher Study

Actually the Fisher Study was NOT about the Landmark Forum. This should be particularly obvious inside the fact that Landmark Education did not exist in 1990 when the study was done- this study was about Werner Erhardt and Associate's Forum. Alex Jackl 07:41, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps, the study was done months before the formation of the "Landmark" company, yes. However, the study was a study of "The Forum" which can arguably be seen as the exact same thing as "The Landmark Forum", not to mention the close time proximity, and the fact that Landmark and Werner Erhard's sites and many many other sites cite this research as well. Smee 16:46, 28 January 2007 (UTC).

No one argues that the "WE&A Forum" is not the predecessor course to the Landmark Forum- but they certainly are not the same. Landmark Education was a new company- with new ideas and a new context for all the course content that WE&A provided. ALthough I cannot speak from personal experience - never having taken courses with WE&A- I have spoken with many who have taken both and there is clear agremeent AT LEAST of stylistic and emphasis change as well as several people asserting content changes even in that initial period. This all precedes the first major re-design I was aware of perosnally that happened, I believe, the next year. So - I don't the Fisher study is a bad thing and do not have a strong opinion on it. It should probably go onto the Werner Erhardt and Associates article and not on the Landmark article OR -if it is here- then as a extrmeely minor and non-notable element given it was an anlysis of a course by a prior company. Those are my thoughts? We have heard from SpruceForest (I think it was SPruceForest that did the initial change) and I for removing it and Smeelgova against... Anyone else? Alex Jackl 18:07, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Fine, whatever, if you want to believe that "The Forum" and "The Landmark Forum", are different courses, I will not object further and edit war on this topic, until more sources present themselves. Smee 18:12, 28 January 2007 (UTC).

Labor and Legal do not belong in criticism section.

Note: I moved the following three paragraphs and three numbered items from above so the context of the conversation is preserved. My move ends with my request for neutral parties to get involved. I only moved my own material. Alex Jackl 19:22, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I have moved some material around to more logically order the page and reflect some of this work. I was relatively conservative: I just moved the content stuff about what Landmark actually does up higher in the article and moved the legal disputes and labor stuff into contraversies (which they clearly are). None of that should be inflammatory and starts to organize the article a little more like DaveApter's suggestions. I agree in one domain (folks mark your calendars) with Smee that we should make gradual changes to the website rather than a wholesale replacement but I agree with what others have said that the website is now currently a litlte bit of a mess. It is getting there. Let's just discuss things here and give opposing or neutral editors a chance to comment before adding any any dramatically new material. Alex Jackl 16:15, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I have changed back your reversion - I invite you to check out other Wikipedia sites and be responsible for your bias. You want a super brief overview that includes the 100,000 foot history- which we have- and then you want to talk about what it is. Look around a little bit. If you wish I owuld be happy to compile a list of reference articles and you will find that in general it follows the model I have described. As to the legal and labor disputes not being contraversy- are you kidding? COme on - they are clearly contraversial and paint an extreme POV on Lndamrk that many of us think innaccurate. Many of us don't even think they are noteworthy and you seem to think they are important. That alone makes it contraversial in my book. I think we should bring in some other opinions since we seem somewhat polarized. Alex Jackl 17:54, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I am doing my best to proceed that way. It is difficult to do because it SEEMS that you operate that:

1. There is something wrong with the oprganization this article is about,
2. That it is a "topic" rather than an encyclopedia article to give infomration about an organization, in which describing the organization is probably the first order of business.
3. That you think a section labeled "labor dispute" in which a 15-year old company making ~70 million in revenue or so a year has had TWO labor investigations- NEITHER of which ended with the Department of Labor taking any action (no matter what the investigator opined in the report itself)- is either notable or non-contraversial. Or that a "legal" section where one of the references is to a website put up just to create a POV platform for lawyers hired to engage against Landmark Education is NOT contraversy or criticism?

I think we need some less involved parties to weigh in. Alex Jackl 18:16, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

• The "Labor" and "Legal" sections DO NOT belong as subsections under the "criticism" section.
  • Investigations by a sovereign government into a company is not the same as criticism from other independent entities.
  • Legal disputes also cannot be constituted as "criticism" in and of itself, because many of the "disputes" were not initiated as a result of criticism or in order to criticize, but to be recompensed for emotional and mental damages. This classification, and inherent POV-pushing, in highly inappropriate. These issues cannot simply be lumped in all together under "criticism", when they are all issues that are highly distinct from one another. Smee 18:15, 28 January 2007 (UTC).

I would agree with Smee, on this aspect. Please exercise caution and do not move all content deemed not positive to the criticism section. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:59, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

OKay! Thanks Jossi, I appreciate you stepping in. I am committed that this be a good Wikipedia article and I think we need a lot more neutral commentary! I will leave the labor and legal stuff where it is unless we come to consensus here.

Smee- please don't delete comments I have added to the talk page... It is considered bad form as you yourself reminded me the other day. I did not delete any of your commentary I merely moved the whole conversation down to the new headng that YOU created for that purpose. I will re enter my comments then and not even include yours- I originally thought you wouldn't want me to weed your comments out. I didn't think you would want me to do that! I will not even copy your stuff from now on unless it is an attributed quote to respond to something. Alex Jackl 19:11, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

• Alex - please DO NOT remove, move, change, add to or otherwise edit my comments on talk pages in any shape or fashion. I do not think I can be any clearer. Thanks. Smee 19:18, 28 January 2007 (UTC).

(this thing is moving too fast to make good comments!) It seems to me that this section should not be in this article. Do other companies have legal situations or status listed on articles about them? If any place, this content should go the Landmark Education litigation page (which I also think does not make sense to have for a company, but this content is a better fit there). Spacefarer 03:20, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Berlin Cult thing

The whole point of the Berlin thing is that they originally classified and now don't. Part of what an ecyclopedia is distill knowledge and then cite it. If what I put in is original research than much of that section has to go. Choosing what part sof a source to quote and what to not include is as critical as including a citation or not. POV is most often revealed in what what leaves out. That paragraph need sto be written in an NPOV way. I am not going to do it- at least not now because I don't want to do the edit war thinking but I am looking for some other editors to weigh in here so we can get some agreement on it. I will leave this one be for a while to give some distance. Alex Jackl 19:50, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

The best way to do this is to mention/cite the classification pre and post being sued by Landmark, exactly as is, and not to put POV spin on what those classifications meant or implied in either circumstance. Smee 19:53, 28 January 2007 (UTC).

Navigational template

Given the numerous related articles, a navigational template that could be added at the bottom of all related articles would be a useful addition. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:43, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Good idea. I will work on this. What do you think the template should be titled? Smee 19:47, 28 January 2007 (UTC).

This is an interesting idea but I think maybe we want to work on it on this page first because I suspect- just a hunch :-) - that there may be some converstaion about what actually belongs in that template. If you are willing to create a first cut that wil be awesome but I would request that we work on it here first before trying to insert it into the article. Alex Jackl 19:57, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Only articles directly related to this organization should be added. No POV characterizations, etc. Just a simple navigational template that readers may find beneficial to explore articles on the subject ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:03, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I have created the template: Template:Werner Erhard , inserted by adding {{Werner Erhard}}. As per Jossi's suggestion, I have only added articles that are "directly relevant to this organization." Smee 21:23, 28 January 2007 (UTC).

I knew it. This is way POV in what it includes and what it does not include. Let's talk about this before posting it on the site! I am including it here:

1. I think the template should be called Landmark Education not "Landmark Forum" or the innaccurate "Forum"
2. I think the leading entry should not be the legal page. See WP:FORK. That page is written and exists to promote a particular point of view. I would even assert it shouldn't exist (I am not fighting that fight though). It definitely should not be the first link.
3. The media stuff I also think it should be severely restricted. The Voyage media thing is still a hotly contested source with their even being on-going concerns about whether it is in breach of copyright or not.
4. Also obvious- Landmark Education should be the top link- definitely not on the same level as the historical information (WE&A, est)

I have more but will get to it tonight. This kind of POV roadmap is exactly what I was afraid of when it was suggested. Alex Jackl 21:32, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Just to give a sense of how POV the Voyage of the Gurus is is that all the references to three different things in one of the opening paragraphs (Footnote 1) refer to a hack media article that is MASSIVELY POV slanted against LE. Any neutral editor looking at that page will quickly relaiz eit is a page spawned to promote a POV. That is why it is a problem to have it referenced prominantly in the Template. We need to have someone other than Smeelgova or myself work on this. Alex Jackl 21:47, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

The template is fine, all of the articles are directly relevant:

1. The name is appropriate, for the span of subject matter is not just limited to "Landmark Education" but also to "The Forum" course, which is highly correlated.
2. The Legal page is NOT a WP:FORK in such a manner. I do not know at the moment who it was, but I believe that it was one of the Landmark-supporters who initially suggested creating a different article for it in the first place!
3. The media stuff all directly mentions and discusses the Landmark Forum and/or its predecessor courses at length.
4. The "Voyage" article is heavily cited, with 37 citations. The first footnote you refer to is from the reputable newspaper Le Nouvel Observateur. I just love how when certain individuals do not like what is written about their revered topic, they then go and attack the media/press sources. This is just silly. We have been over the "copyright" issue, which is clearly not an issue, but at any rate no harm can be done from reporting on the facts from sourced material.
5. As this template is NOT just related to "Landmark Education" but to all incarnations of "The Forum", the "Landmark Education" section is linked in the appropriate place, under "organizations". It would be way to narrow-focused to just have a navigational template for "Landmark Education" - heck, we would not need one, because certain individuals seem to have problems with every single thing in this box!!!.
6. Keep in mind that it was Jossi that initially suggested the idea for this box.

• Please comment below, and NOT in-between my points. Thanks. Smee 21:57, 28 January 2007 (UTC).
  • Better yet, better to move the rest of this discussion to Template talk:Werner Erhard. Thanks. Smee 22:03, 28 January 2007 (UTC).

I am requesting that someone other than Smeelgova and myself work on this... I feel extremely strongly that this is a POV issue. Smee you love to talk about citations from sources but the content matters. And the content often is not correlated to the thing being referenced. Like that first citation on the "Voyage" article... it is just liberally put in there seemingly will nilly. Just because I can point to an article in the Weekly World News that says UFOs have replaced President Bush with an android does not mean that "fact" belongs in an encyclopedia, or that that citation is a legitemate one to put on President Bush's page. Some journalism is garbage. As encyclopedia editors we need to watch for sources that are are just people's opinion published by somebody and that person does not have a background, or knowledge or expertise about what they are speaking. I htink we need to call it a Landmark Education template first off because this is about the umbrella- the organization- not ONE of the courses that Landmark Education offers. This is a critical thing in my mind. Okay- further comment-on the Template talk page. I request that all editors observing this talk page watch the conversation on the Template talk page as well. Alex Jackl 22:38, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Again, I find it very odd that when certain individuals do not like or agree with information presented in reputable sourced citaions, their first inclination is to attack, disparage or otherwise attempt to discredit those reputable sourced citations. And the name of the template is fine. The focus for an encyclopedia article should NOT be on describing and advertising for-profit companies, but rather encapsulating the full history of those organizations - as is the case with the 35 year history of the various incarnations of the course, "The Forum". Smee 22:43, 28 January 2007 (UTC).

I see your point, Smee, but you may need to find some common ground with other editors that have an opposing view to yours. I know that it is not easy, but I also know that it is possible. You may know by now that an article (or a template) can only reach some kind of stability when all involved editors are maybe not 100% happy with the result, but nonetheless "can leave with it". So, I would encourage involved editors to give-in a little so that such stability can be achieved. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:14, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. As can be seen from Template:Werner Erhard above, I have steadily been implementing suggestions from yourself and AJackl from the talk page: Template talk:Werner Erhard to the existing template. Smee 08:18, 29 January 2007 (UTC).

Organization

There has been discussion of the location of history versus desription of the object of the article. Some of the editors have expressed their beliefe that the "what is" questiion should be answered first and then the history of that thing you have just described. Others seem to believe this article is a historical article. In keeping with the proposed structure above it makes more sense to put what the organization and what itg does and then put its history. No content is rmeoved.. it is just placed more appropriately in the document and consistant with the above proposed structure. Please talk here about the structure... Alex Jackl 07:59, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

The "what is" (argh, Landmark loaded-language jargon, hate using it, but oh well...) , the "what is" question is already explained in the intro. In fact, most people coming here are probably more interested in the "what is" question as it pertains to organizational history, as far as "where did it come from?". That is how it has been in this article for a long time and there is no need to change that. I do not know why Landmark supporters are so ashamed of their company's history... Smee 12:40, 31 January 2007 (UTC).

I doubt that Landamrk's supporters are "ashamed" of their history - they are primarily interested in informatin about the entity the article is about not material from 16-30 years ago. There are seperate articles on that stuff and that is contained ad nauseum in this article. Let's compromise and keep the heavy historical stuff that the people who think est is tsill aorund like but put the stuff those of us who think the current organzation and its description is what this article is about have their stuff up where it belongs. 06:25, 3 February 2007 (UTC) Alex Jackl 21:51, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Most readers come here to find out more about this history of this controversial organization, and the information should thus be structured in such a manner. Smee 07:12, 3 February 2007 (UTC).

I don't think anyone could accurately know why most readers come to this article. I do find that it is fairly cumbersome and agree with AJackl that the est related material should be in a separate article on est.Mvemkr 06:57, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, and there is another article for Erhard Seminars Training. But insofar as it is directly relevant to the history of this company - some material is also present in this article. Smee 04:05, 5 February 2007 (UTC).

"SOME" material? The article is choked with material from the conspiracy theorists who think Werner Erhadt is on a yacht somewhere clutching his hands and laughing like Dr. Evil as he manipulates his Landmark Education cult. Give me a break. Does the term "zero real evidence" mean anything? But that is neither here nor there. I made some minor touch ups to the pages on litigation and cults and just took on OBVIOUSLY POV stuff. Like where it said "the court ruled attendance in the course MAY have caused the psychotic break" That was innnacurate. They ruled that they didn't know and it MAY or MAY NOT have. Leaving out the MAY NOT makes it sound like the courts determined that it was but wasn't leaglly actionable which if you read the decision isn't what it says. There is a lot more work to do to make those sections even vaguely close to NPOV but I also don't want to start an edit war. Also, I restored the links Smee took out of the course descriptions. Landmark is its courses - that is primary data from the source about the data. Those are reasonable links, leave them be please or explain why besides parrotting about the "too many links to the company" stuff that keeps being said but keeps being refuted.Alex Jackl 21:51, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Your POV-pushing changes are unacceptable. Careful or people might get mistaken and think that certain editors for wikipedia are also professional Webmasters for Landmark Education's corporate website... Smee 04:32, 7 February 2007 (UTC).

I do, however, agree with some of your other edits, and have restored them as such. In other cases I have attempted to compromise. Smee 04:57, 7 February 2007 (UTC).

Please don't do what you keep asking others not to do- make personal innuendo. Unlike yourself, I am public about who I am - you can look me up. I don't work for LE. That being said I appreciate you saying you will compromise but you restroed a series of clear spin tags. For instance:

1. Putting the word "Though" in front of a fact is a bias you are attmepting to diminish a fact and redirect attnetion to some other fact that will follow the "though" cluase. It is classic written debating technique to spin. Please don't revert that stuff.
2. Ther eare several instacnbes of bad grammar. The Landamrk Education Charter does not "portray" its contents. It is a declarative document. You may thnk Landamrk is not true to its charter or you may not like the charter but that doesn't make it not a company charter. SO putitng that it "states" is more accurate than "Portrays " and NPOV. Eveyrone of these little edits are like tiny flesh wounds in a spin campaign to make even neutral or good things things sound negative. Let the facts stand for themselves.
3. The Landmark litgation site is WRITTEN by lawyers who are opposing counsel to LE. NOT to state that outright and lead people to believe that it might be a nuetral third-party histroy is blatant POV and COI.
4. Ther eis a constant replacing of words like "offering courses" (which is standrd industry parlance) to "market" courses which again is just trying to add negative wait to a statement of fact.
5. The word "alleged" does not mean what you think it means. If someone is describing a vocabulary word as the company deifnes it putting alleged in the middle of the denfiniton is just vandalism. You don't like the definition? Make up your own and put it on your personal page. That section is about how Landamrk Education defines those terms.

Please don't just randomly revert these changes. The one argument you have made that might hold water is the one about all the references but NOT because it comes from Landamrk. We have discussed that and cited that Landmark's website can be used as reference to substantiate information on an article on the organization. That is Wikipedia policy- it is an article about a private company and the private comopany is the best original source for data about its offerings. Refer to policy and to de facto standrds on other pages. The reason it might have merit is that I think we need to cut the number of citations but right now you would not like that because the POV loading of the citations is strongly tilted in the negative POV diretcion. If we did a "fair" sweep of the references most of those cut would be the negative POV ones. Let's try to balance this article please and work on this page rather than the article itself since this is so contentious . Alex Jackl 05:04, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Also- I think the article now has a lot of the criticisim- far more than other similar Wikipedia pages- and it doesn't need the spin. There is enough criticism there. Frankly far too much for most of us. But in the interest of compromise we have not gone further. Let's just slow down and talk things through on the TALK page. The article isn't going anywhere. Alex Jackl 05:12, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Please do not revert my changes, as you can see from my edit history comments I think we have found a lot of common ground and agreement to work through. Let us deal with these issues one-by-one on the talk page. And no, the litigation Wikipedia article is written by Wikipedia Editors, not by attorneys. Do not confuse one reference with an entire wiki article... Smee 07:24, 8 February 2007 (UTC).

I was referring to the external link not the Wikipedia page. Alex Jackl 00:03, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

There is no external link at present in that particular subsection. Smee 00:05, 9 February 2007 (UTC).

I was referring to the external link not the Wikipedia page. Also- why do you think the sentence about the Labor stuff is untrue? That is exactly the truth isn't it?

There have been two labor investigations, and they both had no further action. Now I took out as a compromise the no violations because the Texas one lists some violations but also says "no further action". SO I left it at "no further action".

I am referring to the reference to the Landmark Legal Archive web page not the Wikipedia site. If that is clarified I have less problem. As a matter of fact I iwll revert that part back in the sprit of not edit warring and discussing here first.

Alex Jackl 00:03, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

No need to revert, it is already fine. There have been more Labor Investigations actually. So rather than stating incorrect, non-factual assumptions, let us just simply state what we know of at the moment... That is, until if/when we know more... Smee 00:12, 9 February 2007 (UTC).

I see you already took it out.. okay. The facts indicate otherwise-the Texas report itself direct references the one other labor investigation - the CO one. The facts are clear- all the references point to two and only two US labor investigations. Both of them ended in "No further action". Now you can speculate all day why they ended that way given the Texas one listing some violations but that is just fact. That is why it is so clear to me that this is non-notable. Two investigations, 16 years, "no further action". Give me a break - it just isn't a big deal. I will hold off from reverting though in good faith and continue the dialogue here . Other editors? Thoughts?Alex Jackl 00:18, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

It is simply not factual. There have been more investigations since then, and even more going on concurrent to that time period. And to make a blanket "16 years..." unsourced statement is against Wikipedia:No Original Research, and is just pure assumption. Smee 00:22, 9 February 2007 (UTC).

Let us only report the actual investigations that took place, and not make blanket assumptions that these are the only investigations in existence by the United States Department of Labor that are out there... Smee 08:13, 10 February 2007 (UTC).

Department of Labor

"In 16 years of the organizations existence there is only a record of two investigations. Both investigations ended with "no further action" by the US Department of Labor. See below for more details."

I am going to put this back unless you can show me which pieces of this statement are not factual. Let me help you:

1. 16 years -> Landmark Education incorporated 1991.
2. The most recent Labor investigation - almost current REFERENCES that there had been only one other. See your own references- the document states that there has been one other investigation- and names it! SO I am using the source documents you have introduced into the converstaion. I trust the Dept. of Laboir to know better than anyone else if it has had investigations. This is valid, factual and source data.
3. BOTH investigations were CLEARLY labled - see again the action reports you have cited- as "no further action".

I know you don't like it but those ar ethe facts. Now I know you think that the violatins that they list and the narrative mitigates that- but you make that case over and over again in the paragraphs that follow. I just want the facts as we know them to be stated once and then you can go on about the other stuff for ten paragraphs if you want but let us have both sides represented. Thes eare the facts - please stop taking factual sourced material out of the article. Thanks!Alex Jackl 08:35, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

These are most certainly not the facts. This is a blanket statement that you have inferred from the material available at present, but your statement is, in fact, factually inaccurate. We should refrain in any way from making lead-in blanket assumptions like this, that constitutes a violation of Wikipedia:No Original Research. Instead, we should simply describe the facts as they exist in the individual cases, one by one, and not attempt to make incorrect categorizations about the number of times the for-profit, privately-owned company has been investigated in the past... Smee 08:39, 10 February 2007 (UTC).

I have corrected the "summary" at the beginning of this section to be factually accurate, and so as not to make blanket assumption statements, and removed original research... Smee 08:46, 10 February 2007 (UTC).

In the interest of compromise I have left the violation work on but added the other facts in. If you read the above I laid out the facts and you have not addressed my comments on the facts at all. From my perspective and my understanding of the facts your interpretation of this is an innacurate spin. Please do not accuse me or other editors or OR when I clearly have the position that you are spinning this and are doing massive OR and interpretation. I feel my latest edits leave your "assertions" and leave mine. Let's not edit war more about this. Alex Jackl 15:35, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Again, incorrect information, that was not the "final assessment", but a statement about individual line-items. Bear with me one moment please... Smee 19:51, 10 February 2007 (UTC).

I have further clarified the actual facts in the summary. There was never any statement of "no further action", but rather in the Colorado case information was redacted from the recommendation, and in the Texas case there was an apparent transfer of the case to a different office, and again a redaction of the final recommendation. Smee 19:56, 10 February 2007 (UTC).

I don't know how to be more clear... I am once again going to tstep back and deperately ask some other person to step in. The Colorado document did indeed redact the "narrative" piece of the recommendation but please observer items 15 and 16 on the front page where it clear as day answers the question of "further action" with a "no" and a "no". This is clear, factual and obvious. I will restore one more time the accurate information- keeping as much of your material as possible but please reference your own source material- ref name="coloradoviolations". If you remov eit again in the face of overwhelming evidence I can only assume you are committed to a POV attack on this article without even a pretense of NPOV. Alex Jackl 02:53, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

If there were legal action taken by the Department of Labor, their would be court records. The notion that one district office had one interpretation a particular way is refuted by the lack of a follow through enforcement action by the DOL. You can call my statements "original research" but to give the reader the impression that the DOL took enforcement action is also "original research" and it is "original research" contradicted by the absence of a follow through enforcement action. LE made concessions on one or two employees for misclassifying them, and so have thousands of other businesses. What would have been unique is if the DOL took enforcement action based on the assistants being employees, but they have not. This whole is really non-notable and deceptive as currently written. Sm1969 05:16, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Est: An Educational Corporation

The original program delivery corporation was "est: An Educational Corporation". The other two entities (The Foundation for the Realization of Man and the Est Foundation) were both non-profit entities that did not deliver programs. 1) Est: An Educational Corporation and 2) Werner Erhard and Associates both delivered "The est Training" and later "The Forum". Both of these entities were for profit. Sm1969 05:11, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Introduction

I have been away for a while and I come back to discover same old same old. The intro has been stable for many months with lots of agreement. Given how volatile this page is lets use some decorum and discuss this on the talk page and reach consensus before major changes. I have reverted the page back (only the intro) to its former state. The rule with this page should be slow and steady otherwise the fanatical forces on both sides will ignite into another edit war. Alex Jackl 05:31, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Other editors have come along and added to the intro, I was merely restoring their changes. In addition, I suggest you look over WP:LEAD. The intro can be 4 paragraphs, and should summarize points in the article - not gloss over them. Smee 05:34, 14 March 2007 (UTC).

I am familiar with WP:LEAD. The introduction has stabilized in its current state because of the agreement reached that those paragraphs DO represent the point sin the article. I refer you to WP:NPOV as a guide to keeping the introduction aligned with the consensus on this very volatile page. Alex Jackl 01:24, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

• User:Tazmaniacs is correct. The intro glosses over any "controversy" with a very, very brief mention, instead of giving it due summary as a piece of the article. Smee 03:29, 15 March 2007 (UTC).

I really do understand your point of view but remember this is an article about Landmark Education - a full quarter of the intro deals with the "controversies". Frankly - even that is a little much. Please don't paint it as anything other than what it is. The people who obsess about the controversies are usually (1) talking about est and Werner Erhardt which is a 16 year old story or (2) conspiracy theorists who believe Landmark is out to wash their brains with its evil powers. I am in no way saying that Landmark is perfect or that there haven't been controversies but for God's sake it is a company that puts on seminars on personal development let's keep it in scale shall we? If you want to fight evil go fight against genocide in Rwanda or an organization that is a real cult and hurts people. Alex Jackl 05:13, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Let us focus on specific comments about content please. Thank you. Smee 05:58, 15 March 2007 (UTC).

Recent Changes- Use Primary Sources when available

We have discussed the introduction above and consensus is clearly for leaving it. It is, IMO, unethical to label a set of changes as "fixing dead references" and then make a change to the introduction that we have been discussing and has been - by consensus- reverted before.

Also- Wikipedia policy is clear in that primary sources are always preferable to secondary sources when available. SO replacing a primary source with a secondary source that has copied that primary source is ridiculous.

Let's discuss these changes here to keep this civil and in agreement. Alex Jackl 04:24, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

• I have voluntarily removed what you termed the "fifth paragraph", in order to further discussion here. Please see subsection below. Smee 04:28, 18 March 2007 (UTC).
  • By the way, I agree with you that where possible the "primary source" as you put it, should be used. But I gently think here that you meant to say "original source", for in actuality these are secondary sources... Smee 04:32, 18 March 2007 (UTC).

That's not how it is - Primary sources should only be commented on by secondary sources (ie reliable sources) otherwise they should not (or very rarely) be included in the article. See WP:RS#Primary_and_secondary_sources for more information. Sfacets 04:37, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

• Indeed, that is how it stands. Thank you. Smee 04:40, 18 March 2007 (UTC).
• That is an interesting question- frankly most of the journal articles we are pointing to IMO ARE the news. They are making news where frankly there is none. So it is debatable whether they are secondary or primary sources :-) :-) however - either way you slice it better to reference the Journal itself rather than a website copying the journal.Alex Jackl 05:06, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Indeed, that would be preferable. So we agree on something here, hehe. Smee 05:27, 18 March 2007 (UTC).

Intro paragraph added by Tazmaniacs

This is the intro paragraph that was added by User:Tazmaniacs:

The organization has been accused by various states and governmental reports of being a cult (See below). Following the diffusion of Voyage Au Pays Des Nouveaux Gourous (Travel to the Country of the New Gurus) in France, Landmark Education ceased all activities on French territory.

Let us discuss here why or why not this should be included in the introduction, as per WP:LEAD ... Yours, Smee 04:23, 18 March 2007 (UTC).

Intro Paragraph

Lets- I quote from WP:LEAD:

When writing a lead section about ideas and concepts (such as "truth"), it can be helpful to introduce the topic as follows:

1. Context - describing the category or field in which the idea belongs. 2. Characterization - what the term refers to as used in the given context. 3. Explanation - deeper meaning and background. 4. Compare and contrast - how it relates to other topics, if appropriate.

5. Criticism - include criticism if there has been significant, notable criticism.

It also states that for larger articles (30,000 words plus) the length should be a maximum of 3 to 4 paragraphs. The first part of the current intor describes what we are talking about, the second describes some history and its predecessors, the third explains what it does and how that fits with some of its other sibling/subsidiary entities, and the fourth addresses criticisms.

There is a large contingent of us (see above discussions) that think the intro is already overly leaning towards talking about the far past too much and think MOST of the criticism stuff is pretty non-notable and minority POV driven. The fact is this intro was gotten to voer weeks and weeks of patient effort by editors to keep it balanced. I think we should move very carefully to not disturb that. WIkipedia does say be bold but I suspect others will be bold back and that leads to edit wars. Lets take the consensus route.Alex Jackl 04:36, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

• You make some intriguing points. I would like to hear what User:Tazmaniacs has to say about all this... Thanks. Smee 04:42, 18 March 2007 (UTC).

NPOV rationale for minor changes to the Labor stuff

There are two things: 1. There is a POV statement that the courts have "sometimes sided" with Landmark. That is a misleading statement - in NO case have the courts gone against Landmark with regard to the cult stuff. It is one of the reasons many editors consider this to be non-notable. Therefore I think this whole section needs to be radically reduced but as a stop gap at least acknowledging that the courts have never ruled AGAINST Landmark will hold that space. 2. The DOL has not ruled on anything. You can check court records and the DOL website. It is an investigator, an employee, that made whatever conclusions they made and then took no further action and no legal proceedings resulted. This is just a fix of an obvious misdirection in the text (intentional or otherwise).

These are I think the minorest changes to make this slightly less skewed. Please let me know if there is any question about this. Thanks! Alex Jackl 01:56, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

• Or invariably remove the legal wording stuff from those sections and keep it as a simple reference to the article Landmark Education litigation ... Smee 02:03, 19 March 2007 (UTC).
  • This is factually inaccurate and WP:OR. We cannot be certain that we have all of the cases here. Thanks. Smee 02:05, 19 March 2007 (UTC).

• • • What do you mean "factually inaccurate"? What evidence do you have for that? You have done a LOT of research Smee on Landmark's litigation - if you can't find it, you don't want to bring it up. This is classic unethical debating tactics. "Well you can't prove it is not , so let's imply that it is". No - how about let's not mention it at all! That is more in keeping with an encyclopedia. You are breaking WP:OR all the time - none of this stuff is notable but you are weaving a story together by emphasizing small non-notable pieces and making them seem more than they are. This labor thing is a PERFECT example- two investigations in 16 years -both of which ended up in no action (With regard to volunteers which is what this is about- there was some minor clean up Landmark had to do regarding tracking two employee's hours and stuff like that). Can you say so non-notable as to put one to sleep - give me a break!

The DOL has made NO NADA NIENTE rulings against Landmark Education - there has been no court cases, legal action, or evidence of wrong doing. You have NO proof. It is all in your imagination. The two action reports make some recommendations and than are labeled as "NO Further Action". Case closed. This is such a waste of our precious time even to talk about this. I suggesting we remove the Labor dispute section entirely or at least reduce it to a paragraph befitting its notability. I think Smee and I have made our positions clear on this. Other editors? Alex Jackl 02:28, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

• I request that you please STOP your violations of WP:NPA. Thanks. Comment on content not on contributors. Thanks. Smee 03:49, 19 March 2007 (UTC).

• I request that you stop trying to turn any strongly worded challenge of your stance into a personal attack. I request you stop misusing policies as an accusatory weapon against people in debates. I DO apologize if I offended you - CERTAINLY not my intent. However I do have strong objections and strong concerns about some of the content we are talking about- which I am not even sure YOU put in. I have not changed it since the last reversion and I have not accused you of any wrong-doing- which by the way you do with some regularity which, by the way, IS a breach of WP:NPA. This is not about you- this about the content and having an article that Wikipedia would be proud of. We aren't there yet with this article, and we have a ways to go. That is why I have asked for other editors to chime in and I will step back a little bit. I request you do the same. We have managed compromise in a civil fashion before I am confident we can do it again. Alex Jackl 05:06, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

• Keep your comments to content, not contributors, and you'll do just fine. Thanks. Smee 05:24, 19 March 2007 (UTC).

Too many citations to unreliable Corporate Web site

• Landmark Education's Web site is designed to be a publicity advertisement for their coursework, pure and simple. As per the tag, as many citations as possible to Landmark Education's for-profit Corporate Web site should be removed and replace with more reputable and reliable secondary sourced citations, especially in the case where Landmark is excerpting portions of data and not giving the whole picture about academic studies and the like. Thanks. Smee 19:12, 19 March 2007 (UTC).

Wow! This is really over the top. Ummm.. this is an article about a corporation. The primary source of information IS the corporate website. It should be checked and should be treated knowing it is the corporation talking about itself, but you are not clear on the policies. Checkout any three corporate web pages and you will find NUMEROUS references to the corporate website. Frankly, it doesn't even count as self-publishing. Alex Jackl 06:15, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Compare usage of exact same template in similar article Scientology. Smee 06:17, 20 March 2007 (UTC).

I do not watch the Scientology site and am not that interested in 20th century religions. How about we check out all the other business es using corporate sites. 1. It is not publicity advertisement only- it is a working site. One can look up courses, access services, even register. 2. It doesn't matter it is the official site of the corporation. It acts as the web presence for that corporate entity. If you decide to put it on Scientology, go ahead. I don't know what the people tracking that site will say or have said or even it should be there - it might. I just don't know. What I do know is that template clearly doesn't belong here. What I also find annoying is sneaking little changes in like the charter "claims" vs. "states" which was gone over and consensus was reached. *shrug* I am going to try to move on again but I was pulled in by the inappropriate template. Alex Jackl 06:35, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

It is not publicity advertisement only- it is a working site. This is simply untrue. The purpose of the site is to convince more people to take the coursework, thus more money for the for-profit, privately owned corporation, thus it is blatant advertising, which is not allowed on Wikipedia, especially when citing research and alleged statistics. Thanks. Smee 06:40, 20 March 2007 (UTC).

I got your unsupported opinion about that. I don't have a problem with your thinking that, just don't pass it off as fact. Compare the Landmark Website to some comparative web sites and you will see that it is more operational than most, and has lots of information for clients of the organization. Shocking given that it is the OFFICIAL web site of the organization. And- good god- a for-profit company has marketing material on its website! I have NEVER seen that before! Now THAT is notable. Puh-leese! (just for the record and humor-impaired that was sarcasm, intended to underline how much the Landmark website is mis-characterized here. ) Alex Jackl 06:57, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

• Opinion vs. Fact, good. What is the main purpose of the Web site, and in fact of the company? To create as much profit for the owners, whoever they are, as possible. Thus the Web site would be designed to do this. Thus it is not a reputable and certainly not a neutral source for anything. Thanks. Smee 07:00, 20 March 2007 (UTC).

This is like a train wreck- I keep having to watch even though I know I shouldn't. Just so were clear according to your logic EVERY website except those put up by non-profit agencies are NOT REPUTABLE and not a NEUTRAL SOURCE? I just wanted you to be clear about the logical hole you are hurtling towards. Now- by the way - I DO AGREE about the "neutral source" bit. LE's website is not neutral about LE. Nor does it pretend to be. If there were some controversial issue you wouldn't want to rely solely on LE's stance on the matter (though that would be relevant and of interest as per Wikipedia policy) anymore than you would want to trust a source like one of Rick Ross' web of websites on the matter given his legal and obvious POV against Landmark. Both are not neutral though Landmark is a better source say about what its values are, for instance.

An example of a place where this shows up is the reference to the charter in the beginning of the article. You keep insisting on changing the verb associated to the charter to "claims". As in, the charter "claims". You clearly don't understand what a corporate chater is. A chart is a declaration- like the Declaration of INdependance. It states as a declaration what it stands for. Landmark doesn't "claim " that - it is a statement- a declaration. Yet you insist on keep changing it back to "claims". Why? I can't help but think you are trying to wage a PR war to make LE look a particular way. I am not accusing- I am merely stating what seems obvious and asking the question: What's the problem here? Alex Jackl 07:14, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

If you continue to violate the policy of WP:NPA - comment on content, not contributors, we are not going to get anywhere here. Thanks. Smee 07:17, 20 March 2007 (UTC).