Talk:Landmark Education and the law/Archive 1

POV language
That being said I made minor edits taking some POV spin off the article talking about Landmark's legal actions as threats and manuevers. That is very pointed language. A pro-Landmark POV person might have said "defended itself against outrageous accusations" or some such equally POV statement. Let's use neutral language... Alex Jackl 06:53, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree, and have used some new language about Landmark's propensity to write cease and desist letters. Smeelgova 08:55, 22 November 2006 (UTC).
 * You think LE writes a lot--compare the record industry or any industry whose primary business is intellectual property. Sm1969 08:22, 27 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Lawyers thrive on threats and maneuvers. We have no need to get mealy-mouthed about this. The paragraph in which these words appeared read:

Landmark Education, whose Chairman Art Schreiber also acts as the organization's General Counsel, has a history of making legal threats and demands, not all of which end in courtroom litigation (for some of those, see Landmark Education litigation. And given the organization's reputation, other parties have also resorted to legalistic maneuvers when their beliefs bring them into conflict with Landmark Education.


 * I composed that paragraph with some care, intending to stress in a balanced manner that both Landmark Education and its legal opponents participate in legal activity, and attempting to summarize the reason for such legal bitterness as discussed later in the article. I could just as accurately and with just as much NPOV have used words like "legal posturing" and "legal machinations" to describe the antics of both sides in these legal shenanigans. -- Pedant17 01:28, 10 December 2006 (UTC)


 * One reason that the text should not go it blockquote is that you (Pedant17) wrote it. My understanding of blockquote is that it is for when you are quoting someone else.  The second part is your personal characterization, and it is not written in a neutral tone.  Sm1969 02:06, 10 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I blockquoted the text above in order to quote it -- it previously appeared in a different place (the main article) without any blockquoting, as the archives reveal. -- Pedant17 01:32, 15 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I presume the reference to "the second part" refers to the sentence:

And given the organization's reputation, other parties have also resorted to legalistic maneuvers when their beliefs bring them into conflict with Landmark Education.


 * I submit that Landmark Education does indeed have a reputation for undertaking legal action and yet another reputation that one might link more directly with its LGAT characteristics. Given Landmark Education's contractual attempts to avoid court actions (see the US Enrolment Form material) and in the light of these separate reputations, it hardly seems surprising to find that "other parties" (individuals and (notably) governmental organizations) have perforce moved into the legal arena when dealing with this organization -- and the body of the article supports this view with examples and quotations. -- Which words suggest a non-neutral tone? -- Pedant17 01:32, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Merger of legal pages
There appears to be some sort of fork of this page at Landmark Education and the law. Someone asked to speedy it as an attack page, but I'm concerned there may be edit history/information present that needs to be retained. The page has existed in some form or another for about two weeks. -- nae'blis 20:23, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Forking history
The two pages currently appearing as Landmark Education and the law and as Landmark Education litigation first originated as a single fork from the Landmark Education article following some complaints that that article had become too long. On 21 October 2006 I set up the forked material as an article and carefully named it Landmark Education and the law in an attempt to allow it to cover both specific cases of litigation as well as non-court-case legal activities undertaken by both Landmark Education (the corporation) and other parties.

On 20 November 2006 User:Jossi renamed the article from Landmark Education and the law to Landmark Education litigation, commenting "more appropriate name for comments". As a result, this left no home for non-litigation law-oriented material as inappropriate to the new title. Accordingly on 22 November 2006 I resurrected the Landmark Education and the law article from its status as a redirection and archived/edited there such (not insubstantial) material as related to legal but non-litigated events and trends.

I have no objection to (re-)merging the two articles, so long as we do not lose relevant edits relating to the broader field of Landmark Education's interactions with legal goings-on. However, I would point out that each separate article has a substantial body of text and that each has attracted some spirited editing. If they continue a separate existence, of course, each article should link to the other.

Neither article appears to me to constitute an "attack page" -- each one details (as a matter of record) documented actions undertaken by various parties within the legal systems of the world. Attacks (such as those on Rick Ross) appear in the context of such legal maneuverings.

-- Pedant17 01:28, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I characterized it as an attack page per their definition, i.e., that it was created to attack or disparage its subject. The tone is totally not neutral.  Sm1969 02:10, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Characterization as an "attack page"
I set up this page to act as a repository for material of interest which appeared to fall outside the (then) scope of the pages on Landmark Education and on Landmark Education litigation. The Wikipedia documentation on attack pages currently defines an attack page as one "created for the sole purpose of disparaging its subject". I plead guilty to sneering at lawyers and to bringing Landmark Education into question, but cannot accept that this page's sole purpose relates to disparagement -- rather it soberly documents certain episodes in the history of recent popular culture. -- Pedant17 01:32, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

"Totally not neutral" tone
Sm1969 has suggested that this page has a "totally not neutral" tone. -- Some of the tones used light-heartedly convey an attitude -- say towards the editors of Red Herring. And some of the quoted passages -- such as those issuing from Landmark Education -- use jargon and phraseology and emotional language ("technology", "the public conversation", and "contribution he has made to millions of people through his work" -- for example) that people may find offensive. But I do not know how we would render more neutered the tone of sentences such as:


 * Some governments, especially in Europe, have included Landmark Education in lists of or reports on cults and similar groups, thus using administrative means to set up legal and popular obstacles to the spread of the organization.

Or:


 * Landmark Education likes to present itself as a business, and reacts to the frequent mentions of terminology such as "cult" or "brainwashing" in connection with its name.

I welcome specific suggestions (with examples) on how we may improve the tone of the article, but fail to detect a "totally not neutral" tone at the moment. On the contrary, the article presents documented facts in a balanced and well-documented manner.

Do we have Wikipedia guidelines or policies on tone?

-- Pedant17 01:32, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, the whole NPOV guidelines have much to say about the neutrality, encyclopedic tone and words to avoid.

1) The governments, in Europe, should be described one-by-one, and it is actually a government committee in France that no longer exists. In Austria, it was a classification of the US State Department, that was made for 2005 and revoked for 2006. 2) There is no need to say "likes to present itself", but rather, from LE's POV, you could say, "Landmark Education regards allegations of "brainwashing" participants and being a "cult" as factually false and defamatory, and has sued in the United States and Europe.  In all cases where these words have been ruled as triable questions of fact, the defendants have settled by issuing retractions, rather than standing trial by jury. (Or you could say, "In the three cases in the United States..." and "In Europe...")

Those statements I would consider to be A) neutral, B) accurate and C) informative. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sm1969 (talk • contribs) 01:46, 15 December 2006 (UTC).


 * I also doubt it was a "raid on the premesis" regarding the 1994 labor investigation by the French. Sm1969 01:47, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Why don't you ask Landmark Corporate for more info/clarificatio on that question? Smeelgova 02:04, 15 December 2006 (UTC).
 * The burden of proof is on the person bringing the evidence into the article to justify its accuracy, as Jossi, a respected administrator who had nothing to with LE noted to you many times and many ways. Sm1969 02:12, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Ha ha ha, that was a suggestion if you yourself wanted more info - the raid on the Landmark headquarters in France by the Federal Department of Labor of their government is factual and was reported in their media - but if you want more info on it I suggest you ask Landmark Corporate. Thanks.  Smeelgova 02:45, 15 December 2006 (UTC).
 * Considering that you accepted the translation "Pieces á Conviction" as "Incriminating Evidence" when it mean "Exhibits," I ask whether you might be mistranslating something into "raid" or just reading an incredibly biased source and not distinguishing it as an increibly biased source? Sm1969 03:39, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Ha ha, "incriminating evidence" is in fact the literal translation. But you are right on one regard - that we definitely need to get more of the mainstream French media articles about this incident translated to English at some point to get a better idea of more of the details of what really happened.  Smeelgova 03:56, 15 December 2006 (UTC).

This Article is Non-Encyclopedic
This whole article is filled with speculation and falls far short of Wikipedia's standards. It is full of POV and cites sources that cannot be verified. Triplejumper (talk) 21:56, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Give specific examples, and specific examples for improvement so that we can discuss this. Blanket statements without supporting information are very, very counterproductive to the writing and editing process. That may be a POV rationale for you in the space you've created for yourself and the one you may have created here, and if you need help "unblocking" that obstacle, we can discuss it and I offer my help. A little coaching on Wiki or elsewhere has never hurt. Arcana imperii Ascendo tuum (talk) 23:55, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the article is more of a polemical opinion piece than an encyclopedia item. I suggest it should be deleted. DaveApter (talk) 17:12, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Do the relavent parts go back into the main LE artcle then? At least the LE/EFF case should and it can be left at that since it's the most current Arcana imperii Ascendo tuum (talk) 04:31, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

NPOV tag
I agree with the above comments concerning the NPOV of this article. There is almost no attempt at neutrality, and I have inersetd an NPOV tag. Timb66 (talk) 12:17, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Opinions on alleged NPOV-violations
Since nobody has sustained allegations of NPOV-violations or inadequate referencing with examples or detailed discussion, I propose to restore this article from its invisibilized status (as a re-direct to a related but distinct topic) to become once again a separate article, as linked and referenced elsewhere in Wikipedia. We can then address any outstanding specific issues of detail and tone in a more systematic and a more accessible manner. -- Pedant17 (talk) 01:44, 27 April 2008 (UTC)


 * This article is non-encyclopedic POV Stub that was re-directed by an admin multiple times. Triplejumper (talk) 20:11, 11 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I continue to await supporting evidence for the vague assertion that views the article Landmark Education and the law as "non-encyclopedic". I also continue to await supporting evidence for the assertion that views Landmark Education and the law as "POV" (which I assume implies some sort of (unexplained) violation of the WP:NPOV policy). Though just two acts of re-direction of Landmark Education and the law to Landmark Education litigation occurred (2006-11-20 and 2006-12-27) at the hands of a user with Administrator status (User:Jossi), those actions took place in his/her capacity as an editor, and had no especial Administrator-endorsed status. Any such re-direction effectively deletes material from Wikipedia that does not by definition fit into the "litigation" category, and redirection attempts (made by User:Triplejumper on 2007-12-19, on 2008-04-12 and on 2008-06-14) have apparently involved no editorial effort to merge the material in the two articles or to find an alternative home for the material (currently invisibilized) in Landmark Education and the law. On the contrary: User:Triplejumper has actually removed cross-references to this material from Landmark Education litigation: see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Landmark_Education_litigation&diff=178980505&oldid=176640818 -- Pending further clarification or discussion, therefore, I propose to un-redirect Landmark Education and the law. -- Pedant17 (talk) 01:07, 6 July 2008 (UTC)