Talk:Landmark Education litigation/Archive 1

Rick Ross Suit Edit Suggestions
I am suggesting taking out the line from Section "6." of the Lawsuits section regarding Landmark withdrawing its suit against RIck Ross. The line was "avoiding paying legal expenses of the opposing counsel". I want to take it out (I actually took it out and reverted because I didn't want to start an edit war- wanted to discuss first) because it is inherently a POV line. If a pro-Landmark perosn had written that sentence it could have said "because Landmark knew it couldn't win the suit, despite knowing Ross was in the wrong" Both statements might be the perception on both sides and both would argue it is accurate. Therefore we should stick to the facts.

Some might argue that Landmark did NOT pay legal expenses for opposing counsel (I don't know either way by the way- I am making no assertions of fact) therefore this is a factual addition. But although it may be true it is a debating trick- say a small fact that leaves the listener with a negative or positive impression yet defend it because it is indeed factual. Much money was spent (I am sure) on both sides of this suit- both sides made decisions that cost them money and saved them money and that avoided expenses. That is irrelevent in the context of an encyclopedia article on Landmark Education.

Also, it states: "In response to this serious threat to the free speech and privacy rights of the anonymous users of this website, the internet civil liberties group, the [Electronic Frontier Foundation] with the support of [Harvard Law School]’s [Berkman Center for Internet & Society], sought to participate in the case as amicus curiae, in order to argue against such intrusive discovery tactics."

What follows after this - which is a quote from the Electronic Frontier Foundation- is fine. But this sentence is blantantly POV. From an NPOV perspective that sentence presumes a great deal: "serious threat to free speech and privacy rights" "against such intrusive discovery tactics". Clearly and obviously this drama-laden language needs to be made a little more objective to say the least.

The truth is this article is littered with examples like this that IMO should be addressed... but one or two things at a time.

Alex Jackl 14:23, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Edit Ideas
First of all to Alex Jackl: thank you SO MUCH for acting so politely with regard to making your specific points above. With regard to your proposed edits, here is what I would suggest:
 * 1) Rick Ross Suit - Landmark did not pay legal expenses for opposing counsel. I believe this would sound very NPOV, and the fact of the matter is that they withdrew their own lawsuit with prejudice, so it is quite likely that they could have been asked to pay legal expenses.  This seems to be a way to edit the current language and yet hopefully come to a compromise on this relatively small point.


 * Landmark intentionally withdrew the suit WITH PREJUDICE to AVOID paying the legal fees of the opposing side. One of the court documents talks about this.  Skolnik did, in fact, demand legal fees from Landmark, over $100,000.  LE gave its side of the story (the change in case law, Donato versus Moldow) and Rick Ross gave his side of the story (discovery to get names of critics). Sm1969 06:56, 2 October 2006 (UTC)  Sm1969 06:54, 2 October 2006 (UTC)


 * 1) amicus curiae - The internet civil liberties group, the Electronic Frontier Foundation with the support of Harvard Law School’s Berkman Center for Internet & Society, sought to participate in the case as amicus curiae, in order to argue against Landmark Education's legal discovery actions. This would change your presumed POV perspective of this sentence to a statement of fact. This text cannot be edited, because it is a blockquoted citation from Introduction to the Landmark Education litigation archive, by attorneys Peter L. Skolnik & Michael A. Norwick.
 * 2) New information found on the minutiae of the term legal prejudice, over at article: Prejudice (law) Yours, Smeelgova 21:34, 30 September 2006 (UTC).

6. Rick Ross Institute (2004)
User Smeelgova could you explain the revert you did to my editing. I made the following edits: I have implemented your edit suggestion, number 2 above. Yours, Smeelgova 23:46, 7 October 2006 (UTC).
 * 1) Removed: to avoid paying legal expenses of the opposing counsel. The reason being, none of the reference sites, or a general search gave costs as a reason for Landmark withdrawing from the case.
 * 2) Added: claimed this was to avoid discovery. The reason I added this was that this was the only the reason that was claimed as to why Landmark withdrew the case.
 * Mark1800 22:31, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Please see Wikipedia articles:
 * 1) Prejudice (law) - Which directly explains the notion of to avoid paying legal expenses of the opposing counsel, also
 * 2) Discovery (law).


 * IF Prejudice (law) is to avoid costs, then why are you explaining it twice. It's like saying "car, automobile" say it once. Also Prejudice (law) is not just to avoid costs, it is used for other things as well, including avoiding Discovery (law) which is what is claimed. Also you avoided claimed. We don't know if it is true. We have to state it as a claim. We could also claim that the reason Landmark ended the case with Prejudice was because they worked out that it would cost too much to force the Rick Ross Institute to devulge the names of the anonomous posters or that they recieved new legal advise that they were not going to win. We don't know and to presume otherwise is factually incorrect.
 * Mark1800 06:37, 8 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I reread all the source documents. It is now clear the following happened
 * 1) June 2004: Landmark launches case
 * 2) January 2005: A similar case establishes a legal precident.
 * 3) April 2005: Landmark files for dismissal, the legal reason for bringing the case to court is no longer valid.
 * All the discussion over the reasons as to why Landmark filed for dissmissal are clear. The law changed.


 * Mark1800 07:58, 8 October 2006 (UTC)


 * User Smeelgova there is a requirement in Reliable sources section that The burden of evidence lies with the editor who has made the edit in question I have provided the evidence as to the reason for the edit I made. Could you please provide any evidence as to why you say the revert you made is factually accurate and cited information before you make any more changes to this section.
 * Mark1800 13:04, 8 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Sources:
 * 1) Landmark Education Withdraws Lawsuit Against Critic, December 21, 2005, PRNewswire, United Business Media, San Francisco.
 * 2) Introduction to the Landmark Education litigation archive, Peter L. Skolnik, Michael A. Norwick, Lowenstein Sandler PC, Roseland, New Jersey, February 2006.
 * 3) Tech Law Advisor, caselaw, 2005, RE: Communications Decency Act, New Jersey
 * 4) Landmark Education Withdraws Lawsuit Against Critic, December 21, 2005, PRNewswire, United Business Media, San Francisco.

Smeelgova 17:23, 8 October 2006 (UTC).


 * To address each item
 * 1) Does not claim that cost was the reason from the case being withdrawn, it says what I said, Change in law was the reason.
 * 2) The site is the plaintif, and thus has a POV, however it should be noted that again cost is not the reason the case was withdrawn. Again they say the change in law was the reason Landmark withdrew the case.
 * 3) This site doesn't even mention Landmark Education, it does however mention the change in law that Landmark said was the reason they were withdrawing the case.
 * 4) Again, this site (same as 1.) does not claim that cost was the reason from the case being withdrawn, it says what I said, Change in law was the reason.

I am again going to remove the factually incorrect information, as per my original edits. I also ask that Smeelgova does not make any more changes to this section without providing Reliable sources
 * Mark1800 22:44, 8 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Smeelgova could you explain why you have broken the 3 edits/revert rule? Could you also please provide any evidence as to why the version you keep reverting to is factual. I have provided evidence that it is unfactual.
 * Mark1800 01:39, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
 * It is the previous editor, not myself, who has broken the 3 edits revert rule. Factual information was restored in proper citation/sourced/referenced format.  Yours, Smeelgova 01:43, 9 October 2006 (UTC).


 * As I have noted above and another editor has noted below, your revert is factually incorrect. As to who broke what, have you checked the history file?
 * Mark1800 02:10, 9 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Mark1800 has lodged a WP:AN/3RR about Landmark_Education regarding Smeelgova. Mark1800 00:44, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Please place comments on WP:AN/3RR about Landmark_Education here
Interestingly User:Smeelgova has placed a counter claim on the Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RR. I am unclear if my initial edit counts. Anyone know? Mark1800 06:11, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Result: User:Smeelgova had a 8 hr block placed, on all edits on all of Wikipedia. I note this was not my intention, I had assumed User:Smeelgova would only have have been banned from this page or section. Mark1800 02:02, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Continuation of Discussion
User:Smeelgova, My request is that we do not edit the section in question until we either come to a concensus or we obtain mediation on it. Could you please indicate you agreement or disagreement. Mark1800 (I'm ok with the spelling corrections, please feel free to do that at any time. I suck at spelling)
 * I agrees to abide by the above request. Mark1800 02:34, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

The paragraph in question. ''In December 2005, Landmark Education withdrew the lawsuit with prejudice, avoiding paying legal expenses of the opposing counsel and legal discovery of trade secrets, on the grounds that a material change in caselaw regarding statements made on the Internet occurred in January 2005. Landmark Education issued a press release on the matter. The Rick Ross Institute responded.''

Case presented by Mark1800
 * 1) The paragraph is covered, completely, by the first sentence of this section. In April 2005, Landmark Education filed to dismiss its own lawsuit with prejudice on the grounds that a material change in caselaw regarding statements made on the Internet occurred in January 2005; see Donato v. Moldow, 374 N.J. Super. 475 (N.J. App. Div. 2005), which held an operator of an online bulletin board not liable for defamatory statements posted by others on his bulletin board, unless he made a "material substantive contribution" to the defamatory material.
 * 2) User:Smeelgova added the section regarding legal discovery of trade secrets only after User:Mark1800 had pointed out this was the claim of the Rick Ross Institute (RRI). User:Smeelgova did not include any reference that this was a claim, and when evidence was provided that this claim was false, it was ignored.
 * 3) Both the claims of avoiding paying legal expenses of the opposing counsel and legal discovery of trade secrets are claims that have no factual reference. An understanding of legal process will provide that cases are often brought, and then dropped, when one side discovers evidence that they will not win. Often, if the judge thinks the case was a deliberate attack, then the case will be closed without prejudice save as to costs, so as to allow the agreived party to recover costs. It is noted, that in this case, that was not the case.
 * 4) Why I believe this whole paragraph should be removed? It has been covered completely elsewhere in the section. It is not NPOV and is also unfactual.

Response "In December 2005, Landmark Education withdrew the lawsuit with prejudice, on the grounds that a material change in caselaw regarding statements made on the Internet occurred in January 2005. Rick Ross' attorneys had been trying to obtain legal discovery of trade secrets prior to the case's withdrawal. The Rick Ross Institute  to a press release from Landmark on the issue."
 * 1) Took out claim of avoiding paying legal expenses of the opposing counsel
 * 2) Changed the syntax of legal discovery of trade secrets to Rick Ross' attorneys had been trying to obtain legal discovery of trade secrets prior to the case's withdrawal. - now statement is factually accurate. Will back up with sources.
 * 3) The section is now appropriate as a summary of the piece, and is an NPOV simple statement of the chronological facts. Yours, Smeelgova 02:49, 12 October 2006 (UTC).

Request I'm fine with what you have written, I have an opinion that it is slighty POV slanted, however I'm aware that is my opinion. ''In April 2005, Landmark Education filed to dismiss its own lawsuit with prejudice on the grounds that a material change in caselaw regarding statements made on the Internet occurred in January 2005; see Donato v. Moldow, 374 N.J. Super. 475 (N.J. App. Div. 2005), which held an operator of an online bulletin board not liable for defamatory statements posted by others on his bulletin board, unless he made a "material substantive contribution" to the defamatory material. At the time of withdrawl Rick Ross' attorneys had been trying to obtain legal discovery of trade secrets, and they claimed this was the reason for the withdrawl.''
 * I do have a request that you move it up into the first paragraph. It could look like this
 * If you do, please remove the last paragaph. Do not add what I've sugested to the top paragraph and leave the last paragraph

Per above: I'm fine with what you have written, I have an opinion that it is slighty POV slanted, however I'm aware that is my opinion. Thank you for acknowledging your POV. I as well acknowledge that I have an opinion that it is slighty POV slanted. Thank you for also saying that you are fine with what I have written. It seems that we have reached a consensus, sigh, awesome. I personally think that as a concise section, this brief piece works where it is at the moment. Yours, Smeelgova 03:28, 12 October 2006 (UTC).


 * OkMark1800 03:47, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

This sections now appears to be link building to me. I think the references are quite redundant. Spacefarer 12:02, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Withdrawl of Case Against Rick Ross
Landmark Education could have requested withdraw either WITH PREJUDICE or WITHOUT PREJUDICE (meaning it could be refiled). When withdrawn without prejudice, it could be refiled, and the defense would have been justified in seeking compensation, because they might have to defend again. The judge agreed that Landmark Education had brought the suit in good faith, and the last six months were an unsuccessful effort of Rick Ross to keep the case alive on grounds Landmark had not brought the case in good faith. The judge further agree that the change in internet case law (Donato versus Moldow) was a valid reason for withdrawing the case. The avoidance of discovery is the opinion of Rick Ross and his lawyers, but both Landmark and the judge are on the same side. This section needs to be better written to reflect this.
 * but both Landmark and the judge are on the same side.  This is entirely not the case, I would respond, but I have no idea who wrote or when the above comment was written. The fact that material was cut and pasted from Landmark Education's talk page makes this page very hard to read/understand/follow the flow.  Smeelgova 19:38, 22 October 2006 (UTC).

Removed Art Schreiber paragraph
I removed this paragraph for the following reasons:
 * It appears to be outdated: he states that only one person has sued Landmark, and then this page goes on to list three. (Which then makes the statement that by now 600,000 people have done Landmark misleading at best.)
 * It's POV: why preface a section on legal disputes with a statement by the lawyer for one side?
 * It's not necessary: the page is about Landmark's legal disputes; the entries speak for themselves, and there's no need for commentary on how many there are. Ckerr 08:44, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Quote on Rick Ross Case by Oregon Supreme Court Justice Edward Fadeley
The courts aren't helping matters. For example, Landmark Education, an international training and development company that presents The Landmark Forum, dropped its lawsuit in New Jersey against Rick Ross, a self-professed "cult expert" who has built a career and reputation by quoting people's opinions on his Web site. Landmark Education terminated its lawsuit when, in an unrelated case, a New Jersey court significantly limited the kind of Internet behavior it would consider damages for. Court decisions like that make it even more difficult for companies to protect themselves against misinformation and false accusations.

Ross, who claims he's an expert on cults, religions and any organization he deems potentially harmful, should be held to a higher standard - not a lesser one. Rick Ross is a convicted felon with no degree of any kind. He says so on his own web site. His lack of professional qualifications doesn't stop Ross from freely labeling credible organizations in the personal development area "worthless" and "faked." While Ross acknowledges that Landmark Education is definitely not a cult, he nevertheless smears the company through innuendo. Ross also attacks John Gray, author of "Men are From Mars, Women are From Venus," the Mormon Church and the practice of yoga. Sm1969 06:00, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I didn't realize this was a commentary on the case itself, I will put it back in, just give me a moment please. Smeelgova 06:24, 4 November 2006 (UTC).


 * Here is a better source reference URL Findlaw: The Unchecked World of the Internet   Sm1969 07:23, 4 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I removed the lower paragraph of this quote. It is an attack on Rick Ross, and is not relevant to the actual case, whereas the first paragraph could be considered relevant.  As it had stood previously, the blockquote was itself almost a third the size of that entire section.
 * Also, interesting info on first Google hit on Edward Fadeley, it seems he's coming up on Disciplinary Review charges before the Oregon State Bar on 01/03/2007. Smeelgova 09:41, 10 November 2006 (UTC).


 * It is absolutely relevant to the actual case. It shows how far in the wrong direction that Internet law has gone in not protecting individuals/corporations from libel on the Internet and that you can't take your sources seriously.  The comments on Ross directly are that he should be held to a higher standard and that he has no qualifications and is misprepresenting himself and that the law lets him get away with it.  This is a perfectly valid, well-substantiated third-party opinion.  Sm1969 07:54, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, and I agree with you. However, it is not necessary to post two paragraphs from the press release issued by the judge.  The one paragraph directly talking about the case itself is sufficient.  Smeelgova 08:11, 11 November 2006 (UTC).
 * I think it is as important for people to see the full detail of that as it is for people to see the long list of historical material people keep attaching to Landmark's article.  We need to be consitant.  We either show contraint on both sides or we need to make sure it is balanced.  It is best for the WIkipedia community using this article for all sides to show contraint. Alex Jackl 06:54, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
 * As stated above, the lower portion of this quote has zero relevance to the case itself. Smeelgova 06:01, 23 November 2006 (UTC).
 * It is totally relevant, in that the central conflict of the case was between Internet law and state tort (libel) law. Judge Fadeley is showing how bad it gets--you can have zero credentials as Rick Ross does and that, in portraying himself as an expert, he should be held to a higher standard, not a lesser one.  I'll contact the administrators about getting this in.  Sm1969 06:09, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
 * It has nothing to do with the discussion of the case itself. It is a personal attack on Rick Ross.  Furthermore, this page should be restricted to source material on the cases themselves, and not opinions of outsiders on those cases, unless directly related to the case.  If opinion were allowed to enter into the fray on each case, the article would be way too long.  Smeelgova 06:14, 23 November 2006 (UTC).
 * Yes, so is the lawsuit a personal attack on Rick Ross. Article subjects have zero protection as editors do from personal attacks, unless they are not notable.  This is immediately relevant to the case.  He has to identify Rick Ross' lack of credentials, even though he represents himself as an expert.  The fact that he is a convicted felon to boot just shows how out of touch the law is on the Internet in Judge Fadeley's opinion.  Sm1969 08:24, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * The principle of equality before the law -- even for felons convicted in non-Internet cases -- does not apply here? -- Pedant17 01:28, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

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.


 * I used a blockquote to reproduce clearly in a discussion-page a now-superceded non-blockquoted portion of a former version of the article. I regard blockquoting as a tool for quoting -- whoever wrote the original, and provided the quoted text with an introductory remark to make the origin clear. -- Pedant17 01:58, 13 January 2007 (UTC)


 * The second part is your personal characterization, and it is not written in a neutral tone. Sm1969 02:06, 10 December 2006 (UTC)


 * The second part of what? From where to where? -- Few statements about law or about Landmark Education use a neutral "tone". Hence the need for balance and even-handedness, as exhibited in my original paragraph as quoted above. (If anything, I erred on the side of letting Landmark Education off the hook while emphasizing the behavior of its opposition.) -- Pedant17 01:58, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Inclusion of rest of Fadeley quote against Rick Ross / Landmark Education
Smeelgova objects to the inclusion of the rest of this quote. Smeelgova first stated that it was a personal attack on Rick Ross. The Wikipedia policy on personal attacks is from editor-to-editor, not article-subject to article-subject. Smeelgova then objected to it not being relevant to Landmark Education. On the contrary, I believe it is precisely on point. What is Smeelgova's latest objection? The quote follows. Sm1969 04:00, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Ross, who claims he's an expert on cults, religions and any organization he deems potentially harmful, should be held to a higher standard - not a lesser one. Rick Ross is a convicted felon with no degree of any kind. He says so on his own web site. His lack of professional qualifications doesn't stop Ross from freely labeling credible organizations in the personal development area "worthless" and "faked." While Ross acknowledges that Landmark Education is definitely not a cult, he nevertheless smears the company through innuendo. Ross also attacks John Gray, author of "Men are From Mars, Women are From Venus," the Mormon Church and the practice of yoga.
 * I do not appreciate your personal inferences and references to me and my arguments. I wish that instead you would stick to the content at hand.  As to the quote, it has nothing in particular to do with the case itself.  Thanks.  Smeelgova 07:58, 26 November 2006 (UTC).


 * Ok, but I think I have to note that some specific objection has been raised on including it. An opponent of inclusion has argued that the statement has nothing to do with the RickRoss versus LE case.  I disagree.  Judge Fadeley is noting the problems that arise because of the current law and the court interpretations of that law, which is exactly the same thing the California Supreme Court noted.  The problems arising from current case law interpretation is that, in ordinary libel cases, someone who is asserting expertise (as Rick Ross is) would be held to a higher account, e.g., written media or an expert in written media.   I think all of this content is totally on point and permissible.  It addresses both Rick Ross and Landmark Education directly.  Sm1969 08:16, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, this part of the quote addresses Landmark Education and Rick Ross, but does not directly address any of the issues in the case itself - as the other part of the quote does. Thanks.  Smeelgova 08:17, 26 November 2006 (UTC).
 * Both halves of the quote are relevant. The second half is exemplifying how bad the problem is--i.e., that Rick Ross truly has zero qualifications, is a convicted felon, and insinuates LE is a cult while, at the same time, stating that LE is not a cult.  The second half of the quote is critical to the pungency of Judge Fadeley's point. Sm1969 08:20, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I fail to see the relevance of conviction for felony to the case in point. I also do not see that the subject of this article includes as a legitimate topic the pungency of the former judge's comments. That said, inclusion of such quotations provides good and typical examples of the vicious ad hominem and extra-legal attacks launched in this debate. - Pedant17 01:28, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * On the contrary, Judge Fadeley is showing how RR is A) not being held to a higher standard as he would be in print media for asserting his expertise and B) that RR is misrepresenting his qualifications having "no degree of any kind." Third, he is showing that Rick Ross himself says he is not a cult, when all of the innuendo that RR puts out says that LE is a cult.  You would have to read the case to see that.  Sm1969 02:42, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Great. But none of those things are relevant to the actual case itself, and might be more appropriate for other articles, but not an article focuses specifically on the litigation.  Thanks.  Smeelgova 19:39, 10 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)


 * As the Wikipedian who set up the Landmark Education and the law page and then re-forked the Landmark Education and the law page from what had become the Landmark Education litigation page, I can declare that I did not set out to attack or disparage the subjects of law or litigation in relation to their use by or against Landmark Education, but attempted to provide homes for materials relating to these topics outside the context of over-large or of overly-precisely defined existing articles. The provided definition of an "attack page" does not apply. -- Pedant17 01:58, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Merge
Completed the merge and copyedited the resulting article, including removal of editorializing and OR commentary, as well as NPOVng the tone as per tags on the merged article. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:16, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Quotefarm

 * Please give me a chance and I will work on the quotefarm issue. Thanks.  Smeelgova 02:29, 29 December 2006 (UTC).

Germany

 * How is this info POV at all? It looks like User:Pedant17 did a very good job with the citations.  Smeelgova 06:56, 9 January 2007 (UTC).


 * Cited Material Being POV
 * Cited Material can certainly be POV! :-) You pick what you cite.  If you fill an article with citations of all of the negative aspects of a converstaion and ignore the positive ones that is one way.  Another way is if you pick citations by and from people that have extremely strong POV on a subject and fill an article with thos eand you will have created POV.


 * The change I made to the Berlin piece was to clarify some non-clear wording that left an impression that was opposite from the truth. The word "this" that I changed nmad eit clear that the Berlin Senate was no longer considering Landamrk a cult while the current version erroneously leaves the reader with a different impression.  I will make the change back without deleting any of the citations and am happy to discuss it on this page.  Alex Jackl 14:32, 9 January 2007 (UTC)


 * OK, well let us see what changes you want to make specifically, and then discuss. But please don't revert, but make a new set of changes to the existing article.  And please do not remove cited material, but rather add more of what you feel would be adequate clarification.  Thanks.  Smeelgova 14:36, 9 January 2007 (UTC).


 * I cannot see where the Berlin Senate report does not consider Landmark Education a cult. The report published in December 1997 clearly bears in its title (and in its URL) the word Sekten (Cults) and discusses its overall subject-matter in relation to this term and its various uses. Note too that the report does not list or classify cults as distinct from non-cults. Its [translated] table of contents uses the following classifications:
 * 7 Selected Providers
 * 7.1 Groups with a Christian background [5 cases]
 * 7.2 Groups with a pagan background [2 cases]
 * 7.3 Groups with a Hindusm background [4 cases]
 * 7.4 Providers of Life-Assistance [7 cases, including Landmark Education, Art Reade, Scientology, and the Natale Institute]
 * 7.5 Occultism/Satanism
 * 7.6 So-called Multi-Level Marketers


 * Thus in a report on "cults", however carefully presented (with interrogation-marks) and legalistically worded (with sogenannte ("so-called")), Landmark Education falls into the largest grouping of individually listed examples of the cult phenomenon.


 * Where then does the Berlin Senate report "no longer consider" Landmark education a cult?


 * -- Pedant17 01:58, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Re-forking
Now that we have a merged article containing the former article Landmark Education litigation and the former article Landmark Education and the law and now that the size of our combined article has reached a size of 58 Kb and attracts warnings/suggestions concerning splitting per Article size and now that the current title of the article (Landmark Education litigation) does not adequately cover the non-litigation elements in the article -- perhaps we should consider how we might best split this article again. -- Pedant17 01:58, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
 * For related articles to compare, Scientology and the legal system, and Scientology versus the internet. Smeelgova 04:22, 13 January 2007 (UTC).

Removal of Labor Law Section
The title of this article is Landmark Education Litigation. These Labor investigations do not have anything to do with litigation. Also, I question the notability of the investigationsTriplejumper 13:40, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Whole swathes of the article are now being removed with zero discussion, and also lots of citations have also been removed. However, as I do not wish to get into a big conflict over this, I'm going to take a break from this article and see how it develops over time.  The information that was removed from this article, is already available in enough formats in other public domain locations...  Have fun editing the article...  Smee 22:36, 2 June 2007 (UTC).

OR
I have removed the following line. I believe that by 'collecting' the list of sources and presenting them as a 'list of coverage', we are doing original research. Its a technicality, but still OR. If those sources had something specific to say which adds value, then they SHOULD be included with proper citations. But simply listing a block of sources that covered it, is original research unless a secondary source has done this and we can 'cite' them as saying it first.

The newly re-filed court case, and subsequent transfer to Oklahoma City received coverage in the Tulsa World, on KSWO News, in the Bartlesville Examiner Enterprise, as well as on KFDA News in Amarillo, Texas and on KTEN News in Ada, Oklahoma . Peace. Lsi john 14:55, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Major Conflict of Interest
Most recent version is promoting a law firm that is a litigant in the article. Louislouislewee 15:13, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Formatting problems
I have run into formatting issues at the bottom of the article. I was unable to add information without sections becoming linked together even with the ==Headings== added. The formatting is not behaving normally. At the moment, I have lost the section about Rick Ross.Triplejumper 22:35, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Then revert it until you get it figured out. Arcana imperii Ascendo tuum 05:34, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Former 21st Century Democrat employee & Pressure to do 'The Forum'
Anyone up for tackling this? Source citation is easy. Nov 23, 2007, article in The Washington Times, I believe, available online. Arcana imperii Ascendo tuum (talk) 00:31, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Deletion?
Is there any real justification for including this article? Surely it would only be called for if there were an exceptionally large amount of litigation involving this company? Does anyone suggest that sixteen cases in sixteen years for a company with a million customers is even worthy of mention, much less an entire article? DaveApter (talk) 17:09, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I've looked at your "contribution" history...and it seems you've devoted a significant amount to deletion of articles you, AJackl, Triplejumper, Ftord1960, Spacefarer, and Saladdays seem to think are unimportant...and are all EST/LE related. I say it's just PR on the part of "volunteer" employees, but I implore you to prove me wrong. Arcana imperii Ascendo tuum (talk) 13:09, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
 * My first reaction was to ignore that as being unworthy of response, but I think I really must flag up the gross factual innacuracies here:
 * Comments in deletion debates are a small proportion of my edits.
 * Many - I think the majority - of the articles whose deletion I voted for have nothing whatsoever to do with Landmark, EST, or Erhard. Very few indeed of the reminder have any direct connection with Landmark per se, mostly they were personal attack pieces on individuals whose only claim to notability was some acquaintance with Werner Erhard.
 * The whole tone of your comments is at least bordering on being a Personal Attack. Please cut it out. DaveApter (talk) 10:17, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
 * In addition, at one point you said 100 petitioners on the Reformer's group wasn't worth mention, you're flip-flopping on that, and you say a million customers. Were they paying and where's the information to verify that "million"? Arcana imperii Ascendo tuum (talk) 04:41, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't recall saying it wasn't worth a mention - I'm just pointing out that getting 0.01% of customers to sign a petition doesn't amount to evidence of a serious customer satisfaction problem.
 * The figure of a million comes from Landmark's own announcements - presumably they know how many customers they have? (and, yes, they might be lying - if you're saying that they'd do themselves a favour by getting a CPA to certify the numbers I'd agree). Any cursory examination of the operation shows that it has to be somewhere in that ballpark. Are you disputing this? On what basis? DaveApter (talk) 10:17, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Of course. I'm a skeptic...part of believing in the scientific method. among other things. I haven't seen a CPA certify it or anything related. And I question as to what LE classifies as a "customer." If someone didn't pay, how can a Certified Public Accountant account for the monetary aspect? Is a customer a "volunteer" as well? What about someone brought in during the cattle call that is a "graduation," is that a customer? I surmise this is why the much trumpeted number hasn't come out as certified...sort of goes in line with "research" on LE: There's money to conduct it objectively, but the results might not be self-serving. But this isn't foreign to you. Arcana imperii Ascendo tuum (talk) 13:16, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Editing based on Jossi's year-old redirect without discussion
Why and how did this happen, what was the rationale? -- Pax Arcane  04:19, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Turkmenistan and Haiti
I removed what seems to be a silly sentence from the lead: "Relatively few (if any) have taken place in Turkmenistan or Haiti." I cannot imagine why this should be in the article. Please discuss here and give reasons and a source if you want to reinstate. Timb66 (talk) 12:02, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't know why it's in there either, but I was waiting for someone to expound on it before deletion. I'm generally an inclusionist. Whoever added it will step up with something, I hope. -- Pax Arcane  17:53, 28 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Apparent silliness does not justify deletion. Inability to imagine reasons for inclusion does not justify deletion either. -- Look at the context: "Many of these cases have taken place in jurisdictions within the United States and in Europe. Relatively few (if any) have taken place in Turkmenistan or Haiti." Two sentences, each of original research, each geographically prejudiced, each on their own failing to give a  global view, each discriminating against the situation in the Northern Marianas, but together providing some sort of balance. Should we use Africa and Mexico rather than Turkmenistan and Haiti? -- Pedant17 (talk) 01:07, 22 February 2008 (UTC)


 * OK, we can use Africa and Mexico. It still concerns me deeply that we discriminate against the Northern Marianas. -- Alternatively we could achieve a more perfect balance by dropping the reference to "the United States and Europe"... -- Pedant17 (talk) 01:05, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Skolnik stuff needs to not being an encyclopedia article
I removed the Skolnik stuff because it is an advert - they are lawyers on one side of the dispute (against) with Landmark and have posted this page. They, if referenced at all, should CERTAINLY not be in the opening paragraphs. This is frankly a questionable article to begin with in terms of notability.

21st Century Democrats is not a litigation that directly involves the company at all- it is merley mentinoe din an unrleated suit. COme on! .

Alex Jackl (talk) 16:16, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Read the LEDE. Hey, that rhymes! Like, Erhard committed crimes but did no time! -- Pax Arcane  21:14, 21 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Referencing a lawyer and/or a legal firm in an article discussing litigation constitutes advertising? We had better remove all references to Landmark Education -- a for-profit org which has engaged in (shock!-horror!) legal cases. We would certainly need to remove all references to Art Schreiber, a lawyer with some partisan connections to Landmark Education... -- I don't know what the reference to "the dispute" means. We discuss multiple disputes/cases in this article, and Skolnik and Norwick's work relates not merely to a single dispute but summarizes and backgrounds a series of legal actions, providing in useful and accessible form many documents (often not readily accessible elsewhere) relating to  our subject -- a "litigation archive". That makes Skolnik and Norwick eminently suitable for mention in our article, even at the risk of veering ever-so-slightly towards alleged advertising. And as a balancing counter-opinion to the views of Landmark Education also expressed in the lead of the article, inclusion of this material appears vital to maintaining a  neutral point-of-view. -- Any questioning of the overall notability of this article we can pursue in the appropriate forum by applying for deletion and making a case for that. Pedant17 (talk) 01:05, 23 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I have no problem with the Skolnik quote being in the article, but putting it in the lead clearly violates WP: NPOV. Put in the lead, it reads as if Skolnik is a neutral party, when obviously he is not. His relevance is as Rick Ross' attorney; I have moved his quote to the Rick Ross section of the article. Gilbertine goldmark (talk) 15:14, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I suspect you are a sock puppet or a meat puppet based on your edits from your abrupt entry into these articles (to add a syllabus for all LE courses, including days and time, of all things). Stop being obtuse in the editing process. Pendant's edit was entirely appropriate. You need to READ before editing, which your only do to serve your corporation better. This has been evident from day one. You seem to have no concept of NPOV unless it may slightly/technically work in your corporation's favor. THIS IS NOT WHAT WIKIPEDIA IS ABOUT. Good day. You need to find other articles to edit.  Pax Arcane  17:08, 29 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Please observe Wikipedia's civility policy in your remarks. The Skolnik quote does not work in the lead because the summary is not being provided by a neutral observer; it's being provided by an attorney representing one side in the litigation being discussed. Gilbertine goldmark (talk) 19:05, 29 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I too have no problem with including the Skolnik and Norwick summary in the article. But that article's lead currently contains phrasing expressing the viewpoint of Landmark Education LLC -- a non-neutral party in matters relating to Landmark Education litigation. Wording such as "Landmark Education has initiated actions to defend itself against what it perceives as malicious or negligent defamatory comment" or: "Landmark Education has also sent cease-and-desist letters to parties that it considers have engaged in copyright infringement, slander, or libel" includes sub-clauses that do not -- in themselves -- express a neutral point of view, but rather an attitude coming from one party (Landmark Education) in a series of court cases. But the presence of such non-neutral material does not mean that we should expunge all mention of Landmark Education from the lead in a frenzy of NPOVization. Rather, it encourages us to provide further, different perspectives to the lead, in order to achieve a neutral point of view summary by balancing rather than by subtraction. -- Characterizing Skolnik and Norwick as a non-neutral party does not tell the whole story. Skolnik and Norwick appear here as third parties, not as litigants (such as Landmark Education LLC and (for example) the Rick Ross Institute). As lawyers, Skolnik and Norwick have surveyed a vast swathe of legal material not immediately or directly related to to their immediate client. They have provided a wealth of documentation and have added to it commentary more legally neutral than any other I know of. Their summary -- as a summary -- deserves a mention in the lead as applying to litigation involving Landmark Education in general. It should not get inappropriately relegated to a subsection on an individual legal case to which the observations on extracting innocuous statements re cultishness have no direct relevance. -- Pedant17 (talk) 02:30, 30 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I fail to see how saying that a company has initiated legal actions against perceived defamation is any way POV--This is a statement of fact that in no way implies whether the legal actions are appropriate or not or whether the defamation is real or not. The quote moved is from Rick Ross' attorney and is designed to question whether the courses are "dangerous or abusive"--It's clearly POV, even though they talk about more than the Rick Ross case itself. Again, this isn't to say they shouldn't be in the article, just that they shouldn't appear in the lead as some kind of objective summary. Gilbertine goldmark (talk) 18:38, 30 April 2008 (UTC)


 * If the current lead simply said that "a company" had "initiated legal actions against perceived defamation" it would indeed seem more neutral in its point of view. But the context here involves not a mere "company", but Landmark Education -- something else over and above (say) a retailer of widgets. Furthermore, as I pointed out previously, the punch in the current lead lies in the sub-clauses: "malicious or negligent defamatory comment" and "engaged in copyright infringement, slander, or libel". These words do not express neutrality in the way that "initiated legal actions against perceived defamation" would. Furthermore, the lead currently expresses only the opinions of Landmark Education: we find "what [Landmark Education] perceives" and "it [Landmark Education] considers". Thus on a purely technical-grammatical level of analysis, the lead does not provide balance, but skews towards the opinions of Landmark Education -- a single one of the numerous parties involved or associated. In this sense we can definitely improve the lead's  neutrality -- and specifically by including a different and more detached voice from Skolnik and Norwick. -- The "quote moved" reads as follows:

Landmark generally ended up settling [such] cases without any financial recovery, but instead by extracting some relatively innocuous statement by the defendants that they do not believe or have no knowledge that Landmark is a 'cult.' Even those statements never reach the merits of Landmark's far more important allegations -- i.e., whether Landmark's programs are, in fact, dangerous and abusive. ... Significantly, Landmark invariably declined to pursue its multi-million dollar suits to judgment in any genuine attempt to recover the inflated 'damages' it claimed to have suffered. -- We could omit words like "relatively innocuous", "genuine" and "inflated", but the core of the statement here expresses historical facts based on study and on publicly available documentary evidence, and in itself conveys those facts with no more than standard emotional force. Whether or not one regards Skolnik and Norwick's conclusions as accurate -- and we've seen no sourced document to suggest otherwise -- these conclusions form a balancing viewpoint to that expressed currently in the lead, and we should hasten to insert them there in order to improve the NPOV of the lead overall. -- The claim that this quote 'is designed to question whether the courses are "dangerous or abusive"' has no evidence to support it and must remain highly speculative. The quote does not even mention "courses", but significantly uses the wider term "programs". But in the specifically legal context of this article we could even omit from our quote the phrase "-- i.e., whether Landmark's programs are, in fact, dangerous and abusive" without weakening the legal-summary aspect. -- The implication that materials that "appear in the lead" should represent "some kind of objective summary" has little merit. The Wikipedia guideline on lead sections says: "The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article. It should establish context, summarize the most important points, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and briefly describe its notable controversies, if there are any. The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic according to reliable, published sources." -- Not a word on "objectivity", but plenty of encouragement for "the most important points" (note the plural), for "notable controversies, if there are any", and for material based on "reliable, published sources". We would struggle to find perfect objectivity in any matter relating to Landmark Education, but we can recall that "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth -- meaning, in this context, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source" ( Wikipedia's Verifiability policy). On these grounds we can safely and immediately highlight Skolnik and Norwick's summary in the lead of our article, thus enhancing its overall NPOV aims. -- Note too that moving other text on Skolnik and Norwick from the lead to a separate subsection at the end of the article (currently "Legal archive and summary") has left the explanation of the role of Skolnik and Norwick out of sequence and makes a nonsense of the included phrase "as described below". We need to clean up this matter as well. -- Pedant17 (talk) 03:10, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

21st Century Democrats
A Wikipedian suggested on 2008-03-21 that "21st Century Democrats is not a litigation that directly involves the company at all- it is merley mentinoe din an unrleated suit."[sic] This assertion appears to relate to the source: McElhatton, Jim. "Democratic PAC faces lawsuit for employee 'religious events'", in The Washington Times, 2007-11-27, pp. Nation/Politics (retrieved 2008-03-23. That article makes it clear that the activities and "influences" (if not the "company") of Landmark Education stand at the heart of the legal case involving the 21st Century Democrats organization and its former employees. Allegations about the nature and religiosity of Landmark Education courses figure prominently in the Washington Times summary of the case. That makes this subject eminently suitable for inclusion in an article devoted to Landmark Education 'as a plaintiff, as a defendant, or as a subject "relevant" to other lawsuits' (to quote from our lead sentence. -- Pedant17 (talk) 01:05, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Lead as appropriate section for sourced summary
The Wikipedia lead-section guideline encourages sourced summary in the lead: "The lead should ... summarize the most important points, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and briefly describe its notable controversies, if ... any. ... It should contain up to four paragraphs, should be carefully sourced as appropriate, ..."

Accordingly, I propose copying relevant summarized summary-information from the "Legal archive and summary" section into the lead.

-- Pedant17 (talk) 01:46, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * You are correct, sir. I made the corrections. Landroid/LE apologists are, again, impeding the editing process...but what you added is ENTIRELY appropriate for the lede. It explains probably 100% of LE litigation.  Pax Arcane  17:03, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

--- I do not think the Skolnik refence is appropriate for the lead of this article. It violates WP:Lead to leave it there. Triplejumper (talk) 17:51, 2 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Re referring to the summary of multiple litigation cases involving Landmark Education written by Skolnik and Norwick: any opinion on the appropriateness of inclusion or exclusion needs explanation before getting taken into account. -- Pedant17 (talk) 02:14, 3 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Re allegedly violating WP:LEAD by quoting a dispassionate summary of a series of court cases written by trained lawyers: I can find no respect in which quoting a neutral third-party summary in order to balance one-sided expressions of the views of one (and one only) involved party in this instance violates the guidelines and recommendations set out in WP:LEAD. Failing details and evidence of the alleged violation, I propose summarizing Skolnik and Norwick's comments into the lead again. -- Pedant17 (talk) 02:14, 3 June 2008 (UTC)


 * To elaborate further on my post from June 2. According to the Rick Ross website- Skolnik and Norwik provide pro-bono legal counsel for the Rick Ross institute- one of Landmark Educations biggest critics and a party in one of the cases cited in the article. That makes them non-nuetral. I am not saying it should be out of the article.  I just should have it's own section outside of the lead. Triplejumper (talk) 16:31, 11 June 2008 (UTC)


 * The assertion that Skolnik and Norwick "provide pro-bono legal counsel for" the Rick Ross Institute lacks a precise reference. As I recall the firm with which both Skolnik and Norwick have affiliations, Lowenstein Sandler, "agreed to defend Ross pro bono against" one specific case brought by Landmark Education against the Rick Ross Institute (see http://www.rickross.com/reference/landmark/landmark193.html).


 * Note that the assertion that portrays the Rick Ross Institute as "one of Landmark Education[']s biggest critics" lacks supporting evidence. Landmark Education posesses numerous critics. Do we have any way to determine which of them to class as "biggest"? -- Pedant17 (talk) 02:50, 13 June 2008 (UTC)


 * The statement that the Rick Ross Institute became "a party in one of the cases cited in the article" in no way implies any lack of proper neutrality in alegal operatives, but rather evidences a public-spirited willingness to defend free speech and to take a wider view than merely acting for a defendant. -- Pedant17 (talk) 02:50, 13 June 2008 (UTC)


 * The implication that material emanating from Skolnik and Norwick lacks neutrality (as opposed to contributing to an overall neutral point of view) fails to address or respond to the view expressed on this Talk-page on 2008-04-30: "Characterizing Skolnik and Norwick as a non-neutral party does not tell the whole story. Skolnik and Norwick appear here as third parties, not as litigants (such as Landmark Education LLC and (for example) the Rick Ross Institute). As lawyers, Skolnik and Norwick have surveyed a vast swathe of legal material not immediately or directly related to to their immediate client. They have provided a wealth of documentation and have added to it commentary more legally neutral than any other I know of. Their summary -- as a summary -- deserves a mention in the lead as applying to litigation involving Landmark Education in general." The debate has moved on past the point (on which I agree) that Skolnik and Norwick acted in one case for the Rick Ross Institute. -- Pedant17 (talk) 02:50, 13 June 2008 (UTC)


 * The implication that material in the lead should express an ideal neutrality (as opposed to contributing to an overall neutral point of view) fails to address or respond to the points made on this Talk-page on 2008-05-02: "The Wikipedia guideline on lead sections says: 'The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article. It should establish context, summarize the most important points, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and briefly describe its notable controversies, if there are any. The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic according to reliable, published sources.'"The guideline makes no requirement for neutrality. Indeed, such a requirement would preclude the existing lead: as noted in this Talk-page on 2008-04-30: "Wording such as 'Landmark Education has initiated actions to defend itself against what it perceives as malicious or negligent defamatory comment' or: 'Landmark Education has also sent cease-and-desist letters to parties that it considers have engaged in copyright infringement, slander, or libel' includes sub-clauses that do not -- in themselves -- express a neutral point of view, but rather an attitude coming from one party (Landmark Education) in a series of court cases. But the presence of such non-neutral material does not mean that we should expunge all mention of Landmark Education from the lead in a frenzy of WP:NPOVization. Rather, it encourages us to provide further, different perspectives to the lead, in order to achieve a neutral point of view summary by balancing rather than by subtraction." -- Unless and until someone disputes or refutes these points, made here over a month ago, a referenced balancing summary quote such as that from Skolnik and Norwick (however emasculated as a sop to stylistic objections) properly belongs in the lead of the article. -- Pedant17 (talk) 02:50, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Growing Generations
Who ever put the growing generations information into the article was violating WP:NPOV. The section cited a press release by Landmark Education saying 'That references and acknowledges the existence of the suit'. There seems to be a lot more to that press release than that one statement. Having now read both the article from the Village Voice the press-release from Landmark Education- I think the way this has been included is definitely in violation of WP:NPOV. I took it out. Including that case when there are pretty oblique connections to Landmark Education {The actual point of the press release I believe), it just seems a little low brow to include it in the article. The whole case just seems frivolous and what I especially don't get about it is if the guy who has brought the law suit is so concerned about his "Christian Beliefs", what was he doing working for an outfit that helps gay and lesbian couples have biological children? I just don't think it is relevant to this article. Triplejumper (talk) 18:14, 2 June 2008 (UTC)


 * The information on the Growing Generations case read as follows: === Growing Generations (2008) ===

Parties involved in an employment suit against "Growing Generations" (a surrogacy and sperm-bank company) have spoken of Landmark Education programs and practices in relation to a dispute brought in Manhattan federal court. Graham Rayman reports in The Village Voice: "Scott Glasgow, 40, the company's former marketing director, claims he was fired in June 2007 after he refused to attend Landmark 'personal-growth' seminars..." ... Glasgow is suing under sexual-harassment and religious-discrimination statutes ... 'I was shocked when I was fired,' says Glasgow, ... 'I want them to stop imposing Landmark on the employees... It went opposite of my Christian beliefs.'. 'The Landmark philosophy is deeply ingrained in the culture of the company,' says Brent Pelton, one of Glasgow's lawyers." A press release emanating from Landmark Education acknowledges that the case exists and that it references Landmark Education.


 * The material briefly summarizes an employment suit which references Landmark Education, and thus appears relevant to Wikipedia's article on "Landmark Education litigation", just like the case involving 21st Century Democrats. The material cited a press release ("International Training and Development Company, Landmark Education, Mischaracterized as Religion" in The Earth Times, 24 May 2008. Retrieved 2008-05-30) issued by Landmark Education. The citing of the Landmark Education press release in the Wikipedia article stresses from an alternate point of view that the case exists and that it relates to Landmark Education: such a press release testifies to the importance of the case. If other editors detect in the Landmark Education press release further relevant material relating directly to the subject-matter of the current Wikipedia article (Landmark Education litigation), then let's include that material as well. -- Whether or not Landmark Education's connections with the court case remain "pretty oblique" remains for the court to determine. In the interim, though, we have a piece of litigation which references Landmark Education (however obliquely) and in which the ex-employee has explained the position of Landmark Education in the case; a lawyer for the prosecution has noted the importance of Landmark Education in the bckground situation; The Village Voice has elected to mention the connections of the case with Landmark Education; and Landmark Education itself has issued a press release addressing the case. This makes for a well-documented and topical connection with our Wikipedia article. Lawyers and Manhattan courts and The Village Voice and Landmark Education itself do not seem to regard the matter as too "low brow" or "frivolous" for their attention, and I know of no reason why Wikipedia should suddenly consider itself above the relevant doings of such august entities. -- I note in passing that no inherent contradiction exists between holding Christian beliefs and helping the establishment of families, whether gay, lesbian, biological or non-biological. On the other hand, a case brought partially under "religious-discrimination statutes" may conceivably have some relevance to a party's religious beliefs. -- In the light of the above, I propose to restore the deleted section on "Growing Generations"as quoted above, along with any suggested enhancing material. -- Pedant17 (talk) 02:14, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Disappearance of template
At 1933 hours on 2008-06-02 a Wikipedian removed the template: landmarkForum from this article, adding the edit-summary: "removed inappropriate template box". Failing explication of the specific way(s) in which this template appears inappropriate, I propose restoring the template, which, appropriately enough, includes a link to the current article on "Landmark Education litigation" (as well as links to other relevant and related background material). -- Pedant17 (talk) 02:14, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

It should be out of the articles because Werner Erhard is not involved in Landmark Education and is not involved in legal issues. Spacefarer (talk) 19:53, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, he has served as a consultant to Landmark Education and has been a cited party alongside Landmark Education in litigation and lawsuits involving both parties. Cirt (talk) 21:27, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Disappearance of navigation-aid
On 2008-06-11 at 2014 hours a Wikipedian removed the following navigation-aid from the article: ''This article discusses litigation involving Landmark Education. For legal matters and legal views involving Landmark Education but less directly linked to litigation, see Landmark Education and the law.'' and commented in the Edit-summary: "There is already a link to the POV fork "Landmark Education and the Law" in the see also section it definitely doesn't belong in the lead here." -- The removed text did not form part of the lead, but rather represented an article-specific navigation/disambiguation template, marked off from the lead by appearing in italics and separated from the lead by a horizontal rule or line. It appears inappropriate to criticize it as part of the lead. -- To refer to the Wikipedia article [Landmark Education and the law as a "POV fork" does not do justice to that article, which once formed the repository for the material subsequently renamed as our current article "Landmark Education litigation" (see the "History" page for "Landmark Education and the law".-- Any discussion as to whether the article Landmark Education and the law (an ancestor page of our current article) lacks in some way a neutral point of view should take place in the Talk-page of that article, not in the edit-summary fields of our current article. -- When articles get spun off, Wikipedia guidelines strongly encourage linking and summarizing: see Content forking. Failing merging of these two articles, let's at least encourage readers to note the existence of the extra not-unrelated material and readily click to it if desired. -- Pedant17 (talk) 02:50, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

What is the justification for this article?
Can anyone explain what is the justification in having this article included in an encyclopedia? This site is supposed to be dealing in facts, not unsupported and discredited snippets of opinion.

The opening paragraph of the introductions states: "Since its adoption of approximately its current structure in 1991, Landmark Education has become involved in a variety of legal proceedings"

Well, yes - the anti-landmark polemicists have managed to dredge up two cases where attempts have been made to sue Landmark Education (in neither of which was a clear judgement against Landmark forthcoming), two where they are mentioned tangentially in disputes between other parties, and 13 where Landmark either sued or threatened to sue for libel or defamation (in the majority of which, the defendant withdrew rather than substantiated their original allegations).

Does anyone seriously suggest that this amount of legal activity in connection with a company that has had well over a million customers over a 17 year period is even noteworthy, much less deserving of an entire article? DaveApter (talk) 15:20, 1 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Dave--I have absolutely no idea what this article is doing here. If we had a page for every company that had this amount of legal activity we'd be writing millions of new pages. Its existence seems to violate the "Wikipedia is not a soapbox" truism. Gilbertine goldmark (talk) 16:07, 1 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The article as it currently stands fulfils none of the criteria listed in WP:NOTSOAPBOX. Do we have specific passages in the article that we can improve in this regard? -- Pedant17 (talk) 02:50, 4 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The article exists due to a fork of information out of Landmark Education and the law in November 2006. -- The content exists because glib weasel-worded summaries of overall legal case-statistics in the Landmark Education article proved inadequate or inaccurate in representing the subject-matter. Alternative expressions of opinion have come together in fulfilment of the Wikipedia ideal of a neutral point of view. -- The amount of editing in the article history suggests that the topic retains some interest and that contributors have assisted in  building the web. The litigation keeps piling up as well, with 20 cases now discussed. -- The amount of total legal activity (covering as well the material discussed in Landmark Education and the law) has perhaps less importance than the seriousness of charges and the scope and variety and patterns of the cases. Tendentious summaries of alleged "[un]clear judgments" for or against merely serve to obscure discussion and exposition of the issues. Readers may find it instructive to consider the spin around the Panorama magazine case in the Netherlands and to consider the sober summary of Skolnik and Norwick (currently missing from the article): 'Landmark [Education] generally ended up settling [such] cases without any financial recovery, but instead by extracting some ... statement by the defendants that they do not believe or have no knowledge that Landmark [Education] is a "cult."  Even those statements never reach ... whether Landmark [Education]'s programs are, in fact, dangerous and  abusive.  ...   Landmark [Education] invariably declined to pursue its multi-million dollar suits to judgment ... to recover the ... "damages" it claimed to have suffered.' --   In assessing suitability for an encyclopedia we may wish to distinguish the limitations of paper-based  lexicons/cyclopedias and contrast that with the possibilities of comprehensive web-based encyclopedic treatment. An article on Landmark education's legal history does not seem out of place alongside Kano Trovafloxacin trial litigation or Apple Inc. litigation. -- The implication that the current article consists of "unsupported and discredited snippets of opinion" misrepresents the case. Each court-case discussed has verified legal existence. Each has potentially arguments expressed on two or more sides of an issue. Our article attempts to reflect this legal history in its major and salient points, dealing evenhandedly with each side, reporting outcomes and balancing mere opinion with mere counter-opinion. I invite fellow-editors to assist in developing our material along these lines rather than contemplating removing valuable material. -- Overall the article has as much or as little purpose as any Wikipedia article: it documents our knowledge of the world. Detecting "justification" in it would smell of the WP:NOTADVOCATE ban. Perhaps we should tone down the worst of Art Schreiber's rambling defenses, lest the article start to resemble justification of "a company that has had" (allegedly) "well over a million customers over a 17 year period" (as many as the Mafia?). After all, if the litigation scorecard appears as clearcut as described above, Landmark Education need have no fear of the facts. -- Pedant17 (talk) 02:50, 4 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I simply contend the Skolnik section doesn't belong in the lead this article. I did not remove reference to it from the article.  It is not in keeping with WP:Lead to immediately refer people to another website in the lead of an article. Triplejumper (talk) 14:40, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Following WP:LEAD guidelines
In reply to User:Triplejumper's note dated 14:40, 19 August 2008 (UTC): Thank you for not removing the Skolnik and Norwick summary from the article. It might help to restore that summary to the article. -- Within WP:LEAD, the WP:LEADCITE guideline encourages appropriate use of quotation and citation, stating: "The lead must conform to verifiability and other policies. The verifiability policy advises that material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, and quotations, should be cited. Because the lead will usually repeat information also in the body, editors should balance the desire to avoid redundant citations in the lead with the desire to aid readers in locating sources for challengeable material. Leads are usually written at a greater level of generality than the body, and information in the lead section of non-controversial subjects is less likely to be challenged and less likely to require a source; there is not, however, an exception to citation requirements specific to leads. The necessity for citations in a lead should be determined on a case-by-case basis by editorial consensus. Complex, current, or controversial subjects may require many citations; others, few or none. Contentious material about living persons must be cited every time, regardless of the level of generality." -- Given that the Skolnik and Norwick summary relates to potentially controversial material and to some living persons, it seems appropriate that we quote and reference such balancing/NPOVizing material -- which provides much-needed summary -- with care and thoroughness. In the circumstances, I propose to restore the Skolnik/Norwick summary to the lead: I believe I have addressed on this Talk-page all outstanding objections to so doing. Any specific objections? -- Pedant17 (talk) 01:12, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Representation of Landmark Education as a "company"
On 2008-08-23 at 0217 hours a Wikipedian changed the text: "The Swiss subsidiary, Landmark Education AG,[...] instituted formal legal proceedings [...] demanding that infoSekta cease distributing information about Landmark Education" so that it read: "The Swiss subsidiary, Landmark Education AG,[...] instituted formal legal proceedings [...] demanding that infoSekta cease distributing information about the company". This change introduces ambiguity: it leaves the reader unclear whether "the company" refers to Landmark Education Corporation or to Landmark Education AG. (Note that the relevant source makes specific mention of judicial representations on behalf of of two groups: "Ein Zürcher Anwalt meldete sich im Namen der amerikanischen Zentrale und der schweizerischen Tochterfirma." [A lawyer from Zurich represented the American Head Office and the Swiss subsidiary.] Futhermore, the Swiss source makes it clear that the material distributed by infoSekta related not so much to any company as to the content and nature of Landmark Education's seminars and activities. Substituting "the company" for "Landmark Education" therefore distorts the description of the case. Accordingly, I propose that we substitute a formulation such as  "... cease distributing information about Landmark Education's course-contents and methods". -- Pedant17 (talk) 00:42, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Alleged retraction of "cult" label
On 2009-08-23 2008-08-23 at 0218 hours a Wikipedian changed the the text "The [Swiss] magazine [FACTS] allegedly later retracted this statement after Landmark Education took legal action" to read "The [Swiss] magazine [FACTS] later retracted this statement after Landmark Education took legal action" and noted in the edit-summary: "remove weasel wording; ref is there". The footnote reference for the alleged retraction links to http://www.infosekta.ch/is5/gruppen/lm_straeuli1998.html -- which does not mention FACTS magazine. That leaves us with an unsupported assertion of a retraction "after Landmark Education took legal action". Until such time as we have good documentary evidence of the retraction (and of the alleged legal action) from a reliable and independent source, we can as editors qualify the claim by labelling it "alleged". Alternatively, if we can track down some account of the alleged legal action, we can attribute any specific statements made on the matter to their proper source. -- Pedant17 (talk) 00:42, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Representation of Landmark Education as an "organization"
On 2008-08-23 at 0220 hours a Wikipedian altered the section on the suing of Margaret Singer, changing the words: "the text did not make it entirely clear whether she labeled Landmark Education as a cult or not" to read: "the text did not make it entirely clear whether she labeled the organization as a cult or not". Such a change appears to misrepresent Margaret Singer's opposition -- not to the mere "organization", but to the whole complex of Landmark Education, its actions, methods and effects. Note that her carefully-worded statement quoted later in the same paragraph of the article refers not to any organisation. but to "Landmark" and to "The Landmark Forum". And weigh up the note in the introduction to the second printing of Singer and Lalich's book,  Cults in our Midst: "In fact, and with much regret, this edition of the book contains a rather glaring omission in my historical account of a certain movement. Despite the profound impact of one particular person and his organization on the spread of certain types of training, I have not mentioned this well-known leader and his international organization. I have taken this step due to the pendancy of a meritless lawsuit against me and Jana Lalich arising from the publication of the hard-cover edition of this book... For these reasons, and because I want to keep on helping ex-members of cults understand what happened to them and how to overcome some of the long-lasting damage cult behavior has brought into their lives, I have elected to write generically of cults, so that my energies can continue to be directed to studying cults and helping cult victims. ..." (page XXIV of Margaret Singer and Janja Lalich: Cults in our midst, first paperback edition, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1996 ISBN 0-7879-0266-7 ) -- Note the broader context: the "movement", "training", the "leader" and the "victims". -- Moreover, the lawsuit itself, as brought by Landmark Education against Singer and Lalich, stresses that it objects not merely to representation of Landmark Education (the organization), but also to the representation of "the Landmark Forum program" -- see pages 5 and 6 of the complaint in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, dated February 13 1996, reproduced online as part of the Landmark Education Litigation Archive. The complaint goes on to highlight issues of workplace activities and Large Group Awareness Trainings and thought reform and brainwashing and "coercive psychological influence" and totalism -- all in relation to the activities (rather than the organization) of Landmark Education. -- The lawsuit issues between Singer and Landmark Education involved a lot more than a mere "organization". Our encyclopedia account should reflect this by referring to "Landmark Education" -- as a meme-package -- in this context, rather than as a mere "organization". -- Pedant17 (talk) 02:24, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Removal of the medicalization of brainwashing
On 2008-09-03 at 1419 and 1421 hours a Wikipedian removed passages from the article (see diff which deprived a sententence of a main clause and left a footnote dangling. I propose that we we remedy the situation by changing the original sentence to read:

In 1999 Art Schreiber of Landmark Education commented on the case in terms of brainwashing as a medical matter involving Lell as a perceived patient: Mr. Lell was not "brainwashed". As the record at the Hearing indicated, following completion of The Landmark Forum Mr. Lell did not see a doctor; was not hospitalized; did not seek or obtain medication; and was not diagnosed by a medical professional as being brainwashed or having any mental problem.

-- Pedant17 (talk) 00:24, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Restoration of Infosekta balance
On September 3, 2008 at 1424 hours a Wikipedian altered the article by "balancing" a non-sourced simplified over-specific claim ("with infoSekta agreeing not to call Landmark Education a cult") with a vagueness ("some matters") and noting in the edit-summary "Balanced this section a little". As the edit unbalanced and oversimplified the section, I propose reducing the comment and relying on the quote provided to convey the information: "In the matter of content we can happily assert that the substantive points of infoSekta's work stand. As previously, we can claim that Landmark shows cultic traits, so long as we emphasize at the same time that we wish to avoid a facile labeling as a cult (Sekte). (Such a labeling we would wish to avoid on principle and in any case.) As before, we can continue to express doubts as to the professionalism and the seriousness of Landmark's course-offerings (the agreement expressly states this). And finally, when asked about the matter, we can advise against attending [Landmark] courses." -- Pedant17 (talk) 01:39, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Restoration of Panorama case summary
On September 3, 2008 at 1428 a Wikipedian edited the article and added the edit-summary "Panorama Magazine (The Netherlands): Removed a link to a non-reliable opinion web piece that has no place in an article on legal matters an article". The edit had the effect of removing an alternative report on the outcome of a court case in the Netherlands, leaving only the reference sourced from Landmark Education (an interested party), which concentrates only on part of the case. Since different points of view evidently exist as to the outcome, it seems appropriate for verification to reference the full transcript of the court judgment, ( which makes it clear that although Landmark Education won a few points on matters of verbal technicalities relating to definitions and the exact role of Jack Rosenberg/Werner Erhard (sections 3,4 and 3.10 and 3.11 of the judgment), the judge identified misquotations by Landmark Education of the Panorama article ( sections 3.13 and 3.14 of the judgement), dismissed Landmark Education's case for a published correction (rectificatie) of the Panorama article (section 3.20 of the judgement), upheld the right of freedom of expression of opinion (de vrijheid van meningsuiting, section 3.22 of the judgment), rejected demands (section 2.2 of the judgment) for Panorama's owners to pay damages, and ordered Landmark Education to pay the costs of the case (section 4.2 of the judgment). (For reference, Panorama originally published the article in dispute as ) -- Pedant17 (talk) 02:14, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Notice re Checkuser case
A checkuser case resulted in "confirm" on several users as sockpuppets of each other, that edited articles on closely related topics including Landmark Education, Werner Erhard, Landmark Education litigation, Scientology and Werner Erhard, Erhard Seminars Training, and Werner Erhard and Associates, among others. As a result, several of these users and sockpuppets of each other have been blocked. The checkuser case page is here: Requests for checkuser/Case/Eastbayway. Cirt (talk) 00:59, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Metroactive
This section doesn't describe any litigation. Should we move it to the Landmark and the law page?Eaglebreath (talk) 22:53, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * It goes to a pattern of intimidation and/or threats of frivolous litigation, it's appropriate in both places. Cirt (talk) 16:45, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Cleanup?
I'm wondering whether this article could do with general overhaul? It seems to me to be written from a perspective that is far from a neutral point of view. DaveApter (talk) 10:40, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

The article appears to be a coatrack to air a string of negative allegations about Landmark, most of which have not been substantiated in the ensuing legal proceedings, thus violating the undue weight policies.

Furthermore several of the sources which are quoted at length do not meet Wikipedia's criteria for reliability, being self-published websites belonging to individuals who are party to the disputes being described here. I really would have thought that the amount of legal activity did not represent an adequate justification for its own article at all, in the context of a corporation that had been trading for 20 years and served well over a million customers. But if it is to continue, it should be condensed and given a more evenly balanced tone, and the unreliable sources excised. DaveApter (talk) 16:39, 17 May 2011 (UTC)


 * While I also question the creation of a separate article (though of course most of this should be folded into the main Landmark article), your edits appear to be an attempt to remove anything negative about Landmark. Wholesale reversions of sourced passages and the gutting of the descriptions of the intents of the various lawsuits, as well as changing wording, all without any explanation whatsoever, simply create a pro-Landmark POV rather than establish an NPOV. The article does point out quite clearly Landmark's agressive use of the courts to silence any published criticism. Each of the edits you made should be submitted individually with justification for each. A massive rewrite of this nature without explanation is contrary to the collaborative editing process of Wikipedia. Sensei48 (talk) 05:34, 23 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi Sensei48, and thanks for joining in the discussion. First off, I'm sorry I omitted to add the edit summary, which I'd intended to do pointing to this talk page and these points I'd already made above.
 * Now that we've got the issue of the lack of the edit summary, could we please discuss the merits of my edits themselves? I dispute your charaterisation of my revision as "creating a pro-Landmark POV". I genuinely attempted to remove the extensive bias of the article in its previous form, and went to great lengths to leave a mention of almost every point that was made, whilst giving it a more even handed treatment and a more logical overall structure. As you will see, I already opened a discussion of the above on the 17th May and suggested the general drift of my proposed changes on 23rd May, and no-one had disputed either submission.
 * My responses to your specific accusations are as follows:
 * your edits appear to be an attempt to remove anything negative about Landmark. - Not at all; every single fact that was included in the original article remains in my revision, but re-worded to remove the extensive editorialising, spin and weasel-wording.
 * Wholesale reversions of sourced passages - I don't really understand what you mean here; some of the sections had been moved around to form a more logical structure, but the only thing that had been removed wholesale was the so-called "Introduction to the Landmark Litigation Archive" which is neither factual nor reliably sourced - it is an opinion piece written by Rick Ross's lawyers (self-promotional in nature) and published on his website.  Did you notice that the majority of the citations in the previous version were to the Rick Ross website, which is clearly not a WP:RS?  I removed these references, but left the facts to which they refer, in some cases replacing the citations with more satisfactory ones such as court documents archived on Wikicommons.
 * and the gutting of the descriptions of the intents of the various lawsuits - I make no apology for this; editorialising about the presumed intention in a lawsuit is opinion, not fact, and where it is entirely aimed at one side of the case is a violation of WP:NPOV.
 * The article does point out quite clearly Landmark's agressive use of the courts to silence any published criticism - precisely. This is clearly an opinion held by some people, and I indicate that quite clearly in my version, while preserving neutrality by also referring to the countervailing opinion (both by references to statements made in court documents).


 * I would appreciate it if you would take a closer look at both the original article and my revision, and see whether you might agree that my version is a better starting point for the "collaborative editing process of Wikipedia" which we are both no doubt committed to. Thanks DaveApter (talk) 09:52, 23 May 2011 (UTC)


 * As no-one has disputed my points above, I'm re-instating my edits now. Please don't revert wholesale; if you have issues with any of my changes please discuss them specifically here. Thanks DaveApter (talk) 17:38, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Lawsuits that Landmark isn't a Party To
There's a section of this article that seems superfluous, the section that discusses lawsuits that Landmark wasn't even a party to, both of which were dismissed without merit. Why are these even in here? Dismissed suits that mention Landmark without directly involving it seem outside the scope of this article. Nwlaw63 (talk) 00:13, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Some pruning
I pruned this article some, given the requirements that we use reliable secondary sources and all that jazz. My edit was reverted here, by the topic-banned, but I feel I should address their revert and the rather inaccurate edit summary, "please discuss your vast and POV changes before you implement them". First of all, I'm not going to discuss every single edit I make first, and given their topic ban I could hardly have discussed it with them. Imagine if we had to discuss every single edit. Second, there is nothing "vast" about these changes IF we consider that, well, material needs to have adequate secondary sourcing. I made my changes in fourteen separate edits, each one accompanied by a summary explaining the reason for the edit. I challenge anyone who wishes to challenge them to prove that the sourcing was indeed adequate--but worse, that sourcing will have to be prove to be adequate, since it was incredibly deficient. Third, that my edits were "POV" is, in my book, a personal attack, and I deny having a POV on Landmark or any other NRM. But that's hardly the point for this article: WP:RS is, plain and simple. Drmies (talk) 19:06, 14 October 2014 (UTC)