Talk:Landmark Worldwide/Archive 27

COI
For the record I am NOT an employee or a shareholder or an owner of this company. I have participated in their programs and I have volunteered there. All that means is that I actually know of which I speak as opposed to people who are just making stuff up. I never claimed to not be for Landmark's work or "approve " of it. NPOV isn't about that- everyone has biases - the key is to be straight up. If you look at my page I am VERY clear about that. Who needs to look to themselves about the NPOV policy is people who CLAIM to be neutral but are obviously trying to spin the POV that LE is a cult or cultish or whatever. I stand by my edits and demand that the COI tag be removed by an admin Jennavecia wha you say there is "clearly a COI" you clearly don't understand the policy. I happen to be an expert in this particular topic and encyclopedia article's are often written by experts. The COI policy is designed to keep people form aggrandizing themselves or gaining from writing things in the encyclopedia that are not true. Alex Jackl (talk) 15:36, 24 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Knowing of which one speaks and happening "to be an expert in this particular topic" count as  original research unless backed in every case by  reliable sources. Disparaging others as "people who are just making stuff up" does not take into account the thorough and extensive sourcing backing up other points of view. -- I respectfully disagree with the contention that "the key [to NPOV] is to be straight up" -- I regard balance and the expression of multiple viewpoints as more important in expressing neutrality. One such viewpoint -- the association of Landmark Education with cultishness -- also deserves (and has long deserved) treatment in the article as a major issue (alongside other matters) in the "public conversation" abut Landmark Education. -- Pedant17 (talk) 04:30, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

SIMILARLY:

Over-reliance on Website of company
Jennavecia says: "#An over-reliance on the website of the company. AJackl notes above that a site is partisan and has, therefore, been removed. That's all well and good, but there's going to be a trimming of the article to remove claims backed by the company's website, which is obviously partisan as well."

Ummm hello- it is a primary source of information about the topic. The topic is a company- its website is the company's public face. This obviously inaccurate comment makes me think you are not neutral in this. Where else would you suggest getting some of this information? Please forgive my tone but this is not neutral analysis. I ask you, if you are earnestly neutral- and not faking it- please relook at this and see that you have been fooled by a small fanatic minority of people who- for some reason- are committed to spamming this article. You can see this fight against the spammers has been going on for a long time. and it has over and over again ended with the vast majority of editors finally getting the small minority to back down and have a semblance of a balanced article in place.

It isn't bad now - it has been stable but some of the same old voices (like Cirt- who changes his identities like other people use tissue paper to protect the guilty- chekcout his former aliases and their history of being blocked in this matter. By the way- Cirt had done very good work in some other areas but he has some really strong bias here)Alex Jackl (talk) 16:05, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
 * AJackl, please consult WP:SELFPUB. I'm surprised no one has raised that issue here before (perhaps it is in the archives).  While it is possible to use self-published sources, there are conditions to be met.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 10:15, 26 October 2008 (UTC)


 * We have looked pretty carefully here at WP:SELFPUB. It has been raised but, in each case, after careful looking the majority has agreed that the official corporate web-site is not a personal website and does not fully fall under WP:SELFPUB but that consideration should be used as it is a single-source information location.  There is no question about that!  It does however meet the conditions for the use of self-published sources in that it is about itself, and believe me all the contentious claims were burned out of this article many iterations ago.  This is pretty vanilla stuff about the company now.Alex Jackl (talk) 06:23, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Good to know it has been raised. I see nothing in WP:SELFPUB that restricts its applicability to personal (as against corporate) websites -- but after looking at each instance I agree that there are no problems with the way LE sources are currently being used. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:06, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * - if there are instances where we can rely on secondary sources instead of primary sources directly affiliated with the subject of the article, we should always strive to do so to best satisfy WP:NPOV and not have the article become a linkfarm for a for-profit, privately owned company. Reliance on links to the company's website as sources for the article should be avoided wherever possible - otherwise there is no point to having a Wikipedia article about a for-profit company be anything other than simply a link to their own website. And yes, many of the facts currently cited in this article to their website are disputed or unreliable, or in some cases they have changed the layout of their website such that certain facts are no longer backed up to those cited webpages. Citing to secondary sources is more reliable and stable. Cirt (talk) 17:42, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree entirely with the principle that secondary sources are to be preferred. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:51, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay thanks. Cirt (talk) 19:21, 28 October 2008 (UTC)


 * The contention that "[t]he topic is a company" needs elaboration. A company called "Landmark Education LLC" does exist -- alongside its subsidiary and associate companies. Perhaps this minor corporate body deserves an article in Wikipedia. But much of the discussion about "Landmark Education" applies to the teachings and practices stemming from Landmark Education seminars and other Erhardian promotions. Many people may love or hate such teachings and practices, but few such people (I suggest) have a lot of interest in corporate structures. Let's not confine discussion in Wikipedia to mere corporate detail. -- I don't understand the reference to "a small fanatic minority of people who- for some reason- are committed to spamming this article". Perhaps specific examples could allow us to give due weight to any perceivedly minority opinions in the article. -- Pedant17 (talk) 04:30, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Quality of source references
Umm... okay you found two references which needed to be corrected- so correct them. This is not a good reason to lock up the page. Alex Jackl (talk) 15:36, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Counter sources
Pendant17 said:
 * Let's see the hundreds of counter-sources then. -- I presume one or two of them may even meet the reliable source criteria. Do any of them transcend the boundary between opinion and fact? -- Pedant17 (talk) 02:14, 24 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Really? That is probably true because this is a matter of opinion and not fact. On NONE of the cult checklist does Landamrk hit the mark on enough of them to register as a cult- and AT  BEST- cult experts will say "I am not sure I like LE but it is not a cult".  There is not one reliable source that transcends that on the pro-cult side.   There are journalism articles that mention it. there are individuals making sometimes strange and insane accusations but not once in a court of law or in a medical body or in any group that really has a say has anyone said : "Landmark is a cult".  It is controversial YES.  Mostly from stuff that happened 30 years ago but it is is controversial and people do argue whether it is 95% effective for people as its proponents claim, or only some smaller percentage, but the cult accusations frankly are not serious and are not well-founded- they are just loud and popular with ambulance-chaser types.Alex Jackl (talk)


 * A discussion of Landmark Education in terms of matching the criteria of one particular cult check-list appears archived at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Landmark_Education/Archives/2007/Apr#The_.22cult.22_issue . One might conclude that Landmark Education can possibly "hit the mark on enough of them to register as a cult". -- One should bear in mind that scholars rarely identify "cults", but that journalists and the populace do so with abandon. And their opinions count in assessing this aspect of popular culture. Wikipedia has the task of summarizing and preserving the better-sourced opinions on this matter. -- The contention that controversy about Landmark Education stems "[m]ostly from stuff that happened 30 years ago" appears at odds with the ongoing streams of journalistic exposes and personal accounts that persist even 30 years after the Erhardian scandals have had time to settle down and die away. -- I know of no reliably-sourced discussions as to whether Landmark Education "is 95% effective for people as its proponents claim, or only some smaller percentage". Perhaps we should see such sourcing before using such figures. -- Pedant17 (talk) 04:30, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I came in knowing nothing about this company. All I know is what is written in the article and the sources. I also have no previous association with either Jehochman or Cirt... or anyone else working on the article. Now, I stopped reading at the point that it started attacking other editors. When that's been struck out or removed, let me know. Speaking on the points made up to that point, considering two admins support the inclusion of the COI template, I'm not going to remove it until I've looked over the edit history to determine its appropriateness. As far as the over-reliance on the website, I get that it's an article about the company, but we shouldn't be relying on the company's website for so much. Not only because reliable third-party sources are preferred, but specifically speaking on this website, it's not proving to be reliable. So the fewer links to this website, the better. An example would be the pointless reference to the website that included a rewritten quote from the Time article. That should have been accurately written, instead of synthesized, and cited to Time. I think I was fairly clear on that in my overview. Oh, and also, the userbox on your user page shows you as nothing less than a volunteer for the company, and from what I've read, in some states and I think it was France, your position is considered that of an employee. Again, it's not to say you can't edit the article, but it needs to be known. لenna vecia  17:13, 24 October 2008 (UTC)


 * vecia : I appreciate your walking into this firestorm cold and appreciate your looking. In no states are the volunteers of Landmark Education considered employees (that I know of).   There is spin about that in the talk pages and used to be in the article before it was removed because it turned out that none of the conclusions were official and final and what was being presented were interim working documents with partial infomration.  I think the France thing might be true but I just don't know.  None the less- I have always been upfront about my POV.  I have never changed names, written anonymously, or hid my stance, and I have always looked both ways before crossing the street so to speak.  I am really committed that the LE article be a fair representation and a good encyclopedia article rather than a POV mouthpiece for people trying to turn it into something it isn't.   I am committed to producing a great article.  I did react because I consider myself to be a very good Wikipedia-citizen and have always been willing to discuss and work things out unless we were dealing with vandalism. Thus the implication that I would be a sock-puppet or be editing inappropriately induced a strong reaction given how much I have been fighting that here in this article.

I look forward to working with you to get all this sorted out and am confident that the nature of things will be come clearer as you engage in the brutal job of walking through the history. I have been away from this for some time and just happened across the site again after a long absence but I will be watching the page now and respond to questions. Thanks ! Alex Jackl (talk) 06:37, 28 October 2008 (UTC)


 * While awaiting "official and final" conclusions on the status of Landmark Education "volunteers"/employees, we can note and report "interim working documents with partial infomration" and highlight the official actions of the French authorities in investigating Landmark Education -- an investigation that Landmark Education France (significantly, perhaps) failed to survive. -- Pedant17 (talk) 04:30, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

History
So, here's where I'm going to drop questions as I come upon them.


 * Why was http://www.rickross.com/groups/landmark.html removed here? لenna  vecia  17:13, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

The use of the David Logan reference is inappropriate in the history section given that the quotation describes purported benefits attributed to the Vanto group's involvement in a single company and is as a result, off-topic. Moreover, it is a questionable reference since the author, David Logan, has coauthored several articles and books with the CEO of the Vanto group (Zaffron) and both are members of the Barbados Group which has strong links to Landmark Education. It could therefore be said that David Logan has a financial interest in Landmark Education and its subsidiaries and is therefore POV. The case study has a disclaimer "Marshall School of Business cases are prepared to serve as the basis for classroom discussion rather than to illustrate either effective or ineffective handling of an administrative situation". As a result of this, the use of the quotation is inappropriate and misleading since it certainly appears in WP to indicate effectiveness of Vanto. The case study also provides no evidence for the claim about improvements, merely stating figures with a footnote "The specific before and after metrics are proprietary". This further calls the acceptability of the inclusion of the reference into question. In summary, the author has a conflict of interest, it is an unreliable reference, the reference has been used inappropriately in WP, and the reference has been used in a manner in conflict with the University's disclaimer. ProlixDog (talk) 04:21, 25 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the detailed response. I've been working all weekend and have had little free-time, but I'll pick this back up tomorrow... or, rather, later today, after some sleep. لenna  vecia  05:21, 27 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi Jennavecia, and thanks for your intervention to improve this article. To give a direct answer to your question as to why the above comment was removed from the lead, it was because the Rick Ross site is not a reliable source, nor does it meet WP:NPOV guidelines. It is not reliable, because it consists largely of posts by anonymous editors and selective article re-prints which in many cases are themselves poorly sourced (if a particular article is a satisfactory source, then surely it would be better to reference it directly than via the Rick Ross re-print?). It violates NPOV as it is clearly partisan by any standards. (although I am not the one who removed it this time, it has been in and out many times with much discussion here, and I may well have done so on other occasions). DaveApter (talk) 18:18, 27 October 2008 (UTC)


 * In an ideal world we might not need to cite material on the Ross Institute site. But without analyzing the proportion of anonymous posts there (similar to the proportion of anonymous contributions to Wikipedia, perhaps), we need not deprive ourselves of the transcriptions of articles not always (readily) available elsewhere for some reason or other, and still less of the images of official documents relating to Landmark Education's legal cases. The "clearly partisan" nature of the Ross Institute site shows in its readiness to link to the sites of Landmark Education and of the Vanto Group (see http://www.rickross.com/groups/landmark.html ) -- a courtesy which those sites fail to reciprocate. -- Pedant17 (talk) 04:30, 1 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I request that this page remain protected until there is at least some measure of consensus on this talk page about what should be included and what should not. This may well take some time, judging by previous efforts.  It seems to me to have many more problems as it stands at the moment than just the poverty of sources that you have identified - the continued edit-warring has left the piece without any coherent structure, nor does it enable the reader to derive any useful idea of what Landmark Education actually purports to do. It might be helpful if you would highlight the sections of the article which you feel are inadequately sourced (whether favorable or disparaging towards LE), so that we can see if more satisfactory references may be sought, or the section removed if they cannot. DaveApter (talk) 18:18, 27 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia policies and guidelines, when fairly applied, would permit well-sourced material in this article and exclude very little. Preserving a crippled version serves nobody. -- Pedant17 (talk) 04:30, 1 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Finally, I'd like to point out that Alex Jackl may not be the only one to have a COI, but he has at any rate always been up-front about his connection. Many of the disparaging editors have never declared any interest, even though their persistent revisions indicate that they are definitely working to a clear agenda. DaveApter (talk) 18:18, 27 October 2008 (UTC)


 * No "disparaging editors" contribute here: they effectively get stomped on by application of the Wikipedia "no personal attacks" policy. -- Pedant17 (talk) 04:30, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Outside comments
Landmark has had tons of articles written about it and is clearly a controversial group. The the lede doesn't mention this seems very POV. Hobit (talk) 19:36, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Legal structure factual errors
1. The article states that the first use of the name "Landmark Education" was in 1987 with the incorporation of Landmark Education International, Inc. However, the company in question was actually incorporated as Werner Erhard & Associates International, Inc. and was not renamed to Landmark until 1991. See this document: http://www.xs4all.nl/~anco/mental/randr/rename.txt
 * The U.S. State of California records that "LANDMARK EDUCATION INTERNATIONAL, INC. Number: C1197599 	Date Filed: 6/22/1987 	Status: active " with Agent for Service of Process of "ARTHUR SCHREIBER ". See http://kepler.sos.ca.gov/corpdata/ShowAllList?QueryCorpNumber=C1197599 .  This is also referenced in the article.  The U.S. State of California is authoritative on this account.  EnricCirne (talk) 06:42, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

2. The Vanto Group is not a subsidiary of Landmark Education LLC. Rather, Landmark Education LLC and the Vanto Group are both owned by the same parent company, Landmark Education Enterprizes, Inc.

Unsourced and controversial
I did remove the unsourced and inflammatory remarks that were put into the head of the article. I DO NOT want an edit war here in any way - I merely think we should work this out on the talk page. Alex Jackl (talk) 15:32, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Many remain skeptical of the organization's aims and activities, but it claims to thrive financially. " -- Pedant17 (talk) 02:32, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * This note appears to relate to an edit at 2008-11-03 at 1528 hours involving the removal the following text: "Long accused of being a cult, Landmark successfully won court cases forcing its detractors to back away from such potentially libelous phrasings. Many remain skeptical of the organization's values and motives, but it continues to thrive financially." adding the edit-summary "unsourced and undiscussed- see talk page". -- The passage in queston apparently originated as recently as 2008-11-03 at 0213 hours-- see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Landmark_Education&diff=249313946&oldid=248833947, with the "fact"-tags inserted on the same date at 0556 hours -- see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Landmark_Education&diff=249347894&oldid=249332641 -- The removal took place without allowing a bot to even date the "fact"-tags per TEMPLATE:FACT, let alone allowing anyone to provide suitable references. -- In the interests of discussion, perhaps someone could isolate what appears controversial in the passage -- apart of course from the use of Landmark Education jargon like "being" and "values", which we can readily re-phrase or eliminate without removing the entire passage. Similarly, discussion could profit from the identification of the alleged "inflammatory remarks". I detect nothing inflammatory in the passage under question -- except perhaps the phrasing of "Landmark successfully won court cases", which fails to identify "Landmark Education" as opposed to other (respectable) organizations that use the name 'Landmark', and which implies that Landmark Education has not also "lost" court cases involving the use of the term "cult" -- as for example the matter involving Self magazine see for example the discussion and referencing at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Landmark_Education_litigation#Cond.C3.A9_Nast_Publications__.2F_Self_magazine_.281993.29 -- We could restore the removed material with enhancements and references as follows: "Frequently characterized as a cult, or in Landmark Education conducted a series of court cases with the apparent aim of discouraging commentators from describing it in such terms.

"Frequently described as a cult" is hearsay, and unsourced. The legal defintion of "hearsay" is "hearsay - Second-hand evidence, generally consisting of a witness's testimony that he/she heard someone else say something. - Utah state court. Because of the nature of this statement, and its controversy, Landmark Education has defended itself numerous times against this statement ( and won substantial sums of money ), yet it persists, despite multiple statments to the contrary. It can clearly be established by law, that the statement is false. You can argue that black is white indefinatly, but without defining what black is, and providing reliable sources, ( NONE, and I really mean NONE of the sources cited here can even hope to qualify as experts ), but you only persist in furthuring the controversy. Wikipeida's article on Wikipedia, is by its very nature, in violation of a great many number of policies.
 * BUT what is so very ironic, and this is truly ironic, you have a certifiable expert on the subject, who is willing to work on mitigating all the POV issues, and yet, you disagree with him, without really any indepth understanding of the issues. Its like watching children play basket ball with an NBA draft pick. He has access to sources, and resources that are both reliable, and well known.
 * You could begin to argue, if you could clearly define what a cult is, ( and since you're not an expert ), you could ask for sources on people who ARE. Numerous psychoigists and mental heath care professionals, even clergymen have said Landmark Education is not a cult ( again... why rely on the testimony of experts?!? ). But black really really is white. really!
 * You should clearly rely on a incontrivertal source, The Cult awareness network.
 * "Over a period of years, many investigative reports on television have been set up by the ACN as follows: an individual is deprogrammed; the local ACN representative approaches the news or reporter with a pre-packaged story about the alleged "mind control," financial manipulation and sexual misdoings within the "cult. offering the deprogrammer and his .client. in support of the claims. Having been prejudiced by the exaggerated accounts offered by the ACN, the reporter then approaches the group in a "have you stopped beating your wife!. spirit.  The results are distortion and hate-mongering.
 * "Citing cult-bashers and deprogrammers as experts on the harm caused by so-called cults is like quoting leaders of the American Nazi Party as experts when they claim that the American economy is harmed by what they view as the Jewish control of banking. Not only is the uncritical acceptance of ACN dogma unfair, but it is devastating to our most cherished constitutional rights and antagonistic to the pursuit of spiritual truths by citizens of a pluralistic society.'" -1988 Lowell D. Streiker Ph.D.
 * Expert, refrenced, quoted. Verifiable, second source.
 * "I did remove the unsourced and inflammatory remarks that were put into the head of the article." -Alex Jackl
 * I dont see anything wrong with this. I would regard 'Alex Jackl' as an expert, and willing to work within acceptible processes to get a factual balenced article written. Hasn't wikipedia been long accused of being the truth? How about working to move toward that?
 * "apart of course from the use of Landmark Education jargon like "being" and "values" Landmark Education uses dictionaries to find common definitions. 'Values' is one such word.
 * "3: relative worth, utility, or importance   "
 * 'Being'
 * "1 a: the quality or state of having existence b (1): something conceivable as existing  (2): something that actually exists  (3): the totality of existing things c: conscious existence"
 * But, since you like to site forien language sources:
 * "Sein", German: "Martin Heidegger’s Being and Time (1927) is an exploration of the meaning of being as defined by temporality, and is an analysis of time as a horizon for the understanding of being. Heidegger presents his view of philosophy as phenomenological ontology, beginning with the hermeneutics of Da-sein (there-being). Da-sein is a term used by Heidegger to refer to being which understands its own being. Da-sein is conscious being, and is the kind of consciousness which belongs to human beings." Let me know the qualificions of "Sein", you can talk about upon reading the work.

--Artoftransformation (talk) 08:12, 6 November 2008 (UTC)


 * People have frequently characterized Landmark Education as a cult. Whatever the truth of that characterization, the characterization exists and gets repeated. My suggested text provides a couple of examples of official documents (reliable sources) which repeat the characterization -- other cites also exist and have featured in this article in the past. Whether one personally regards the French National Assembly or the Senat of Berlin as "cult-bashers and deprogrammers" does not detract from their quotability as expressions of widespread popular opinion. We could change the wording from "Frequently characterized as a cult..." to something like "Characterized as a cult by various official reports, by several investigative journalists and by distinguished social commentators..." if preferred -- expanding and multiplying the sources appropriately. People have actually said and written such things about Landmark Education for years -- despite periodic protests from Landmark Education. Wikipedia can and should report the facts: many people have said such things. -- If, on the other hand, we were to call Landmark Education a "cult" on the basis of such claims -- then and only then one might start worrying about alleged hearsay and even the possible falsity (or falsifiability) of that statement. That would involve a different statement and potentially a different set of experts -- perhaps even lawyers. In that case one might profitably mention the multiple definitions and implications and connotations of the word "cult" -- though we have other Wikipedia articles that address the bulk of that work. Also in that case one could argue about the alleged incontrovertibility of the alleged "anticult network" ("ACN") (compare anti-cult movement) and about the implied expertise and scholarly detachment of Dr Streiker and about the general acceptability of Dr Streiker's views in various involved communities and about the would-be air of neutrality attached to publication on the website of the new " Cult Awareness Network". -- I will happily accept "Alex Jackl" as an expert on semantics when I see his published, peer-reviewed work in that field. -- I note a resurgence of the old Scientology-style method of using "dictionaries to find common definitions" -- compare . I would simply suggest that just because words like "Democratic" and "Republican" appear in dictionaries, that doesn't necessarily mean that we endorse without question the existence and policies of the "Democratic People's Republic of Korea". Analogously, we can note and analyze the use by Landmark Education of such terms as "value" and "being". That reminds me that we should should add a section or an article on Heidegger and Landmark Education. Someone seems to have removed the linkage between the two that formerly appeared in this article -- just as someone has removed any mention of the word "cult" in the lead of this article... -- Pedant17 (talk) 02:33, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm puzzled by the absence of any mention of criticism of LE in the lead. The lead should give a good summary of what follows in the rest of the article -- see WP:LEAD. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:09, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Agree with both of these points by and . Cirt (talk) 08:10, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The lead should remain with just the basic facts. Anyone who has credentials and has looked at the courses offered by Landmark Education, concludes that the Landmark Forum is simply an education program, and Landmark Education is not a cult (it is a company) and it does not harm people. I even wonder about having 'self help' since the company offers continuing education courses, seminars and programs similar to other training companies or universities continuing education programs. Spacefarer (talk) 17:07, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 * You appear to be unfamiliar with WP:LEAD. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:10, 12 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Indeed, WP:LEAD offers the guideline: "The lead serves both as an introduction to the article below and as a short, independent summary of the important aspects of the article's topic... The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article. It should establish context, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points -- including any notable controversies that may exist." -- Let's edit in a constructive manner here. -- Pedant17 (talk) 01:34, 13 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Strongly Disagree with and  and . Agree with . The facts remain that Landmark Education is NOT a cult it is a business. An accurate statement for the Lead could be "Sometimes erroneously characterized as a cult..." Or "Sometimes mis-characterized as a cult..."Mvemkr (talk) 17:15, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for offering your opinion on what is "factual" and "accurate" -- however that is not the issue here (nor is it generally relevant to Wikipedia). In other words, you haven't offered a reply relevant to the point about WP:LEAD.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:32, 12 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I've come across some people who actually do see Landmark Education exclusively in terms of a business; others see it a something more (or something less) than that instead/as well. In order to comply with WP:NPOV, our article "must" reflect all such well-founded views: "All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. This is non-negotiable and expected of all articles, and of all article editors." -- Attempts at dilution of valid views with words such as "erroneously" or "mis-characterized" would breach the NPOV requirements by smuggling in weasel words. We could use the formulation "Often -- controversially[sources] -- characterized as a cult,[sources] Landmark Education conducted a series of court cases with the apparent aim of discouraging commentators from describing it in such terms.[sources]" -- Pedant17 (talk) 01:34, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

The lead section, lead, or introduction of a Wikipedia article is the section before the table of contents and first heading. The lead serves both as an introduction to the article below and as a short, independent summary of the important aspects of the article's topic. The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article. It should establish context, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including any notable controversies that may exist. I agree with this Wikipedia style guideline, we should follow that. Cirt (talk) 03:23, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Conflict of Interest and other issues
I have been gone from these pages for some time and am saddened that this continues to go on. I have seen no evidence of conflict of interest and so am going to remove the COI tag from the top of the page. I will review the rest of the page now as well... Alex Jackl (talk) 19:08, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I am also going to remove the neutrality dispute tag- this has been going on for so long and except for a small minority of vocal attackers the site is pretty stable and FRANKLY watered down to protect itself from the negative POV attacks.. Let's discuss this here on the talk page. Alex Jackl (talk) 19:11, 22 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Stability does not imply neutrality: witness the Talk page and its archives. -- How does one determine whether "vocal attackers" (from any direction) constitute a "small minority"? -- Pedant17 (talk) 02:14, 24 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Because Pendant, in the end, when enough people get involved it always goes to the way it is now. I now you personally don't like the way it goes but that is what mediation has always brought us too. Alex Jackl (talk) 15:44, 24 October 2008 (UTC)


 * "Enough people" getting involved may not include those contributors adjudged sockpuppets per Requests for checkuser/Case/Eastbayway. -- The article "always goes to the way it is now" ... except where it doesn't. Stability in the case of this article occurs only when administrators lock out editing. Historically, content trends in the article have depended more on determination to exclude material than on reasoned discussion on the talk-page. -- I don't regard uninformed speculation on what fellow-editors "personally [...] like" as germane to discussion on building a better encyclopedia per Talk page guidelines. -- The claim that "mediation has always brought us [to]" something appears at odds with the fact that no mediation initiative has ever resulted in any agreed outcome re this article. -- My question remains unanswered and un-addressed: How does one determine whether "vocal attackers" (from any direction) constitute a "small minority"? -- Pedant17 (talk) 04:30, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Removed the CAIC reference: the site is partisan and would appear to fail the Reliable Source and Undue Weight criteria. I quote the site itself: " I have a disclaimer posted on this site which clearly states my position regarding the organizations listed. Most of the articles regarding Landmark/Forum/EST are anecdotal - subjective experiences of others .... I reiterate what is said on our opening page: Just because a group is mentioned on this site does not mean we regard it as a destructive cult. Both Cults and Isms are listed to provide information ... If the writers of the articles refer to Landmark as a cult, we take no responsibility for this. It is the opinion of the writers"

This is not a reliable source. If this passes the test then I promise you there are HUNDREDS of counter sources for Landmark not being a cult. It is ridiculous. Alex Jackl (talk) 19:18, 22 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Let's see the hundreds of counter-sources then. -- I presume one or two of them may even meet the reliable source criteria. Do any of them transcend the boundary between opinion and fact? -- Pedant17 (talk) 02:14, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with these edits so I support reverting them. AJackl, as a proclaimed Landmark Education employeee you have a declared conflict of interest regarding edits to this page. Rather than saying the page is watered down, I'd say it has been sanitised. ProlixDog (talk) 23:27, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Furthermore, there are NO sources for their being a non-existence of claims of Landmark being a cult. You can't un-ring a bell. You may dispute the veracity of the claims, perhaps, but you can't get around the fact that Landmark Education is referred to as controversial in the mainstream media. See e.g. http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/04/02/2205464.htm ProlixDog (talk) 23:56, 22 October 2008 (UTC)


 * See WP:COIN. ProlixDog, please don't edit war.  It is better to leave the article in what you think is a wrong state, and get outside help.  That way any decisions made will stick. Jehochman Talk 13:37, 23 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Jehochman, thanks, will do. Maybe that was a bit "Leroy" of me. ProlixDog (talk) 04:23, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Outside view from an uninvolved admin
Okay, so here are the issues I've found.
 * 1) An over-reliance on the website of the company. AJackl notes above that a site is partisan and has, therefore, been removed. That's all well and good, but there's going to be a trimming of the article to remove claims backed by the company's website, which is obviously partisan as well.
 * 2) Synthesis of sources. An example that also supports point 1 is Landmark Education Virtual Press Kit which claims to contain an excerpt from The Best of Est?. Here's the difference:
 * 3) *Landmark: "Since 1991, over 1,000,000 mostly professional and well-educated seekers have taken the introductory Forum."
 * 4) *Time: "Since 1991, approximately 300,000 mostly professional and well-educated seekers have taken the introductory Forum (an estimated 700,000 took Erhard-era seminars)."
 * The difference being that the Forum is 3 days and the seminars are more like 3 hours.

(93.96.26.63 (talk) 12:24, 18 November 2008 (UTC)) Comment from a Landmark Graduate: As of 18 November 2008 Landmark's website listed 297 Landmark Forum weekends scheduled between that date and 17 February 2009. At this rate - and ignoring the fact that no courses take place over Christmas and New Year - Landmark would run nearly 1,200 Landmark Forums per year. Given that each Landmark Forum involves between 75 and 150 participants, in my view the maths of this supports Landmark's claim over that of Time. (93.96.26.63 (talk) 12:24, 18 November 2008 (UTC))


 * Bear in mind that some planned courses may get canceled -- even Landmark Education courses. Note the date of publication of the original Time article: March 1998. Note that est too put on many multi-day "seminars". Recall that Landmark Education's own figures in "updated" "quotes" from its versions of Charlotte Faltermayer's Time article got pulled from the Landmark Education website archives shortly after their publication as factoids in Wikipedia in 2007. Remember that Wikipedians have removed the same information from our Wikipedia article too. This version of our article shows the apparent "growth" in attendance of the "Landmark Forum" as reported by Landmark Education itself:


 * 1998 300,000
 * 2001 600.000
 * 2002 600,000
 * 2003 600,000
 * 2004 758,000
 * 2005 725,000


 * -- Pedant17 (talk) 13:00, 22 November 2008 (UTC)


 * 1) Fabrication of information in sources. Synthesis is to take information from a source and twist it to your liking; misquoting. Fabrication is citing a source and hoping no one checks it. Fabrication is when the information claimed to be within the source does not exist at all.
 * Pacific Biometrics, filings. Form SB-2. Quote: "Mr. Giles currently also serves as Chairman of Giles Enterprises, a private holding company for various business enterprises, as Chairman of the Board of Landmark Education Corporation, a private company providing seminars on personal growth and responsibility, as Chairman of Mission Control Productivity, Inc., a private company, and as the owner of GWE, LLC, a private company specializing in lender financing."
 * In the version at the time of protection, this quote lacked closing quotations, but it started with quotations. Regardless, verbatim or otherwise, this information is not in the source.
 * Another example is Quick Fact which included a block quote stating: "Someone important to you probably recommended The Landmark Forum. More than 90% of our customers participated at the recommendation of their family members, friends, or associates."
 * This is not contained within the source.
 * 1) Inadequate sourcing.
 * This speaks for itself.

A lot of this article needs to be reworked. The NPOV tag should not be removed, as the NPOV of the article is disputed. Also, AJackl, there is clearly a COI here and merely claiming there isn't doesn't make it go away. As an employee or volunteer of the company, you inherently have a COI. Note that it doesn't prevent you from editing the article, merely others need to know so that they may ensure your edits are within policy and consensus.

That all said, considering the issues, I'm going to go through the history of the article to determine where the long-standing issues stem from and determine the best course of action to remedy the problems with this article. لenna vecia  03:10, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Suggested structure
How about an attempt to agree on what the overall structure of a good article on this subject would be?

I'd suggest the following as a starting point:

Evaluations

 * Or would soemthing like Outcomes be a better title for this section? DaveApter (talk) 10:09, 30 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Using the term Outcomes or Results implies that those things can we written about with certainty. I think it's highly unlikely we will reach agreement to content under those titles since much of that sort of material is based on testimony and self-published sources by LE.  If it is Evaluations, then at least what can be written about would require mention on veracity of sources/claims. ProlixDog (talk) 01:31, 17 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you, ProlixDog. Wouldn’t you agree that these sort of things might qualify as results and outcomes:


 * 1. $3.5 million in donations for resoration projects in the Nisqually watershed in Washington Sate that help revive salmon populations


 * 2. The Art Behind Walls Project gives prison inmates the opportunity to give back to society by creating artwork and projects that will be sold to raise funds to purchase and donate school supplies for children and public school teachers in need.


 * 3.Raising over £12,500 for the International Childcare Trust, to build a Child Protection and Community Centre in Kenya, to provide care and improve quality of life for orphans and vulnerable children suffering from extreme poverty, disease, abuse and neglect.


 * 4. Founding of the Streatham Arts Festival in south London, which started as a one day community festival in 2002 and now has grown to a 10 day affair, with major sponsors, and over 50 events per year.


 * 5. Creation of the stepUP Foundation, a non-profit organisation to educate and excite teenagers about the possibilities for their future in business and in life, by bringing high profile, inspirational business, sporting and other leaders and teens together. Founded in Australia in 2002, and now operating in many countries worldwide.


 * I found these examples in a few minutes, with more time it is not hard to find hundreds more, if not thousands. DaveApter (talk) 15:51, 17 November 2008 (UTC)


 * If one can find reliable sources and one can directly link specific good works with Landmark Education via secondary sources, then one might mention such good works. Just imagine how Wikipedia's material on (say) Oxford University or the Franciscans would blossom in such a beauty-contest. In the meantime, let us recall that some worthy projects originated even before the foundation of Landmark Education in 1991, and that some good works continue to take place even without association with Landmark Education. -- Pedant17 (talk) 13:00, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Controversial issues

 * 1) Does it really produce worthwhile results?
 * 2) Is it sometimes harmful?
 * 3) Is it a rip-off, or a money making scam?
 * 4) The surprising fact that volunteer staff outnumber paid staff by a factor of over ten-to-one.
 * 5) Whether or not the marketing practices are unethical or otherwise excessive.

Anyone want to add or subtract anything from this outline?

Once we've reached consensus on that, we could draw up a list of suitable references and see how these areas could be fleshed out into a useful article. DaveApter (talk) 17:48, 29 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Yep, three other controversies should be added:
 * Controversy about use of government funds for LE courses
 * I don't see that there's an issue to report here - presumably no-one contests that it's a good thing for the government to support the continuing education of its workforce? This is only controversial from the viewpoint of someone who has already decided that Landmarks courses are no good, so it's covered under (1) above. (please also see my more general point below).DaveApter (talk) 10:09, 30 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Here we have a fine example of the idea of a prescribed structure at work -- limiting and/or suppressing comment on the basis of artificial categories. Note in passing another vast field of discussion: whether Landmark Education operations and activities deserve the implied approbation of the term "education" -- and if they do, to what extent they relate to and integrate with education in general. -- Pedant17 (talk) 04:30, 1 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Violation of religious freedom and civil rights where employers coerce employees into taking LE courses
 * This is not an issue about Landmark per se - its position on this is quite clear and above reproof. It's and issue about a handful of instances of unwise, unethical and probably illegal behavior by a couple of individual business owners or managers. DaveApter (talk) 10:09, 30 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Cases to date have implicated Landmark Education ideas and attitudes fairly and squarely. The position of Landmark Education LLC, while noteworthy, does not determine or limit the scope of discussion about Landmark Education-inspired practices. -- Pedant17 (talk) 04:30, 1 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Harassment of critics
 * I agree something about this should be included, although to meet netrality guidelines, it should read "Alleged' harassment of critics", and we should ensure that all viewpoints are covered in a balanced manner. DaveApter (talk) 10:09, 30 October 2008 (UTC)


 * And a general observation - you'll note that my headings were quite general. A summary of the sorts of things that are said (on both sides) under each of these headings should produce a useful article.  That wouldn't be served by a long litany of every single whinge and moan that has ever been voiced. DaveApter (talk) 10:09, 30 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Some of the proposed headings had extreme generality, others seemed limitingly specific. -- I note in passing the attempt to pigeon-hole discussion into a mere two ("both sides"). -- Given the generalized disgust and alarm provoked by the activities of Landmark Education, it may well prove "useful" to catalog "every single whinge and moan" (properly and reliably sourced, of course!) against the practices of Landmark Education. -- Pedant17 (talk) 04:30, 1 November 2008 (UTC)


 * And, "Does it really produce worthwhile results?" would seem to duplicate material that would go in "Evaluations". Only one of these sections are required, I think it's best to go under controversies. ProlixDog (talk) 20:04, 29 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for that - it's very illuminating. These two are only identical from the viewpoint of someone who sees the controversies as being the major matter of importance about this enterprise. For people who see an operation with well over a million customers - the overwhelming majority of whom are highly satisfied with the results they got for themselves, their relationships, their families, their careers and their organisations - a section on "Results" would be a sensible inclusion in the article. From that viewpoint, the fact that a few hundred (mostly anonymous) critics make a lot of noise about whether the courses are any good is a minor side issue. DaveApter (talk) 10:09, 30 October 2008 (UTC)


 * "Duplicate material" does not imply "dentical". -- The claimed weasel-word figure of "well over a million customers" remains unproven and disputed. Prove of any "overwhelming majority [...] highly satisfied" has not yet appeared. Dismissal of an alleged "few hundred (mostly anonymous) critics" emerges as mere spin -- we can reject it as such pending some sort of proof. -- Pedant17 (talk) 04:30, 1 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I think the last 3 issues you brought up are well covered on the Landmark Education litigation page, and do not need to be on this page.Mvemkr (talk) 06:49, 30 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Mvemk, while some of the details on Landmark Education litigation deals with two of the items I suggested to be added, it does not cover the first item - concerns of use of government spending on courses that are so controversial. Landmark Education and the law also covers relevant material to controversies, both need to at least be clearly linked (rather than a See Also) and summarised in a section on Controversies. I still argue that some text is required on these matters as not all aspects of controversy concern the aspects of law or result in legal action. ProlixDog (talk) 07:52, 30 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Ghettoizing controversies about Landmark to a specific section would inherently promote bias and violate NPOV principles. Artificially lumping so-called "philosophy" with methodology glosses over serious questions about both areas. Listing sanitized issues up-front militates against the next scandal to emerge.-- The whole issue of placing the article in a structure-straightjacket got thrown out previously: compare for example the archived talk pages such as Talk:Landmark Education/Archive 7. I've not seen any new -- let alone cogent -- reasons for restricting the article in this old tired approach. -- Pedant17 (talk) 04:30, 1 November 2008 (UTC)


 * "The surprising fact that volunteer staff outnumber paid staff by a factor of over ten-to-one."
 * You should look at this directly from a FACTUAL standpoint. What are the numbers. Like What are they? There is 550 staff worldwide, and 77,000 people -Assist-. That is much larger than 10to1, its 140 to 1. Many people who show up to -volunteer- are told clearly about the company policy. The assisting policy is a clear and seperate program, that is a formal training program, with guidelines, directives, policies and feedback. Perhaps, since the editors of this article like to -o-so- dance around the fact that this is a deritive of the Work of Werner Erhard, why not just quote him directly? How about a quote?

"'What we are engaged in creating is the opportunity for people to participate in the transformation of peoples' lives and of life itself. This context of transformation is a context of freedom and opportunity, of empowerment and human joy, of contribution and of participation. Participation in this transformation is, for me, the fullest expression of being.' -Werner Erhard on the Assisting program."


 * Source the quote and show its direct relevance to Landmark Education (rather than "the Work") and it can happily go into the article as an example of the demonstrable linkages between Landmark Educarion and Werner Erhard. -- Pedant17 (talk) 13:00, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Removal of "Legal disputes" section
On March 3, 2008 at 0433 hours a Wikipedian removed the section of the article entitled "Legal disputes", commenting in the edit-summary: "moved to related topics". The deleted section consisted of the text: "For details of litigation involving Landmark Education, see Landmark Education litigation. For details on non-litigation legal events, see Landmark Education and the law." This dispassionately presented pair of pointers to content previously originating within the article at least nodded towards compliance with the Content forking guideline, which states: "However, the moved material must be replaced with an NPOV summary of that material. If it is not, then the "spinning out" is really a clear act of POV forking: a new article has been created so that the main article can favor some viewpoints over others." -- In this case, moving the links and removing any attempt at summary has subsequently made the main article less neutral -- it currently lacks any mention of the words "law" or "legal" or "dispute" or even "controversy", and only some of these words appear in the marginally-visible "Werner Erhard" template. Moreover, a subsequent removal of the link to Landmark Education and the law has compounded the lack of neutrality, effectively flouting the call for good linking to closely related material. Valuable information once considered by multiple editors as a an integral and important part of the article has effectively disappeared without discussion on the Talk-page. An entire section which existed in different forms for many months -- under the title "Legal disputes since October 17, 2006: see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Landmark_Education&diff=82044180&oldid=82044031 and prior to that under the title "Lawsuits" -- became marginalized or completely unlinked -- Let's restore the removed section with a better NPOV summary: something like: "== Legal disputes == The legal status of Landmark Education, its products and behaviors, have long drawn the attention of lawyers and of commentators. For details of litigation involving Landmark Education, see Landmark Education litigation. For details on non-litigation legal events, see Landmark Education and the law." -- Pedant17 (talk) 03:38, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Done. Nunquam Dormio (talk) 08:52, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
 * First, it think this section is unnecessary as the links to the LE litigation pages are already under related links. Second, if there is a consensus to keep the section then I think the sentence is misleading.  Based on the material in the two litigation pages I don't think that  "the legal status of Landmark Education... has long drawn the attention of lawyers and commentators" is accurate. I would propose this text: "Landmark Education has in the past been party to various legal actions, both as a plaintiff and a defendant. For details of litigation involving Landmark Education, see Landmark Education litigation and Landmark Education and the law." Mvemkr (talk) 19:07, 28 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Links to the Landmark Education so-called "litigation pages" appeared relegated to the "See also" links section and only in the form of a single link to Landmark Education litigation -- the direct linkage to the at least equally significant Landmark Education and the law page had disappeared from this page altogether. -- The proposed replacement summary-sentence has the disadvantage of restricting the scope of Landmark Education's involvement in legal processes to only the two roles of "plaintiff and defendant", omitting other roles such as cited party and glossing over legal moves which do not involve Landmark Education so directly. -- If someone can detail the alleged inaccuracies of the formulation "[t]he legal status of Landmark Education, its products and behaviors, have long drawn the attention of lawyers and of commentators" then we can discuss improvements to the text on a basis of clarity. -- Pedant17 (talk) 05:12, 29 November 2008 (UTC)


 * As someone who is lobbying for the restoration of content, according to WP:PROVEIT, WP:BURDEN the burden is on you to substantiate that the statement "the legal status of Landmark Education... has long drawn the attention of lawyers and commentators" is accurate. Mvemkr (talk) 07:21, 29 November 2008 (UTC)


 * In this case I approve rather than the restoration of content the insertion of summary in accordance with Content forking. Leaving that issue aside, the statement I proposed summarizes the two articles linked, which together feature a total of 74 footnotes. We could readily substantiate the summary statement by duplicating the appropriate citations in the summary in the current article; just as we could use a sub-set of those citations to support the narrower summary of "Landmark Education has in the past been party to various legal actions, both as a plaintiff and a defendant." Should we do this ? -- in defiance of the advantages of linking? -- I return to my previous request: if someone can detail the alleged inaccuracies of the formulation "[t]he legal status of Landmark Education, its products and behaviors, have long drawn the attention of lawyers and of commentators" as a summary of the linked articles Landmark Education litigation and Landmark Education and the law, then we can discuss improvements to the text on a basis of clarity. -- Pedant17 (talk) 04:59, 30 November 2008 (UTC)