Talk:Landmark Worldwide/Archive 8

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

These are I think the minorest changes to make this slightly less skewed. Please let me know if there is any question about this. Thanks! Alex Jackl 01:56, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Or invariably remove the legal wording stuff from those sections and keep it as a simple reference to the article Landmark Education litigation ... Smee 02:03, 19 March 2007 (UTC).
 * This is factually inaccurate and WP:OR. We cannot be certain that we have all of the cases here. Thanks.  Smee 02:05, 19 March 2007 (UTC).


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

The DOL has made NO NADA NIENTE rulings against Landmark Education - there has been no court cases, legal action, or evidence of wrong doing. You have NO proof. It is all in your imagination. The two action reports make some recommendations and than are labeled as "NO Further Action". Case closed. This is such a waste of our precious time even to talk about this. I suggesting we remove the Labor dispute section entirely or at least reduce it to a paragraph befitting its notability. I think Smee and I have made our positions clear on this. Other editors? Alex Jackl 02:28, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I request that you please STOP your violations of WP:NPA. Thanks.  Comment on content not on contributors.  Thanks.  Smee 03:49, 19 March 2007 (UTC).


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


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

empty language
Here is how the article begins:
 * ''Landmark Education LLC (LE) offers training and development programs in over 20 countries. An employee-owned, private company, it has its headquarters in San Francisco, California. Its introductory course has the name The Landmark Forum.


 * ''Landmark Education purchased the intellectual property of Werner Erhard and Associates, a successor to the controversial Est Training, and since its founding in 1991 has developed other courses.


 * ''Landmark Education aims its courses primarily at individuals. Its subsidiary Landmark Education Business Development (LEBD) markets and delivers training and consulting to organizations. Landmark Education's subsidiary Tekniko Licensing Corporation licenses Landmark Education's "technology" to management-consulting firms.


 * ''Some critics question (for example) whether and to what degree Landmark Education courses benefit participants. Others criticise the use of volunteers by Landmark Education and examine the origins of the organization (est/WEA etc).

I am a native speaker of English, and I learned absolutely nothing from reading this passage. It would seem that the attempt at NPOV, combined with Landmark's own vagueness about itself, have produced a document that never actually says what Landmark is. What does this company do? I still have no idea.

I am not surprised to encounter empty corporatese from the company PR department ("to empower and enable people and organizations to generate and fulfill new possibilities. We create and provide programs, services, and paradigms that produce extraordinary results for our customers."), but Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. I don't think it's unreasonable to insist that an encyclopedia article tell you, in its first paragraph, what the subject of the article is. -leigh (&#966;&#952;&#8057;&#947;&#947;&#959;&#962;) 06:05, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
 * leigh, Perhaps I can provide some background on that- that intro is the best we could do given some hostile POV editing . We had some better content about Landmark's actual commitment.  Though don't be too quick to dismiss the above.  One of the things that people don't get is that it is part of Landmark's core offerings to empower and people and organizations to generate and fulfill new possibilities.  Whether they always succeed at that is another question but that is certainly in the design!


 * However- there is a lot of information there... you now know it is a "training and development" company that offers programs.  You know it is international and in 20 countries.  I agree that the historical stuff is  a little fluffy and unnecessary but that is a result of compromise. I would recommend we add "in ontology  into the description to give a little more direction on what kind of training and development.   WHat do you think? Alex Jackl 19:49, 24 March 2007 (UTC)


 * "personal training and development" also makes sense in the lead or the lead could tell a little more detail about what kind of training and development landmark education offers. Sm1969 01:01, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

situation in germany
"Landmark Education sued for correction and, on May 14, 1997, the Berlin court (Volksgericht 27A)..."

the last "volksgericht" in germany existed in the 1920's in bavaria. i suggest the author should verify their source. believe me, there is no such court in berlin. i'm sorry i can't correct it, since i could not even find any other court decision concerning landmark in berlin in 1997. 87.162.75.156 00:55, 27 March 2007 (UTC)