Talk:Landmark Worldwide/Archive 9

Summary of Current State of Play
Once again this discussion has grown extensively, and once again there has been disappointingly little progress towards consensus.

I have archived the page, and kept the 'Summary' section, which I still hope will provide a basis for an improved article.

I have also copied over the currently active discussion from the last few days to preserve continuity. DaveApter 14:19, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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


 * 1) Broadly what it is about: what it offers and how it delivers it; why people do the courses, and what they get from them.
 * 2) A summary of the ‘controversies’ surrounding the operation: what are the conflicting opinions on the various areas of debate, who hold these opinions, and what is the supporting evidence.

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

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

What is it about?
This section of the article should address the following questions:


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

(again - please discuss below).

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


 * The size of the "controversies" section reflects the degree of controversy surrounding almost everything to do with Landmark Education. Attempting to corral the disputes into one section limits the unfolding of the neutral point of view in the article as a whole. -- Pedant17 05:46, 1 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't see a "neutral point of view" here. Stating that "the degree of controversy surrounding almost everything to do with Landmark Education" does not indicate a neutral point of view.  Simplyfabulous 16:42, 13 April 2007 (UTC)


 * If you regard a "neutral point of view" as consisting of denial of the existence of controversies, then using a phrase like "the degree of controversy surrounding almost everything to do with Landmark Education" sounds like Wiki-heresy. But if you recognize that acknowledging different points of view and presenting them in a balanced way forms a core component of Wikipedia's strategy for achieving NPOV, then any problem clears up in the process of editing itself. To quote the official Wikipedia Policy at WP:NPOV: the fabled "neutral" point of view" consists of "representing views fairly, proportionately and without bias" -- Pedant17 06:36, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

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


 * Or simply differing opinions or simply different assemblages of data. -- Pedant17 05:46, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

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


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


 * Plus: how Landmark Education came into existence, what its content consists/consisted of, how one can characterize the org, whether one can credit its statements, etc. -- Pedant17 05:46, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

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

The fact that some commentators have applied adjectives such as “cult” and “brainwashing” is not in itself informative, unless we know what they mean by the words, and what evidence they draw on to justify the description.


 * It would help to report nouns such as "cult" and "brainwashing", rather than adjectives. I would welcome a full discussion of how each commentator may use such words: and assemble such evidence: possibly in a series of associated articles. In the absence of such detailed evidence, we can continue basically reporting that commentators have used such designations, relying on standard usage of language to precisify/obscure each case. -- Pedant17 05:46, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me that the majority of those expressing critical opinions on Landmark Education actually know very little about it, and quite disproportionate weight is given to uninformed speculation and hearsay. DaveApter 11:29, 19 January 2007 (UTC)


 * It may seem that way to you, but the presumption of good faith inherent in Wikipedia-editing prevents you from making unprovable claims in this arena. -- Pedant17 05:46, 1 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry - I thought the advice to "assume good faith" referred to fellow wikipedians with whom we were debating, not to everyone on the planet! And actually I didn't think I was accusing anyone of "bad faith" anyway - my impression is that the overwhelming majority of critics make it quite clear that they have never observed or participated in any of Landmark's programs or courses.DaveApter 11:52, 2 April 2007 (UTC)


 * The assumption of good faith applies indeed to Wikipedians, and thus applies as we edit here. You accused no-one of bad faith: I simply pointed out that fellow-Wikipedians should respect the work of editors representing the majority (broadly-speaking, skeptical) view here. -- Pedant17 05:31, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Caltechdoc 18:56, 22 March 2007 (UTC): I am a relatively new editor and am fascinated by the controversy generated by the Landmark Education article. As a research scientist interested in using Wikipedia as a resource, it is a bit disconcerting that so much controversy shows up around some topics. It takes only a moment of analysis to see that one particular editor, "Smee", has an axe to grind, and dedicates a fair amount of his/her day to grinding it. The questions about Landmark Education are valid - but the data is obscured by this particular editor. I have myself taken a number of "growth programs" and done a degree of research into them. The Landmark programs are clearly among the best by several measures - size of operations, number of participants, and numerous reports by participants of positive results, as well a variety of scholarly research papers completed (I have read several, from USC and from Harvard).


 * Please provide references for the "variety of scholarly research papers completed ... from USC and from Harvard". -- Pedant17 05:46, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Re: The Harvard and Reebok Heads:'' '' There is a current "local-only" video clips web page that interviews briefly the Harvard Researcher and others who share their experience of Landmark, also a video intro and bits of the course. It cannot be accessed through the main Landmark website, but it is at www.landmarkeducation.com/wdcintro and select what participants say and see it in action for the video clips. They are apparently trying out the video intro locally to get the kinks out until it becomes accessible through their website. One of the "cubes" to click on is Prof. Emeritus Michael Jensen of Harvard business school who conducted a formal study on it, and Paul Fireman, ex CEO of Reebok. I hope I've put this comment in the right place--my first time. 68.100.13.29 19:27, 13 April 2007 (UTC)observer
 * Interesting notes. I still await the referencing of the "variety of scholarly research papers completed ... from USC and from Harvard". -- Pedant17 06:36, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Landmark is clearly not a cult, does not use brainwashing, and is a fine program that focuses on making a difference in people's lives. My sense is that the rate of negative outcomes is low, likely commensurate with the rate in any academic program (Caltech for example has a noticible rate of psychological trauma among its students - does this make Caltech a dangerous cult, or a danger to society? Caltech is clearly one of the finest scientific institutions on the planet.)

My sense is that if "Smee" is not allowed to alter the Landmark Education site for some period, the controversy would settle and we would converge on a balanced and useful article.

That statement is not worth very much if you can't sign; it's also rather impolite to suggest that a user who has worked so hard on a page suddenly stop participating. ER Talk 16:58, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Intro Paragraph
Lets- I quote from WP:LEAD: When writing a lead section about ideas and concepts (such as "truth"), it can be helpful to introduce the topic as follows:

1. Context - describing the category or field in which the idea belongs. 2. Characterization - what the term refers to as used in the given context. 3. Explanation - deeper meaning and background. 4. Compare and contrast - how it relates to other topics, if appropriate. 5. Criticism - include criticism if there has been significant, notable criticism.

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

There is a large contingent of us (see above discussions) that think the intro is already overly leaning towards talking about the far past too much and think MOST of the criticism stuff is pretty non-notable and minority POV driven. The fact is this intro was gotten to voer weeks and weeks of patient effort by editors to keep it balanced. I think we should move very carefully to not disturb that. WIkipedia does say be bold but I suspect others will be bold back and that leads to edit wars. Lets take the consensus route.Alex Jackl 04:36, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
 * You make some intriguing points. I would like to hear what User:Tazmaniacs has to say about all this...  Thanks.  Smee 04:42, 18 March 2007 (UTC).


 * The minority viewpoint that criticism of Landmark Education comes from a minority does receive a lot of air-play... -- Pedant17 05:46, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I understand your opinion but this is a weasel-worded statement. Say what you mean:  Do you mean to imply it is not a minority viewpoint?  Please don't spin and hide behind sarcasm and stick to improving the article!  Thank you!
 * I merely point out a minority (but vocal) viewpoint: that criticism of Landmark Education comes from a minority. That implies that the article should evolve to represent majority views better. -- Which of my words do you regard as weaselly spin? -- Pedant17 05:31, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Too many citations to unreliable Corporate Web site

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


 * Wow! This is really over the top.  Ummm.. this is an article about a corporation.  The primary source of information IS the corporate website.  It should be checked and should be treated knowing it is the corporation talking about itself, but you are not clear on the policies. Checkout any three corporate web pages and you will find NUMEROUS references to the corporate website.   Frankly, it doesn't even count as self-publishing.  Alex Jackl 06:15, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Compare usage of exact same template in similar article Scientology. Smee 06:17, 20 March 2007 (UTC).
 * I do not watch the Scientology site and am not that interested in 20th century religions.  How about we check out all the other business es using corporate sites.  1. It is not publicity advertisement only- it is a working site.  One can look up courses, access services, even register.  2. It doesn't matter it is the official site of the corporation.  It acts as the web presence for that corporate entity.  If you decide to put it on Scientology, go ahead.  I don't know what the people tracking that site will say or have said or even it should be there - it might.  I just don't know. What I do know is that template clearly doesn't belong here.  What I also find annoying is sneaking little changes in like the charter "claims" vs. "states" which was gone over and consensus was reached.  *shrug* I am going to try to move on again but I was pulled in by the inappropriate template.  Alex Jackl 06:35, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * It is not publicity advertisement only- it is a working site. This is simply untrue.  The purpose of the site is to convince more people to take the coursework, thus more money for the for-profit, privately owned corporation, thus it is blatant advertising, which is not allowed on Wikipedia, especially when citing research and alleged statistics.  Thanks.  Smee 06:40, 20 March 2007 (UTC).
 * I got your unsupported opinion about that. I don't have a problem with your thinking that, just don't pass it off as fact.  Compare the Landmark Website to some comparative web sites and you will see that it is more operational than most, and has lots of information for clients of the organization.  Shocking given that it is the OFFICIAL web site of the organization.   And- good god- a for-profit company has marketing material on its website!  I have NEVER seen that before! Now THAT is notable.  Puh-leese! (just for the record and humor-impaired that was sarcasm, intended to underline how much the Landmark website is mis-characterized here.  ) Alex Jackl 06:57, 20 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Opinion vs. Fact, good. What is the main purpose of the Web site, and in fact of the company?  To create as much profit for the owners, whoever they are, as possible.  Thus the Web site would be designed to do this.  Thus it is not a reputable and certainly not a neutral source for anything.  Thanks.  Smee 07:00, 20 March 2007 (UTC).
 * I don't understand the logic of profit = "not reputable" website. Look at the Wikipedia page for IBM, for example.  The page has links to IBM's wbesites and is a company which makes a profit, with many, many, many links to the products which it offers.  Based upon that logic, are you saying profit = "not reputable" for IBM's website?Simplyfabulous 19:27, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The drive for profit can obscure other considerations, such as ethics and humanity. It doesn't always happen, but it remains a possibility. -- Pedant17 06:36, 21 April 2007 (UTC)


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


 * An example of a place where this shows up is the reference to the charter in the beginning of the article. You keep insisting on changing the verb associated to the charter to "claims".  As in, the charter "claims".  You clearly don't understand what a corporate chater is.  A chart is a declaration- like the Declaration of INdependance.  It states as a declaration what it stands for.  Landmark doesn't "claim " that - it is a statement- a declaration.  Yet you insist on keep changing it back to "claims".  Why? I can't help but think you are trying to wage a PR war to make LE look a particular way.  I am not accusing- I am merely stating what seems obvious and asking the question: What's the problem here?   Alex Jackl 07:14, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * If you continue to violate the policy of WP:NPA - comment on content, not contributors, we are not going to get anywhere here. Thanks.  Smee 07:17, 20 March 2007 (UTC).


 * Any charter can claim or state anything. That doesn't necessarily make something valid outside that scope. To state that a charter "claims" or "states' or "professes" provides a more accurate and encyclopedic account of such matters. -- Pedant17 05:46, 1 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Personally I agree that fewer corporate links would be preferable - but I also think that the article ought to have more descriptive content on what the courses are about and how they work (see below). DaveApter 14:27, 20 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Please discuss changes on talk page instead of mass reverting my work. In addition to editing I added much material w/ sourced citations. Thanks. Smee 18:00, 20 March 2007 (UTC).


 * I am more than happy to discuss matters here, and have been making an honest effort to get a constructive discussion going with a view to reaching a consensus on an article structure that will be acceptable to editors with widely differing viewpoints. It seems to me that you simply take rhetorical standpoints or simply ignore arguments which do not fit your POV, rather than engaging in the discussion. You are also very ready to accuse other editors of personal attacks.  The edits you added and which have been reverted, have almost all been discussed on this page ad nauseam.


 * For example, you reverted AJackl's correction of the neutral (and accurate) "states" with the spun weasel word "claims" (against WP:NPOV) without even bothering to answer the point he made in the paragraph above. DaveApter 18:44, 20 March 2007 (UTC)


 * No, I have restored this change by AJackl, as requested. Please keep your comments to content, not contributors, thanks.  I am refraining from commenting on what I would perceive as your obvious bias, which I would imagine you could see would appear to others on the other side.  I have not done this, please do keep your comments to content.  Thanks.  Smee 18:48, 20 March 2007 (UTC).

Specific suggestions for improving the article
The article is far too long, much of the material is repetitive, and extensive coverage is devoted to minority opinions, and issues of only very marginal significance are expounded at great length. There is frequent obfuscation between matters of opinion and matters of fact. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by DaveApter (talk • contribs). (nb this was not an unsigned comment, it was the start of an extended section signed by me at the end - and the same goes for all the spurious 'unsigned' flags which were inserted by user:Smee in the next dozen or so paragraphs - DaveApter 08:58, 22 March 2007 (UTC))


 * If you find the article too long, fork. If you suspect minority opinions, state your evidence for their minority status. If you detect opinions, label them as such. No need for complaints on the talk-page. -- Pedant17 05:46, 1 April 2007 (UTC)


 * The frequent changes to this article have also repeatedly violated the "Neutral Point of View" policy of Wikipedia. Clearly, an agenda is being forwarded in the process.  Wikipedia is not an editorial page.  Simplyfabulous 15:38, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

After reviewing several other entries about various corporations, I believe this article could benefit from a standard format, and removing a lot of the "deadwood". The format that appears regularly, and appears to work well, is something like this: Some examples you can see of this format in good use are Starbucks, IBM, H & R Block, DeVry University, and Best Buy.
 * introduction, basically what the company does.
 * how they do what they do, their particular market segment or products, etc
 * more detail, sometimes a history, or new products
 * evaluation of the company from outside sources, controversies, court cases or judgments.


 * Landmark Education has a corporate aspect, as discussed. It also has aspects involving belief and practice and influence: in these respects the article structure might more closely and usefully resemble articles on religions. -- Pedant17 05:46, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually there is no proscribed practice and is not a belief system. So what is your point? Alex Jackl 15:37, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Practices do not need proscription (or prescription); beliefs do not always come in neat and self-consistent systems. -- Pedant17 05:31, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

The principal of undue weight to controversies has been severely violated in this article. When printed out, fully a third of the pages deal with investigations that ended with nothing found and no charges, lawsuits that were withdrawn, and then a range of controversies. I suggest this range of topics be reduced to maybe 5%, 10% tops, as this would represent more than the actual amount of this company's customers and interactions that could possibly be controversial.


 * Actual stuff: perhaps, but Landmark Education has a history and Wikipedians have striven to reflect that history in all relevant detail. -- Pedant17 05:46, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
 * IBM has a history as well but that isn't portrayed this way. This is an encyclopedia not a historical treatise on company histories.     The key in what you said is "all relevant detail".  Wikipedia is not a link farm nor is it a repository of all data on a subject.
 * Most things have histories. If Wikipedia skimps on the history of IBM, say, or Zoroastrianism, this merely suggests that editors' interests may tend towards the current in some fields -- so far. Facts on history -- even company history -- have a place in Wikipedia, "in all relevant detail". -- Pedant17 05:31, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Addressing "in all relevant detail" is going to be subjective. We need to directly address undue weight given to the affor metioned items.  This is significant because an editor smeewith a very clear POV had been previously editing on this article up to 20 hours a day.  If you look back over the various archived talk pages or edit history, you can see the enormous impact of this person POV on the article. Triplejumper 19:22, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Addressing "in all relevant detail" has long raised issues of subjectivity. If you happen to detect undue weight, I suggest providing balancing material of similar merit to Smee's impeccable contributions. -- Pedant17 03:38, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

For any that feel that more space is needed to illustrate an egregious wrong, I suggest employing the Wiki principal of letting the facts speak for themselves. An excellent example of this is the "Criticism" section of Best Buys entry, which by it's sheer conciseness hits you right between the eyes.


 * While such an approach might well cover any individual egregious wrong, it might not cater so well for systemic patterns of criticism. -- Pedant17 05:46, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I believe it will.Alex Jackl 15:37, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Patterns require bodies of data to establish and prove them, though. -- Pedant17 05:31, 10 April 2007 (UTC)


 * We are getting into Wikilawyering here. We have to look at specific examples and see how notable they are and whether they would be mentioned for other companies and under what circumstances they would be mentioned.  Sm1969 05:27, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Notability forms only part of the issue here. And we should not merely confine the "Landmark Education" article to the model of commercial companies: it has become of interest less as a company than as a morass of pop-culture memes. -- Pedant17 06:36, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Louislouislewee 04:44, 23 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I took some time to look back over the history of the article, the version in early May 2006 appeared to be generally balanced in viewpoint and encylopedic in tone and had been stable for many months. At that point there seemed to be a concerted campaign to introduce extensive coverage of negative propaganda and to remove significant informative sections and the whole thing has suffered from an extended edit war over the last 9 months.  Perhaps the version of that time would make a better starting point than the present one?Mvemkr 23:26, 24 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I am not sure. This article took so much damage from the edit warring and the POV editing form minority-view editors that it is tempting to take such an extreme route but as I look around there seems- for the first time in a long, long time a dialog about content  and not just POV warring.  It is GREAT!  I have to admit I am concerned about maintaining this atmosphere if a sock-puppet of the editor in question or perhaps one of his allies comes back and tries to hijack the article again.   But, welcome to Wikipedia, right?  I am excited by what appears to be an influx of reasonable editors.  I think a lot of willing editors to this article where cared away by the edit warring.  I really hope my defense of the article did not contribute to any of that! All that rambling aside I believe we should- even though he and I don't always agree- follow DaveApter's path of discussing each section of the article in its own lights and then removing or changing as appropriate and we can be informed by past and more balanced versions of the article.  Does this make sense to the other editors, or is their a consensus that we should restore an older version?  I don't care so long as the balance and NPOV of the article remains intact I wholly will go with the consensus. Alex Jackl 13:43, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Methodology
More information than the single paragraph would be useful. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by DaveApter (talk • contribs). (It was not unsigned - see above DaveApter 08:58, 22 March 2007 (UTC))


 * Provided this information comes from sources other than Landmark's own publicity advertising department, yes. Smee 18:35, 20 March 2007 (UTC).


 * Where else would you get the specific methodolgy other than from the company that provides it? Simplyfabulous 15:14, 21 March 2007 (UTC)


 * This section should be developed further. It is relevant to the subject of the article Triplejumper 21:45, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Courses
The exhaustive list of course titles is not particularly informative. More helpful would be to have summarised headings for the various categories of courses offered, followed by a brief descriptive paragraph. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by DaveApter (talk • contribs). (It was not unsigned - see above DaveApter 08:58, 22 March 2007 (UTC))
 * I support this. Smee 18:31, 20 March 2007 (UTC).

I agree, the full list is not very informative. Timb66 00:53, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Since there seems to be consensus, I have gone ahead and edited this section. There was a request for a citation for the courses and I inserted the Landmark corporate web site. I assume this ok, I cannot think of anything more reliable for a list of the products offered by a company than to cite its own website. However, I am mindful that including an excessive number of links could verge on advertising. Comments? Also, I replaced sells by offers, which seems more appropriate for a course. Timb66 21:53, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I can think of few things more unreliable than an ever-changing corporate web-site (http://www.landmarkeducation.com/) which has implemented a policy of preventing standard archiving of its own content - see http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.landmarkeducation.com and http://www.landmarkeducation.com/robots.txt, which as of 2007-04-21 reads:

User-agent: * Disallow: /assests/ Disallow: /export_files/ Disallow: /einsof_common/ Disallow: /images/ Disallow: /import_files/ Disallow: /admin_common/ Disallow: /uploaded_files/ Disallow: /admin_custom/ Disallow: /null/

User-agent: ia_archiver Disallow: /


 * I suggest we reinstate the list of Landmark Education's course offerings, label it as of 2007, and thus allow readers to see the flavor of the "technology" while allowing editors to comment on individual courses and their histories. In this case, links to a for-profit provider which sells courses seem entirely appropriate -- Pedant17 06:36, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Labor Practices
I would agree that the surprising fact that significant numbers of individuals give their time to work in a for-profit corporation is worthy of some discussion, but the present treatment is an attempt to propagate and exaggerate marginal and uninformed opinions on the issue. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by DaveApter (talk • contribs). (It was not unsigned - see above DaveApter 08:58, 22 March 2007 (UTC))


 * 1. There is no need to devote pages of discussion to the DoL investigations. It is neither unusual or noteworthy that a corporation of this size should have 2 or 3 investigations over a 16 year period, and the fact that they concluded that no action was to be taken makes the matter even less significant. At least one of the investigations was in response to a delibarately mischievous complaint by a detractor of the company who had never participated in any of their courses, much less ever been a volunteer worker.
 * ... by the best and most effective kind of whistle-blower, then? -- Pedant17 05:46, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I don't understand - how is a self-declared opponent of Landmark with no experience of volunteering who acts as an agent provocateur be "the best and most effective kind of whistle-blower"? DaveApter 12:32, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Independent un-biased and fresh insights often come from the outside. Fixation on participation and experience may narrow viewpoints. -- Pedant17 05:31, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 2. The only people who assist are those who choose to do so, and this represents a small proportion of the total number of LE’s customers (around 1% in any given year).
 * 3. Those who assist overwhelmingly report satisfaction with the experience, both in terms of the benefits of the training they receive and can apply to other areas of life, and in terms of the satisfaction of contributing to the course participants.
 * I'd like to see substantiation for this claim. -- Pedant17 05:46, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
 * It's easy to find dozens of personal accounts, eg this one at http://members.tripod.com/delightworks/index.html:"Personally, I get a lot out of assisting at Landmark courses. It's great to see people gaining whole new areas of fulfillment in their lives where they had been totally resigned that things couldn't be different.... I am very interested in doing things that make a positive difference in the world. When I first did the Landmark Forum, I wondered how much I could trust the motivation of the company and staff.  Through being around these people I came to realize that their commitment is impeccable.  Landmark is a group of people who have invented a company where they can fully express themselves by contributing to others.'" DaveApter 12:32, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Personal accounts do not of themselves provide substantiation of the existence of any benefits. Personal accounts merely mire us in a morass of hearsay -- un-useful as reliable sources. -- Pedant17 05:31, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Surely this is incoherent? A personal account is the opposite of “hearsay” – hearsay means the reporting of something that the writer has heard, but not experienced for themselves . And what evidence could there be for someone finding the experience rewarding and fulfulling, other than a statement to that effect by them? DaveApter 16:13, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I can see how making a distinction between a "personal account" and "hearsay" could lead to an impression of incoherence. But once a personal account moves out of the personal gossip arena into the noosphere, it becomes merely another piece of hearsay to everyone else -- billions of others. I see personal accounts as inherently unreliable manifestations of observer bias. Statistical collections of such reported experiences may -- if handled with great care -- form the basis of some conclusions as to the experience, but only as to the experience. Other compilations of personal accounts have no value. And to extrapolate from personal accounts of satisfaction to other areas (such as labor practices) does not help the discussion. -- Pedant17 06:36, 21 April 2007 (UTC)


 * 4. Nobody is profiting from the work of the volunteers (apart of course from the customers who get very cheap courses): the company’s shareholders are all employess of the company who pay themselves no dividends and receive only their modest salaries for the work done.
 * The alleged lack of a profit makes exploitation morally acceptable? -- Pedant17 05:46, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Where do you get the idea that anyone is being "exploited"? Lots of people do things freely for the benefit of others, and the world would be a sorry place if they didn't. Do you say that people doing voluntary work for - say - the Boy Scouts are being "exploited"? The relevance of this comment is that it 'is unusual for the vehicle of the work to be a (technically) 'for-profit' rather than a 'non-profit'.
 * The investigations of the Labor Inspectorate in France, followed by the closing of Landmark Education operations there, might for example, suggests substance behind the anecdotes of people who feel exploited. Do Boy Scout volunteers come under ever-increasing pressure to volunteer more and more? -- Pedant17 05:31, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * This is totally confusing. Please say what you are refering to when you say: "Ever increasing pressureto volunteer more and more".  Triplejumper 19:22, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * (btw, please try to avoid inserting your comments between my text and my signature, as this makes the conversation harder to follow. Thanks) DaveApter 12:32, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Indentation can help in such situations. -- Pedant17 05:31, 10 April 2007 (UTC)


 * All of these claims above are unsubstantiated. It is' highly unusual for a small for-profit, privately owned company to undergo this many investigations from the United States Federal Department of Labor.  And we truly have no idea how many shares are owned by which individuals, and therefore cannot know exactly how much these shareholders are profiting off of these unpaid laborers.  Smee 18:32, 20 March 2007 (UTC).


 * I don't understand what you mean by unsubstantiated - all those assertions are simply factual: we do know the number of shareholders because it is an employee-owned company, so it will be equal to the number of employees. This is in any case irrelevant because they do not "profit" from the work of the assistants, because any surplus is used to make the courses more widely available. And what data do you have for the assessment that it is "highly unusual" for a company with 50 offices to have 3 DoL investigations over a 16 year period? I have no basis for comparison, but it strikes me as a very small number and a totally unremarkable fact. DaveApter 08:58, 22 March 2007 (UTC)


 * A company that has offices on over 20 countries can hardly be called small. I agree with Dave Apter that the department of labor investigation is misleading. 2 or 3 investigations with no judgment pased over a 16 year period is not noteworthy. Triplejumper 19:46, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * It is unusual because most companies that bring in this level of revenue are not subjected to this level of scrutiny by the Department of Labor - at least 3 investigations in the United States, and 2 in France - that is highly unusual. Smee 03:52, 21 March 2007 (UTC).
 * It just doesn't seem significant when there are no judgments. I will defer to the consensus. Triplejumper 21:52, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Judgements provide a messy last resort. Much legal machination goes into resolving issues before they reach a formal court. Should Wikipedia acknowledge such goings on? If not, why not? -- Pedant17 05:31, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree with TriplejumperMvemkr 23:32, 24 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Ditto. There seems to be overwhelming consensus that this is non-notable and should never even made it into the article.  This is a single-editor issue who had some particular axe to grind. It should be eliminated. Alex Jackl 13:34, 25 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Do the alleged deficiencies of the DoL issues apply equally to the parallel situations in France? -- Pedant17 05:46, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Request to Have Labor Dispute Removed
I am proposing that the entire labor dispute section be removed as non-notable spin representing a minority view. There seems to be agreement by all the editors but the one editor with the aforementioned minority view. Other editors? Alex Jackl 19:56, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I second this proposal on the for the reasons I mentioned above.Triplejumper 20:45, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I also agree that this section should be removed as not notable.Mvemkr 21:14, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I await evidence that the section on labor represents a minority view. -- Pedant17 05:46, 1 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I recommend this section be deleted. Simplyfabulous 21:05, 1 April 2007 (UTC)


 * editprotected I have unprotected the page. CMummert · talk 02:34, 31 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I concur that this section should be removed - it appears to be a minority view. Caltechdoc 23:43, 1 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I continue to await evidence that the section on labor (reproduced below (for the purposes of facilitating discussion) in the form before excision) represents "a minority view" -- Pedant17 05:31, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I think it is common sense. 2 investigations over the course 16 years with no judgments passed doesn't merit multiple paragraphs in this article. Triplejumper 19:22, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * "Common sense" does not addres the requirement for evidence. Which two investigations would you prefer to omit? How can one detect patterns without thorough evidence? -- Pedant17 03:38, 11 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I want to point out here that Wikipedia is kept up by volunteers - free labor! What are we all doing here? Should someone investigate? Spacefarer 14:25, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The Supreme Court of Malta seems like the most interested judicial party, though the Argentinian Court of Appeal has obvious connections with any cyberspace case. -- Pedant17 02:12, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

United States of America
Summaries of two investigations by the United States Department of Labor into Landmark Education's labor practices appear below.

The first investigation, which took place in Colorado in 1994, noted violations in respect of a lack of records kept on hours worked by employees. The "Compliance Action report" section of the case checked "No" for "Further Action on This Case". An analysis in the "Narrative report" examines arguments as to whether to classify the employees as "volunteers". The final "disposition" of the case and recommendations of the wage and hour investigator remain unknown, the authorities having redacted these details from the public version of the narrative report.

The second investigation, which originated in Texas in 2003, found violations of minimum-wage regulations (due to volunteer assistants not receiving any wages for hours worked), overtime violations (due to the same issue), and again a record-keeping violation. The "disposition" of the Texas case resulted in a transfer of the case to the District Director of the corporate office. Again, the authorities redacted the final recommendation of the wage-and-hour investigator from the public version of the report.

See below for more details.

Colorado investigation (1994-1996)
A United States Department of Labor investigation into Landmark Education's labor practices took place in Colorado, between January 1994 to 1996. The initial complaint arose out of an intent to classify volunteers as employees, subject to the Fair Labor Standards act. .

In the official Compliance Action Report the wage and hourly investigator noted:

The strongest supporting argument for the volunteer position appears, as borne out by the interviews almost exclusively, that none of the assistants have been promised or expect compensation but work solely for their personal purpose works in activities carried on by Subject [Landmark Education] for both their pleasure or profit.

The investigator continued to state that: On the other hand, the strongest supporting argument for finding that the assistants are employees was ironically cited by outside counsel in Marshall v. Baptist Hospital which found that, if the assistants can be considered trainees, they displace regular employees that they would otherwise have to hire. Subject weakly counters that this, in fact, is not the case since the assistants are under direction by staff. Perhaps more importantly, the assistant activities is a common industry practice. In so stating, it should be noted that Subject is a for profit, and not a non-profit, enterprise.

The investigator's conclusion noted that "No records are kept of any hours worked by any employees."

A 1998 article in Metro, Silicon Valley's Weekly Newspaper entitled: "The est of Friends" reported on labor investigations into Landmark Education's volunteers. At that time, the Department of Labor designated Landmark Education's volunteers as employees subject to the Fair Labor Standards Act. According to the Metroactive article the Department of Labor later "dropped the issue" after Landmark Education cited its "volunteers' choice in the matter". .

Texas investigation (2003-2006)
The United States Federal Department of Labor investigated Landmark Education's labor practices in Texas, from February 1, 2003 to June 26, 2006. In the investigation, the Department of Labor found a "minimum wage violation" with regard to "Volunteer (assistants)" and noted that "Volunteers (Assistants) are not paid any wages for hours worked while performing the major duties of the firm". The Department commented:

The assistants displace regular employees that would have to be hired. The employer could not operate with the 2-3 full-time employees per site... Interviews reveal that the employees [sic] are taking payments, registering clients, billing, training, recruiting, setting up locations, cleaning, and other duties that would have to be performed by staff if the assistants did not perform them. (Landmark Education regards such assistants as volunteers, not as employees: "The firm denies that the assistants/volunteers are employees." )

In both the Colorado and the Texas cases, as the sources cited above reveal, the Department of Labor ruled "No violations" with regard to certain sections of the law but not with regard to others. As the sources cited above also reveal, in the Colorado case the Department cited Landmark Education for not keeping records for any hours worked by employees. In the Texas investigation, the Department cited violations:


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

France
In 1994, the French Department of Labor investigated Landmark Education's labor practices.

The matter received mention in a May 24, 2004 broadcast of the investigative report ("Voyage to the land of the new gurus") on France 3 television network's show Pièces à conviction; which highlighted (amongst other issues) the matter of volunteer labor.

In June 2004, the French labor agency (L’Inspection du Travail) investigated labor practices regarding "volunteer workers". Shortly thereafter, Landmark Education officially ended its operations in France. It remains unclear what role the investigation played in the official ending of Landmark Education operations in France.

Controversies
This section is almost entirely comprised of over-long treatments of minority opinions promoted by ill-informed or deliberately malicious commentators. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by DaveApter (talk • contribs). (It was not unsigned - see above DaveApter 08:58, 22 March 2007 (UTC))
 * This is POV. The citations all are sourced to reputable material/individuals.  Please do not attack nor classify these sources in this manner.  Thanks.  Smee 18:33, 20 March 2007 (UTC).
 * Whether or not the sources you cite meet wikipedia's criteria is a legitimate an important matter to discuss. Many of the ones you use are opinion pieces, or highly partisan.DaveApter 08:58, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
 * RE: unsigned, I was merely clarifying who had said what for other readers, and did not want to put your actual name there. Please do not read into things.  What you resist, persists.  Thanks.  Smee 18:53, 20 March 2007 (UTC).

The underlying issue here is compliance with the undue weight provision in the Neutral Point of View policy: NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a verifiable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each. Now an important qualification: Articles that compare views need not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and may not include tiny-minority views at all (by example, the article on the Earth only very briefly refers to the Flat Earth theory, a view of a distinct minority). We should not attempt to represent a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserved as much attention as a majority view, and views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views. To give undue weight to a significant-minority view, or to include a tiny-minority view, might be misleading as to the shape of the dispute. Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation among experts on the subject, or among the concerned parties. This applies not only to article text, but to images, external links, categories, and all other material as well.

Undue weight applies to more than just viewpoints. Just as giving undue weight to a viewpoint is not neutral, so is giving undue weight to other verifiable and sourced statements. An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. Note that undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements.

Many of the critical sources are partisan, many have no expertise in the subject, many of them have little if any actual knowledge of Landmark's procedures, many of them are self-interested and self-promotional, and numerically they insignificant in relation to the numbers of reputable commentators who are of the opposing view. I urge everyone to work constructively towards a consensus on this page. DaveApter 14:39, 21 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia's policy requires a Neutral Point of View" and no original research or poorly substantiated references. The length of this article and the content of the sections is a testament to violations of all 3 of these policies.  Wikipedia is not a "soapbox", but rather a "People's Open-Sourced Encyclopedia".  I request this article and the editors return to managing the page from those policies, standards and ideals.  Simplyfabulous 15:38, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the NPOV principal of undue weight. As I wrote above, when I printed out the article, it consumed 24 pages. Pages 11-19 (8 pages, or one-third) were about investigations that ended with nothing found wrong, lawsuits that were later withdrawn, or a range of amazing controversies. Not only should this entire category be cut down to it's proper proportion (say, 5-10% of total), but the NPOV principal of letting the facts speak for themselves operate as it should.

I would also suggest that the editors, and particularly Smee, refrain from the nasty back-and-forth editing over minor points. For an example of a controversy that is being worked through in a collegial manner, I can recommend something I've been working on behind the scenes trying to resolve: Pacific Crest Trail. This is a case where a physical fact (the height of a mountain pass), not an opinion, cannot be agreed to. However, the editors are willing to accept a reasonable middle ground for now, and we are working to find a way to get a more accurate answer published. Louislouislewee 05:06, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

The "cult" issue
This merits at most a couple of sentences. There is much discussion and accusation on bulletin boards etc, but almost no identifiable informed authoritative figures have made this claim. On the other hand many eminent psychiatrists, clerics etc are on the record stating the converse. The most cursory examination reveals that LE fails to meet the generally accepted criteria for being a cult – in fact in most respects it is the opposite! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by DaveApter (talk • contribs). (It was not unsigned - see above DaveApter 14:39, 21 March 2007 (UTC))


 * Actually, no. The fact that this has been discussed by noted academics, and classified as such by the Federal Sovereign Governments of multiple countries - to the affect that Landmark Education had to completely shut down all operations in multiple countries - is highly notable for a for-profit, privately owned company.  Smee 18:36, 20 March 2007 (UTC).


 * I think the consensus is that is not a cult. The Gov't references are irregular, meaning some have Landmark as a "sect" not a cult and some don't depending on the year. Also in looking at the wiki cult_checklist article, Landmark does not fit these criteria.Mvemkr 23:30, 24 March 2007 (UTC)


 * This WP:OR thought is my POV and cannot be entered on my account only, but by several accounts including my own direct experience with "est", familial experience with LE and contemporary opinions from Tony Robbins adherents it matches the cult_checklist article on several lists. Shirley Harrison's and two more on a casual look.  It *is* highly aberrant among many "sects" that it was banished, but that does depend on the culture of the countries too.Zortyl 06:30, 25 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Some of the government references to "sect" would better translate as "cult". If we have any sort of continuum covering sect/cult, Landmark Education seems to lie within that continuum. Lack of evidence of culthood in certain years does not constitute lack of culthood overall. -- Pedant17 05:46, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
 * What "continuum" are you talking about?
 * For example, see Church-sect typology. -- Pedant17 05:31, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Can you cite any legitimate research that puts Landmark on a sect/cult" continuum?
 * See the references in List of groups referred to as cults, especially those relating to est. (Yes, I assume a body of commonality between est and Landmark Education.) -- Pedant17 05:31, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * You are coming form a pre-determined POV that it is a cult that is refuted by the vast majority of editors on this page.
 * I hadn't noticed that my developing views had become pre-determined: thanks for pointing this out with such clear and detailed proofs. -- I recognize that certain editors dispute the mentioned point-of-view; I see no definitive refutation, however. -- Pedant17 05:31, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Alex Jackl 15:37, 1 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Zortyl, I can't tell if you are agreeing or disagreeing. I do have a caution though- one of the big minority views that caused the protection of the article is that "est" and Landmark Education are the same.  They are certainly not... at least as far as I can tell from talking to people who have done both.


 * The issue remains debatable, then. -- Pedant17 05:46, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Nope - closed deal as far as I can tell. The vast majority seem to agree.  Alex Jackl 15:37, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Lack of unanimity means the discussion may continue. -- Pedant17 05:31, 10 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Because Landmark licensed Werner Erhard's technology (BTW: that IS a notable fact!) and some of the people involved in est like Werner's brother and sister and some of the est Trainers are also involved in this the two get collapsed by the "Werner Erhard's ghost is running the corporation behind the scenes" crowd. I also don't understand the Tony Robbins reference.  I think there does need to be a section on this in the article by the way- just it should be a paragraph or two. Remember: although so.me bureaucrats and some journalists have called the company a cult NO US court has ever upheld that.  Not once.


 * We cannot allow mere US courts to trump sovereign governments in an international encyclopedia. -- Pedant17 05:46, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I FULLY agree with this! And your point is? Alex Jackl 15:37, 1 April 2007 (UTC)


 * ANd any journal article that straight up said "LE is a cult" has retracted. It is so non-notable and so a throwback to the whole "est" controversies that it merits at best two paragraphs.


 * The alleged throwback to est controversies merits considerable analysis in itself in this context. -- Pedant17 05:46, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
 * It may indeed merit analysis - ON THE EST PAGE.  But frankly- this is an encyclopedia not a platform for anlysis of proving some point. Alex Jackl 15:37, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Intersection between two articles calls for mention in each. Items and linkages of interest to the Wikipedia community and to the wider community deserve a place in the encyclopedia. -- Pedant17 05:31, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * A mention is one thing, an X Files style conspiracy theory is something else.Triplejumper 19:22, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * A mention can hint at a conspiracy, but it may take thorough discussion of an issue to debunk/prove the multiple links and parallels. -- Pedant17 03:38, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Alex Jackl 14:04, 25 March 2007 (UTC)


 * It does lead to an interesting question.. how do we in Wikipedia discuss the "merit" of a citation? I mean there are a lot of Internet articles about people asserting that the world will end when the Popcorn god crossed the tenth dimension and take all the true believers to the concession stand in the sky  You might get ten links of detailed physics jargon and explanations about the path of ascension up the movie aisle.  That doesn't mean even ONE of those belongs on the physics page of Wikipedia or on a cosmology page.   I mean that is one of the things that happened in this article - it got drenched by POV, fringish references to journalism articles and books and references that said almost nothing but were given great weight. I mean- for instance- one of the references was to a book discussing the elements of a cult and there was a quote that had nothing to do with Landmark Education and the reference was justified robotically as a "valid, published source" by Wikipedia's policies. I know this problem is not unique to this article... can any editors give me a good reference to where this is talked about in Wikipedia? I am clear this isn't appropriate to this page Alex Jackl 14:04, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

The whole "cult accusation" drips with a Point of View designed to advance a particular agenda. Millions of people go to Starbucks every day to satisfy their particular tastes, recommend the place, even hang out there. Each year, millions of users around the world contribute their time as contributors to Wikipedia. If someone used their editing privileges to call Starbucks or Wikipedia a "cult" as a way to disparage the organizations, even if they could quote someone else's editorial point of view with reference to a book or article, such attempts to advance a Point of View would be quickly deleted from the Wikipedia pages. This whole section should be deleted. Simplyfabulous 21:01, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Can one then use the term "cult" without disparaging something? Yes. -- Can one discuss accusations of culthood in Wikipedia? -- Of course. -- Does Landmark Education have some sort of exemption from such discussions, especially given the majority popular view of it? No. -- Pedant17 05:31, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * If you are suggesting that the majority popular view is that Landmark is a cult, it smacks of POV. Triplejumper 19:22, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Just as the suggestion that Landmark Education represents a worthy and worthwhile endeavor represents a point-of-view -- albeit an extreme minority one. -- Pedant17 03:38, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Response to Zortyl's comments
Thanks Zortyl, for your contribution to the debate. I don't really understand what you mean in saying that Landmark meets Shirly harrison's criteria for being a cult: here are her tests, and my comments:

* A powerful leader who claims divinity or a special mission entrusted to him/her from above;

Doesn't apply - there is no overall leader of Landmark, it is run by an executive board which is elected annually by the shareholders, who are also the employees of the company. And certainly no-one claims divinity!


 * Ever hear of multiple/group leadership? -- And what happened to the alternative to divinity: "a special mission entrusted ... from above"? -- Pedant17 05:46, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Good point - that is more evidence that Landmark is not a cult. The lack of "orders from some divine thing/above"  Given this isn't present just adds to the massive evidence behind it not being a cult.  Thanks! Alex Jackl 15:37, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
 * When did Landmark Education centers then stop preaching the "special mission" from above which we could paraphrase as "Go forth and recruit"? -- Pedant17 05:31, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

* Revealed scriptures or doctrine;

Doesn't apply - there is no doctrine or belief system, merely a set of philosophical conjectures which customers are invited to "try out and see whether they work".


 * In practice, do you find a remarkable similarity of belief concerning leadership. responsibility, enrolment, etc among "graduates" of Landmark Education? -- Pedant17 05:46, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
 * No. It is one of the interesting things about participating in Landmark's programs: how diverse the particpant's are - in everything.


 * I do not see a similarity here. It is like saying science and creationism are similar.Triplejumper 15:54, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Acolytes start different. Their common demonstrated reverence for leadership, responsibility, enrolment, etc just happens? The commonality of language expressing such ideas suddenly springs up? -- Pedant17 05:31, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Where do you get reverence? Using a word to convey and idea doesn't automatically reflect a belief system. What Pendant17 is saying here is based on personal conjecture. Triplejumper 19:22, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I "get reverence" from the repeated appeals to such terms and their insinuation into multiple situations. -- I agree that using a word (such as "reverence') does not automatically imply a belief-system. But repeated use of a set of words may suggest a "doctrine", which relates to Harrison's point. -- Can one have non-personal conjecture? -- Pedant17 03:38, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

* Deceptive recruitment;

Doesn't apply - prospects are invited to presentations where they find out about what goes on and what results people get, and can ask any questions they like, and then choose whether to register into a course or not. Not only that but they can choose to leave a few hours into any course and get their money back (actually two opportunities to do that in the case of the Landmark Forum).


 * You regard the presentations and the first few hours as representatively accurate? -- Pedant17 05:46, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I think they do give people an accurate picture of what happens in the Landmark Forum. As a matter of fact they do a piece of the Landmark Forum in the introduction, they give a sylabbuss of what will be covered.  So yes... extremely so. Alex Jackl 15:37, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The results promised in the presentations are backed up by survey results from customers. Does the person who signs up to train for a charity marathon for the first time understand what the "wall" will feel like when they hit it? Are the personal challenges that they face in raising the money to participate in the race a suprise? Yes. Can you say that the Lukemia Society or the Breast Cancer Foundations are deceiving people? Triplejumper 15:54, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Accuracy as to the content of the "Landmark Forum" -- perhaps, but accuracy as to the pervading behavior and the "possibilities" of ongoing service to the greater goal? -- Pedant17 05:31, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

* Totalitarianism and alienation of members from their families and/or friends;

Doesn't apply - on the contrary, many customers re-build relationships with friends and family members from whom they had become estranged.


 * And similarly, some "customers" estrange families and friends through their ongoing commitment to Landmark Education and all its works. -- Pedant17 05:46, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah. I understand that some people are upset when people change their lives and attribute it to Landmark's work.  Frankly, that will happen with anything that has people reflect on their lives.  Landmark's programs do a good job in helping me inspect what they are committed to and what they stand for in life.  People then make decisions bas ed on that.  Most people are happy with those decisions, a minority aren't.  The same thing happens when people go to a business seminar, or a therapist, or change jobs.  It impacts those around them, they make decisions .  It does not make any of those things a cult.   The fact is the VAST majority (see all the studies citing satisfaction, etc.)are positive and many strongly so.  In the Landmark Forum core principles include "stop making your family wrong, forgive your family, re-establish communication where it has been broken, be authentic".  This goes EXACTLY opposite what the metrics that describe a cult look for .  In this particular metric LE is an anti-cult.


 * We can chalk up "alienation from family and friends" as a given, then. It goes well with the totalitarianism of thought-processes as to (for example) the merits of Landmark Education and the deficiencies of outsiders. One need not seek far for examples of this one-track tendency. -- Pedant17 05:31, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

* The use of indoctrination, by sophisticated mind-control techniques, based on the concept that once you can make a person behave the way you want, then you can make him/her believe what you want;

Doesn't apply - although many critics claim this, without much data to back it up!.


 * ... and some supports claim the contrary, without much data to back up their assertions. -- Pedant17 05:46, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
 * If there is not much data for either side then it is like the Salem Witch Trials again. "If she floats and lives she is a Witch, if she sinks and drowns,then she is a mortal being." Triplejumper 15:56, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The point may apply, then? -- Pedant17 05:31, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

* Slave labour - that is, the use of members on fundraising or missionary activities for little or no pay to line the leader's pockets;

Doesn't apply - certainly people do assist at Landmark event (but only those who want to - about 1% of customers in any given year), but no-one's pockets are being lined (except for the customers who get the courses at much cheaper prices than they would otherwise be).


 * What percentage of "graduates" perform the alternative: "missionary' (recruiting) work to the ultimate benefit of the corporate coffers? -- Pedant17 05:46, 1 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I would imagine that Harrison was alluding to practices like the door-to-door poundings by groups like the Mormons or the Jehova’s Witnesses, not marketing by personal recommendation. Does American Express encouraging me to refer my friends make it a cult?
 * Harrison may have omitted to make her meaning more precise. "Missionary activities" do loom large in the Landmark Education world-view. -- As for American Express, it may need to comply with others of Harrison's points -- as (I suggest) Landmark Education already does. -- Pedant17 05:31, 10 April 2007 (UTC)


 * And besides - I’m sure that someone who has studied Landmark Education as much as you have must be well aware that there are no “corporate coffers” being swollen. Why are you trying to promote this misleading negative spin? DaveApter 10:40, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Do I have to research the number and numbers of Landmark Education's bank-accounts to make a convincing case of the existence of "corporate coffers"? -- Pedant17 05:31, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

* Misuse of funds and the accumulation of wealth for personal or political purposes at the expense of members; 

Doesn't apply - the modest operating profits are re-invested into the business and not distributed to the shareholders.


 * I wonder what proportion of Landmark Education profits go into legal expenses and/or into attempts to suppress free speech on the demerits of Landmark Education... -- Pedant17 05:46, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
 * This kind of POV baseless speculation does not even belong on a Wikipedia talk page.  It is filled with weasel words, makes no attempt to constructively criticize the article, and is solely on the talk page to spread innuendo and negative spin.  Please refrain from doing that.  This kind of behavior is what got the page protected before.  Alex Jackl 15:37, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Pendant17, Thank you for your opinion, but I don't think our wondering or speculating about something there is no verifiable answer to is leading us toward consensus on this article.Triplejumper 15:56, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Which of my words count as "weasel-words"? "Landmark Education"? "Profits"? "Legal expenses"? "Free speech"? "Demerits"? -- One could tot up the number of known legal cases and actions involving Landmark Education and debit the estimated costs against non-exploitative PR. -- Speculation in general and extrapolation on the behavior of Landmark Education in particular may lead to more insights than unquestioning acceptance of (say) corporate spin. Pending a full disclosure by Landmark Education, one can raise the "possibility" of what happens. And the Electronic Frontier Foundation might not accept that its actions against Landmark Education had nothing to do with "free speech on the demerits...". -- Pedant17 05:31, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

* Exclusivity - "we are right and everyone else is wrong".

Doesn't apply - no-one is asked to believe anything.


 * I don't expect to hear any more complaints about minority non-notable viewpoints on the subject of Landmark Education then... -- Pedant17 05:46, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
 * See above re: POV weasel words. Lets be constructive, if it is possible.Alex Jackl 15:37, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The point has a certain importance. The "we are right and everyone else is wrong" does sound like a minority view-point these days -- but one often encountered amongst Landmark Education boosters. Can anyone think of a way to demonstrate the contrary? -- Pedant17 05:31, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

DaveApter 17:38, 25 March 2007 (UTC)


 * While I am sure that we all have some opinions here (and we should respect them), lets keep dealing with facts and seeking consensus. Triplejumper 15:57, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I endorse the search for facts. Consensus may have to wait a little longer. -- Pedant17 05:31, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Brainwashing accusations
The same as above, but more so – this  is a completely absurd accusation, which does not merit even inclusion in a serious encyclopedia article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by DaveApter (talk • contribs). (It was not unsigned - see above DaveApter 14:39, 21 March 2007 (UTC))


 * It is a very serious issue that has been brought forth by legal cases, into the public domain, as well as by experts and participants, and should be described as such. Smee 18:37, 20 March 2007 (UTC).


 * So has the Hostess Twinkie defense.Triplejumper 20:05, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Indeed, but not in multiple cases involving Landmark Education as defendant. Smee 20:18, 20 March 2007 (UTC).
 * My point here is that Brainwashing is sensational. Should the article on Brittany Spears have a section titled "No Underwear"? This is an encyclopedia.  Triplejumper 21:18, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The lack of underwear does not explain Ms Spears's original and ongoing prominence. Whereas the concept of brainwashing might well explain Landmark Education's otherwise unaccountable success in survival and spreading amongst the small minority of people it has lured into its seminars. -- Pedant17 05:46, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Pendant17, it appears that you presume that brainwashing is the reason for Landmark Education's success. That seems like a pretty big stretch, but I respect your right to an opinion. What it doesn't take into consideration however is the more likely explanation that significant numbers of people like the programs.Triplejumper 19:32, 10 April 2007 (UTC)


 * EDITORS PLEASE TAKE NOTE: This is unbelievable. It is like you are channeling Smee.   Are you sure you are not a sock puppet of Smee's?  You are so hooked in your radical belief that Landmark has powerful enchantment powers (possibly acquired from space aliens)) and has brainwashed over a million people.  You can't even see the POV dripping from your statements.  That paragraph is nothing other than spin mud-throwing.  The cult controversy IS NOTEWORTHY.  However- it  has been debunked over and over again.  No serious study has ever called Landmark a cult.  Every time a journal article has said "Landmark is a cult" they have retracted.  The fact is that people have written books and it has been in the media so people assume it and have added Landmark to their "list of cults/sects".  It has NOT ONCE.  NOT EVEN ONE TIME survived study and investigation in a legal environment.  How non-notable do you want to get.  Now it is worthy of being mentioned in the article because it IS something that has been associated with Landmark in the public eye. But that is what make sit notable.  Fact is: It is not a cult. All the studies and legal history support that.   Please stop littering this page with that POV weaselling- it is what has been the source of all the troubles with this page. Alex Jackl 15:37, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Do I channel Smee or vice versa? Difficult to determine -- apart from our different styles, interests, and activities on Wikipedia. However, to return from the joys of gossip and the pastime of insults and the minority-viewpoint discussion of the issue of cultdom, I note a lack of specific relevant response to my discussion of Ms Spears and brainwashing. -- Pedant17 05:31, 10 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Brainwashing accusations should be removed. They are vague, inflammatory, and apparently without sufficient foundation.  We live in a litiginous society.  The presence of a lawsuit against an organization, individual, or type of individual is evidence of very little, and there seems no other credible sources for any such accusation.  For example, the number of lawsuits against obsetricians is particularly high in the U.S.  It would be unwise to take this as evidence that obstetrics is a "quackish field of medicine."  It is more likely evidence of the tendency to try to put blame on others in the face of misfortune, and of the current willingness to bring lawsuits against others.  Further, "brainwashing" is an inflammatory term that could vaguely be applied to television commercials, training of soldiers in the U.S., standard psychotherapeutic and psychiatric techniques, and so forth.  Caltechdoc 00:02, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Putting "brainwashing" in quotes shows great wisdom: we can now discuss the concept without becomimng inflammatory. -- Pedant17 05:31, 10 April 2007 (UTC)


 * It could be said that McDonalds, Organic Farming, Western Medicine, Public Libraries and thousands of other models for delivering content, materials, food, etc. are brainwashing people by communicating a concept, or delivering a product. This is obviously not the case.  Every organization or institution or goup or company that has a message could be seen as brainwashing it's contituencies or customers.  If that is the case than those inferences should be drawn in hundreds of thousands of Wikipedia articles. Nsamuel 18:39, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Few would dispute the prevalence of idea-peddling. We on the other hand may need to address the issue as to why Landmark Education has succeeded -- albeit in very limited and special circumstances -- in propagating its practices so thoroughly and overwhelmingly. -- Pedant17 05:31, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Austrian Classification
It is completely ridiculous to devote aboout a page to this issue. We have no idea what the criteria are the the compiler of the report used. It is a report about the tolerance of the Austrian government towards minority groups, not about the characteristics of the groups themselves, and LE has never had an operation in Austria anyway. The whole section should come out. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by DaveApter (talk • contribs). (It was not unsigned - see above DaveApter 14:39, 21 March 2007 (UTC))


 * The fact that the for-profit, privately owned company was classified by the government of Austria as a "sect" in their country, in multiple reports, year after year, is highly unusual for a for-profit, privately owned company, and should be noted as such. Smee 18:38, 20 March 2007 (UTC).


 * It is also notable that Landmark was dropped in 2006 from that report. Notice how little weight that was given.  All POV pushing trying to get a single POV justified. Alex Jackl 14:06, 25 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Dropped or simply omitted? -- The decline of Landmark Education across Europe may deserve some weight. I append for reference the relevant section -- recently excised. -- Pedant17 05:31, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Austria
In Austria in 1996, the Federal Ministry of the Environment, Youth and the Family published a list of 200 groups it labelled cults (in German: Sekten)

According to the International Religious Freedom Report 2005, the government of Austria had labeled Landmark Education as a "sect":

The vast majority of groups termed "sects" by the Government are small organizations with fewer than 100 members. Among the larger groups is the Church of Scientology, with between 5,000 and 6,000 members, and the Unification Church, with approximately 700 adherents throughout the country. Other groups found in the country include Divine Light Mission, Eckankar, Hare Krishna, the Holosophic community, the Osho movement, Sahaja Yoga, Sai Baba, Sri Chinmoy, Transcendental Meditation, Landmark Education, the Center for Experimental Society Formation, Fiat Lux, Universal Life, and The Family. The Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor's International Religious Freedom Report 2006 did not list Landmark Education in the equivalent context and there is no evidence that Landmark ever operated in Austria.

Scientology
This is merely a blatant attempt to smear LE using guilt by association. There is no connection between LE and Scientlology and there never has been. No authoritative source have ever produced a convincing argument that there is. Most of the utterances on the subject are from armchair commentators who have no knowledge of Landmark. The whole section is inappropriate and should be removed. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by DaveApter (talk • contribs). (It was not unsigned - see above DaveApter 14:39, 21 March 2007 (UTC))


 * All of the material is heavily sourced to reputable citations. The fact that noted academics continue to write about the similarities between Scientology methodology and Landmark Education coursework, over 10 years since the "founding" of this for-profit, privately owned company, is extremely notable and highly unusual.  Clearly these authors and new religious movement/cult scholars have a differing opinion on this issue than the editor above.  Smee 18:39, 20 March 2007 (UTC).

The only reason to even have something about Scientology in the article is to insinuate something sinister. If we are simply drawing a comparison bewteen two courses, then why has no one put Tony Robbins, Dale Carnegie, or Dr. Phil in this article? You can find noted and reputable sources that will make those comparisons to Landmark as well. Accusations are a dime a dozen in this day of modern spin. Insinuation of danger with an intention to scare people into beleiving something has been used since the begining of civilization. Senator Joseph McCarthy, when it came to accusing half of Hollywood of being comunists and calling them up infront of the HUAC really looked convincing at the time. For that matter so did Colin Powell when he went infront of the UN Security Council making the case for WMD's. I think the only basis for having a scientology section in this article is an attempt to fabricate a reality that is simply not there. By the way, today is the 4th anniversay of the begining of the War in Iraq. Lets be cautious about this.Triplejumper 20:03, 20 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Cautious about what? And if you can find as many reputable citations comparing Landmark to Tony Robbins, Dale Carnegie, or Dr. Phil, we should add them to the article, yes.  Smee 20:05, 20 March 2007 (UTC).


 * Actually no DON'T DO THAT- Wikipedia is not supposed to be a link farm- as a matter of fact it is against policy.  The Scientology connection is bogus.  As far as I can tell the ONE connection is that the guy founded the organization from which Landmark bought their initial IP took some courses with Scientology at LATEST -->36<-- years ago and may or may not have used some of their material in a course he created and that was retired 21 years ago.  That is your big notable link right?    I am just checking.  The links to TOny Robbins and Dr. Phil and such are far more recent but also just as not notable.  You are pressing an EXTREMELY minority viewpoint.  Even your own citations - when the issue is directly addressed have the SME's saying "NO- there is no link between Landmark and Scientology".  The best you can muster is sensational journalism articles trying to drum up some sales. As Triplejumper said in this day and age of spin accusations are a dime a dozen.  You just believe something and are desperately trying to wedge the facts to make your minority viewpoint more than it is.  This is not a personal attack- I am rigorously commenting on innaccurate and weaselly-worded sections of the article trying to push a POV and prove something.  I have nothing against you and have had pleasant exchanges with you! Alex Jackl 03:49, 21 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I will not participate in discussion if you refuse to comment on content not contributors, thanks. Smee 03:53, 21 March 2007 (UTC).


 * Refusing to engage in a discussion of content and pretending that this about you is the same IMO as merely opining in the article. I take it from your refusal to talk about content and insisting that this is about contributors to mean you have no answer to this and are acknowledging the points made by others as accurate.  You are the one making this about contributors and not about content.  RESPOND to questions about the content.  Also I request you review WP:NPA and STOP accusing me of personal attacks against you.  YOU are not YOUR opinion.  Just because I disagree with your opinion and what you are writing does not mean I am attacking you. I also recommend you WP:UNDUE - it may enlighten you as to why you are hearing so much frustration about your edits. Alex Jackl 04:24, 21 March 2007 (UTC)


 * This is all blatent innuendo with no common thread and no specifics, excepting the Bavarian report which is not a comparison of LE and Scientology, but an evaluation of criteria. Sm1969 04:54, 21 March 2007 (UTC)


 * This is probably obvious, based on the above discourse, but I agree with Triplejumper and Sm1969. I believe that the Scientology links should be entirely eliminated from the article.  I in no way question whether Werner Erhard did take some Scientology courses in the far past (late 60s) and did have run ins with them (late 80s?) but that is probably (just my opinion) exaggerated as well.  We should certainly keep some reference to Werner Erhardt in the article and then people interested in him can get more information there.  Alex Jackl 13:30, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

This section doesn't make a coherent statement and its purpose appears to be to associate LE and Scientology without asserting any concrete association. It reads like a collection of random sentences which contain the words Landmark Education and Scientology. The quotes don't draw any direct connections between the two organizations which would entail actions by LE (the subject of the article), but cite the most indirect actions of others who "compare", "suggest", and "reference". Further, the Bavarian Study quote is uninterpretable to this native speaker of English. I concur that the section should be removed. Tealwarrior 23:09, 26 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Unless a definitive and clear business relationship exists between LE and Scientology, and there is no evidence that such exists, there is no point in linking them in this article. Both organizations arguable exist inside a category of "Personal Growth & Development Programs", in which case a seperate article about that topic that references a list of such programs might be appropriate (although Scientology is by it's own definition a religion, not a personal development program).  Given there is no evidence of a specific business relationship between these two organziations, references to Scientiology should not be in an article on LE.  Caltechdoc 00:12, 2 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Some people have an interest in Landmark Education as a "business". Some people have an interest in Scientology as something else apart from a business. Nevertheless observers make or examine links between the two (Nedopil, for example), regardless of the issue of any "business relationship". The very distance (theoretically) between a business and a religion makes the topic noteworthy. I propose the restoration of the section on Scientology as a basis for further evaluation. See below for the currently deleted section. -- Pedant17 05:31, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Market penetration over time
This section looks like a re-hash of an old argument in the talk pages: See: "Majority opinions and minority opinions" from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Landmark_Education/Archive_2 and the later deletion of a similar section in: "Operational statistics section"


 * This section restores data previously deleted on questionable grounds. -- Pedant17 05:46, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

The argument previously was that participation in LE programs is stagnent or waning, but the contributor hasn't come out and said that here, and instead provides evidence that this might be the case leaving such a conclusion to a reader.


 * Statistics can have multiple functions. These statistics, published to the web by Landmark Education, provide extracts from the set of the less spun contents of the Landmark education corporate web. -- Pedant17 05:46, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I thought the previous counter argument was pretty clear that the figures were not regularly updated on the LE website.


 * It might seem reasonable to assume that Landmark Education did not update its statistics on its website regularly, though I have seen no evidence of this, and one need not expect reasonable behavior from Landmark Education. On the other hand, someone with access to the Landmark Education website did and has updated that website with statistics from time to time. -- Pedant17 05:46, 1 April 2007 (UTC)


 * As you inserted this section, and are keen to keep it, could you let us know what is the point you are trying to make here, please? It seems to me to simply take up quite a lot of space with some not very illuminating statistics. DaveApter 10:40, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Statistics can prove useful, provided one knows their origin and degree authenticity. Statistics on the sales of tabulating machines in the 1920s would enhance any article seling with the story of IBM. Statistics on the number of converts or communicants would enhance any article on the story of Shinto in the 1930s. Landmark Education has generously "shared" with the world figures on its recruitment and scope. Unfortunately, some of those figures no longer appear on Landmark Education's web-page and have become inaccessible on the Internet Archive. Wikipedia can help! -- Pedant17 05:31, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Citing them as such seems misleading.


 * Misleading as to what? The statistics apparently come from Landmark Education, and appear in the article with detailed references as to their provenance and dating. An interpretation of them might mislead, but the actual statistics provide a verifiable record of what Landmark Education published and when. -- Pedant17 05:46, 1 April 2007 (UTC)



I think this section should be removed again, and added if some consensus is reached on the talk page. Tealwarrior 00:14, 27 March 2007 (UTC)


 * If someone can produce a better-attested set of statistics, we could merge them into the article. In the meantime I suggest retaining and building on what we have available on the important topic of Landmark Education's ongoing impact on humanity over time as measured by numbers of "graduations" and by numbers of offices. -- Pedant17 05:46, 1 April 2007 (UTC)


 * The lack of an update between 2002 and 2004 is evidence of not updating the site. I can think of other theories, but this is the simplest and most likely.
 * The text demonstrates that someone did update the Landmark Education site between 2002 and 2004: the phrase "current 2001 numbers" became successively "current 2002 numbers" and "current 2003 numbers", as the quotes reveal. -- Pedant17 05:31, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I see your point that it's not misleading to say: "This is what was published and when", but then the header should be something to suggest that, rather than that these are believable indicators of market penetration. The links cited are no longer accessible either, so the verifiable part is no longer the case.  Without analysis these numbers don't contribute much of anything.  Perhaps citing the most recent numbers posted (1,000,000 as of 2005) would be the most generally interesting.  Talk of "ongoing impact on humanity over time" seems like it's best left for the discussion page and not in the article.  Tealwarrior 18:58, 6 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Analysis might constitute original research. The most recent numbers convey less if divorced from their historical equivalents. Thank you for endorsing my placing of the phrase "ongoing impact on humanity over time" on the Talk-page rather than in the article proper. -- Pedant17 05:31, 10 April 2007 (UTC)


 * The list of statistics does seem to be unnecessary. I concur that the most recent numbers would be sufficient and the most interesting. Timb66 00:53, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Some people maintain an interest in the past. Such people mnay sometimes read Wikipedia. Deleted text reads:

Market penetration over time
A quote from Charlotte Faltermeyer's 1998 article in Time magazine, as reproduced (without an attributed date) on the wernererhard.com website gives a figure of 300,000 Landmark Forum-attendees since 1991.

The Internet Archive site previously held some historical snapshots from Landmark Education's website:

Landmark Education's web-site as of 10 May 2000 linked to a Time magazine page of March 16, 1998, (Volume 151, number 10) where an article by Charlotte Faltermeyer estimated 300,000 graduates since 1991, and referred to Landmark Education's 42 offices in 11 countries.

Before the owner of the http://www.landmarkeducation.com site blocked access to the information, the Internet Archive's archive of Landmark Education's web-site as of 28 November 2002, in excerpting Charlotte Faltermeyer's Time magazine article of March 1998, claimed approximately 600,000 "seekers" as having taken the Landmark Forum since 1991, and referred to Landmark Education's 60 offices in 21 countries ("[u]pdated to reflect current 2001 numbers"). The Internet Archive record of this infomation became unavailable on the Web at some time between 4 March 2007 (when the information again became part of the Wikipedia article on Landmark Education) and 7 April 2007).

Before the owner of the http://www.landmarkeducation.com site blocked access to the information, the Internet Archive's archive of Landmark Education's web-site as of 29 July 2003, in excerpting Charlotte Faltermeyer's Time magazine article of March 1998, claimed approximately 600,000 "seekers" as having taken the Landmark Forum since 1991, and referred to Landmark Education's 60 offices in 24 countries ("[u]pdated to reflect current 2002 numbers"). The Internet Archive record of this infomation became unavailable on the Web at some time between 4 March 2007 (when the information again became part of the Wikipedia article on Landmark Education) and 7 April 2007).

Before the owner of the http://www.landmarkeducation.com site blocked access to the information, the Internet Archive's archive of Landmark Education's web-site as of 10 June 2004, in excerpting Charlotte Faltermeyer's Time magazine article of March 1998, claimed approximately 600,000 "seekers" as having taken the Landmark Forum since 1991, and referred to Landmark Education's 58 offices in 26 countries ("[u]pdated to reflect current 2003 numbers"). The Internet Archive record of this infomation became unavailable on the Web at some time between 4 March 2007 (when the information again became part of the Wikipedia article on Landmark Education) and 7 April 2007).

Before the owner of the http://www.landmarkeducation.com site blocked access tothe information, the Internet Archive's archive of Landmark Education's web-site as of 1 April 2005, in excerpting Charlotte Faltermeyer's Time magazine article of March 1998, claimed approximately 725,000 Landmark Forum attendees since 1991, and 58 offices in 26 countries. The Internet Archive record of this infomation became unavailable on the Web at some time between 4 March 2007 (when the information again became part of the Wikipedia article on Landmark Education) and 7 April 2007).

Landmark Education's web-site as of 7 February 2006, in excerpting Charlotte Faltermeyer's Time magazine article of March 1998, claimed approximately 758,000 "seekers" as having taken the Landmark Forum since 1991, and referred to Landmark Education's 58 offices in 26 countries ("[u]pdated to reflect current 2004 numbers").

Landmark Education's web-site as of [[7 April] 2007], in excerpting Charlotte Faltermeyer's Time magazine article of March 1998, claimed "approximately 1,000,000" "seekers" as having taken the Landmark Forum since 1991, and referred to Landmark Education's 51 offices in 25 countries ("[u]pdated to reflect current 2005 numbers").


 * Compare the less definitive current figures, all retrieved from the Landmark Education website yesterday:

Landmark Education states variously that "More than 880,000" "approximately 1,000,000" or "almost [1,000,000]" people have taken part in its introductory program, "The Landmark Forum" since 1991.


 * -- Pedant17 05:31, 10 April 2007 (UTC)


 * This is notable how? AN encyclopedia on IBM for instance does not include its monthly sales figures- you can get peripheral information like that on their website or by downloading their annual financial reports or however you get that.
 * Monthly sales -- no. Annual figures (if reliable) reflecting growth or non-growth provide an index of actual growth. I've seen very few precise figures on the career of Landmark Education -- yet here we have figures from the horse's mouth, deemed by the organization concerned (Landmark Education) as worthy of publication to the entire world on Landmark education's own web-site, and only subsequently suppressed from the archives. The figures become not only notable, but valuable.-- Pedant17 06:36, 21 April 2007 (UTC)


 * The fact that you have a link or there is one more little piece of information does not suggest you should then add it to the encyclopedia article.  You want to discriminate and ask yourself- does this do anything ti illuminate the subject and does it belong in the encyclopedic context.
 * I endorse the desire for discrimination. If we had clearer, more definitive and less self-contradictory statistics covering the development of Landmark Education we would have no need for such little snippets of information as those provided above. In the circumstances, we do the best we can do and provide the fairest account of where one can or cannot confirm the information. -- Pedant17 06:36, 21 April 2007 (UTC)


 * You said below "Shouldn't we keep it in on the off chance...?" and the answer is no.
 * I said no such thing -- I merely questioned whether one should DELETE quite different -- qualitative -- information "on the off-chance". -- Pedant17 06:36, 21 April 2007 (UTC)


 * This is not a junk pile of information- it is an encyclopedia article.
 * ... and encyclopedic articles have encyclopedic scope: they potentially address everything, but specifically well-referenced first-hand statistics. -- Pedant17 06:36, 21 April 2007 (UTC)


 * All argument and proposing and "what if" needs to happen here not the article page.Alex Jackl 18:27, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Meanwhile Wikipedia editors show admirable boldness (as per the WP:BOLD]] guidelines) in expanding the sum of Wikipedia-knowledge. -- Pedant17 06:36, 21 April 2007 (UTC)


 * This seems to make a case for Landmark having poor content management software more than anything else. Since that's not their core competency (according to anyone), I concur with Dave and Alex that this isn't relevant to the article. Tealwarrior 16:14, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
 * See the flexibility of raw figures! You can certainly make an assumption of "poor content management". But given Landmark Education's penchant for impeccability in the matter of "stats", you can also draw other conclusions -- left to the imagination of the readers of Wikipedia. No need to confine ourselves to alleged "core competencies". The figures on audience numbers and offices belong in the article on Landmark Education.-- Pedant17 06:36, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Examination of sources
As I've said above, there are controversies but the prominence given to them in the article is out of all proportion to the number of people holding these views or the quality of the evidence to surpport them.

People who have an agenda of using this article to propagate damaging fallacious stories about Landmark frequently defend their edits by referring to the “reliable sources” on which their edits are based.

But on examining the references, we see that many of them are highly questionable:

The "cult" issue
Samways has not observed the conduct of any Landmark courses,
 * Observing the conduct of all or any Landmark education "courses" does not constitute a pre-requisite for commenting on the observable outcomes of attending such things. -- Pedant17 03:38, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

and her entirely speculative comments are based on impressions gained from the comments of self-selected individuals who contacted her with complaints.
 * "entirely speculative"? -- The self-selecting individuals compare neatly with those self-selecting individuals who choose to boost Landmark Education. Samways has the advantage of fitting Landmark Education into an array of similar cults and dodgy operations. -- Pedant17 03:38, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

The "Psychogroups and Cults in Denmark", mentions Landmark almost as an aside and there is no suggestion that the comment is based on anything other than hearsay.
 * Asides have particular merit in the evaluation of objects of popular culture such as Landmark Education. Where a full-blown investigation might seem silly and time-wasting, an aside can reveal the everyday mainstream opinion on a matter. -- Pedant17 03:38, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

The paragraph about Sweden establishes no more than that public interest declined after the airing of a couple of sensationalistic TV programs, but we have no idea of the fairness or otherwise of the treatment in these programs.
 * So do some research, find out about the circumstances, and report in the article of the degree of alleged sensationalism and the balance of the programs. Deletion does not promote NPOV as well as further impeccable research. What a great opportunity to expand one's Swedish-language skills! -- Pedant17 03:38, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

The term cult has several distinct but related meanings, not all of which are pejorative (and this problem is compounded when a foreign language report is cited, without a sense of the precise nuances of the word in that tongue). Detractors often try to dig up references where the term has been applied in what may well have been a non-pejorative sense, in order to smear by association. This applies specifically to the Belgian, German and Austrian citations. There is no indication of who compiled these reports, what criteria they used, or what level of examination was applied.
 * The Belgian, German and Austrian reports themselves go into considerable detail on criteria and methodology. Bring that to the table. -- Pedant17 03:38, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Brainwashing accusations
There are two instances quoted of attempts to sue Landmark for allegedly prompting a mental breakdown. Apart from the possibility of these cases being opportunistically motivated, and the fact that the courts did not uphold the contention that Landmark could be established as a cause, two cases out of almost a million is clearly statistically insignificant (and in any event is vanishingly smaller than the number of instances that would be expected from a random sample of this size drawn from the population at large). And incidentally, neither of these cases actually reference the section heading of “brainwashing”.
 * I agree that court cases provide an unrepresentative sample. We could expand this section to deal with other allegations and degrees of allegation.

-- Pedant17 03:38, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

The Lell reference is simply a subjective unsubstantiated opinion of one customer made in a book he wrote.
 * The reference to Lell reflects the writing of a detailed memoir which publishers deemed worthy of publication and defense. The inclusion of comments from the field of psychology and the expansion to include the account of Lell's parents give it weight far greater than that of "subjective unsubtatntiated opinion" -- even before the court case lent some support to the expression of that opinion. -- Pedant17 03:38, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Austrian Classification
See above, but this reference is particularly spurious, as the focus of that report is nothing to do with evaluating the groups mentioned, but is making a case for the tolerant nature of the Austrian state in accommodating divergent beliefs.
 * The very title of the Austrian ministerial report (Cults: Knowledge protects") and the grouping of Landmark Education with other "Psycho-groups" suggests that the Austian ministerial report does more than advertise tolerance. See http://www.ilsehruby.at/Sektenbroschuere.html -- Pedant17 03:38, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Is there an english translation? My german/austiran is not that good.Mvemkr 20:12, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I know of no English translation. Have you tried one of the on-line web-page translation services? -- Failing that or in addition to that, any translator or bilingual person could help out. I believe User:AJackl has excellent German. -- Pedant17 06:36, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Scientology
There is no connection between Scientology and Landmark, and attempts to pretend that there is is merely deliberate scaremongering.
 * If and only if one dismisses documented links, one can make such claims. -- Pedant17 03:38, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Scientology is religion and has a dogma that we are Thetans from outer space who will be liberated when we re-connect with our Thetan nature.
 * Some people do regard Scientology as a religion. Others treat it as a commercial enterprise quite similar in several ways to Landmark Education. Wikipedia has the flexibility to cover different categorizations. -- Pedant17 03:38, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Here for reference the latest undeleted version of the text as discussed below: -- Pedant17 03:38, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Scientology
In 1992 the Church of Scientology (which has the classification of a religious organization in certain jurisdictions, such as that of the United States of America, but not in others) included Werner Erhard, EST (Erhard Seminars Training) and "The Forum" on a list of "Suppressive Persons and Groups".

Scientology has a special procedure that new Scientologists must go through if they have previously participated in either Erhard Seminars Training or in the Landmark Forum. Scientologists refer to the procedure as the "Est Repair Rundown".

The German Stern (magazine) has compared Landmark Education to the Church of Scientology. The Frankfurter Neue Presse, stated that: "They are suspected of having connections with the Scientology Church." In 2003 a Bavarian Study on Scientology compared the practices of Landmark Education and of Scientology. ''The objective of the description and assessment of the Scientology and Landmark organizations was the investigation of the psychic, physical and social effects of the psycho- and social-techniques applied by those organizations respectively upon members and participants. The third objective also included the presentation of legal problems, conflicts or violations by the two organizations, along with pointers as to possible paths of resolution.''

In 2004, Mona Vasquez appeared in the documentary "Voyage to the Land of the New Gurus" addressing what she saw as extensive and precise similarities between Scientology terminology and the jargon utilized by Landmark Education. A member of Scientology for seven years, Vasquez wrote the book Et Satan créa la secte [Satan Created the Cult: Memoirs of an escapee].

In 2006, Susan J. Palmer discussed Landmark Education at a CESNUR conference. She referenced a statement by journalist Martin Mireille who had stated that Landmark Education is "a branch of Scientology". However, in Palmer's remarks, she rejects this assertion. .

The first two references, from the Scientology organisation itself, merely demonstrate that Scientology is antagonistic to Landmark, and do nothing to demonstrate any similarities.
 * The very existence of antagonism implies causes in the past, which investigators of Landmark Education may or may not find of interest. Should we delete such points on the off-chance? -- Pedant17 03:38, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

The third one is merely an opinion expressed in a popular magazine article.
 * Did the text of the Landmark Education article provide a fair summary of this reflection of popular culture? -- Pedant17 03:38, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

The fourth is a study which compared the two (but omitting to mention the conclusion – which was that they were unrelated and that there were considerable differences).
 * Add a note on that alleged conclusion, then. Include some quotations (and translations). Account in passing for the comparing of the two entities in the first place. -- Pedant17 03:38, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

The fifth is a personal opinion expressed by someone who positions herself as a Scientology expert, but who appears to have no particular knowledge of Landmark Eduation.
 * ... but Mona Vasquez, whatever her background and knowledge, professed to recognizing extensive similarities... Once again, ask the question: why did a editors of a mass-media outlet see fit even to link the idea of Scientology and Landmark Education, let alone broadcast a suggestion of that link to an audience of millions? -- Pedant17 03:38, 11 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't know - I wasn't party to the decision to make or screen the program. But since you are asking, my guess would be that they were assured of a large audience for a muck-raking program on a purported "cult". As you probably know, "cults" have the guaranteed grip on the public attention in France as, say, the Royal Family does in England. DaveApter 16:13, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Fair guess. And it implies that the editors reflect the fabled majority-opinion -- at least the majority opinion in France. -- The single guess does also potentially gloss over other possibilities: the possibility that the editors believed in the link on the basis of this and other evidence; the possibility that the editors thought they had sufficient grounds to withstand any potential legal challenge from the reputedly litigious orgs involved (Scientology and Landmark Education); and the possibility that the editors wanted to perform a public service in exposing or airing the link between Scientology and Landmark Education. -- Pedant17 06:36, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

And the sixth is a reference to someone who was actually stating that there was no connection!
 * Perhaps an example of balance and contradiction. We do that in Wikipedia sometimes to promote something we call the "Neutral point of View "(NPOV). -- Pedant17 03:38, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Loaded language
All five references are merely quotes of opinions expressed by people of no particular expertise, in magazine and newspaper articles.
 * How many persons of expertise in the somewhat specialized field of "loaded language" need one seek out? And does publication of a mention of Landmark Education jargon in an august journal such as The Times carry any particular weight? -- Pedant17 03:38, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Religious Implications
The section as it stands gives excessive weight to a handful of clergy who have voiced criticisms based on hearsay, rumour or speculation, relative to the large number who have gone on record giving positive accounts, based on personal observation. DaveApter 10:40, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Seek out and reference and quote those countervailing accounts, then. Don't complain on the talk-page: take action! -- Pedant17 03:38, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

"Name changes" table
This strikes me as adding very little value to the article for the space it takes, and is actually misleading. Presumably the intention of it is to imply that this is a slippery operation which is always changing its colours? But the first two lines are entirely distinct companies with different ownership and product lines (but related - yes I know, and the point has already been made - several times). The next one is the name incorporated, and changed a week later - which is quite standard procedure. The next one was traded for four months before they had a re-think about it. The next one is not really a name-change at all, just a re-structure from an Inc to a LLC. So what? DaveApter 10:40, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree, and I suggest the table be removed. Timb66 01:52, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Making change. Alex Jackl 23:22, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

The table provided a valuable summary of the various forms in which the Landmark Education tradition operated. The dating militated against misleading. Speculation about the "intention" does not provide good grounds for suppression. -- Pedant17 03:38, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Weasel-word-cleanup
I request editors take a look at what I did on the page- I did a cleanup of material and references that were non-notable or senteces that were full of weasel-words. FOr instance the section on Religion that inmplied some contraversy in the first semtemce and then followed by a bunch of references that merely imply some people were watching the organixzation and half the references being positive ones. And when list the positive references someone put in that these were "opinion as opposed to thoughtful theological analysis" implying the preceding references were more scholarly in some way. It doesn't go far enough as we can see in the above "Examination of Sources" section but I didn't want to be too bold too quickly. Better to slowly shift the article to NPOV and get agremeement than wholsale changes. Please let me know if anyone has any thought on those changes.Alex Jackl 02:08, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * "Positive" as to what? The minority-view that Landmark Education has some merit? That deserves a minor role in the article as well. -- Can one or can one not make a distinction between personal opinions and "thoughtful theological analysis", ever? if not, why not? If so, then why not here? -- Pedant17 03:38, 11 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I am happy with the changes made by AJackl, and with the discussion on this talk page that preceded them. I have just reverted the changes made by Pedant17 because some of them were not NPOV and because they were made without being discussed or noted on this talk page.  I am new to Wikipedia editing so please correct me if I am wrong, but it seems that editing a controversial page without discussion or an attempt to reach a consensus is not consistent with the policies. Timb66 12:18, 7 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks Timb66! In the spirit of the weasel-word alert and the above questions on "Examination of Sources" I am particular concerned about the recent change to "portrays" in reference to the charter of Landmark.  That change is a highly particular one and makes me concerned we are dealing with a sock puppet.  I think we should be careful that the cycle that started the edits wars before doesn't start happening again. I am perfectly willing to be wrong but it has been so great to have a community of editors working together to create a great article rather than a few holdouts desperately fighting a single-editor POV tsunami, and I don't want to lose the community that has emerged since the page was protected. Keep standing for the quality of WIkipedia Timb66- it is nice to meet you and be editing with you! Alex Jackl 12:35, 7 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Reversion of edits -- especially edits already uncontroversially foreshadowed on the talk-page, by myself or by Tealwarrior -- does not constitute good Wiki-practice. See previous archived discussions in this Talk-page series. Restoration of each of the reverted edits for public exposure and specific discussion would show a better appreciation of the Wikipedia way, and would enrich the article's factual soundness and NPOV basis. -- Pedant17 03:38, 11 April 2007 (UTC)


 * It is hopeless spin to attribute the changes you are recommending as "uncontroversially foreshadowed".


 * For example, on April 1 I wrote:

Any charter can claim or state anything. That doesn't necessarily make something valid outside that scope. To state that a charter "claims" or "states' or "professes" provides a more accurate and encyclopedic account of such matters. -- Pedant17 05:46, 1 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Nobody objected or countered: accordingly I edited the article on the basis of this "uncontroversially foreshadowed" view. -- Pedant17 06:36, 21 April 2007 (UTC)


 * For another example, on April 6 User:Tealwarrior wrote:

The links cited are no longer accessible either, so the verifiable part is no longer the case. Without analysis these numbers don't contribute much of anything. Perhaps citing the most recent numbers posted (1,000,000 as of 2005) would be the most generally interesting. Talk of "ongoing impact on humanity over time" seems like it's best left for the discussion page and not in the article. Tealwarrior 18:58, 6 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I responded to Tealwarrior's uncontroversial comment on inaccessibility by interpolating explanations as to why the previously valid links went inaccessible, with an indication as to when this occurred. I responded to Tealwarrior's uncontroversial statement as to a more recent figure by adding a section including the claimed figure of 1,000,000 with a reference to a relevant source (the Landmark Education web-page) and contrasted that with different figures also sourced on the same day from the same set of Landmark Education web-pages. Tealwarrior provided uncontroversial foreshadowing of a need for change to the "Landmark Education" article -- which I accordingly carried out. -- Thus I made "uncontroversially foreshadowed" changes, which I suggest we now reinstate. -- Pedant17 06:36, 21 April 2007 (UTC)


 * You are using the same tactics that got this page protected in the first place - of staunchly putting in POV "proofs" to prove your POV. In fact, they don't.  How do I know that?  Look at he talk page since the page was protected.  As soon as the minority viewpoint that Landmark was a soul-sucking cult that is being manipulated by Werner Erhard and is also Scientology and is also out to brainwash people into volunteering for it stopped its constant attacks a wide range of editors started commenting on the article and constructively working together and building consensus.
 * "Soul-sucking" -- I like that, and don't think I've heard it before. Rather a pity that this exaggeration makes a straw man out of various views which may not accord with approved doctrine. And unfortunately, an assertion that I have used tactics of 'staunchly putting in POV "proofs"' bears no relationship with the "proof" that certain events led to certain changes in editing-patterns. -- Pedant17 06:36, 21 April 2007 (UTC)


 * The tactics of:
 * 1. "accusing" the people who disagree with you of being a minority view point when the facts don't support- see the above great discussion by DaveApter- and


 * Thank you for putting "accusing" in quotes. I happen to see a distinction sometimes between "accusing" and "suggesting". -- Pedant17 06:36, 21 April 2007 (UTC)


 * 2. making insinuations that NPOV is being hurt by taking unfounded accusations out of the article when the consensus is that they don't really make much sense, and


 * I will happily repeat and amplify any of my insinuations that deleting referenced material does not enhance a neutral point of view. -- Pedant17 06:36, 21 April 2007 (UTC)


 * 3. Using WIkipedia as attack elements on the page to push your POV - like putting the advert tag on.


 * Thank you for this homily: I take it to heart, though I fail to see its relevance to my own editing. -- Pedant17 06:36, 21 April 2007 (UTC)


 * All of these things represent what is worst about Wikipedia. Come on- let's talk about the facts and not just spin.  Show us you really can be NPOV and discuss content.  I know you have been convinced somehow that there is an evil conspiracy but it just isn't.


 * I don't think you do *know* that. -- Pedant17 06:36, 21 April 2007 (UTC)


 * At worst there have been some bad business practices, and some people abusing a great thing. I can't speak for est or Werner Erhard. I don't know about those things and I don't need to-  they have their own pages.  Let's play nice in the sandbox.  It has been so great here lately... Alex Jackl 04:23, 13 April 2007 (UTC)


 * We can detail the evil practices and the abuse in the article. You go first. -- Pedant17 06:36, 21 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Pedant17, I am also at a loss to understand how you can describe your edits as "uncontroversial", given the discussion on this page. It seems to me that they are very controversial and that you are in the minority. However, I would not like to see the contents of this (or any other) Wiki page decided purely by the weight of the majority.  Therefore, please present your responses to the specific questions asked below by DaveApter, so that we can continue the discussion.  thanks, Timb66 06:28, 13 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I see the added accuracy and the provision of precise and documented facts in my edits as adding to the "Landmark Education" article and enhancing it, possibly at the risk of offending some entrenched viewpoints. -- Pedant17 06:36, 21 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I too am at a loss for what you is meant by "edits already uncontroversially foreshadowed" despite being referenced. Tealwarrior 15:59, 15 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I refer you to my detailed explanations above. -- Pedant17 06:36, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Response to Pedant17
Hello, pedant17, and thank you for your contributions to this discussion.

You have made a large number of comments on this talk page,


 * No. really: a mere few. -- Pedant17 06:36, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

but are they serious attempts to engage with the debate and reach consensus on the structure and content of an article which meets wikipedia policies and is useful to the general reader, or are they aimed at justifying an article which propagates your own personal viewpoint on the subject?


 * They aim at improving the article. Why do you ask? -- Pedant17 06:36, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Majority or minority viewpoints?
You assert several times that it is a Minority viewpoint that “that Landmark Education represents a worthy and worthwhile endeavor”. On what possible evidence or information do you base this extraordinary opinion?

This is important because it relates to the wikipedia policies on NPOV and Undue weight.

This is how it seems to me:

In round figures, about 1,000,000 have done the Landmark Forum

Surveys from several reputable organisations consistently report 93% - 95% “highly satisfied” or some such. It’s reasonable to assume that most of the remaining 5-7% are broadly satisfied to some degree, leaving say 1% who are actively hostile.


 * Whatever the reputation of the organizations involved in the polling, doubts often persist as to the methodology used. And regardless of these polls, measurement of customer-satisfaction may serve as a marketing tool, but says little about other aspects or effects of Landmark Education. We know that Landmark Education has a marketing method. We can expect that (say) carefully-selected groups of "graduates" in a Landmark-drenched environment will answer questionnaires "appropriately". We need more research on the broader picture before we paint all of Landmark Education as rosy. -- Pedant17 06:36, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

This is borne out by the large number of Landmark customers who recommend the program to their friends, and the large proportion who take further courses. They wouldn’t do either if they were not impressed.


 * The figures from Landmark Education's website (recently removed from the Wikipedia article on Landmark Education) may suggest how ineffective a strategy results. -- Pedant17 06:36, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

In other words we seem to have about 990,000 in favor and 10,000 against, from those who actually have first-hand experience. (and of course we should not get hung up on my 1% estimate – perhaps it’s 2% or even 3%?). Then we have people who haven’t done it, but have formed an opinion on the basis of hearsay, rumour or speculation. How many of them are there who are strongly antagonistic? It stretches credulity to imagine that there are more than say another 10,000. (and of course there are also those who haven’t done any courses but have positive opinions).


 * Your speculative figure on the "strongly antagonistic" group may underestimate the various oppositions. And you leave out (for example) the "mildly antagonistic" category. -- Pedant17 06:36, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Then we have a few dozen journalists who have written negative articles (and another few dozen who have written positive articles).


 * We need some statistics here. Have you totted up known examples and developed a methodology for distinguishing "positive" journalism from "negative" and from "other"? -- I would speculate that more skeptical than adulatory articles exist. -- Pedant17 06:36, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

And finally we have half a dozen self-appointed “cult experts” who have a vested interest in stirring up paranoia, and who show remarkably little knowledge of what Landmark actuallly does and how it does it.


 * Other external "experts" also come into the mix. The concentration on alleged culthood or the lack thereof suggests institutionalized paranoia to me. -- Pedant17 06:36, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

What are your estimates for the size of the various populations of differing opinions, and what is the data and reasoning on which you base them? DaveApter 16:13, 11 April 2007 (UTC)


 * You will recall the worked precise figures (along with mere estimates) discussed previously:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Landmark_Education/Archive_2#Majority_opinions_and_minority_opinions And I don't accept your various populations as useful in assessing the overall picture. The issues of customer-satisfaction and culthood do not cover the full scope of Landmark Education. I would suggest we assess the pop-culture phenomenon in pop-culture terms as well. -- Pedant17 06:36, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Response by Esther Rice
I have restored the well-researched criticism sections that must have taken a lot of work to assemble but were removed by people acting on behalf of Landmark. I have read this page but cannot see any concensus (except among the Landmark people) for their removal. Arguments by analogy are not always appropriate, but the above statements by Dave Apter really beg for it. By analogy, Dave is saying that, for example

i. only members of the LAPD who were personally involved in beating Rodney King can offer a valid opinion on any matter to do with Rodney King;

ii. only guards of former concentration camps (whether in the Boer War, WWII, 50's Malaysia, or elsewhere entirely) are capable of knowledgeable comment about said concentration camps;

iii. only members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints can have a valid opinion on the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints;

iv. only personnel with US Marine training can have a valid viewpoint on the US Marines, etc. etc.

Obviously Landmark is a much smaller phenomenon than e.g. the Church of Scientology and fewer outsiders would have heard of it. There is a good chance that more people have done the courses than have heard of Landmark but have a negative opinion. In fact, the high-pressure tactics used by Landmark believers to attempt to get their friends to cough up for the courses (e.g. the fact that a refuser will end up on the periphery of or completely ostracised by a group dominated by believers) makes this all the more likely, since in a group taken or formed by the Landmark meme only those who are willing to make waves and risk not going with the flow will feel able to avoid the courses.

The Church of Scientology would almost certainly be able to make the same argument: our members outnumber our critics. Most people just don't have any interest, and why should they? That is, the arguments regarding size [sic] of various populations are specious and not worthy of any serious response. ER Talk 08:54, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Clarification
Thanks Esther for your contributions to this discussion. However you seem to have misunderstood the points I was making.

Firstly, the examples you give bear no resemblance to my position: to take just the first one, it is clearly the case that a number of groups could have "valid opinion" on the beating of Rodney King - a) Rodney King himself, b)eye-witnesses at the scene, c) those who had seen the events on videotape, d)those who had received accounts directly from any of the foregoing. Any of the above might qualify as a Reliable Source for the purposes of a Wikipedia article. Neither am I questioning the "validity" of the opinions held by individuals whose sources of information were less direct than these, but it is unlikely that such opinions would count as sources of factual data for an encyclopedia article.


 * In each of Esther's four tentative analogies, one group may comment, and others may not -- regardless of the existence of other groups with potentially different viewpoints; regardless of perceived majority/minority/significant-minority status. Identifying other parties to the Rodney King incident highlights the problems of selecting a single group or viewpoint and declaring it the majority. -- Pedant17 02:12, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Secondly, your comment that "the arguments regarding size [sic] of various populations are specious" shows a complete lack of understanding of Wikepedia's Neutral Point of View policy as it relates to "facts about opinions", which states: The policy requires that, where there are or have been conflicting views, these should be presented fairly. None of the views should be given undue weight or asserted as being the truth, and all significant published points of view are to be presented, not just the most popular one...

Background is provided on who believes what and why, and which view is more popular. Detailed articles might also contain the mutual evaluations of each viewpoint, but studiously refrain from stating which is better. One can think of unbiased writing as the fair, analytical description of all relevant sides of a debate. When bias towards one particular point of view can be detected, the article needs to be fixed...

Where we might want to state an opinion, we convert that opinion into a fact by attributing the opinion to someone... The reference requires an identifiable and objectively quantifiable population or, better still, a name (with the clear implication that the named individual should be a recognized authority)...

NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a verifiable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each. Now an important qualification: Articles that compare views should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and may not include tiny-minority views at all. How does all this relate to the article? Clearly some individuals are of the opinion that Landmark is a "cult" (which begs the questions of what precisely they mean by that), and some are not; some are of the opinion that Landmark is a cynical money-making operation, and some are not; some are of the opinion that it produces impressive objectively measurable results for the majority of its customers, and some are not; some are of the opinion that significant numbers of its customers are harmed in some way, and some strongly doubt that; and some think that those who assist at Landmark events have been duped into lining someone else's pockets, while others do not.

All of the above are legitimate subjects for discussion in the controversies section, but within the bounds of the policy.


 * Ghettoizing discussion to a controversies section artificially breaches the neutral point of view by implying that some areas or alleged facts lack controversy. -- Pedant17 06:36, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, I realised later that even using the word opinion was in error, but it was in response to the odd comments about numbers, which were indeed couched in such terms. I am familiar with the NPOV policy; perhaps the people who are so intent on removing the criticism could try reading it. The removal of well-researched information essentially on the grounds that 'I don't like it' or 'I disagree, and don't care if good references have been given' (precisely what's happening here) is clearly POV. ER Talk 15:06, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

How can we decide what weight to give the various views without some estimate of the various population sizes? And note the qualification that in the case of an opinion attributed to a name it "should be a recognized authority". Critical scrutiny of the sources for much of the negative material which has been introduced into the article reveals that many of them fall far short of these standards.


 * We have very little peer-reviewed work to support any view of Landmark Education. A Wikipedia editor has recently deleted an attempt at explanation as to why. We once referenced a sociological commentary by Drew Kopp on the layout and management of "Landmark Forum" rooms: http://www.u.arizona.edu/~kopp/Finalmat3.pdf . A Wikipedia editor subsequently removed that reference. Much of the remaining material does not meet the high standards that Wikipedia prescribes as optimal, and we fall back all too often on appeals to the marketing hype perpetrated by the Landmark Education web-page. Yet still we cherish the Wikipedia mission of providing balanced information. -- Pedant17 06:36, 21 April 2007 (UTC)


 * The standard for most articles outside scholarly fields such as science, history, mathematics, etc. is the presence or absence of references in authoritative mainstream printed media. Most of the sources are recognised authorities by that criterion. ER Talk 10:28, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

And finally, for the avoidance of doubt, I am not editing "on behalf of Landmark" - I am editing with a clear commitment to a quality article which meets Wikipedia guidelines and policies rather than one which acts as a soapbox for certain extreme POVs. DaveApter 10:52, 17 April 2007 (UTC)


 * That is very difficult to believe given the determination to remove material with an authority that would be accepted anywhere except in a topic controlled by POV pushers. We certainly see people working, or at least watching, around the clock to minimise any criticism. Unfortunately those of us that would like to see some balance ER Talk  10:28, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Another reply to Esther Rice
Dear EstherRice. I can only speak for myself when I assure you that I am not "acting on behalf of Landmark." I am acting to ensure NPOV in this article. You write: "I have read this page but cannot see any concensus (except among the Landmark people) for their removal." I imagine the majority of editors for this page, if not all, have either done Landmark courses or have some specific knowledge through talking to people who have. As you say, who else would be interested enough to bother? And that is fine: I expect that substantial edits to most Wiki pages are only made by those who have some direct knowledge or interest.


 * Some Wikipedians edit at random, or edit for style rather than content or interest. Editors who know nothing about a given subject can often see the structural or logical or grammatical flaws in articles more readily than "insiders". Wikipedia encourages the boldness and contribution of such valued "drive-by" editors. -- Pedant17 02:12, 22 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Exactly, that is how I came across this page. However, as an observer, sometime confidante, and sometime mark of people who've done EST/Landmark and similar "training", I do have experience that is just as valid as that of someone who has done a "course" (or is a "trainer") and is less PoV than either. Neither type of experience qualifies as anything but original research, as you should know. The argument above is thus invalid. ER Talk  15:06, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Your comments indicate that you fall in the second group that I mentioned and you express a view that is not neutral. That is fine. I am also not neutral. I did the Landmark Forum 15 years ago and still regard at as one of the most important things I have done. I also do not consider myself to have been brainwashed. On occasion I have told people about Landmark if I think they might be interested, and several have done courses. Most have found it very rewarding and none have found it to be a negative experience.

But my point is not to debate the merits of Landmark, as enjoyable as that might be. You obviously have negative experiences and I have positive ones. And I know that people who have done the Forum, particularly recently, can be very pushy. But Wikipedia is not the place to have these discussions. I have not looked, but I expect there are websites where people have vigorous discussions about Landmark.

The purpose of Dave's comments, I think, was to point out that the hostile view is a minority among those who have some direct knowledge.


 * No single "hostile view" exists. Those who have "direct knowledge" (whatever that means) may form only an insignificant minority of those with a view on Landmark Education. -- Pedant17 02:12, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

To answer your analogies, of course people who have not done Landmark courses are entitled to have an opinion, but they must have some knowledge of it.


 * And in the real world, such minimal knowledge comes from rumor, hearsay and vague memes in the atmosphere. Compare voters in a local election: they may have only the vaguest notions of candidates' policies and characters, but they nevertheless form opinions and may vote accordingly. And the system takes notice of their opinions: majority and minority. -- Pedant17 02:12, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I am not entitled to voice an opinion about Rodney King if I have never heard of him (actually, his story did make the news here in Australia). So let us consider those who know something about Landmark, either through having done courses or knowing those who have. You write: "There is a good chance that more people have done the courses than have heard of Landmark but have a negative opinion." I agree. But what about those who have heard of Landmark and have a positive opinion?! I would claim they are far more numerous than those with negative opinions. That is certainly the case among my friends and family, many of whom have not done any Landmark courses but who happily acknowledge the benefits to me.


 * This speculation as to personal reactions does not further our collective aim of determining the true objective majority/minority/significant-minority views on Landmark Education and all its works. -- Pedant17 06:36, 21 April 2007 (UTC)


 * ... and the idea of sources is again being diverted by this red herring. ER Talk 10:28, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I see that while I have been writing this, you have reversed my reversion. I guess I should have written this before making the reversion, sorry. So now please read my comments and respond. I will repeat my reversion because I think you should have waited for some discussion before making your changes. I don't think that it is reasonable for you to make substantial changes without discussing them here and attempting to reach consensus.

Finally, your remark that you "cannot see any concensus (except among the Landmark people)" deserves further comment. Surely those who have done Landmark courses are well placed to comment on them.


 * Not necessarily. Impartial external observers have much more credibility. -- Pedant17 06:36, 21 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Once again, the argument 'Surely those who have done Landmark courses are well placed to comment on them.' is completely at odds with policy. ER Talk 10:28, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Is it is really reasonable to exclude us when deciding on what is and is not concensus? Only if you think that participating in Landmark courses has made us unable to be objective.


 * Participating in Landmark Education activities does provide a bad indicator for objectivity. But Wikipedia can tolerate the opinions of such people -- in this case as minorities. -- Pedant17 02:12, 22 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't think anyone is talking about exclusion, the article is full of advertising copy but well-sourced criticism is constantly being thrown out. ER Talk 10:28, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

That is of course possible, and I might agree there could be grounds for concern if all the "Landmark people" editing this page had done the Forum very recently and were fresh from the process. I cannot speak for the others, but I did the Forum 15 years ago.


 * You need to take into account as well the opinions of those who have attended Landmark activities but not done "the Forum". Such people may have encountered Landmark Education at any time within the last 16 years. An attendee from 1991 has as much right to comment with as much weight as an attendee from 2007. Not that accounts of personal experience can convey much objectivity in an encyclopedic evaluation of Landmark Education and its effects on the wider world. -- Pedant17 02:12, 22 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree with Pedant17, having attended distastefully manipulative (I could say more) social events. However, this still has nothing to do with policy. ER Talk 10:28, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I have done a few other courses since then, but the last was three years ago. Surely that is enough time for concerns about brainwashing to subside?


 * Not at all. Many people continue to harbor ideas they encountered more than three years previously. Some people even preserve some attitudes and beliefs that their parents inculcated in their childhood, or the principles they absorbed in the course of their formal education. If one views the ideas and attitudes and practices of Landmark Education as significant and different and impactful, would one expect them to subside significantly in three years? (Not to deny that Landmark Education actually prefers to bring its "graduates" back to further courses for supplementary indoctrination...) -- Pedant17 02:12, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Isn't it possible that for some people (and I would say most), the Landmark experience is positive, whether as a participant or not?


 * Quite possible, but not statistically likely -- unless one gets sucked into the Landmark Education milieu. -- Pedant17 02:12, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

That is precisely the question that Dave was asking. Thanks for reading this far, Timb66 10:19, 16 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Artificial pseudo-consensus may exclude majorities too. -- Pedant17 06:36, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Balance and NPOV
I was going to comment on all of Pedant17 and EstherRice's comments but I have found a theme and it is that same theme that caused all the isuses when Smee was editing here.


 * I hate to diagnose stuckness "in the past". I prefer to look back on the glory-days. -- Pedant17 02:12, 22 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I am very sorry that the Landmark devotees have managed to tire Smee by organising (yes, I know it might have been spontaneous self-organisation) to monitor the page around the clock etc. ER Talk 10:28, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

If you look at the comments above there is a background of looking at Wikipedia as some kind of debate page- some place where if there are some citations about something or if a journalist said something then the default is that it should be in the article. That is not, IMO, the idea of an encyclopedia - citations and content must be valid and appropriate to encyclopedic content. Just because some journalist linked Scientology and Landmark (even though the connection is clearly nebulous and scholars have refuted the journalistic connection) does not mean we should include it because there is a citation. One of the stock phrases that Smee would whip out is the "these are valid, well-formed citations" as if that were a good enough reason to include something. Any suggestions on how to create aguideline to check validity. Any suggestions? Alex Jackl 13:22, 16 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Smee has called an attack page on Steve Zaffron "well sourced." The admins took one look at it and said, "Please don't create attack pages."  It's a standard stock reply of Smee's that requires no thought.  Smee, of course, promised not to edit the LE page anymore.  Sm1969 18:26, 19 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Debate occurs in much of the scrabbling-together of human knowledge that Wikipedia reflects. I would expect the Wikipedia article on Landmark Education to reflect/summarize and even continue this debate -- citations and all. Landmark Education, of course, has nothing to fear when all the cards appear on the table. -- Pedant17 06:36, 21 April 2007 (UTC)


 * The statement that "these are valid, well-formed citations" is perfectly correct in this context, the page with the critical material could not be construed as an attack page. The fact that Smee made a mistake or accidentally offended the wrong people elsewhere has no bearing on the LE page. ER Talk 10:28, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

This article reads like an advertisement PR piece for Landmark...
... and should be tagged as such. Thousands of KB of highly-sourced material, meticulously sourced to reputable secondary sourced citations, has been removed unjustly. Smee 07:02, 18 April 2007 (UTC).

Including material simply because it is well sourced is not necessarily consistent with NPOV. Please address the specific points raised above. Timb66 08:25, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * At least (2) other editors have brought up concerns regarding the whitewashing of this article, and concerns regarding critical sourced information being removed, User:Pedant17 and User:EstherRice.  Thus, the tags are highly justified.  Smee 07:56, 19 April 2007 (UTC).


 * Deleting material even when it has reliable sources does not necessarily enhance NPOV either. -- Pedant17 02:12, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the "unbalanced" tag should probably stay for the momen and I have reinstated it. Hopefully it will attract new editors who can bring a fresh view. But the "advertising" tag remains to be justified and I have removed it. Once again: can one of these 3 editors please address the specific points raised above? And please note that being well sourced is not a sufficient reason for inclusion if the material represnets a minority view. Timb66 12:08, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Note too that material representing a significant minority view (such as the view that Landmark Education constitutes merely a legitimate and innocuous business, for example) can even stay in the article if sufficiently well-sourced. -- Pedant17 02:12, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Just to clarify, my reason for keeping the unbalanced tag is because I think the article gives too much weight to minority negative views.Timb66 22:12, 19 April 2007 (UTC)


 * How much weight constitutes "too much weight"? How can one definitively make a distinction between "negative" and non-negative views? How many minorities can you count? -- Pedant17 06:36, 21 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I have difficulty understanding the contention that this article reads like an advert when 25% of the length of the article comprises controversy, legal issues, religious implications etc. Triplejumper 13:59, 19 April 2007 (UTC)


 * 75% sounds like a lot to me... -- Pedant17 06:36, 21 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Again, Smee, you think that any negative material that is sourced is justifiable. It has to be within the balance guidelines of NPOV.  Just as the article on Microsoft is controversial, you have to spend some space describing LE's products as you do Microsoft's products.  This article has already more than enough criticism.  Sm1969 18:28, 19 April 2007 (UTC)


 * The article has virtually no criticism, actually, at the moment. Much of the information that was sourced to highly reputable citations was removed.  The article reads like a PR push / shill piece, advertising everyone to go and try out The Forum...  Smee 04:35, 20 April 2007 (UTC).

Smee, looking at the history of this article, it is clear that you have spent an enormous amount of time and effort collating these negative comments. I can understand that you are reluctant to accept deletion of that material but NPOV guidelines are clear: undue weight should not be given to a minority option. Timb66 09:44, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

As it stands, the article is pretty messy. The discussion is going in circles. There was a good suggestion at the top of this page by DaveApter. I suggest we adopt it. Timb66 09:44, 20 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Messy yes, however I think that this article has gotten much closer to a encyclopedic article than it has been in months, and is appropriately weighted. Mvemkr 20:09, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia tolerates some degree of (temporary) messiness. We have merely to re-insert the deleted balancing material and go upwards and onwards on that basis. -- Pedant17 06:36, 21 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I would not expect to subscribe to any consensus artificially limiting and abbreviating the article on the lines suggested in the "Summary of Current State of Play" section. Someone would need to convince me of the merits of such an approach. -- Pedant17 06:36, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Quality of sources
Smee, it would be great if you would actually engage constructively with the debate here instead of just parroting the same assertions over and over again and simply ignoring points made by other contributors which do not coincide with your viewpoint.

You have not seriously addressed the questions that have been raised regarding the quality, verifiablity and relevance of many of the sources you have cited. Simply saying over and over again that they are "meticulously sourced to reputable secondary sourced citations" does not make that the case. In many instances they fall far short of the standards one would expect to justify an encyclopedia entry. When we actually look at the sources you have drawn from, we find that many of them are one or more of the following:
 * 1) Statements by partisan commentators
 * 2) One would legitimately expect to find partisan comments in such a contested field. They may come in handy to provide the balance associated with the neutral point of view. -- Pedant17 02:12, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Personal opinions of journalists writing in the popular press
 * 4) Even the popular press gets sub-edited and vetted. Nevertheless it can (potentially) validly represent the views of the majority of the public. -- Pedant17 02:12, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) Quotations of opinions of non-notable members of the public
 * 6) Just as valid as the opinions of notable members of the public: i.e. minimally valid. -- Pedant17 02:12, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 7) Opinions and assessments made by individuals with very little actual knowledge about the subject
 * 8) Contributions with the potential advantage of detached observation and unbiased judgement. -- Pedant17 02:12, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 9) Items in which Landmark Education does receive a minor mention, but which in no way support the critical content you inserted into the article.
 * 10) Items likely to express the unvarnished, off-hand, popular majority view-point. -- Pedant17 02:12, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Many editors (with no axe to grind either way) have pointed out that this article is seriously deficient in the amount of meaningful information about what Landmark actually does, and this certainly remains the case. DaveApter 16:35, 20 April 2007 (UTC)


 * That is simply not the case. At the moment, I have no inclination to work on this article.  You are correct - I had spent some time working on it and adding sources that satisfied WP:RS.  However, at this point in time it seems there are better ways to further the pervasiveness of information, and other more esoteric topics are interesting to me at the moment.  Perhaps later, I will check back, see how things have changed, but for now, this article is remaining off of my watchlist, I am just checking in every once and a while.  Have fun with the Public Relations work y'all!  Live in the possibility of advertising / marketing!  Just kiddin folks.  Smee 01:47, 21 April 2007 (UTC).

This article exposes a great weakness of Wikipedia
Motivated people esp those motivated by financial gain can make an extended effort to write and maintain pages favorable to them Through a mixture of hardheadiness, will and perhaps a number of persons they can employ round the clock.

I'm not familar with this subject at all but just a cursory reading of this page I can see how skewed it is in favor of LE. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.22.78.184 (talk • contribs)
 * Thank you for voicing your comments. And the fact that random people like this come by and make comments like this is very illustrative of the problems with all of the sourced citations and material that has been removed from the article, in favor of re-writing it to look more like an advertisement / publicity-stunt piece...  Smee 12:02, 23 April 2007 (UTC).

Oh yes, how convenient. This unsigned comment is either from a sockpuppet, or we are being asked to take seriously the comments of someone who admits being completely unfamiliar with the subject and who has only given the page a cursory reading.
 * Even a casual reader can react validly to the tone and language of an article. -- Pedant17 03:08, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

And then asserts with no evidence that editors of this page are employed by Landmark?
 * Non-specific musing/speculation on possible behaviors does not constitute an allegation that Landmark Education employs editors of this article. -- Pedant17 03:08, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Certainly I am not and have never been, nor do I know anyone who is or has. Instead, I wonder why some people spend such an enormous amount of time arguing their case against Landmark.
 * You may indeed wonder about mainstream skeptics, but doing so here may not further the editing of the Wikipedia "Landmark Education" article much. -- Pedant17 03:08, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

They must have had a very bad experience,
 * That conclusion does not necessarily follow. -- Pedant17 03:08, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

which I am quite willing to recognise, but I wish they would stop trying to push their minority views.
 * Most views (on any subject) start as minority views. In the case of Landmark Education, have you distinguished extreme minority views (such as "we can fix Landmark Education's faults") from other minority views (such as "Landmark Education adopted the for-profit model to show how benignly it plans to treat humankind")? If so, how? -- Pedant17 03:08, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

If my friend drowned in a pool, does that give me the right to skew the article on swimming by expanding the section on risks to give every negative opinion I can find on the Web?
 * Whether or not your whole family drowned, you have every right to expand the article on drowning with well-referenced and relevant relevant material. -- Pedant17 03:08, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Timb66 12:13, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, we have been over this before. There are some editors that very actively edit this page, that have contractual relationships with the for-profit, privately owned company known as "Landmark Education"...  Some have referred to this as a Conflict of Interest.  Kinda like the whole problem with why User:MyWikiBiz was banned from Wikipedia...  Smee 18:24, 23 April 2007 (UTC).

Smee, can you please clarify what you mean by "contractual relationships"? The unsigned post alleged that some editors are employed and receive financial gain. Are you also alleging this? If not, please be precise. It is clearly important to clarify any conflicts of interest. thanks Timb66 03:07, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

See archived comments by previously un-involved editor, User:Nposs, here: Talk:Landmark Education/Archive 6. Smee 05:23, 24 April 2007 (UTC).
 * Archived WP:COI issues, had been brought up by un-involved editor
 * All of the non-sense regarding "contractual relationships" is truly absurd. I don't know what to say.  Sm1969 06:43, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The un-involved editor User:Nposs had stated: "There is a major conflict of interest WP:COI problem to overcome since [User] appears to be involved in the situation.", and:  "The WP:COI happens because you (as you state on your user talk page) are a seminar leader for the company. There are several guidelines for cases like this on the page I have linked: WP:COI. In this case, your closeness to the source poses potential financial, promotional, and campaigning problems."  (User:Nposs).  I agree with these statements, and there are probably other editors with similar WP:COI issues, but it is most interesting to note that it was an un-involved editor that brought this up.  Smee 06:50, 24 April 2007 (UTC).

Not a Debate page for minority-held views
There is a constant theme to all this that involves how well-sourced the non-noptable material is and how much the "public deserves to see all sides and then the Wikipedia readers can figure it out".
 * 1) 1. Bad, non-notable, non-appropriate material can be as well-sources and from respected journals even but does not belong in the article.  The problem is that the majority of editors feel that the links are non-notable.
 * 2) 2. Wikipedia is not designed to be a newsgroup or a debate page. Over and over again this debate happens with this page and then when it escalates to a Wikipedia admin it always resolves in favor of the people against the non-notable negative attack entries.

Let's stop the edit warring please... Alex Jackl 16:48, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Well-sourced material, as published, has already started on the journey to potential notability. "Respected journals" do not always deign to notice popular-culture fringe activity such as that of Landmark Education. That simply means that Wikipedia editors need to cut their cloth to fit the appropriate case. Hypersensitivity -- to the degree of branding mainstream criticism as "negative attack entries" -- hardly helps. -- Pedant17 03:08, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Reverted to Jossi's last one
Esther Rice completely ignored the debate happening on this page and wiped out most of the edits and cleaning of the page that has happened since the page was protected.
 * Esther Rice sensibly and boldly responded to the emerging consensus on the Talk-page at the time of her edits. -- Pedant17 03:08, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

It is for that kind of stuff that the page was protected in the past! Let's work together and not start an edit war. Alex Jackl 17:08, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
 * It seems as if there is no consensus for the mass removal of material backed up by reputable sourced information from citations that satisfy WP:RS, and some may even view this as censorship or even violations of WP:COI. Perhaps it would be best for all of us to seek out some form of collaborative dispute resolution, or mediation, and to each be listed as a party to said discussion?  Smee 18:29, 23 April 2007 (UTC).
 * I would make a distinction between an edit war and a deletion war. Cumulative edits can assemble the raw material for a better article; wholesale deletions inherently harm the neutral point of view. -- Pedant17 03:08, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I think there was majority consensus for that removal, although it was obviously not unaminous. To repeat the argument: material should not be included, no matter how reputably sourced, if it gives undue weight to a minority point of view. Timb66 03:11, 24 April 2007 (UTC)


 * There is no 'majority concensus'. One interesting point is that despite their greater available resources, the Church of Scientology apparently has to endure a rather long controversy and criticism section. Please look at the recent comments regarding 'Jossi's last one'. ER Talk 15:06, 24 April 2007 (UTC)


 * If material gives undue weight to a minority view-point (such as the view-point that Landmark Education deserves respect as a mere "business"), one can optimally redress the balance in weighting by adding material expressing alternative views. -- Pedant17 03:08, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Entire criticism section is gone?
Wow guys, wow. So interesting. Score one for the advertising / marketing / public relations department... Smee 14:05, 30 April 2007 (UTC).

Look again- it just isn't labeled in big letters. Score one for balance. Alex Jackl 15:38, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Looks gone to me... Score one for the public relations reps / volunteer laborers... Smee 15:41, 30 April 2007 (UTC).