Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-05-21 Landmark Education


 * - Please stick to the subject. Do not allow other editors to derail this process by distracting you with personal comments.


 * - Please also keep all comments to issues relating to content, and not contributors, as per WP:NPA.

General problem, probably long term - dispute on how to properly include cited material in proper NPOV manner.
Hello Medcab

We need some help with mediating the Landmark Education article. Some editors have been removing well sourced edits from the article on the basis that consensus trumps NPOV policies, or that minority views cannot be presented on Wikipedia I will assume good faith and for the time being state that they are just being unbelievably misguided. However, after suggestions to discuss weight, relevance, and reliablity, proponents made no attempt to make suggestions, and after the information was moved to the talkpage, the main proponent push was towards dismissing the information rather than offering suggestions for presentation.

Editors who wish to have the information presented into the article are doing so on the basis that the edits are well sourced, and are therefore admissible. Such editors are open to appropriate adjustments being made to those edits in context. Jeffrire 08:34, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment to Mediators: The above framing of the issues is how one side of the issues being dealt with would articulate. Some of the above is even factually inaccurate (I believe). For instance, I would be surprised if Jeffrire Can show one entry on the talk page where an editor expressed that "consensus trumps NPOV". That is merely weasel-wording on Jeffrire's part- misstating other editor's positions in order to invoke sympathy in newcomers to the conversations. Alex Jackl 21:23, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Mediator response
Reading case now, will post initial comments soon. I hope we can quickly reach a consensus on this. It would help if someone could add a list of involved parties in the meantime. Chrislintott 22:05, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Ground rules
Please do not edit comments posted on this page, even if they are your own. It'll help me immensely if we have a full record of discussions. What I need at the minute is a clear statement of everyone's position, and I expect that you will all disagree. Posting rebutals and responses, while I know it's tempting, just makes things more confusing, although you're welcome to do so if you feel you must. I'll shortly make a list of the issues involved and then we'll deal with them seperately. Hopefully this will allow some progress instead of just continuing the arguments here. If anyone has any concerns about this, you're welcome to contact me on my talk page or by email. Chrislintott 15:29, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment from Chris
Chrislintott has asked me to apologise for him that he hasn't been able to take a more active role in mediating this dispute. He's been unexpectedly busy in real life but will get back to you as soon as he is able. I see that good progress is being made in discussing the relevant issues. If you need outside assistance and Chris is still away, don't hesitate to get in touch on my talkpage... WjBscribe 16:57, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Comments by DaveApter
Just a quick comment for now - Jeffrire has framed the summary in manner which begs the question under dispute. It is not that he is a standard bearer for upholding the NPOV policy and others wish to ignore it. The issue is rather that other editors differ from his judgement that the material is in compliance with the NPOV policy. Also that the sources are in some cases far from reliable, that the sources sometimes do not support the assertion made in the article, and that what is being put forward is opinion rather than fact without a notable individual or identifiable population being shown to hold that opinion. DaveApter 14:02, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

And just to clarify - I welcome this mediation, I agree to participate in it and to be bound by its conclusions.DaveApter 12:11, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Comments by Lsi john

 * -comments in this area may be over-written or modified by the editor himself. Please do not post comments within this area. Thank you.


 * I had no knowledge or experience with Landmark Education prior to joining wikipedia editors on 28-March-2007.

With all due respect to Jefrire, the above is not an accurate portrayal of the situation. I do agree that lengthy repeated discussions, regarding the material in question, have failed to yield productive results and it may be time for mediation.

While some editors may disagree on specific points, by and large the majority of editors are open to compromise on the wording, provided the end result contains relevant material that is worded in an NPOV manner.

One important point in particular:
 * The foreign language sources use the word 'sectant' which properly translates to 'sect'. Jeffrire has refused to accept this proper translation and repeatedly insists that Landmark Education is a cult.

Thank you for your time and attention.

I look forward to accurate citations which properly reflect the material being cited in an NPOV manner.

Lsi john 14:24, 21 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I've noticed that one editor here has specifically refused to have their own comment section. Instead, this editor is commenting in everyone else's section about other editors, ironically, insisting that the other editors stop commenting about other editors. I respectfully request that this editor (who has not made a single article-related comment) take their own advice and stop focusing on the other editors and, instead, start focusing on the article. Thank you. Lsi john 15:38, 23 May 2007 (UTC)


 * If an editor's comments and thoughts are going to be interspersed with other editors' remarks and counter claims, then there is no point to having individual areas for each editor and we are back to the chaos we have on the article discussion.


 * I have no interest in wasting time with back-and-forth tit-for-tat reply-for-reply debates in the context of mediation. I appreciate that some editors feel that they simply must comment directly after another editor.. and, with all due respect, that is exactly why we have not gotten anywhere. It indicates that everyone is talking and nobody is listening.


 * By commenting, with a rebuttal, right after another editor, we are effectively dismissing the other editor and showing why they are wrong. That, in my opinion, is unnecessary here. Mediation is about saying what you believe, it is not about saying why another editor is wrong. We can say why the other editor is wrong by saying what we believe is right, respectfully in our own comment area. This keeps it from becoming personal and it helps keep it civilized and on-point.


 * If a comment can't stand on it's own merit, alone, without having to follow another editor's remark, then I submit that the comment may not be all that reasonable. And, if it can stand alone, then there is no reason to embed it in another editor's area.


 * That is just my opinion, but I'm stating it here because of the objections that have been raised about keeping comments separated. (back to work for me.. more later if necessary). (Also, interspersed comments makes it soooooo much harder for the mediator to get a good understanding of each editor's views).


 * Peace in God. Lsi john


 * - please respect my thoughts and do not post opposing or concurring comments within my comments. thank you. -- Lsi john


 * -Rebuttal or counter views - for editors who cannot word their own views in a context where they can stand on their own merit and feel they must specifically address my thoughts.


 * - the following comments have been relocated numerous times after repeatedly ignoring my request not to break up my remarks.


 * [comment re-relocated in accordance with the discussion on interspersion above] -- Pedant17 02:17, 26 May 2007 (UTC)


 * [comments below re-relocated after botched relocation (see below) -- as per discussion above and per the edit summary of User;CKerr: "they don't make sense if they're reordered." What a lot of meanings "good faith" has! -- Pedant17 01:38, 27 May 2007 (UTC)


 * The claim that "[t]he foreign language sources use the word 'sectant' which properly translates to 'sect'" has appeared more than once. If we could see texts where this word occurs (as opposed to the French-language sources which use secte[s] and the German-language sources which use Sekte[n]) we might engage in meaningful discussion as to usage, specific usage, semantic fields and their "proper" translation in each circumstance and linguistic environment. -- Pedant17 02:18, 25 May 2007 (UTC)


 * If a comment cannot stand alone it may or may not have reason behind it. But for brevity and context, placing a comment immediately after the text to which it refers saves space, time and hermeneutic effort -- even if that comment could (with suitable expansion and supporting material) stand on its own. -- Pedant17 02:17, 26 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Remarks and counterclaims can aid in clarifying matters under discussion, thus making the topics for mediation more precise. Mediation (as opposed to arbitration and other forms of dispute-resolution) encourages discussion amongst the parties. Wikipedians standardly use indentation to separate out interspersed additions: see for example the talk-page guideline and its reference to threaded discussion. -- Pedant17 02:17, 26 May 2007 (UTC)


 * As the current editor of this page, I would like to thank User:Lsi john for graciously making this public area of cyberspace available for editing, and I look forward to productive debate carried out efficienttly and in context according to Wikipedia norms of practice (which, however, frown on over-writing or modification of any discussion material -- including one's own contributions) . -- Pedant17 01:38, 27 May 2007 (UTC)


 * If you do not wish to debate in the context of mediation, you may run the risk of others assuming that you lack "good faith" in regard to that mediation. Far from interspersed comments indicating a lack of listening, such responses can suggest close listening and a specific willingness to discuss individual points, immediately, and in the context of the discussion as it develops. - Pedant17 02:17, 26 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree that commenting with a rebuttal may show where another editor has gone wrong -- and such a demonstration may aid the discussion. But interspersed comments may also indicate agreement, support, querying and/or divergent views -- in context and immediately applicable. -- I do not recognize your views on mediation as nothing more than statements of belief. The mediation process tends to bypass beliefs and concentrate on achieving agreement by negotiation and discussion. Interspersed comments can actively avoid personalization of arguments: because they have a context one need not even mention another editor's name/handle; and we do not face the distorting effects of having to summarize another Wikipedian's viewpoint elsewhere, out of context, in an environment where cross-checking as to accuracy becomes more difficult. Pedant17 02:17, 26 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Respect for argument might persuade me to wrench interspersed comments from their natural environment; respect for thoughts does not do so. Explanatory and supplemental comments belong with the text that inspires them -- just as with opposing and concurring comments. -- Pedant17 01:38, 27 May 2007 (UTC)


 * The claim that "[t]he foreign language sources use the word 'sectant' which properly translates to 'sect'" has appeared more than once. If we could see texts where this word occurs (as opposed to the French-language sources which use secte[s] and the German-language sources which use Sekte[n]) we might engage in meaningful discussion as to usage, specific usage, semantic fields and their "proper" translation in each circumstance and linguistic environment. -- Pedant17 02:18, 25 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Remarks and counterclaims can aid in clarifying matters under discussion, thus making the topics for mediation more precise. Mediation (as opposed to arbitration and other forms of dispute-resolution) encourages discussion amongst the parties. Wikipedians standardly use indentation to separate out interspersed additions: see for example the talk-page guideline and its reference to threaded discussion. -- Pedant17 02:17, 26 May 2007 (UTC)


 * If you do not wish to debate in the context of mediation, you may run the risk of others assuming that you lack "good faith" in regard to that mediation. Far from interspersed comments indicating a lack of listening, such responses can suggest close listening and a specific willingness to discuss individual points, immediately, and in the context of the discussion as it develops. - Pedant17 02:17, 26 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree that commenting with a rebuttal may show where another editor has gone wrong -- and such a demonstration may aid the discussion. But interspersed comments may also indicate agreement, support, querying and/or divergent views -- in context and immediately applicable. -- I do not recognize your views on mediation as nothing more than statements of belief. The mediation process tends to bypass beliefs and concentrate on achieving agreement by negotiation and discussion. Interspersed comments can actively avoid personalization of arguments: because they have a context one need not even mention another editor's name/handle; and we do not face the distorting effects of having to summarize another Wikipedian's viewpoint elsewhere, out of context, in an environment where cross-checking as to accuracy becomes more difficult. Pedant17 02:17, 26 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Respect for argument might persuade me to wrench interspersed comments from their natural environment; respect for thoughts does not do so. Explanatory and supplemental comments belong with the text that inspires them -- just as with opposing and concurring comments. -- Pedant17 01:38, 27 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Remarks and counterclaims can aid in clarifying matters under discussion, thus making the topics for mediation more precise. Mediation (as opposed to arbitration and other forms of dispute-resolution) encourages discussion amongst the :: If you do not wish to debate in the context of mediation, you may run the risk of others assuming that you lack :: I agree that commenting with a rebuttal may show where another editor has gone wrong -- and such a demonstration may aid the discussion. But interspersed comments may also indicate agreement, support, querying and/or divergent views -- in context and immediately applicable. -- I do not recognize your views on mediation as nothing more :: The claim that "[t]he foreign language sources use the word 'sectant' which properly translates to 'sect'" has appeared more than once. If we could see texts where this word occurs (as opposed to the French-language sources which use secte[s] and the German-language sources which use Sekte[n]) we might engage in meaningful discussion as to usage, specific usage, semantic fields and their "proper" translation in each circumstance and linguistic environment. -:: I submit that mediators may not need or wish "to get a good understanding of each editor's views". Rather, the overall tone of the discussion and the flow and validity of argument may become paramount in achieving a mediated solution. If, however, mediators (and/or others) have an interest in precisely who holds what view, then indentation, signatures and edit histories/diffs can help sort that out. -- Pedant17 02:17, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
 * If a comment cannot stand alone it may or may not have reason behind it. But for brevity and context, placing a comment immediately after the text to which it refers saves space, time and hermeneutic effort -- even if that comment could (with suitable expansion and supporting material) stand on its own. -- Pedant17 02:17, 26 May 2007 (UTC)- Pedant17 02:18, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

than statements of belief. The mediation process tends to bypass beliefs and concentrate on achieving agreement by negotiation and discussion. Interspersed comments can actively avoid personalization of arguments: because they have a context one need not even mention another editor's name/handle; and we do not face the distorting effects of having to summarize another Wikipedian's viewpoint elsewhere, out of context, in an environment where cross-checking as to accuracy becomes more difficult. -- Pedant17 02:17, 26 May 2007 (UTC) parties. Wikipedians standardly use indentation to separate out interspersed additions: see for example the talk-page guideline and its reference to threaded discussion. -- Pedant17 02:17, 26 May 2007 (UTC) good faith in regard to that mediation. Far from interspersed comments indicating a lack of listening, such responses can suggest close listening and a specific willingness to discuss individual points, immediately, and in the context of the discussion as it develops.-- Pedant17 02:17, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Comments by Spacefarer
While I don't edit a lot, at the request of Jeffrire, I took the time to add comments, and they have not been addressed. I am concerned that the artilce stay balanced and NPOV with reputable sources, not just individual opinions. Spacefarer 16:25, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Comments by Sm1969
I have edited on and off on this page, and, over the period of about 1.5 years, the article has gone in circles, with A) wholesale deletions of sourced material and B) overrepresentation of insignificant minority positions (which should not be included by NPOV guidelines) and C) overrepresentation of significant minority opinions (which should be given due representation, but not overweighted). Numerous articles have been created surrounding Landmark Education on non-notable people and subjects to create a basis for portraying Landmark Education in a negative light, and such articles have also been administratively deleted for violating policies on notability and attacks.  The LE page has gone on and off protection, yet the problems with certain editors persist.    We are a long way from a neutral, accurate and informative article, and have been circling (at best) that objective for about 1.5 years. Sm1969 18:47, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Surprisingly, User:Sm1969 has framed his opinions on certain issues here without personally attacking other editors (so far), but rather by describing the issues at hand and the general ideas regarding content in dispute, and I appreciate that. Polite language makes for more constructive dialogue, overall.  Smee 00:22, 22 May 2007 (UTC).
 * I don't think anyone has ever made a serious accusation that I have "attacked" anyone, so I don't know what you are surprised at, Smee. Sm1969 09:36, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The comment was not directed at you specifically, more that you have bucked the general trend of some of the commentators in this Mediation so far, by speaking to what you perceive as content problems of the article, and not issues of any single editor. This is both more polite, and more constructive towards affecting a postitive change, than some of the other comments...  Smee 09:40, 25 May 2007 (UTC).

Comments by AJackl
First off, the framing of this mediation request is ludicrous and a PERFECT example of the kind of spin and POV work that has been done on this article. Few editors would say that the above is the issue. None of us have argued that "COncensus trumps NPOV" AT ALL. We have argued consistently that the mass reverts being done by these users to a single old version of the article is a POV attack against the article and contains POV-pushing, non-notable, and non-relevant, information. The framing of this mediation request is the kind of use of weasel words I find most objectionable about what has been going on in this page. Alex Jackl 21:16, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I have edited on this page for some time. In the interest of not repeating material I concur with users DaveApter, Sm1969, SpaceFarer, and Lsi john above. I have been frustrated over time with the lack of compromise, have been exhausted by dealing with bulk reverts of contentious, POV, insignificant minority-view (IMO) material (however cited and sourced it is). DaveApter tried to create a discussion frame which was mostly ignored and then it worked because the page was protected and the editors that actually wanted to work on content started showing up once the edit warring disappeared and for a few weeks/months we worked together and got the page to a reasonable state. Then EstherRice and Jeffrire picked up where Smee left off and the assault began again. I would love to work out the issues but I don't have much faith and am tired of mass reverts happening with no (or little to be more accurate and fair) discussion of the content or response to factual concerns except "this is highly sourced material". I hope this process makes a difference but I am sure glad the page is protected. Alex Jackl 21:12, 21 May 2007 (UTC) A notice as per WP:TPG -- [ Lsi john removed his comments, as follows: At least Alex Jackl's comments were related to the article. Lsi john 00:12, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
 * User:AJackl seems to only be able to describe his opinions regarding the issue by personally attacking other editors - most amusing, and yet, highly inappropriate, and especially not conducive to any form of constructive polite dialogue through a Mediation process. Smee 23:50, 21 May 2007 (UTC).
 * NO, they were characterizing and attacking other editors - as opposed to framing the particular dispute in the framework of whatever content he disagrees with and wishes to remove from the article. That would be a more constructive way to go about positive change, instead of starting right off the bat making this a tit for tat personal attack on other editors - as opposed to a dialogue about what content is and is not appropriate for the article itself.  Smee 00:14, 22 May 2007 (UTC).
 * This comment was in response to a comment by User:Lsi john, which he then removed. Check edit history if you wish to see it.  Smee 00:17, 22 May 2007 (UTC).
 * Comment Smee's contribution to this debate should been seen in the context of his extensive involvement in the Landmark article during the period May 2006 - March 2007, which was substantially responsible for the state of the article which several editors judged to be in gross violation of NPOV, and which is at the root of this current dispute. DaveApter 09:04, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Further personal attacks from DaveApter, though amusing, are not surprising. The root of the current debate is not any one individual editor's contributions, but rather inclusion of certain sourced chunks of material that is critical of the company, that others wish to remove.  I am no longer taking an active role in the article, having experienced personal attacks, veiled legal threats, and generally highly rude, inappropriate and impolite behaviour from certain individuals - however I wanted to stop by the Mediation to point out these further personal attacks occurring here, and the fact they they are wholly non-productive to any form of constructive dialogue related to the actual content of the article itself.  Smee 09:09, 22 May 2007 (UTC).
 * *For what it is worth, I do not see how what Dave Apter is saying can be construed as a personal attack. All Dave Apter did above was factual and outlined in the comments already on this page. Triplejumper 19:35, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
 * By addressing indivdual editors and what he feels are their motivations, rather than issues that he sees as problems with the articles content. WP:NPA - The best way to have a better polite and positive dialogue about the content issues we wish to address here, is to discuss content, not contributors.  Smee 22:52, 22 May 2007 (UTC).
 * To clarify: I had no intention of attacking Smee or anyone else. I have re-read my remarks above and see no way that they could be misinterpreted as a personal attack. The facts are these: a)between May 2006 and March 2007, there were about 2,100 edits of the article; b) approximately 1,000 of these were made by Smee (ie he made about the same number as the other three dozen editors combined); c) many of these were immediate (and often repeated) reverts of other editors' contributions; d)he was several times reported for 3RR violations, and several times blocked for it. The relevance of all this to the current discussion is that the contested material that Jeffrire wishes to re-introduce would restore the article to its state at the point when Smee 'volunteered' to desist from editing after his March 3RR violation. DaveApter 12:11, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Comments by Timb66
I started editing this page and contributing to the discussion in early April 2007, soon after I started editing Wikipedia. As I have disclosed on the talk page, I did the Landmark Forum in 1994 and have done a few other courses since then, the most recent being about 3 years ago. I noticed that the Wiki page was in bad shape, with many fragmented and disconnected facts. I soon realized that the page was controversial. I have been struck by the strong opposition that has been displayed by some editors, to the point of one stating that Landmark is a cult (Jeffire) and another stating that "participating in Landmark Education activities does provide a bad indicator for objectivity" (Pedant17). I realize that my comments are directed at editors. That was deliberate -- the reason this article has not stabilized is becasue of disagreements between editors, so it seems obvious that we should discuss those disagreements. As I have said on the talk page, I do not question the good faith of other editors. I accept that we all want to improve Wikipedia. But I do question the neutrality of some editors who have made it clear they have strong opinions.

Concerning the article, I don't advocate removing all criticism of Landmark. Indeed, I think it is notable that some people find the "hard sell" approach to be irritating. However, I also think it is notable that studies have shown that the majority of participants find the courses extremely rewarding and I think the article needs to reflect all points of view with appropriate balance. I hope that this mediation process can lead to some resolution. Timb66 00:29, 22 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I stand by my comment that "[p]articipating in Landmark Education activities does provide a bad indicator for objectivity." I draw attention to my followup: "But Wikipedia can tolerate the opinions of such people -- in this case as minorities." Landmarketeers make enough attempts in cyberspace to decry those commentators "who have not even done the Landmark Forum"; I would suggest that some distance and dispassionate observation of effects and results would thoroughly counterbalance overtly partisan editing. -- Pedant17 02:18, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Note to mediator: the page on Landmark Education litigation contains much of the material that is under discussion here. Timb66 00:35, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Comments by Jeffrire
Hello and thanks for reading. I am simply going to state that some editors would be misguided in thinking that the information presented (and deleted on many occasions) was insignificant or unreliable. The information is certainly critical and derives from articles that to my knowledge are reliable and often show a variety of views on the subject. I'm open to all relevant views being presented in the article according to NPOV policies and would like to work with the mediators and all involved in order to present all relevant views. It would also be useful to set up a habit of dialogue that allows editors to discuss the issues at hand (sourced views on cult status, views on manipulation and the general notoriety of Landmark Education) without some editors always taking offense or making undue accusations of negative POV pushing. I believe these issues do need to be stated in discussion and though they may be objectionable, it should be possible to discuss them without any antagonism or threats of legal action, whether contrived or real. Jeffrire 08:42, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Comments by Triplejumper
I have two comments. One, the issue with the content in questions is minority POV pushing, not weather it is sourced. In looking further at Jeffrire, Esther Rice, Smee, Penant 17 the over whelming majority of their edits are on articles that involve LGAT, Cult, lists of organizations accused of being such, individuals aledged to be involved as such, lists of individuals and researches who have fought against such organizations. Many of these articles have been created by the same people. I think that this plainly reflects an intense POV. Second, is that on the talk page of the Landmark article, Jeffrire thoughtfully posted all of the material that he felt should be included in the article and invited comments. Most of the editors who have posted on this cabal page took up that invitation and raised significant questions about the reliability of the references and how they were used to support the assertions made in the text. I do not see where anyone has responded to address the significant problems and questions most editors had with the text. Triplejumper 15:12, 23 May 2007 (UTC)


 * So what if many of the edits of user:Jeffrire, User:EstherRice, User:Smee and/or User:Pedant17 occur in specific subject areas? People have interests and facinations -- even Wikipedians have their areas of specialization. Interest in certain areas does not necessarily equate to "an intense POV" -- it may just as plausibly indicate a concern for accuracy and hard-fought balance. -- Notwithstanding the foregoing, my own edits do not relate overwhelmingly to LGATs and cults, though I have touched on those topics (as well as on the nastiness of Landmark Education) in my editing of 1844 different pages since 2003: compare http://tools.wikimedia.de/~interiot/cgi-bin/Tool1/wannabe_kate?username=Pedant17&site=en.wikipedia.org -- Pedant17 02:18, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Comments by Smee
I have stated already, I am no longer involved with editing this article. I had grown sick of all of the rudeness and threats on the talk page. I simply wanted to come to the Mediation to check if individuals were focusing on content, or on contributors - for focus on the latter will not lead to anything productive, but only to personal attacks on individual editors. I see that this is what is going on here, from the majority of comments made, and that is quite unfortunate. It is unfortunate that a majority of individuals here do not wish to have a polite dialogue about the content of the article itself, and the inherent issues involved. Smee 15:51, 23 May 2007 (UTC).


 * As I understand it, the mediation process is not intended to produce a ruling on content, but rather to establish a framework in which users of various viewpoints can collaborate constructively to improve the article, an outcome I would personally welcome. I have never made personal attacks on you, but I do see your repeated accusations of my doing so as a form of harassment. DaveApter 12:11, 24 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Hello, Smee. Since you have mentioned that you are no longer editing this article, I think it is also relevant to point out that you (and other editors of this page) are actively editing the article on Landmark Education litigation. Timb66 23:33, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * There are content issues that you should all discuss, instead of getting bogged down by, as Ckerr puts it, making accusations about "wild-eyed Landmark propagandists or wild-eyed Landmark haters". Discuss the criticism, inclusion of such and such or not in the article, etc.  Not who said what and why and how they are behaving.  This is not constructive.  That is what I mean.  If you only want a Mediation to gripe, and throw around accusations, that is not helpful, constructive, polite, or appropriate.  Smee 23:53, 24 May 2007 (UTC).

Comments by Ckerr
The term "NPOV" is of no use, since opposing sides (of course) think they have the "neutral" point of view, whereas the opposition is either wild-eyed Landmark propagandists or wild-eyed Landmark haters. Isn't it ironic that this bitter, often personal debate is so contrary to what would be recommended by Landmark?

That said, the Landmark page is better than it used to be. I would strongly urge no further elimination of critical material, but nor do I think there should be more emphasis on it. I reject the argument that the article gives unnecessary weight to a minority view, since it isn't objectively known how "minority" this view is. Speaking from personal experience, when I did the Forum last year, about half the people I spoke to felt that Landmark's marking tactics were improper, and questions on Landmark's theological implications were raised with the Forum Leader. In my view these aren't non-issues, but nor do I think there is reason to call Landmark a "cult".

Finally, I think the controversiality of this article is itself notable. Passions are running so strong the article will only be balanced when everyone is dissatisfied with it. Ckerr 04:25, 24 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you, Ckerr, I imagine no one will be completely happy with your comments, but you have managed to fairly describe a difficult issue, whilst also remaining tactful and polite. Most appreciated.  Smee 04:27, 24 May 2007 (UTC).


 * Hi Ckerr. I agree with you that the article in its current state has about the right fraction of critical material (in the past month the article has oscillated between something similar to its current state and one with about 30% more material, mostly critical). In the interests of disclosure, I should point out that Ckerr and I work in the same department and know each other slightly. Timb66 05:43, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Just to add that I agree 100% with what Ckerr adn Timb66 have said. I have never said that the 'controversies' should not be discussed, only that all sides should be presented fairly and given due weight. I have made several attempts to get constructive debate going about this on the talk page. One other weakness of the present state of the article is that it gives virtually no information about what Landmark actually does, why anyone would take their courses, or what they get from them. DaveApter 12:11, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

~ ~ ~

Having thought about it more, I have come to believe strongly that many of this article's issues could be solved by moving the "Controversies" section into a separate article, the way "Litigation" has. In my experience, the majority of disagreements have been over whether a certain fact was important enough to include in the main article. This problem would no longer arise in a separate article, since there would be no concern about "undue weight". I think the criticisms of Landmark are interesting and important, but they are numerous and complicated enough to make it impossible to cover them fairly in main article. Let's keep the main article focused on what Landmark is and what it does, and leave full treatment of its merits and problems for a separate article. Ckerr 09:49, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Wow, on a related note, just took a look at Criticism of Microsoft and the article is LONG, 58Kb... Though my general inclination is rather to oppose splitting this stuff off into its own article, if consensus is for this in the end, that would certainly be an intrguing article.  There are certainly plenty of reputable citations for one...  Smee 09:54, 27 May 2007 (UTC).

Comments by Pedant17
May it please the Cabal: talk of "majorities", "minorities", "significant minorities" and consensus seems inappropriate in the absence of proven figures. Talk of NPOV oft becomes confused with the concept of accuracy (and truth as each editor sees it) at the expense of balance and of a diversity of opinions. Questions as the the reliabilty of sources frequently get derailed into discussions on the overall tone of sources, or on trivial points of dispute unrelated to the immediate point. Claims of non-notability abound, with appeals to WP:Notability regardless of the fact that that guideline applies to Wikipedia articles rather than to sub-topics within articles. Complaints emerge of an article too long, countered by questioning of the forking of some material to avoid just this issue. Wild generalizations on fellow-editors' attitudes and viewpoints and work get made on the Talk-pages. Overall one gets the impression that wikilawyering techniques result in a  exclusionist attitude towards any material prejudicially deemed "negative" to the perceived interests of Landmark Education LLC, a for-profit org with a "philosophical" set of offbeat attitudes and techniques which it ostensibly wishes to see spread into popular culture. Even self-damning material originating from the Landmark Education website has fallen victim to exclusionist procedures. -- Pedant17 02:18, 25 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Seeing the revision which Pedant17 refers to has made me change my point of view. Perhaps I missed some important debate, but it seems bizarre that, among other things, an actual study done on Landmark (Dr Nedopil's) has been entirely excluded from the article.


 * Perhaps the best option is to create a separate article which could cover these criticisms in detail without interrupting the flow of the article (they don't fit under "Legal disputes"). I think the "Evaluations of Landmark" section could also be moved to this separate article, leaving the main article free to discuss what Landmark actually is — which, as DaveApter rightly points out, is surprisingly hard to discern from the current article.


 * Personally, I don't think that interesting, reputable and referenced information should be deleted from Wikipedia. A separate article will allow all relevant points to be made without cluttering the main article, and could even tame the unruly behemoth that this article has become.  Ckerr 07:18, 25 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi CKerr; If you look at the converstaions before and after the edits Pedant points at you will see the conversations that happened around theat inclusion.  I owuld not mind the inclusion of Dr. Nedopil's article- if it is in proper context.  What was being done is spin was being applied to it to make it seem to have different results than it actually did.  I would be aligned with adding a reference/citation to it in the article.  .-- Alex Jackl 04:38, 26 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I thoroughly concur with the view that if you look at the conversations you will see the conversations. -- Pedant17 01:38, 27 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Herr Professor Doktor Nedopil has many fans amongst Wikipedia-editors. Some like to quote his definitive statement to the effect that Landmark Education does not constitute a cult. Others find more interest in his statements on the psychological dangers of the Landmark Forum in his Psychiatrisches Gutachten über das LANDMARK-Forum of 23 March 1995. It almost reminds one of the way in which Landmark Education in France appealed for support to the psychologist Jean-Marie Abgrall, who subsequently spoke disparagingly of Landmark Education. -- Pedant17 01:38, 27 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Separate articles will not help because we would have the same issues in that new article. The issue is that we believe the content to be non-notable, not horribly relevant, and non-encyclopedic.  Also it is not that all of the content is bad it is just out of scope.  It should be ten percent or so of the article... not the whole thing- the article should focus on what Landmark is and what it does in an informative manner.  I think a lot of the editors involved in this would be working on that if they didn't feel the need to defend the article from what appears to us/me as vandalism or at the least POV-pushing.  If you look at the entires of the people against adding all the "spinned" content we have not added "arias singing of Landmark's transcendent glory and how it will save the world"- we have been stating what Landmark says it is, what the courses are and some of the thinking behind it.  That is probably what the vast majority of the article should be..  As to the "self-damning information" that Pedant17 was talking about - I just followed it up: Nothing damning about it- that is just data about participation in LE - what is the problem with that.  To call that self-damning is to create smoke where there is no fire- just a weasel-wordy way to stir up controversy.   Being NPOV doesn't mean you can't tell the truth about the way it is. Alex Jackl 04:38, 26 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Separate articles would mitigate concerns with the Landmark Education article exceeding length-guidelines.See for example user:Lsi john's comments of [2007-04-29]] at 0408 hours: "Maximum length is there for a reason. Generally everything that needs to be said to describe a subject can be said within the maximum lengh limitation. Articles that exceed that limit, are generally redundant and overly wordy." And compare user:Lsi john's line of argument at 0219 hours on 2007-04-29:"This article is right at the max length for a wiki article...The number of references and footnotes is incredibly long... Is there something you would consider taking out, in order to add that reference?" -- Pedant17 01:38, 27 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Separate articles would not necessarily suffer from identical problems of scope and content-warring -- provided editors maintain cross-references and do not attempt to duplicate material for the sake of point-scoring -- as occasionally happened after material forked into the Landmark Education and the law article (subsequently misleadingly re-named as Landmark Education litigation). -- Pedant17 01:38, 27 May 2007 (UTC).


 * The issue of scope may also diminish if we introduce separate articles. We can subvert demands for arbitrary percentages getting devoted to specific points of view simply by linking to separate articles -- each NPOV in content but freed from the artificial rule-sets that editors have "created" specifically for the Landmark Education entry. -- Pedant17 01:38, 27 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I would welcome more material on "what [Landmark Education] does]. But note that the full list of courses that I added to the article has disappeared: see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Landmark_Education#Courses for the deletion-proposal by User:DaveApter and the deletion by User:Timb66. -- Pedant17 01:38, 27 May 2007 (UTC)


 * If the self-damning element of self-contradiction in Landmark Education's published figures on course-participation seems not self-evident then fine -- let the information stand in the article as a statistical record within the precisely defined limitations of its origins and of the suppression of its checkability. Nevertheless, someone has removed this material -- apparently on the grounds that it may mislead or lack interest -- see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Landmark_Education#Market_penetration_over_time -- Pedant17 01:38, 27 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I also find it ironic that Pedant17 accuses some of us of personal attacks when his accusations five paragraphs above typify why we need this mediation. Alex Jackl 04:31, 26 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I fear that I missed that particular irony, since I cannot recall accusing "some of us" of personal attacks. -- But I do find it ironic that anyone considers that my attempts to provide provable statements of fact typify a perceived "need" for mediation -- Pedant17 01:38, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Comments by EstherRice
Sorry that I have had neither the chance or inclination to log in recently; a combination of being busy and other factors. These comments are not yet complete; I have not finished reading this page, since it has become rather like the discussion page for the article. ER Talk 14:14, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) This introductory passage is atrocious and all too typical.
 * 2) The situation here is pretty simple. Landmark wants to be perceived as a 'company' that offers certain 'technologies'. Let's have a little thought experiment, and pretend that Landmark is a bakery rather than a cult-like entity, i.e. it offers bread and perhaps cakes rather than 'technologies'.
 * 3) *In such a case, if a particular group of users were pushing the line that this bakery is unquestionably good, to the extent that they try to keep out sourced information on numerous cases of food poisoning, wouldn't commercial conflict of interest principles apply? The applicability would be beyond question, as it would also be if said company were selling anything else.
 * 4) *The above should be even more the case since two of the pro-Landmark people openly acknowledge an affiliation with either Landmark itself or with the field (so-called LGAT) as a whole; at least two of the others are very satisfied and loyal repeat customers.
 * 5) *Personally, I have no affiliation with anti-cult groups or Landmark rivals of any kind, and am here purely as an individual. I am not a 'Landmark hater'. The reality is that we have a set of PoV pushers and a set of people who want to see a balanced article.
 * 6) *That said, I have experienced distasteful attempts at recruitment and witnessed what are apparently the desired end results (a combination of amorality and wilfull irrationality) in some enthusiasts. These factors motivated me to try to maintain balance in the article. Other than the worst puff, there were no attempts to remove favourable material that had adequate sources, and in general, few attempts to remove favourable material.
 * 7) Editing other than the reversion to the 'single old version' cited in the comments by AJackl was all designed to turn the article into a whitewash, free of negatives and somewhat resembling a sales pamphlet for the 'services' on offer. Given the number of meaningless contributions the history is very hard to follow, but the claim of improvements in spelling etc. to versions that were then reverted to include sourced material are all false.
 * 8) Editing summaries from the pro-Landmark folk are largely on the assumption of a future intervention, and that any intervener will (understandably) just read the summaries because of the tortuous flow of the discussion page and editing history. The summaries seldom have any connection with the content of the edit.
 * 9) Interjections into comments have also been used at innumerable points on the discussion page to make it more unreadable than it already is. Note that I personally did the same on one date, not realising the consequences as probably the most wikinaive person here and assuming (seeing so many similar cases) that this was normal. However, I realised what was happening pretty much immediately after I'd saved the changes. Sorry.
 * 10) As I have said on the discussion page for the article, the idea of a minority opinion or majority opinion does not have much relevance to anything, particularly if the most active part of the majority appears to be here for precisely the purpose of being a majority in favour of the subject of the article (which goes back to my first point). If material has proper sources, it is included. Any talk to some other effect is purely for distraction.


 * Yes ER, this discussion is all too familiar. I would like to make the most of it though. I know its perhaps a little desperate, but I think its more a matter of decoding what is going to be easier to add to the article (less critical information) and what is going to perhaps require more stringent measures to allow NPOV policies to be followed (the more critical information). There is a lot of noise in discussion, and perhaps we should let it slide to a certain degree. I'd like to discourage it, but I rather think some editors think that argumentative disruption will somehow stop Wikipedia from including critical information in articles. There also seem to be some rather desperate attempts at OR in order to somehow negate critical information. Well, we can explain NPOV policies till we're blue in the face. I think its just a matter of time until we get the information in under encyclopedic standards. I understand that there are some good intentions behind some editor's efforts to omit or at least question some of the information. Though it is a slow process, I think that should be allowed and even encouraged. Though the process may seem troublesome in itself, I think there could be some positive side effects. I was looking at the progress of the Scientology article a couple of days ago, from when it started until its present state. They seem to have had similar problems but it looks though the main critical information there is very well presented. A good deal of that information seems to have been presented/discovered due to the overdemands of the proponents. Well, it may not be to the liking of the proponents, but thats Wikipedia process whether they like it or not. Whether we find it grindingly ponderous as a process, or whether we dislike whats presented in the article, we all should learn to stay positive (I'm not suggesting that its easy, especially for proponents). I suggest we keep in mind what is likely to come over the next months. Its best to be open about it now I believe. I think the more we pace ourselves with reason, the more friendly/tolerable the situation will be in the long run. Jeffrire 10:22, 12 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the note, Jeffrire. I have read most of the discussion now; a lot of noise is an understatement, that seems to be the strategy. ER Talk 13:17, 13 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes I agree. I am actually not yet sure what we can do about it. That seems to be the "system" that LE has set up. I imagine it will backfire and make more of a mess. If it is something that Wikipedia can clean up, then fine. For my part though, it seems that if editors are going to take away solidly sourced edits as they have done before, and as they seem to be threatening to continue to do so, then blocks/bans are inevitable. It seems that is what admin is likely to do. Thats not a solution as such and it doesn't bother me particularly. I saw this page as the beginning of a very long term process. As LE seems to be some kind of a continuance of Scientology, I would hold out a lot of hope for good admin support. I don't mind if the proponents want to continue to show their colours as they seem to have done throughout this page. I suppose its just another way of being obvious about their intentions. Jeffrire 14:18, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Comments by Caltechdoc
I came back to this article and was chagrined to see that it was locked in mediation. I can imagine any number of reasons that there may be a very small contingent of editors with strong anti-whatever points-of-view, but it still surprises me. I have educated myself in many ways, ranging from a Ph.D. at Caltech to the Martial Arts to yoga to various methodologies and programs designed to enhance my mastery over the quality and nature of my life. Landmark Education was clearly one of the more effective of the latter programs for me (and I have done at least 25), yet in no way is it strange, cultish, or a sect. They are an educational business, with normal corporate offices, and normal classrooms with chalkboards and well-trained instructors. What is this vehement anti-"growth program" view that is so motivating to those who are attacking Landmark and like programs? I don't know the editors who are working so hard at diminishing the reputation of Landmark Education, so it is difficult to assess what is motivating them. However it has very little to do with anything in the reality I have seen. Frankly, it reminds me of the fervor that people who take on some viewpoint, like creationism, which is based on some personal agenda (like the propagation of a specific moral system).

Leave it simple. Landmark Education is an organization with programs designed to enhance the quality of it's students lives, and to give them more mastery over what tends to hold humans back, in general. It is a matter of opinion how "good" the programs are, but not a matter of opinion how many places the program is given, how many people take and continue to take programs every year, and the reports participants make of the positive results of taking the programs.

There is one point I think really might be worth amplifying, that impresses me, whenever I return to a Landmark course. Cults and Sects typically work to seperate their participants from the rest of society, and gain more control over them by having them isolated or disconnected. "Tell your family goodbye" and the like. Landmark works exactly the opposite. It is commonly encouraged in a Landmark course to reach out and connect with family members, especially ones that you may have disconnected with long ago. It works to increase family ties, community ties, and ties other people in general. The only possible criticism is that this is so that they can get more customers. Ridiculous. I have never seen a more sincere group of educators - in my view - that are actually committed to their students having more satisfying and fulfilling lives. Caltechdoc 00:48, 15 June 2007 (UTC)


 * No need to feel chagrin at finding an article "locked in mediation": rejoice that the editing of the article now makes progress without the specter of delete-wars hanging over it. -- Pedant17 04:05, 17 June 2007 (UTC)


 * What connection do imaginings "of any number of reasons" for the existence of editors have with the issues of the moment: negotiating agreed guidelines for the article's ongoing development? -- Pedant17 04:05, 17 June 2007 (UTC)


 * A wide and idiosyncratic view of "education" -- extending to "mastery over the quality and nature of my life" -- may even overlap with the idea that Landmark Education sells "education". -- I suppose we may have to address such way-out views at some point. -- Pedant17 04:05, 17 June 2007 (UTC)


 * The alleged "effectiveness" of Landmark Education may appear "clear" to some people, but we require independent evidence before the matters become significant for Wikipedia. Stating what Landmark Education "was" or "is" or "are" does not help: we need timestamps and third-party evidence, not continued assertion that something "is so". -- Pedant17 04:05, 17 June 2007 (UTC)


 * The assertion that Landmark Education employs/uses "well-trained instructors" begs the question as to how well who trains such instructors in what? -- Pedant17 04:05, 17 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I know of no 'anti-"growth program" view. I venture to suggest that all commentators on Landmark Education, even Wikipedia editors, rely on growth for their food-supplies. -- Pedant17 04:05, 17 June 2007 (UTC)


 * What does "assessing" the "motivations" of fellow-editors or speculating on "personal agendas" have to do with discussing the content of an article? In what way do such musings  assume good faith on the part of Wikipedians? -- Pedant17 04:05, 17 June 2007 (UTC)


 * The call for "simplicity" immediately invokes complexity. We may agree in characterizing Landmark Education as "an organization" -- to some extent, at least -- but assertions about the designing of its "programs" and their purpose lead straight into woolly thinking and questionable assumptions about "quality", "mastery" and "lives". We do well to avoid discussing how "bad" or how "good" the so-called programs may appear, but we also have a legitimate interest in tracking the growth and decline in "how many places the program" (singular: what program?) occurs in, and in tracking the growth and decline of the numbers of people who enroll (and sometimes re-enroll) to take programs in successive years. As for any "reports" that "participants make of the positive results of taking the programs" (plural), we must treat such first-hand, biased opinionating with great care -- even perhaps contrasting it on occasion with the considered opinions of those who detect not-so-positive outcomes. -- Pedant17 04:05, 17 June 2007 (UTC)


 * The "typical" behavior of cults and sects in allegedly separating "their participants from the rest of society" does not apply to all cults and sects. It does, however, apply to the Landmark Education operation, which relies on word-of-mouth advertising amongst family-members and acquaintances to recruit more attendees, but will readily distract recruits from non-approving family ties by immersing them in a web of seminars and "volunteer" activities. Lip-service to "family ties, community ties, and ties other people in general" does not prevent cult-like separatist behavior. -- Pedant17 04:05, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Response to initial comments
OK, so I've read what you all had to say. As far as I see it, there are three seperate issues here. Firstly, whether Landmark can be described as a cult, sect or neither of these terms. Secondly, there are disputes over which criticisms of Landmark should be incorporated into the article. Thirdly, even where there is agreement that such criticism should be incorporated in the article, there is dispute as to how prominent it should be, and how much space it should take up.

We'll deal with each of these, but I'm going to defer the third dispute for now. This should be easier to deal with once we have some more concrete to stand on. Let's start with my first point.

Landmark's status
As an outside editor, it seems to me that the fact that such a lively debate is possible over whether Landmark is a cult, or a sect, or both, or neither is clear enough evidence that a definitive answer is not possible. It is also inherently non-citable, as no source is likely to be definitive. What is citable is occasions on which the organisation has or has not been described as a cult, a sect or whatever else. As a starting point for debate, I propose 1. That we need a few sentences on whether Landmark has been described as either a cult or a sect, when such descriptions have been applied and the importance of such a classification. 2. That outside of this small section, neither the word 'cult' or 'sect' are used.

Perhaps several of you should suggest a possible form of words, and then we can try and draw them together. One personal request - it would help me if you could just add comments one after the other so I can see how the debate evolves.

Dave Apter
It is certainly the case that some people have expressed an opinion that Landmark is a cult and others disagree. Whether there are any sources that meet this aspect of the WP:NPOV policy is open to question:

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) I discussed the support (or lack thereof) for the suggestion that Landmark is a cult in the 'Where's the beef?' section on the talk page. As far as I can see there is no recognised authority who has unambiguously declared Landmark to be a cult (without subsequently retracting it), and also defined what they mean by that troublesome and ill-defined term. The arguable exception is the French report, so long as this is given an appropriate context (The French national obsession with "sectes"; the lack of definition, accountablility, or appeal process; the large number of clearly innocuous groups that were also listed; and the general scepticism expressed towards that now-disbanded department).

As regards the controversial issues to be discussed, I already suggested several months ago: and on reflection, I'd add:
 * Does it really produce worthwhile results?
 * Is it sometimes harmful?
 * Is it a rip-off, or a money making scam?
 * The surprising fact that volunteer staff outnumber paid staff by a factor of over ten-to-one.
 * Whether or not the marketing practices are unethical or otherwise excessive. DaveApter 09:58, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

sm1969
The issue of LE being a "cult" has received much attention. When publications (print matter) have used that term in the United States, they have been consistently sued by Landmark Education, and the entities making the statement have retracted (Margaret Singer, Self Magazine, et al.) Only on the Internet in the United States have entities (e.g., Rick Ross) been able to avoid liability by having an anonymous third-party make the assertion that LE is a "cult." Such retractions have also been issued in the Netherlands. No one has been a well-defined statement in an accountable medium that Landmark Education is a "cult." The situation is different in Europe, notably France, but even there there is no clear (testable!) definition of a "cult" that used.

The other controversial issues brought up by DaveApter are on-point and have been discussed back and forth for at least 1.5 years: A) whether LE produces worthwhile results B) whether LE is a scam C) why do people volunteer

A major issue is how much attention, relative to the length of the article as a whole, these controversies should receive. Sm1969 16:21, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Lsi john
I, too, think Dave is on-point. While I am not against including citable sources in articles, I find the majority of these 'reliable sources' to be nothing more than smoke and mirrors. The cult-claimers cannot find any substantive citations which back up the claims, so they fill the articles with reports of 'innuendo', 'charges', 'allegations' and 'accusations'. The majority of these allegations are ultimately shown to be false, are thrown out, or are later retracted. And, justification for inclusion is based simply on the fact that the 'allegations' were, in fact, published or reported on, without regard to the actual merit of the allegations. They claim that by including sufficient evidence of 'charges', that it 'proves' the status of cult. (See Jeffrire's comments on the discussion page). And so we end up with biased articles that are full of 'charges' without 'findings'.

My general objection to this is:
 * Whether or not spurious allegations are sufficiently noteworthy to be included in an article and if so
 * Do unproven and unsubstantiated claims deserve to be included in lead paragraphs of the articles?

I approve of the mediator's suggestion that criticism be limited to a section on criticism and not interwoven into the fabric of the entire article.

I would also suggest, that in cases where the claim was later retracted, the retraction come before (or be part of) the citation, as first-impressions are hard to remove. e.g. Margret Singer was later forced to retract a suggestion that LE was a cult. (or however that would be properly worded).

While I recognize that this mediation is about the Landmark Education article, the entire series of articles will be affected by the decisions here. Lsi john 17:46, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Timb66
I agree with the above comments in this section (and I am assuming that all editors honour the request of the mediator that comments on this page are not interspersed, to maintain chronological order). Timb66 21:17, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Comments on issue scope
Debate on the Talk-page and actions on the article-page do not confine themselves to "criticisms" of Landmark Education, but extend to facts, their relevance and their worthiness of inclusion. Since a wide range of passionately-held opinions about Landmark Education exists, any fact, comment or criticism may arouse ire and opposition. -- Pedant17 07:37, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Alleged need for a recognised authority
I see no reference here yet to the Berlin Senate report, which not only classified Landmark Education as a Sekte (cult) in two separate editions, but survived a court case in which Landmark Education failed to have itself removed from the "cult" list. See "Sekten" - Risiken und Nebenwirkungen: Informationen zu ausgewaehlten neuen religiõsen und weltanschaulichen Bewegungen und Psychoangeboten. Herausgeben von der Senatsverwaltung fuer Schule, Jugend and Sport. Redaktion: Anne Ruehle, Ina Kunst. Stand: Dezember 1997. Downloadable from http://www.berlin.de/sen/familie/sog_sekten_psychogruppen/index.html - retrieved 2006-12-13. -- But quite apart from this omission, the topic of Landmark Education, intertwining as it it does with popular culture, may not always fit with guidelines as to citable schools of opinion. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/examples#Popular_culture_and_fiction suggests: "Articles related to popular culture ... must be backed up by reliable sources like all other articles. However, due to the subject matter, many may not be discussed in the same academic contexts as science, law, philosophy and so on; ... Personal websites, wikis, and posts on bulletin boards, Usenet and blogs should still not be used as secondary sources. When a substantial body of material is available the best material available is acceptable, especially when comments on its reliability are included." -- Pedant17 07:37, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Comments on the status of Landmark Education
Given the number of various views on Landmark Education the company and on Landmark Education the "body of ideas" and on Landmark Education as exhibiyed in the behavior of its "graduates"; and given that Landmark education has allegedly changed over time (such that some statements may apply to (say) 1991 but not necessarily to 2008), I would suspect that we might potentially end up writing more than a few sentences on cultdom. -- Pedant17 07:37, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Proposed hedging of the 1996 French Parliamentary report
One might make a distinction between facts (a French Parliamentary Commission included Landmark Education in a list) and opinions (the French allegedly obsess over sectes (cults); some groups appear "clearly" innocuous (which need not preclude classification as a cult); a "general scepticism" exists (where? how general?). -- Pedant17 07:37, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Listing of controversial issues
Any listing of specific "controversies" runs the risk of marginalizing or excluding other issues. I would certainly add to any such list consideration of philosophical soundness and consistency, historical development of features and practices (much disputed), and the sociological and psychological impacts of the recruiting and marketing processes. Compare zombies. -- Pedant17 07:37, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Reports of allegations of innuendo etc
I agree with the statement that "The majority of these allegations [questioning the practices and teachings of Landmark Education] are ultimately shown to be false, are thrown out, or are later retracted." -- However, the majority of that majority get thrown out on questionable grounds. I invite those who have tracked such alleged allegations to submit itemized listings of allegations retracted or definitively demonstrated false. -- Much emotion-laden language ("smoke and mirrors", "innuendo", "spurious allegations") goes into combatting carefully and impeccably researched material which may not imply conclusions attractive to everyone. Nevertheless, such material, especially when widely-held, has a place (and often a prominent place) in the NPOV-presentation of a Wikipedia article. -- Pedant17 07:37, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Section on criticism
Expression of approval of an alleged suggestion by our esteemed mediator to the effect that we limit criticism "to a section on criticism" and not interweave criticism "into the fabric of the entire article" appears to have no basis in fact -- as I understand the matter, our esteemed mediator merely suggested localizing the "cult/sect/not" discussion. Any coralling of "critical" or perceived "negative" material into a special "criticism ghetto" would distort the balance and flow of the article, and could even lead to accusations of disporportionality measured in bytes rather than by merit. -- Pedant17 07:37, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Avoiding weasel-words
The proposed formulation: Margret Singer was later forced to retract a suggestion that LE was a cult could better appear as: The legal (rather than the logical) influence of Landmark Education compelled Margaret Singer to note that she had never characterized Landmark Education as a cult. -- Pedant17 07:37, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Proportionality
Much disputation has derived from segregating discussion of "controversies" to a separate section in the article, rather than distributing the various points of view into other thematic sections. As a result, marketing-material from and supportive of Landmark Education has at times distorted the proportionality of the article. -- Pedant17 07:37, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Decisions
Mediation has very little to do with decisions. The claim that "the entire series [what series?] of articles [which articles?] will be affected by the decisions here" appears to have no validity, but may require explanation/discussion. -- Pedant17 07:37, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Suggested text for "Cult" section (DaveApter)
This my suggested first pass. It's a bit longer than I had hoped to make it.


 * Detractors of Landmark Education sometimes attempt to depict it as a "cult", thereby associating it with all the negative connotations of that term. Although it is certainly true that such accusations appear frequently in milieu such as internet chat rooms, there have actually been no instances of this opinion being given by any recognised authority in the subject (or at least, none that have not been subsequently retracted).


 * Sometimes these critics try to justify the claim by reference to government reports such as Parliamentary Commission on Cults in France of 1996 and a Belgian Parliamentary report of 1997.


 * In fact there is no specific mention of Landmark in the main body of either report, and its only appearance in each is as one of about 200 widely assorted groups listed in an appendix. The French report attaches no comment to the entry and the Belgian onesimply adds the description "Human Potential Movement (New Age)".  The French report specifically acknowledges the difficulty in stating precise criteria for categorising a "secte" and concedes that "not all groups described as sectes are necessarily considered to be dangerous."

DaveApter 09:00, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

AJackl: This may be overly short but I can live with DaveApter's above section. I will be looking for anything to add. I am committed that we come up with a fair, reasonably sized expression of this small aspect of Landmark. Alex Jackl 05:28, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

It'll be interesting to see what you have to present on top of DaveApter's version, AJack. Jeffrire 10:26, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Timb66: I suggest a rewording to make it more neutral. Comments welcome:


 * Landmark Education has sometimes been described as a "cult", thereby associating it with all the negative connotations of that term. Such accusations usually appear in milieu such as internet chat rooms and there have not been any instances of this opinion being given by any recognised authority on the subject (or at least, none that have not been subsequently retracted). The cult description is sometimes justified by reference to government reports such as Parliamentary Commission on Cults in France of 1996 and a Belgian Parliamentary report of 1997. In fact, there is no specific mention of Landmark in the main body of either report, and its only appearance in each is as one of about 200 widely assorted groups listed in an appendix.  The French report attaches no comment to the entry and the Belgian one adds the description "Human Potential Movement (New Age)".  The French report acknowledges the difficulty in stating precise criteria for categorising a "secte" and states that "not all groups described as sectes are necessarily considered to be dangerous."

Timb66 23:37, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Lsi john The neutrality idea is good, though both versions are probably a bit too wordy (and probably a bit of OR).

It seems that both Dave and Tim are attempting to combine several citations into one paragraph. Before we do that, we might want to find out of there is an agreement to combine that way. If not, then we'll need to attack each citation separately. Lsi john 23:46, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Triplejumper I agree with the gist of what DaveApter and Timb66, but somthing that I think needs to be pointed out is that any insinuation that Landmark Education or the Landmark Forum are cults are at least decade old and have been retracted. Separate from that I think that a section on this controversey must also include reference to the following statments made by qualified experts:


 * Dr. Norbert Nedopil, a sect expert from the University of Munich, in a 2002 study said that Landmark Education is definitely not a sect, nor sect-like in any way. In that study he reported that: "On the basis of empirical investigation, it can be said that to the largest extent, Landmark Education does not present risks to the health, free will and legal integrity of its participants. Nor, is there any evidence that the Landmark Forum is harmful." Dr. Nedopil stated that he could not discern any form of behavior which would put the Landmark Forum near a so called [psycho] sect.


 * Dr. Raymond Fowler, a retired CEO of the American Psychological Association, upon studying Landmark Education on his own behalf said, "I saw nothing in The Landmark Forum that I attended to suggest that it would be harmful to any participant.". The citations are in for future reference. Triplejumper 03:31, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Dave Apter Just to say that I agree that Timb66's revision of my wording is an improvement and more neutral in tone.

I also agree with Triplejumper's suggestions for the contrary opinions being added, although it would be preferable for the ref to Nedopil to point to the original paper rather than Landmark's re-print of it (or to both if there is not an online copy of it available). DaveApter 14:02, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Timb66: I am concerned that those editors in favour of including more material critical of Landmark seem to have stopped participating in the discussion. I realise they may be busy and unable to do much at the moment, but can they please at least indicate a timeframe? For this mediation to be useful, it needs to have the support of all parties. Timb66 00:09, 1 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Hello Timb66. I realize that this process is just going to have to require a lot of patience. So I'm giving people time to get the lines straight. The suggested section has a long way to go to reach a sensible Wikipedia style. Jeffrire 02:39, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Spacefarer Even with the comments below, I think if the article is going to reference the term cult, it should be phrased in a controversy section and noted as something like 'allegations of being a cult'. Top experts have observed and participated in Landmark Educaiton's courses and have said it is not a cult as stated above. People tend to get closer to their family, in general, and there is no figure head, for example; people pay a set amount of money for courses and programs. When someone has tried to have Landmark Education classified as a cult, it has been revoked, as noted above. In fact, a recent Harris pole (http://www.harrisinteractive.com/news/newsletters/clientnews/2007_LandmarkEducation.pdf) says that "nine of ten agreed that Landmark's programs were responsibly and professionally conducted, produced practical and powerful results, and made a profound difference in their lives." Spacefarer 19:28, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

A special section devoted to "controversy"
What advantages do editors see in a "controversy section" ? Will it enhance the NPOV presentation of various views? Will it tend to exacerbate disputes? -- Pedant17 05:01, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

"Top experts"
If "[t]op experts have observed and participated in Landmark Educaiton's courses and have said it is not a cult", it seems incumbent upon us to examine the credentials and statements of these "top experts" (which "top experts"? top experts in what? psychological politics? legal machinations?] and to compare and contrast their views with those of other commentators -- even second-tier experts and the hoi polloi... -- Pedant17 05:01, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

"Revocation" of cult status
The claim has resurfaced that "[w]hen someone has tried to have Landmark Education classified as a cult, it has been revoked". -- Who "revoked" the classification of Landmark Education as a Sekte (cult) by the Berlin Senate report? (see http://www.berlin.de/imperia/md/content/sen-familie/sog_psychogruppen_sekten/risiken_und_nebenwirkungen_1.pdf - retrieved 2007-06-02 -- and when? -- In what sense does Landmark Education's legal failure to suppress the on-line cult-oriented activities of the Rick A. Ross Institute of New Jersey in 2004 - 2005 (as documented and referenced in http://www.rickross.com/reference/landmark/landmark193.html ) amount to revoking cult status for Landmark Education? -- Where has the Austrian Government revoked its classification of Landmark Education as a Sekte (cult) (see http://www.ilsehruby.at/Sektenbroschuere.html, retrieved 2007-06-02) ? -- Pedant17 05:01, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Harris poll
The recent Harris poll ( http://www.harrisinteractive.com/news/newsletters/clientnews/2007_LandmarkEducation.pdf ) cited in connection with allegedly disproving the "cult" status of Landmark Education involved an "independent survey ... conducted on behalf of Landmark Education" and polled only participants in Landmark Education courses on the subject of program effectiveness. The survey appears to have no relevance to the cult-or-otherwise status of Landmark Education. -- Pedant17 05:01, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Details in lists
Why would comprehensive lists of perceived cults necessarily include material relating to an obscure and weird group of solipsists from North America? Highlighting Landmark Education's lack of worthiness for detailed discussion in the french and Belgian Parliamentary lists merely throws into better focus the specific discussion of Landmark Education in government lists elsewhere: specifically the Austrian ( http://www.ilsehruby.at/Sektenbroschuere.html ) and Berlin ("Sekten" - Risiken und Nebenwirkungen: Informationen zu ausgewaehlten neuen religiõsen und weltanschaulichen Bewegungen und Psychoangeboten. Herausgeben von der Senatsverwaltung fuer Schule, Jugend and Sport. Redaktion: Anne Ruehle, Ina Kunst. Stand: Dezember 1997. Downloadable from http://www.berlin.de/sen/familie/sog_sekten_psychogruppen/index.html - retrieved 2006-12-13) material, each of which concentrates on a more refined selection of cults than the French or Belgian reports. -- Pedant17 07:37, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Aspects of Landmark Education
The suggestion that the "cult/sect/non-cult" issue comprises merely a "small aspect" of Landmark Education resonates very well with me. But my personal opinion couts for nothing: the many, many people around the world who have encountered the strange Landmark Education system and who have confusedly grasped at the word "cult" in an attempt to characterize it deserve a substantial discussion of the issue in this universal encyclopedia. -- Pedant17 07:37, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Weasel-word hunt
The suggested phrase Landmark Education has sometimes been described as a "cult" needs attribution and de-vaguifying. I might suggest: "A Google search on +"Landmark Education" +"cult" on 2007-06-01 suggests that about 17300 web-pages (including web-pages devoted to singing the praises of Landmark Education) associate Landmark Education with cultishness. -- Similar weasel-word construction calls for editing in: The cult description is sometimes justified. And instead of the awkward there have not been any instances of this opinion being given by any recognised authority on the subject we could say "Recognised authorities in the field of minor antisocial movements which have characterized Landmark Education as a "cult" include the Berlin Senate ("Sekten" - Risiken und Nebenwirkungen: Informationen zu ausgewaehlten neuen religiõsen und weltanschaulichen Bewegungen und Psychoangeboten. Herausgeben von der Senatsverwaltung fuer Schule, Jugend and Sport. Redaktion: Anne Ruehle, Ina Kunst. Stand: Dezember 1997. Downloadable from http://www.berlin.de/sen/familie/sog_sekten_psychogruppen/index.html - retrieved 2006-12-13) and the Austrian Federal Ministry for Social Security and the Generations (Bundesministerium für soziale Sicherheit und Generationen) ("Sekten - Wissen schützt" [Cults: knowledge can protect] - in German. Online at http://www.ilsehruby.at/Sektenbroschuere.html - retrieved 2006-11-22). -- Furthermore, the repeated use of the word "sect" to translate German Sekte and French secte (as if such languages lack the concept of the English cult'') needs sorting out. -- Pedant17 07:37, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Nedopil as a cult expert
The view that a section on the "cult/non-cult" so-called "controversy" necessarily "must" include material emanating from the Landmark Education website provides an interesting take on independent viewpoints. Fowler's lightweight personal opinion I have discussed above. The ever-precise Nedopil has written at greater length in his report of 23 March 1995 (quoted in the Berlin Senate report, pages 71 ff): '' Der Seminarstil erschien rigide, direktiv, leiterzentriert, z. T. fast autoritär... Problematischer erscheint mir hingegen, daß gelegentlich Widerstände, die von einzelnen Teilnehmern gegen eine Hinterfragung oder gegen eine Offenlegung eines konkreten Problems artikuliert wurden, nicht ausreichend berücksichtigt wurden. Dies ist auch dann problematisch, wenn sich die Seminarleiterin als "Coach" bezeichnete, dessen Aufgabe es sei, Widerstände zu überwinden. Die Möglichkeit, daß sich hinter dem Widerstand ein bislang nicht bewältigtes Trauma verbirgt, welches zu einer Dekompensation führen könnte, kann bei einem solchen Vorgehen nicht ausgeschlossen werden... Als problematisch muß jedoch angesehen werden, daß die Werbung für weitere Kurse und auch die Ermunterung zur Anwerbung weiterer Teilnehmer in Zeiten ausgeprägter Emotionalisierungen erfolgte, in denen ein rationales Abwägen der Vor- und Nachteile sicher erschwert war.''

[Translation (User:AJackl may wish to improve this): The style of the seminar appeared rigid, directive, leader-centred, and partly almost authoritarian.. On the other hand it seemed to me more problematic that from time to time the resistance -- which [some] individual participants expressed in opposition to the follow-up questioning or to the uncovering of a specific problem -- did not receive sufficient attention. This remaqins problematic even when the seminar-leader portrays herself as a "coach" with the alleged task of overcomoing resistance. One cannot exclude the possibility that a so-far unassimiltaed trauma hides behind such resistance -- a trauma that could lead to a decompensation... However one must regard it a problematic that the advertising for further courses and also the encouragement to recruit further participants takes place at times of distinct emotionalizing, in which a rational weighing up of advantages and disadvantages certainly becomes more difficult.]

Landmark Education may not satisfy Nedopil's technical definition of a cult, but his picture of Landmark Education does not seem as entirely rosy as the selected extracts and summary of the article on the Landmark Education website by Küfner, Nedopil and Schöck might suggest. -- Pedant17 07:37, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Citing Nedopil
The statement attributed to Prof Dr Nedopil to the effect that "he could not discern any form of behavior which would put the Landmark Forum near a so called [psycho] sect" does not appear to relate to any statement in the cited web-page http://www.landmarkeducation.de/display_content.jsp?top=3758&mid=3776&siteObjectID=16004, which purports to present extracts from a Bavarian Government sponsored investigation by Heinrich Küfner, Norbert Nedopil and Heinz Schöck into techniques of psychological influence-technique within "Scientology/Landmark" in a context relating to the treatment of drug addicts. We will need to find a better source for this claim before immortalizing it in our Wikipedia article. -- Pedant17 07:37, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

On the negative connotations of "cult"
The word "cult" does not always convey negative connotations, and characterizing Landmark Education as a cult may not necessarily associate it with "all the negative connotations of that term". Such obsession with negativity would not reflect well on our encyclopedia. -- Pedant17 07:37, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Labelling
No editors favor "including more material critical of Landmark [Education]" exist. All editors wish to develop an NPOV-compliant article. Labelling and categorizing fellow-editors by associating them with "material critical of Landmark [Education]" does not encourage participation in mediation processes by others. -- Pedant17 07:37, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

What a surprise
What a surprise, the target of this edit was a group being sued by Landmark to stop them from calling it a cult. ER Talk 12:57, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I have absolutely no idea how you draw that conclusion. The diff you provided, is a first-time-addition-of-text bye a newbie account, with no knowledge of a wikipedia community, and has nothing to do with any links to cultnews.com. Lsi john 12:23, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Suggested text for "Not-a-cult" section
In the spirit of User:DaveApter's suggestions for a mooted "cult" section:


 * Persons favorably disposed towards Landmark Education sometimes attempt to portray it as non-cultic, thereby trying to dissociate Landmark Education practices and ideas from some of the shorthand connotations which the general public uses to conveniently classify such organizations. Such attempts to prove a negative sometimes appear on web-pages as spin or as personal opinion, but no reputable commentator has independently arrived at a conclusion definitively unlinking Landmark education from the idea of culthood.


 * Sometimes, supporters of Landmark Education try to justify the claim that Landmark education lacks cult-like characteristics by appealing to statements made by other parties. Such statements may fall into one or more of several categories, such as:


 * 1) Claims by Landmark Education itself or its representatives (they would say that, wouldn't they? -- few if any organizations known as "cults" will accept the label). Landmark Education's efforts to portray itself as a not-cult betrays the widespread public perception of the organization as a cult.
 * 2) Statements made by entities compelled by Landmark Education's legal resources to make such statements against their own better judgment such as Margaret Singer. (Landmark Education devotes considerable legal efforts to obtaining such statements, often characterized as 'retractions". See  Peter L. Skolnik and Michael A. Norwick, "Introduction to the Landmark Education litigation archive", online at http://www.rickross.com/reference/landmark/landmark193.html (retrieved 2007-06-01 in the context of the documentation of the "Landmark Education litigation archive" online athttp://www.rickross.com/groups/landmark.html, retrieved 2007-06-01 : "Repeatedly, Landmark has brought litigation against its public critics -- quite transparently for the improper purpose of harassing and intimidating them. It is not the recovery of financial losses that Landmark seeks; rather, Landmark uses litigation to send a message to its critics that anyone attacking Landmark’s practices does so at the risk of an expensive and burdensome lawsuit... andmark generally ended up settling these cases without any financial recovery, but instead by extracting some relatively innocuous statement by the defendants that they do not believe or have no knowledge that Landmark is a “cult.”  Even those statements never reach the merits of Landmark’s far more important allegations -- i.e., whether Landmark’s programs are, in fact, dangerous and abusive." )
 * 3) Testimonials from satisfied customers. (Any personal testimonial, per se, carries very little weight, given the perils of observer bias and the irrelevance of claims of "enjoyment" or "getting value" to evaluation as to whether an organization has cultic qualities.) An American study found : "[E]valuations [...] based on testimony [...] are easier to manipulate for self-interested ends [...] While testimony can be regarded as a form of confirmatory evidence, it does not provide any of the disconfirming evidence needed to reduce uncertainty. [...] People are typically weak at identifying the range of [...]  alternatives [...] and at distinguishing the different ways in which the causal forces might operate. How can people know how they would have matured over time in the absence of an intervention (technique) that is being assessed? How can people disentangle effects due to a pleasant experience, a dynamic leader, or a sense of doing something important from effects due to the critical components of the treatment per se? Much research has shown that individuals are poor intuitive scientists and that they recreate a set of known cognitive biases (Nisbett and Ross, 1980, Griffin). These include confirmation bias, selective memory, errors of attribution, and over-confidence. These biases influence experts and non-experts alike, usually without one's awareness of them."  - Daniel Druckman and John Swets (editors): Enhancing Human Performance: Issues, Theories, and Techniques . Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1988,  pages 33 - 35. Online version, retrieved 2007-06-01. Note too, however, that the organisation (Landmark Education LLc, formerly Landmark Education Corporation) well knows of the general public perception of it, and attempts to instruct its "graduates" in countering the 'cult' claims. Landmark Education CEO has made reference to this spin-exercise in Landmark Education jargon as "altering the public conversation" (Hukill, Tracy, 'The est of friends: Werner Erhard's protégés and siblings carry the torch for a '90s incarnation of the '70s 'training' that some of us just didn't get" in Metro (July 9-15, 1998). http://www.metroactive.com/landmark/landmark1-9827.html Retrieved 2007-06-01). Rather than (say) ignoring an undesirable "cult" label, Landmark Education persistently reinforces it by opposing it.
 * 4) Testimonials from prominent persons. -- Such examples of the fallacy of appeal to authority, though logically unconvincing in themselves, also suffer from the disadvantages exhibited by testimonials from satisfied customers. in this category belong the oft-cited leterts to Landmark Education from Raymond Fowler, who specifically disconnected his opinion from that of the American Psychological Association (APA), and while emphasizing his experience as a psychologist produced not a piece of peer-reviewed research, but a mere personal opinion based on short-term observation. Note too that Landmark Education has attempted to appeal to Norbert Nedopil and Jean-Marie Abgrall, psychologists who have researched the organization in some depth and who have subsequently issued statements condemning Landmark Education's practices and methodology.
 * 5) Marketing pseudo-research. The survey associated with the name of Daniel Yankelovich has become a favorite in Landmark Education circles.  Landmark Education publishes (on its commercial web-site), what it calls (http://www.landmarkeducation.com/display_content.jsp?top=21&mid=80&bottom=116&siteObjectID=114 retrieved 2007-06-01 ) the "full study" ( http://www.landmarkeducation.com/display_content.jsp?top=21&mid=80&bottom=116&siteObjectID=350 retrieved 2007-06-01) of this survey -- without revealing the detailed methodology of participant selection. The results, as interpreted by a declared supporter of Landmark Education (Yankelovich himself personally endorses Landmark Education in his book The Magic of Dialog: Transforming Conflict into Cooperation. New York: Touchstone, 2001. ISBN 0-684-86566-1, pages 143 - 144)), purport to show customer satisfaction: even if valid, this does not address the cult-hood of Landmark Education.


 * All in all, the "not-a-cult" school provides little solid evidence for its claims, relying instead on questionable logic and disputed definitions to attempt to counter the widely-held popular perception that something of cultishness clings to the reputation of Landmark Education.

-- Pedant17 07:37, 1 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I can't tell if this is a joke. Every paragraph is laden with POV, weasel-words:  "Persons favorably disposed towards Landmark Education sometimes attempt to portray " and "Sometimes, supporters of Landmark Education try to justify", " Claims by Landmark Education itself or its representatives (they would say that, wouldn't they? -- few if any organizations known as "cults" will accept the label)." and "# Statements made by entities compelled by Landmark Education's legal resources to make such statements against their own better judgment such as Margaret Singer. (Landmark Education devotes considerable legal efforts to obtaining such statements, often characterized as 'retractions"." and an entire paragraph dedicated to trying to explain why so many customers report being satisfied by trying to dismiss actual primary evidence, and "marketing pseudo-research".  I actually started to laugh when I read this because it seemed like a caricature.  I think DaveApter has a reasonable cut. Alex Jackl 15:08, 1 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually, Pedant17, your very own RickRoss website provided this:
 * "Dr. Singer, who was a good friend to Rick Ross before she died in 2003, reportedly told close friends that Landmark’s lawsuit had put a financial strain on her family, and that she believed she could settle her litigation without sacrificing her beliefs by simply agreeing to re-affirm that she did not believe Landmark was a “cult” -- given that she had never believed that it was, or had ever made such a statement in the first place. ' (my highlight)"
 * If Margret Singer, one of the banner carriers for anti-cult activists, doesn't think Landmark Education was a cult, thats a pretty convincing argument that it isn't a cult. I don't suppose that is enough to put the issue to rest though? Lsi john 20:01, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Comments by Ckerr
It appears the onus has fallen on me to respond to Timb66's call for opposing editors, since Pedant17's contributious do not appear to be serious. A few points:
 * Although I argued above that there is no such thing as NPOV, it is true that one can write without using "loaded" words. Although Timb66's text makes fewer value judgements than DaveApter's, there are some — e.g., "accusations".
 * Some of the sources (such as Margaret Sanger) who called Landmark a cult and subsequently retracted made it clear that they did not change their point of view, but merely did not have the resources to fight a legal battle against Landmark. It would twist the truth to make no distinction between retractions made under legal duress and those made due to a change of mind.
 * What puzzled me most about this article when I first read it was that it was full of denials that Landmark was a cult, but no explanation of why such denials were even needed. After all, the article on Weight Watchers says nothing about whether or not it's a cult, for obvious reasons.  Why is Landmark so controversial?  Why did the publications which called Landmark a cult do so?  Unless these questions are addressed impartially, readers will not understand the issue.
 * Personally, I think the whole "cult" issue is semantic; whether you call Landmark a cult, sect, business, religion or type of cheese does not change what is does. Apparently Dr Nedopil's report says that Landmark uses 6 out of 10 "high-risk methods", compared to 9 out of 10 for Scientology — hardly a glowing recommendation.  In my view, the "cult" debate beats a dead horse (Landmark is a business, not a cult), while at the same time sanitizing Landmark's more questionable practices.

With some changes, I think a paragraph like Timb66's would suffice, so long as it links to a separate article on the controversies. Ckerr 08:55, 1 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I also think Tim66's modifications seem reasonable. I do not agree that a separate article is a good idea.  I believe (and think there is general agreement with the noted exceptions for this) that this whole issue is only notable enough to warrant a few paragraphs on the main page, definitely not its own article.  I am not just thinking abut the Landmark issue but about not putting junk pages up on Wikipedia. Alex Jackl 16:45, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Comments by Lsi john on LGAT
My involvement, here, comes via the LGAT article, and its subsequent links. I have no first or second hand knowledge of Landmark Education, and therefore cannot judge which sources are accurate (legitimate) and which sources are rhetoric (anti-cult propaganda).

For the sake of the mediator, and those who might be unfamilar with LGAT, allow me to digress for a moment (or 6):

I invite you to skim this and read only the Numbered lines if you prefer.

As a graduate of a series of Personal Growth courses, I have come to the following conclusions:

1. Personal Growth is about Personal Responsibility. i.e. Accepting that we are responsible for the consequences of our decisions (and actions or inactions). Note: This has nothing to do with 'blame' or 'credit', but is about 'contribution', 'participation' and 'results'.
 * e.g. If I don't participate here, and the resulting Landmark Education article gets filled with "LE is a cult", then I am responsible. Not "I am to blame", just "I am responsible (in part) for the outcome" because I chose not to contribute to the process.
 * We are at 'choice' for everything we do. But most of these 'choices' are made subconsciously (generally due to past experiences or learnings).
 * e.g. I speed because I am late for work and have already been late 3 times this week.
 * In this case, the Personal Responsibility training would have me ask myself, "Why are you late for work so often?"; "What choices are you making, which result in you being late?"
 * Possible answers: I am a part-time volunteer-medic, and am on 'emergency calls' before my real job. Or I am sleeping through the alarm, due to heavy partying the night(s) before.
 * Then, the training has me evaluate 'all' of my results and shift the choices accordingly.
 * I save lives, so I accept getting a late start. And, I don't want any more tickets, so I drive slowly and accept being late for work. And, I talk to my boss, and get my work-hours shifted, to allow extra time in the morning.
 * The point of the Personal Responsibility training, is to get me to look at the choices I am making, and the results I am getting from those choices. Then, if I am unhappy with the results, I am taught to scrutinize the choices I am making, identify which ones are not in alignment with the results I wish to obtain, and make the appropriate shifts.

2. A number of people who take these courses find it very difficult to accept the material as it is presented.
 * Generally there are two positions from which we can come. Responsible and Victim. And we get to choose which one we want to experience. Again, here, do not confuse 'victim of a crime' with 'victim to your situation'.
 * e.g. I am a Wikipedia editor, working on my favorite article, and someone comes along and starts re-writing it by adding lots of (legitimate) unsourced material that I don't agree with. I know the rules, so I revert their edits as being unsourced. They don't know the rules so they revert me, so I revert them, so they revert me... and I break 4RR. Then, someone else reports me and I get blocked.
 * I can choose to feel like a victim, because I was 'protecting' the article from the vandalism of unsourced material and someone got me blocked. Or, I can choose to come from responsible, and accept that I made a choice and thus I (helped) create the result. I did not have to revert 4 times. There were other methods available to me, yet I chose to ignore them and use revert as my primary editing tool.
 * Some people have a hard time shifting out of the victim mindset, because of the benefits offered by being a victim: Sympathy, attention, being right(ous), being able to 'blame' others for their results.

3. Some of the companies may be using some methods in their trainings that some people find questionable.
 * I can see the potential for abuse in any work that deals in the area of a person's thought process and decision making. However, potential abuse does not translate into actual abuse. And any abuse in this area would most likely be 'psychology methods' being employed by 'non psychologists' which might pose a mental risk to someone who is already unstable. Might, Maybe, Possibly. And none of that translates to 'cult'.

4. I see absolutely no connection between any of these trainings and 'cults'.
 * There do not appear to be any 'single leader(s)' who get worshiped. There does not appear to be any 'collective mind programming' being done. (Though that term is subject to interpretation, since learning to drive a car is, technically, 'mind programming').


 * The people who attend these courses are 'students', not 'members'. They take the courses and then they go on with their lives. Some students return, as followup reinforcement, and volunteer to staff future courses. (similar to posting a picture of yourself on your refrigerator, at your peak weight, to reinforce your decision to 'diet').

5. I don't know (or understand) the reasons behind the leadership of the witch-hunting, but I do understand the reasons for much of the membership in the anti-cult briggade.
 * The majority show signs of being unable to accept responsibility and break out of being a victim. If they can 'blame' the company and label it as a 'cult', then they get to be 'right' and they don't have to accept any responsibility for their situation in life (whatever that situation is).


 * When looked at closely, the majority of the claims are spurious and never come to any meaningful conclusion. The LGAT articles on Wikipedia are filled with 'charges', 'allegations', 'speculation' and 'innuendo', but the majority of those never show any 'conclusion' or 'decision'. The cult-claims rely on where there is smoke there must be fire and they produce as much smoke as possible by repeating the same charges over and over again.


 * Should we include frivilous and spurrious allegations which were subsequently dropped, retracted or thrown out?
 * I don't know. Should we? Personally I don't think its responsible journalism, but it is technically permitted.


 * Are there legitimate claims of wrong doing?
 * YES.


 * Should they be included in these articles?
 * YES.


 * Are the claims related to 'cult' legitimate?
 * Not that I can see.

Regarding Margret Singer: she retracted 'cult' becasue she had no 'legitimate' basis for making the claim. There are pleanty of resources willing to back her up in a legal battle, had the claim had been legitimate and supportable.

(LGAT is simply a poorly-defined term used to identify the training methods (classes/structure) that are used to provide the PR training).

Sorry for the length, and hopefully this helps provide a little insight into the background of this debate.

Lsi john 12:42, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

That which you don't understand, criticize. And, that which you seek to destroy, you must first make controversial. Lsi john 15:25, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Serious joke
Fellow-editors have questioned the seriousness of the proposed "not-a-cult" section, but not the slanted and negative proposed texts of a proposed "cult" section. The parody-element didn't "work", then :-( . But the facts and references and conclusions of the proposed "not-a-cult" section remain valid. -- Pedant17 05:01, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Margaret Singer's viewpoint
If Margaret Singer never made a statement clearly labelling Landmark Education as a cult, neither that fact nor a poorly-referenced reported statement to "close friends" (stating that she did not believe Landmark Education a cult) either proves or disproves Landmark Education's identification as a cult. That would construct a positive out out two unrelated negatives... Herewith a better-sourced account of the matter and of Singer's attitudes:


 * In 1996, Landmark Education sued Dr. Margaret Singer, an adjunct UC Berkeley professor and author of Cults in Our Midst (1995) for defamation. Singer mentioned Landmark Education in her book; the text did not make it entirely clear whether she labelled Landmark Education as a cult or not. Singer issued a retraction stating that she did not intend to call Landmark a cult, nor did she consider it a cult. Singer removed the references to Landmark Education from subsequent editions of the book.


 * Scioscia (2000) reports:


 * Singer said she never called it a cult in her book, but simply mentioned it as a controversial New Age training course. In resolution of the suit, Singer gave a sworn statement that the organization is not a cult or sect. She said this doesn't mean she supports Landmark.


 * "I do not endorse them -- never have," she said. Singer, who was in her 70s at the time, said she can't comment on whether Landmark uses coercive persuasion because "the SOBs have already sued me once."


 * "I'm afraid to tell you what I really think about them because I'm not covered by any lawyers like I was when I wrote my book."


 * Singer said, however, that she would not recommend the group to anyone.

"Business" vs "cult"
The familiar catch-cry labelling Landmark Education a "business" (as opposed to a cult or as opposed to anything else) misses the point. Landmark Education LLC has a registration as a company and has a corporate structure -- granted. But it also has a body of opinion, a history of practice and a followership of "graduates"; and interest in these phenomena and in their interaction with society lie at the core of evaluating whether or not the frequently-heard "cult" label has some grounds or validity. -- I could make a case for characterizing Landmark Education as a sexual meat-market and/or as a philosophical scam. However good the cases for such designations, we need not use them to deflect attention from the immediate matter of interest as suggested by our esteemed mediator right at this moment: culthood. -- Pedant17 05:01, 2 June 2007 (UTC)


 * This is why mediation is going to have troublke succeeding with you. I will do this only with this one example but could walk down the line:
 * "The familiar catch-cry" immediately warns us that you are now going to attempt to deride something as a catch-cry. You provide no evidence that it is such you merely state it as fact.  Stating POV spin as fact while talking about something else is one of the major problems with most of the suggested text...
 * It is a business. You yourself admit that above.  How ever you then go to IMPLY (not state because you know you have no basis for it) that people are saying it is a business to "hide something"    Again using implication where facts will not support you.
 * Then you say you could make a case for Landmark as a "sexual meat-market" and in the next sentence "However good the cases for such designations" implying that they are true. There is NO evidence for that.   It is a completely unfounded smear- dirty politics.  You imply that there is a wealth of fact to support that ridiculous assertion.  If someone were reading that who did not know to compensate for your POV or know the facts themselves they would walk away thinking it were true.  It is sleazy and weasel-worded tactics.  Please stop it!
 * If you really are interested in mediation please talk straight instead of this stuff...Alex Jackl 13:59, 3 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the opportunity to discuss spin and counter-spin in this context. -- "Familiar catch-cry" provides a shorthand way of suggesting that one frequently hears something in abbreviated form. In this context I leave the frequency undiscussed as a mere hint because I wish to address the spin exhibited (again) right here on this project-page in the formulation "Landmark is a business, not a cult" (and subsequently echoed as "It is a business"). I make it clear that I wish to discuss the "business" label in the context of an overall discussion on culthood by putting up a sub-heading: "Business" vs "cult"; by cross-referencing the morpheme "business" and by clarifying the common ground: viz: "Landmark Education LLC has a registration as a company and has a corporate structure -- granted." But as you may have noticed, Landmark Education language has a great fondness for the verb "to be" and some people fall into the trap of assuming that because Landmark Education proclaims "X is Y", this implies that X=Y and only Y. In this case: we can refer to Landmark Education as a business. But that does NOT mean that we cannot ALSO refer to it as other things: an experience, a set of seminars, a body of "graduates", a meat-market, a rats-nest of ideas..., or even as a "cult". And people do refer to Landmark Education in these different ways. We need to deal with that multiplicity in order to achieve NPOV. -- I don't know where you get the idea that I imply that people label Landmark Education as a "business" with the purpose of hiding something. No doubt many thousands of people sincerely belive that they can best characterize Landmark Education as a "business" tout court. But that does not mean that we cannot (or a should not) also examine Landmark Education in the light of other categories. And we do. -- I don't see (either) how you extract the interpretation that my phrase "However good the cases for such designations" implies truth. On the contrary, my wording allows the possibility that each case for such designations may or may not have significant strength. (In fact, people have characterized Landmark as a sexual meat-market, and some facts exist to support that interpretation, but the arguments for that view need not concern us here and now. I could have even used a semi-hypothetical labelling for Landmark Education as (say) the Culmination of the Spirit of Capitalist Coercion (SCSS) -- the structure of the argument would remain. Landmark Education "is" a "business". But people also regard it as other things as well or instead.) -- "Is"-statements, used in an exclusive manner, tend to close down discussion -- to limit possibilities. Let's not use them in the context of mediation -- they won't help achieve a mediated solution. -- Pedant17 08:53, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Business vs. Cult: Conflict of Interest.
Business vs. cult seems the right place to raise the question of conflict of interest (COI). If Landmark, as its protagonists maintain, is simply a business offering technologies, the removal of critical material by editors with a particular interest in Landmark constitutes a COI policy violation. We seem to have a bit of double-think in action here. On the one hand the protagonists want to avoid or weasel-word around the cult aspect by claiming it's a simple business. At the same time, there is a tacit recognition by the protagonists (which can't be stated openly) that it's more than a simple business and perhaps has some connection with religion or religion-like phenomena, since this apparently buys exemption from COI on wikipedia. ER Talk 13:07, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * ER, with all due respect what you are saying here is hard to take seriously. By the logic of what you are saying, for one to argue against the use of the cult label must imply there is validity to the cult label.  I find it hard to believe that you are as neutral on the subject as you claim to be. Triplejumper 14:41, 13 June 2007 (UTC)


 * As I understand it, the current discussion relates not to the validity of the application of the term cult to Landmark Education or associated /similar entities, but to the determination of which well-attested cases of the labelling we report as examples, and why, and in what depth. -- Pedant17 02:12, 14 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Triplejumper, with all due respect in turn (although I don't like what you are trying to imply, incorrectly, with the 'hard to believe' part) the logic of my statement is pretty clear and the main points are in this section of the wikipedia COI policy. The implications are in other parts of the CoI policy.


 * On the other hand, the removal of reliably sourced critical material is not permitted. Accounts of public controversies, if backed by reliable sources, form an integral part of Wikipedia's coverage. Slanting the balance of articles as a form of defence of some figure, group, institution, or product is bad for the encyclopedia.


 * In practice, however, there seems to be a tacit recognition that religions are immune from this policy, which in turn seems to flow down to religion-like organisations, including modern-day cults and cult-like organisatons to some extent. If Landmark Education is merely a business selling 'technologies', the CoI policy certainly applies and has certainly been violated repeatedly by the 'pro' contributors.


 * In the notes to the policy, we have 'Editing in the interests of public relations is particularly frowned upon; ...'; this is clearly what has been happening here.


 * Pedant17, I take your point but think you have missed mine&mdash;conflicts of interest are clearly active in removal of sourced criticism. The only justification for ignoring it seems to be the one I mention above. I have amplified a little on your discussion page. ER Talk 12:06, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Proposed separate article on controversies
Given much of the editing effort devoted to the Landmark Education article over the past few years, I estimate that interest among editors demonstrates the potential of one or several sub-articles on such notable controversies. Properly sourced and NPOV-compliant articles may appear as "junk articles" to some people, but that opinion would not preclude their existence. -- Such articles would best eschew the word "controversy" in their titles lest anyone instinctively construe them as "attacks". -- Pedant17 05:01, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

"Personal Growth" theory
I fail to see the relevance of accounts of personal experiences or of the simplified world-view of "Personal Growth" courses to the discussion on the alleged cultishness of Landmark Education -- they appear to demonstrate merely that hijacked trite phrases like "personal responsibility" and "at choice" and cute psychobabble can serve to characterize fellow-editors' alleged motives ("anti-cult brigade") and distract us from the topic of cults. -- Pedant17 05:01, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Re: leadership
Failure to detect "any 'single leader(s)' who get worshiped" does not automagically exclude Landmark Education (or any LGAT) from charges of potential culthood. Landmark Education remains obsessed with the idea of "leadership" (see http://www.landmarkeducation.com, site search on "leadership") long after the so-called "Source" of its teachings has faded into the background. And the occasional appearence of "leadership" criteria on some cult-identification checklists does not make the matter a literal pre-requisite for characterizing an organization as "cultic". -- Pedant17 05:01, 2 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Your first sentence which repeat in below entries is a classic weasel-spin. The fact is people have put together attributes of a "cult".  If you want to know the answer the the question "is something a cult" you could apply those attributes and see if they fit.  People have done that.  You don't like the answer because universally they say something like "No, its not".  Landmark doesn't fit the attributes.  The only people who keep insisting that it is are people with an axe to grind, like Rick Ross for instance, and they the dismiss the half of the facts they don't like and say well just because that fact is true doesn't mean anything  and then enable the facts they like with supreme weight so as to "prove" their point.  Not good science or even rigorous thinking.   There is a reason why Landmark has never lost a case about it being a cult and why it always gets retractions- its not a cult.  All the experts say so. It is only self-styled experts like Rick Ross and his "followers" that keep trying to grind that axe.  Alex Jackl 14:05, 3 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree that "people have put together attributes of a "cult". But they have done so on many different occasions, with many different results. Hence my reference in passing to "some cult-identification checklists" -- plural. (For a sample of the different cult checklists available, see the Wikipedia article Cult checklist.) One can pick and choose an appropriate checklist with a view to proving a point. And one can semi-arbitarily demand that a group must score x% of the "right" characteristics in order to come under suspicion of culthood. All that goes without saying in the cult-identification game (which our esteemed mediator has warned us against playing). -- Nevertheless, to return to the identification-game in hand: most of such checklists appear to have something to say about "leaders" and/or "leadership", but I don't personally recall any such checklist requiring or even suggesting that one criterion for culthood consists of "any 'single leader(s)' who get worshiped"  -- the phrase to which I responded. I'd like to see a reference to any such checklist...  We had a discussion  stemming from checking-off of Landmark Education against Shirley Harrison's cult checklist on the Talk:Landmark Education page in March-April 2007. (I understand that that list comes from a book entitled Cults -- the battle for God (Helm: 1990, ISBN 978-0747014140) and relates specifically to potentially destructive cults, so it may or may not have relevance to Landmark Education, depending on one's viewpoint -- but we discussed the points anyway.)  We could repeat that sort of discussion here if it did not seem off-topic to our current task of discussing which references to use for labeling Landmark Education a cult/non-cult. Suffice to say, User:Zortyl felt that using the checklist suggested Landmark Education's cultishness, but User:DaveApter found that Landmark Education did not fulfil any of the checklist points, while I proved (to my own satisfaction, at least) Landmark Education guilty or suspect on all counts. On each point listed, nobody has bothered countering my latest statements/questions. But we may need to revisit those points and to discuss them without dismissing parties to the discussion as  having an axe to grind. -- See the discussion currently archived at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Landmark_Education/Archives/2007/Apr, especially under the heading "Response to Zortyl's comments" -- Pedant17 08:53, 4 June 2007 (UTC)


 * The claim that "There is a reason why Landmark has never lost a case about it being a cult ... - its not a cult" does not appear to accord with the Landmark Education's loss of the case against the Berlin Senate report -- http://www.berlin.de/imperia/md/content/sen-familie/sog_psychogruppen_sekten/risiken_und_nebenwirkungen_1.pdf - retrieved 2007-06-02. The allegation that Landmark Education "always gets retractions" does not appear to stand up in the case of Landmark Education's attempted supression of copies of the French television broadcast  Voyage au pays des nouveaux gourous. I haven't yet seen a retraction by the Rick Ross Insitute or by the Austrian Government of their publishing characterisations of Landmark Education as a cult. -- Pedant17 08:53, 4 June 2007 (UTC)


 * The claim that "All the experts say [Landmark Education is not a cult]" seems equally untenable. Many experts skirt around the precise words: Singer, Hassan, Abgrall, Schwertfeger. Sometimes it seems that the only "experts" who DO definitively state anything label Landmark Education "not a cult" but publish primarily on the non-neutral Landmark Education web-site. First select your experts, though, of course. -- Pedant17 08:53, 4 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Have someone re-translate that for you on the Berlin Senate Report. Landmark WON  - it was re-classified as a "Provider of Life Assistance".  This is what I meant by spin.  Turning the Berlin Senate thing into a "loss" is manipulative spin. -- Alex Jackl 14:24, 9 June 2007 (UTC)


 * The Berlin Senate report --  http://www.berlin.de/imperia/md/content/sen-familie/sog_psychogruppen_sekten/risiken_und_nebenwirkungen_1.pdf - retrieved 2007-06-02 -- reports:

Rechtliche Auseinandersetzung Im Nachgang zum Bericht der Senatsverwaltung für Jugend und Familie aus dem Jahre 1994, in dem Landmark Education ebenfalls kurz beschrieben wurde, kam es zu prozessualen Auseinandersetzungen. Einen Antrag auf Erlaß einer einstweiligen Anordnung nahm die LE GmbH zurück, im Hauptsacheverfahren fiel die Entscheidung im Jahre 1997: Obwohl mit der Klage das Ziel verfolgt worden war, dem Land Berlin zu untersagen, die Firmen Landmark Education GmbH, "die Landmark Education Corporation, das ?est-Training" sowie das "Landmark Forum" in der Neuauflage der Broschüre "Informationen über neue religiöse und weltanschauliche Bewegungen und sogenannte Psychogruppen" und / oder vergleichbaren Informationsschriften zu erwähnen", erklärte Landmark die Klage im Hauptsacheverfahren für erledigt, nachdem die Senatsverwaltung für Schule, Jugend und Sport nur erklärt hatte, "daß für den Fall einer Neuauflage der Broschüre und einer Aufnahme der Klägerin darin die Klägerin unter einer gesonderten Rubrik "Anbieter von Lebenshilfe" mit entsprechender Einleitung eingeordnet werden, und daß ferner die zu Fußnote 8 gehörige Information gestrichen wird." (Protokoll der öffentlichen Sitzung des VG Berlin vom 14.04.97 - VG 27 A 149.95, S. 17) Diese Erklärung der Senatsverwaltung beruhte auf der bereits vorher beabsichtigten und mit dem vorliegenden Bericht umgesetzten Neustrukturierung und neueren Erkenntnissen.


 * My translation: please improve (especially the legalese) as necessary:

Legal dispute Following the 1994 Report of the Senate Administration for Young People and the Family, which also briefly described Landmark Eduaction, court proceedings ensued. Landmark Education GmbH withdrew an application for the finalization of a former decree, and the decision in the main case came in 1997, thus: although the plaintiff had had the goal of forbidding the Bundesland Berlin from mentioning the organisations Landmark Education GmbH and Landmark Education Corporation, as well as the "est Training" and the "Landmark Forum" in the new edition of the brochure "Informationen über neue religiöse und weltanschauliche Bewegungen und sogenannte Psychogruppen" (Information concerning new religious and world-view movements and so-called Psycho-groups) and/or in comparable publications; Landmark Education nevertheless stated that it regarded its petition in the main case as satisfied after the Senate Administration for School, Youth Affairs and Sport had stated 'that in the case of a new edition of the brochure and of inclusion of the plaintiff therein, the plaintiff would appear under a separate heading entitled "Providers of Life-Assistance" with a corresponding introduction, and that further the information within footnote 8 would be excluded.' (Record of the public session of the Berlin Verwaltungsgericht (VG) of 1997-04-14 - VG 27 A 149.95, page 17) This statement on the part of the Senate Administration referenced the already (beforehand) intended re-arranged restructuring of the current report and newly obtained information.


 * My summary: Landmark Education failed to have itself struck off the list of cults but agreed to a face-saving compromise offered by the Berlin Senate. -- An alternative (Landmarckian) summary: Landmark Education got re-classified as a "Provider of Life Assistance" [within the overall list of cults]. Determination of the degrees of spin and of omission left as an exercise for the reader. -- Pedant17 01:02, 11 June 2007 (UTC)


 * You are right - Landmark did not get a retraction from the French news studio but frankly that is the exception that proves the rule not the other way around. But you are correct- I over exaggerated with "always" - just 90% of the time. -- Alex Jackl 14:24, 9 June 2007 (UTC)


 * And where did the Austrian government retract its characterization of Landmark Education as a cult? Where did the Rick Ross Institute retract? When did Landmark Education ever extract a retraction from Marie Claire in the Netherlands for the statement in the article by Karolien Knols entitled Drie spirituele dagen bij Landmark: "Who wants to share?" in March 1999 that stated: "Landmark is meer dan eens een sekte genoemd"? Has "Dialogue Ireland" retracted for the article Landmark Education: When is a cult not a cult?, by Richard Philips? When can one expect the Sunday Tribune to retract its article of 2005-07-31: Labour senator promotes group classified in France as 'cult-like' ? ... and so on. Probably easier to count up the handful of cases where Landmark Education has actually achieved retractions than the scores, the hundreds, the thousands of other instances where smart journalists and savvy commentators have noticed and endorsed the overall trend of public opinion -- the trend that associates Landmark Education with the word "cult". -- It would surprise me to find proof that Landmark Education had extracted retractions from as many as 10% of its accusers. Too much exaggeration goes on in spinning corporate images. -- Pedant17 01:02, 11 June 2007 (UTC)


 * You mean you are shocked that Landmark Education chooses to publish the only experts who say anything definite about Landmark being a cult and those that believe that Landmark is a cult use vague and indirect quotes? This is no surprise.  Even Rick Ross was forced to acknowledge that he couldn't say Landmark was a cult.  Forced by the reality to admit that, those who have taken that positions start to spin and weasel word it.  They start to say "well it shared cult-like properties " Well, so does Harvard and baseball. -- Alex Jackl 14:24, 9 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I expressed no shock. It does not surprise me that Landmark Education goes to great lengths to publish favorable spin and to attempt to suppress or hide the great body of criticism and skepticism it has provoked. It does surprise me that some academics allow Landmark Education to tout the opinions which those same academics do NOT publish in peer-reviewed journals. It does not surprise me that many careful scholars avoid the populist associations and legal minefields of the "cult"-word -- particularly in the litigious environment of the United States of America. Popular expressiveness suffers under fewer trammels. -- Pedant17 01:02, 11 June 2007 (UTC)


 * The problem with an abstract text-based medium like this is people can say anything - and it is hard to pull apart fantasy-based viewpoints and extreme minority viewpoints from a "well-sourced", appropriate and accurate view of what is going on. There is a small devoted minority desperately trying to prove that Landmark is a cult.  Frankly that is, in itself, interesting and even worthy of mention.   That is why it is mentioned in the Landmark article.  However that doesn't make it something that requires its own encyclopedia article or should take up more than 5% to 10% of article on Landmark Education.Alex Jackl 14:24, 9 June 2007 (UTC)


 * The advantage of a concrete text-based medium like Wikipedia lies in the fact that though people can write anything, other editors can readily pull that work apart, separating fantasy-based viewpoints from well-sourced material and by-passing personal opinions as to accuracy by insisting on suitable proven and documented facts. There exists a small devoted minority desperately trying to maintain the fiction that Landmark Education has no cultish aspects and few controversial issues. Frankly, the article can mention that and allow a few choice quotes from the non-impartial Landmark Education website in support of that evidently skewed view. Meanwhile the rest of the article -- and other related/linked encyclopedia articles as required -- can provide the multiple alternate viewpoints, untrammelled by petty and unjustified pre-conceptions about pre-defined and tendentious percentage shares. -- Pedant17 01:02, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Re: "collective mind programming"
Failure to detect "any 'collective mind programming'" does not automagically exclude Landmark Education (or any LGAT) from charges of potential culthood. Any organization will potentially affect the behavior and outlook of its members or associates, but encountering groups of the results of Landmark Education's training: hyped-up would-be junior Forum Leaders in recruitment-mode -- might give pause to those denying mind-programming. -- Pedant17 05:01, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Coming to a "meaningful conclusion"
Wikipedia remains a work-in-progress. Expecting adefinitive "meaningful conclusion" does not constitute a design-goal -- or a requirement in cited sources. -- And note that Landmark Education itself disparages "meaning". -- Pedant17 05:01, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Re: "spurious allegations"
In response to the query: Should we include frivilous and spurrious allegations which were subsequently dropped, retracted or thrown out? -- yes; provided the so-called allegations continue to persist in the noosphere and or constituted a major element at some stage. (Wikipedia has and should have material on phrenology). And if anyone has "thrown out" "spurious allegations" on spurious grounds, we have no reason per se to continue to suppress such material. -- Pedant17 05:01, 2 June 2007 (UTC)


 * You are right(sarcasm, in case the humor-impaired had a question) - Oh wait, except for Wikipedia policy which calls for articles to be balanced and to only appropriate an amount of space appropriate to minority viewpoints. You don't clutter an article on IBM with ten screens of content on how Bob from Rhode Island thinks IBM is actually an alien enclave on our planet- even if the Weekly World News and the Enquirer have a hundred articles from Bob and Time magazine even had one article about the guy that thinks IBM is made up of aliens. It probably doesn't even get mentioned (except maybe as a one sentence reference to "weird controversies".  So you premise here is fundamentally flawed- there is a reason not to "include" that material.  It is called Wikipedia policy.Alex Jackl 14:11, 3 June 2007 (UTC)


 * What increasing looks like a minority viewpoint -- namely that Landmark Education has some sort of status as a worthy non-cult -- looks thoroughly over-represented in virtually any version of the Landmark Education article. We'll no doubt get to discuss other significant minority viewpoints, like the ones that see Landmark Education as flawed yet redeemable, or the ones that see Landmark Education as misguided and deceptive but not cultic. I certainly favor balanced articles. But getting a balance between so many viewpoints via the previously-practised method of bulk deletion ("throwing out") of sound material seems perverse. -- Pedant17 08:53, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Re: "responsible journalism"
Wikipedia has no claims to conduct journalism -"responsible" or otherwise -- in its main wiki-space. On the contrary, it aims to provide encyclopedic coverage of topics -- even (for example) obscure and dying psycho-cults. -- Pedant17 05:01, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

"Legitimate claims" of culthood
As our esteemed mediator has suggested, "a definitive answer" as to Landmark Education's culthood or otherwise appears impossible. In such circumstances, bellyaching over the legitimacy of the claims of culthood appears irrelevant. On the contrary, we have the immediate task of assessing "the importance of such a classification". I suspect that calls for examination of relevance and impact rather than of "legitimacy". -- Pedant17 05:01, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

"That which you don't understand, criticize"
Wikipedia might counter this bon mot with "That which you don't understand, research". (And after researching, present the sourced findings, whether they involve criticism, facts, opinions, or any other relvant material. Vague suggestions of blanket retractions or of one-sided "proofs" will not suffice. Happily, collaboration from across the spectrum of editors will further enlighten all of us.) -- Pedant17 05:01, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Further comments
As I pointed out above and on the talk page, there is already a separate article listing criticisms of Landmark (Landmark Education litigation) which contains, among other things, the quotes by Singer. Timb66 05:48, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
 * But that page is an inappropriate forum to discuss issues not directly related to legal action (e.g., the Time Magazine article which questioned Landmark's practices). Perhaps some of the controversy discussion which is currently in the litigation page could be moved to the proposed new page? Ckerr 04:19, 5 June 2007 (UTC)


 * The Landmark Education litigation page continues to display some of its origins as the Landmark Education and the law page, which also had a shortlived parallel existence. We can re-draw the boundaries and rename the titles as required. -- Pedant17 01:02, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Lsi john
"I'm afraid to tell you what I think", means she wouldn't say what she thought because she was afraid to say. We are not allowed to guess what she was thinking and we are not allowed to 'read between the lines'. What we know is that had already she firmly and clearly stated 'to her friends' that she could satisfy the lawsuit in good conscience by re-affirming that she didn't call Landmark a cult, because she had never called them a cult and did not believe they were a cult.

She was afraid to say something, and we do not know exactly what it was. But we do know what it was NOT. It was NOT that that LE is a cult.

Lsi john 09:50, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Need for good sourcing
We do not know that Margaret Singer had "firmly and clearly stated 'to her friends' that she could satisfy the lawsuit in good conscience by re-affirming that she didn't call Landmark a cult, because she had never called them a cult and did not believe they were a cult" -- we lack a good specific source for this very vaguely-expressed assertion. The only clue given so far here comprises a reference to "your very own RickRoss website" allegedly stating: 'Dr. Singer, who was a good friend to Rick Ross before she died in 2003, reportedly told close friends that Landmark’s lawsuit had put a financial strain on her family, and that she believed she could settle her litigation without sacrificing her beliefs by simply agreeing to re-affirm that she did not believe Landmark was a “cult” -- given that she had never believed that it was, or had ever made such a statement in the first place'

Assuming the quotation from some unspecified "RickRoss" website appears accurately here (and we have no means of checking that without an URL, say); AND assuming that the mysterious "RickRoss" web-page has accurately conveyed its own sources, we still have to deal with the vague phraseology "reportedly told close friends".

Even assuming that the whole chain of citation works, we still cannot conclude on this basis that Margaret Singer whole-heartedly pronounced Landmark Education as "not a cult". At best, we could suspect on this basis that she said that she did not believe in the identification of Landmark Education with the identification "cult". -- The better-sourced direct quotations from Dr Singer on the matter from Scioscia do not imply any definitive pronouncement on Landmark Education's non-cultishness.

What did her actual statement to the court say? Any good references? -- I've seen a page on the Landmark Education website (not an unbiased source) which at http://www.landmarkeducation.com/uploaded_files/694/msing.pdf makes no link to the court case but says: "Margaret Thaler Singer ... stated on May 7, 1997 as follows: 'I do not believe that either Landmark or The Landmark Forum is a cult or sect, or meets the criteria of a cult or sect.'" -- Once again, we find a lack of "belief" -- carefully worded as befits an academic and a legal victim. We find no positive affirmation that Landmark Education "is not a cult". -- Pedant17 01:26, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

OK, then we won't say she said they are not a cult. Which I never suggested we say in the first place.

And we won't say that she hinted that she might not be able to say what she couldnt say if she wanted to say something that she might have thought but was afraid to think about saying.

Meaning, we won't say anything about cult, as it relates to Singer, or meaning we cite what she said "She did not believe they were a cult." .. which isn't notable, because she probably did not believe they were an ice cream vendor either. The article is about what LE is, not what someone might not have said they aren't.

Lsi john 02:34, 3 June 2007 (UTC)


 * We have an agreement. Let's not say that Singer said that Landmark Education does not qualify as a cult. Anyone else prepared to sign up to that? -- Pedant17 08:53, 4 June 2007 (UTC)


 * We have another agreement. Let's not say that Margaret Singer hinted that she might not be able to say what she couldn't say if she wanted to say something that she might have thought but was afraid to think about saying. (I doubt that that would fulfill the criteria for notability of an article, but I haven't seen a rush to set up that particular article. We could put it in the Landmark Education article under the terms of WP:NOTE, but I wouldn't push for that myself. Anyone else prepared to sign up to this straw man? -- Pedant17 08:53, 4 June 2007 (UTC)


 * On the other hand, if we want to discuss the opinions and statements of Margaret Singer (who did function as a notable figure in the "cult" wars of last century) let's quote her directly: both the so-called "retraction" statement and the subsequent "afraid to say" statements, whose very reticence speaks volumes to the matter in hand. Anyone else prepared to sign up to that? -- Pedant17 08:53, 4 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I dispute in the strongest possible terms the assertion that the Landmark Education "article is about what [Landmark Education] is". I want to see an article far above mere "isness": I want to see an article that records -- without limitation -- the various views on where Landmark Education fits into  global culture from 1991 onwards, how it got there (step by step, from its origins to the present day), and what consequences have ensued. I want to have the ability to read what different groups of people think about Landmark Education (across the spectrum), and why, and how that may fit into theories of such phenomena. -- Let's set our sights a little higher than simplistic definitions. -- Pedant17 08:53, 4 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, yes its just a matter of allowing all relevant views in good order. Thats what Wikipedia is about. I agree its not a simple matter in terms of getting all editors to agree to let WP policies prevail. But we will have to apply plenty of patience here. A lot has been stated and going is slow. It should be simply a matter of stating simply what the sources state. Our job though, is to settle into a discussion pattern that just states main views and determines the context, without all the irrelevant accusations of POV pushing, OR or any other editor generated arguments attached. Right now, some editors are having a really good go at trying to make reasonable sources look like dodgy sources that mean nothing. I would like to assure those editors that I have no intention of cherry picking criticisms just to put the boot in. A simple statement from reasonable sources is all thats required. Beyond that we could do some much more productive "haggling" when it comes to context. If something in context is crucial, then there's nothing we can do but add it. If there is a softener in the context then its only fair to add something hard. If we are going to cherry pick, it needs to be sweet and sour (balanced taste). Alternatively, we could just do without it and stick to basic quotes. For the sake of productive WP editing (giving in to reality and accepting obvious sourced facts), I'd favour the latter. Jeffrire 11:08, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Simple statements and working on NPOV writing
Hello all. I've been standing back to read what you've all said and I can see more or less where the problems are. I think we should start to seek points of agreement. There are some undeniable aspects to the research:


 * Some reliable sources state such and such about a particular issue in LE. Its those views that we need to agree upon and present. If someone gets sued and changes their statement then its an issue and can be mentioned.


 * Context: Then there's the context of the source. This is important and we need to get it straight.

In general the information on the cultlike nature of Landmark Education uses a Wikipedia style notion of cults (ie, if we link the term cults to the Wikipedia article on cults, the reader will be able to see the context of cults in general and will most likely not jump to the narrowest view. Or we could be more precise and state the context of the source - e.g. the reason for why the source has listed or commented on a list of what they consider to be cults or related groups. What we need to present there is a simple statement of their purpose, concern, or reasoning.

If there is a relevant issue then its presented. If Singer, for instance mentions LE in a book, then takes it out, then that can be mentioned in the article, especially if LE is trying to sue her. As there are quite a few sources stating things about LE in relation to cults - LGAT, then its clearly a major issue. However, I don't think its necessary to spread it all over the article. It can be made compact enough to go into a simple section and deal with all the related controversy in that section. So I suggest we start working on these points:


 * Sourced view
 * Context/concern of source

I expect there will be a certain level of disagreement on either of these points for better or worse, so I'll take a patient approach. I don't think we need to rush any of this. Jeffrire 04:43, 4 June 2007 (UTC)


 * What about when someone gets sued and doesn't change their statement. (e.g. Singer never called them a cult. And after being sued, she clarified that she did not consider them to be a cult. And subsequently declared the same thing to her friends.) Mentioning it accomplishes exactly the opposite of what was intended, and agreed to, by the lawsuit. There are lots of names I haven't called anyone, are you suggesting that I edit my userpage and specifically not call you all the names I have never called you? It's absurd. Lsi john 01:52, 8 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Lawsuits or statements don't determine facts for all time, they merely have the opportunity of making pronouncements in specific contexts and in specific jurisdictions. Mentioning facts that accomplish exactly the opposite of what someone or something may conceivably have at some time intended doesn't make the facts any less factual. -- Pedant17 01:02, 11 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry to have been distracted here, but LSI john's claim above is really too much given this edit which is explained here. ER Talk 12:05, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Short Contraversy Section
I think we have a suggestion in response to the mediator's suggestion. Tim66's re-worded version of DaveApter's paragraphs on that. We have had three or four people line up with that... What do people think? Alex Jackl 06:22, 7 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I think a modified version of Timb66's paragraph would be fine, so long as it linked to a proper article on the controversies. I'm not sure where the statement that these views are "minority" or "non-notable" comes from — it is certainly not evident from the discussion here, and the fact that they've been mentioned in some (all?) articles on Landmark in the mainstream media surely means something.  Given that there is a significant body of citable information on the controversies, I see no reason for opposing a separate article.  To anyone who argues that a long and detailed article on controversies may dwarf the main article on Landmark: so?  The article on Britney Spears is longer than the article on the Reformation, but which is more important?  This is a quirk of Wikipedia.


 * I do not believe we should exclude well-sourced information from Wikipedia just because a number of editors perceive a topic to be non-notable. Ckerr 00:59, 8 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Ahhh... being well-sources is necessary but insufficient for inclusion. Relevancy, notability and applicability all should guide what goes in an article. We are working on encyclopedia articles here NOT threaded discussions or debate pages.  It is NOT the design of Wikipedia to be a debate page.   It is against policy for minority view points to be OVER represented.  It is not necessarily a desired thing to model a page after the "Britney Spears" page.  If a subject is non-notable enough not to warrant more thanh a few paragropahx on the core subject page it probably doesn't require a separate page.  Page proliferation is not desirable.Alex Jackl 14:07, 9 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Since several editors have spilt much virtual ink over "controversies" (I prefer the less inflammatory word: "issues") related to Landmark Education and have provided relevant sources, concerns over other minority viewpoints do not apply. -- the argument that "[i]f a subject is non-notable enough not to warrant more thanh a few paragropahx on the core subject page it probably doesn't require a separate page" may appear circular and perverse, but since we have more than a few paragraphs waiting in the wings, roll on a new article on Issues relating to Landmark Education -- or should we favor the "core subject" and set up Issues related to Erhardism instead or in addition? In any event, perceived irrelevancy, perceived non-notability and perceived non-applicability can find a linked home there, while satisfying the criteria of relevancy, notability and applicability within their new environment. -- As to the contention that sees page proliferation as undesirable -- Wikipedia thrives on the proliferation of pages: it does consist of over 1.8 million articles, not a mere handful, after all. -- Pedant17 01:02, 11 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Where did the strange notion of a "short controversy section" come from? -- As I understand the matter, our esteemed mediator has suggested brevity only in the context of writing about the "cult" issue. -- Pedant17 01:02, 11 June 2007 (UTC)


 * In some respects the version proposed by User:Timb66 appears less NPOV than that of User:DaveApter. Either would need "editing mercilessly". -- Pedant17 01:02, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Good criticizm is often accompanied by good suggestions. Do you have any merciless editing to suggest? Lsi john 01:49, 11 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I could suggest (numerous) changes or redrafts, but in the interests of achieving some incremental consensus I would suggest that User:DaveApter and/or User:Timb66 make a new version or versions of the proposed text in the light of discussions, suggestions and material presented thus far. -- Pedant17 11:56, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Summary of position so far
The mediator suggested two tasks for us, the first of which was:
 * 1. That we need a few sentences on whether Landmark has been described as either a cult or a sect, when such descriptions have been applied and the importance of such a classification.

Can we take it that we have accomplished this one? There seems to have been general approval of Timb99's suggesion for the wording of this. Ckerr and Pedant17 have expressed reservations, but have not made any specific suggestions for altered wording - does this mean we can run with what we have?

If so, perhaps we can move on to the other area the mediator identified:
 * Secondly, there are disputes over which criticisms of Landmark should be incorporated into the article.

If so perhaps the suggestions I made above would serve as a starting point?
 * Does it really produce worthwhile results?
 * Is it sometimes harmful?
 * Is it a rip-off, or a money making scam?
 * The surprising fact that volunteer staff outnumber paid staff by a factor of over ten-to-one.
 * Whether or not the marketing practices are unethical or otherwise excessive

Does anyone want to extend this list, or will it do? Once we've agreed on the list, perhaps we can put forward suggestions for a short paragraph on each?

It seems clear from the discussion so far that the "cult" issue is essentially semantic. Rather than debating endlessly on whether Landmark does or does not qualify for that ambiguous and loaded term, it would be more useful to indicate what specific features it has (or not) that are associated with that description. Maybe this will be accomplished in dealing with these other areas? DaveApter 09:48, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree that the cult issue is semantic. I can work with what you proposed earlier. I think that we have to start somewhere.  I would add to the list above:

Triplejumper 16:09, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Philosophical differences between conventional psychology and the Personal Development Seminar Industry.


 * We can move at any time onto the task of determining which criticisms of Landmark Education we may incorporate into the article, but much remains unachieved in refining, extending and referencing an NPOV version of a text discussing the nature, timing and importance of various labellings of Landmark Education as a cult/sect/not. -- Pedant17 11:56, 12 June 2007 (UTC)


 * If we do open discussion on determining which criticisms of Landmark Education to include, I would suggest eschewing the prescriptive and limiting "list" approach in favor of discussing generic criteria for inclusion and non-inclusion. -- Pedant17 11:56, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Coming back to this mediation cabal, it seems that the comments about the controversial cult label may be about the amount of the article that is dedicated to the issue. There also are many different meanings to the term 'cult' in many cultures and in this debate. I would argue that the issue is not notable about Landmark Education, although some would say it is because of references, although old or opinion or retracted later. The justifications of including the cult-term remind me of times that there seemed to be clear reasons and justifications for some point and actions were taken accordingly, but the point was not so when you look deeper or at the whole picture (the sun revolving around the Earth or weapons of mass-destruction in Iraq, for example). (It also seems to me that there is an agenda of some editors I would call anti-cult, and if they view Landmark Education as such, the agenda would come into play.) Spacefarer 20:20, 13 June 2007 (UTC)


 * We may have tended to skirt around what our esteemed mediator has called "the importance of such a classification" [as a "cult"/"sect"]. This would relate to the different connotations of the terms "cult" and "sect" and their analogs. Annotated linking to existing Wikipedia articles on the subject(s) can help us here, as can dispassionate examination of any relevant discussions by the sources cited. -- The issue of the notability of "cult-labeling" in regard to Landmark Education shows its importance in this very mediation, as well as in the talk-page debates and in the general noosphere-traffic on the topic. Personal opinions on the importance of the labeling aside, the mass of traffic on the general subject calls for treatment in the article. -- Wikipedia makes no necessary distinction between old references and not-so-old references. It happily juxtaposes ancient Greek commentators with modern archeological findings, for example. We have the cybercapacity to expand on the historical development of ideas about Landmark Education if appropriate. If in (say) fifty years time a cited evaluation of Landmark Education comes to appear dated or incorrect, we still have the dated and sourced evidence of opinion at a given time. And tracking opinions (however "wrong", however shaky and merely personal) provides a valid approach to a cultural artifact like Landmark Education. -- Speculation as to personal or group agendas does not aid substantive discussion of the issues in hand. As the Cabal template suggests,  "Please stick to the subject. ... Please also keep all comments to issues relating to content, and not contributors, as per WP:NPA." -- Pedant17 02:12, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Comments by 24.5.45.219
The following comment was added to the top of this page I moved it here so so make things easier to read. I was unsure about whether it could be deleted or not given it is hard to tell if it is related to this cabal or not. If someone else thinks it should be deleted please do soTriplejumper 23:29, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * With no generall counsel, and no professional coaching to represent my point of view... I have been in the midst of being tired of the b.s. of of my tired, grudge holding, and obusive, Irish family. I have been dominated, under valuated in the "unversial health system in the US".  The Landmark Forum PRODUCED an interpretive point of view for me to map, on whether I empowered me (or not, inspired).  AND had me take action (vs. just talk about, or commplain about),  how something could  not be, or  actually could be... Or we complained how the  government and health care system in this cpmplaint), for the RELATIONSHIP to myself, my family, my career(as a nurse pratictioner). The impact I have on myself, my family, my communities, my patients, and the world as a health care represntative are  really unknown.It is infurating that the objectioners, or the nay sayers, object. They have never taken the "Landmark Forum". They have never postulated what they think it might mean to them, a kind of education, like a school, or a collegge, etc ("Landmark, Eduction"!) In there lives,  there has been the inquiry  how to make the difference with their committmwt to and heard as,  and as their lives could be, used for (their life, context, vs. the life until they resigned themsleves too).  You (they)  get to make an impact on the barriers: the kind or breadth, or difference they could individuallly make globally. These statements, are out to make a contrived and  experietially, small and constrained POV until now. What could be possible for all of us?  A natural, and human, as a right,being ALIVE! giving all of ourselves to every moment, even when we hate it, hate them, hate ourselves.  As they state: Living a life you life ( all of it, esp the parts you cant stand for!,; and living it powerfully! Its just a kind of education damn it! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.5.45.219 (talk • contribs)

Moving forward
I believe we have a suggestion for wording being considered. I have made some minor adjustments.

I also believe one of the reports (the French one?) removed LE from its list the following year. I also believe the state department has formally challenged the translation of secte into cult.


 * Landmark Education has sometimes been described as a "cult". Such accusations usually appear in milieu such as internet chat rooms and and anti-cult websites. However, there have not been any allegations of LE being a cult being made by any recognised authority on the subject, that were not subsequently retracted. The word secte, not cult is used in two reports that are cited to justify applying the cult label to Landmark Education; Parliamentary Commission on sectes in France of 1996 and a Belgian Parliamentary report of 1997. There is no specific mention of LE in the main body of either report, and its only appearance in each is as one of about 200 widely assorted groups listed in an appendix. The French report  attaches no comment to the entry and acknowledges the difficulty in stating precise criteria for categorizing a "secte". It also states that "not all groups described as sectes are necessarily considered to be dangerous." The the Belgian report  adds the description "Human Potential Movement (New Age)".


 * "Caution: The reader should be aware that the French and Belgian languages use secte, not cult, and that, other than the word secte itself, there is no direct translation of secte into English. The word secte does not have the same pejorative connotation as the word cult in English. Extreme care should be exercised when interchanging the two words."

Lsi john 12:52, 15 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Hello Lsi john. I can't find that statement in any of the links you mention. If its translated, perhaps you could paste the section in question here in its original wording. Jeffrire 02:55, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Two steps back
Let's have a reference for the vague belief that the authors/commissioners of some undefined report removed Landmark Education from such report. -- Pedant17 04:05, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Let's have a reference for the vague belief that some "state department" (which department? which state?) "formally challenged the translation" of secte as "cult". In the process, let's have an explanation of the role and rights of government and administration in regulating linguistic use across multi-national cross-cultural boundaries. -- Pedant17 04:05, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

The proposed formulation 'Landmark Education has sometimes been described as a "cult"' uses weasel-wording ("sometimes"), effectively failing to quantify an implied occasional description. The same sentence also uses a weasel passive construction ("has ... been described") with the effect of not ascribing this claim to anyone in particular. We can readily make this claim at least structurally NPOV by converting to the active voice and providing reputable examples, thus: "The French secret police (ref), the Austrian government (ref) and cult-watching groups both religious (ref) and secular (ref) have examined (ref) and documented (ref) Landmark Education in terms of its apparent cult-like activities and teachings." -- Pedant17 04:05, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

The proposed formulation: "Such accusations usually appear in milieu such as internet chat rooms and and anti-cult websites" appears factually inaccurate in its use of the word "usually". Without going into statistics on the numbers of mentions in Internet chat-rooms, can one dismiss non-Internet chat-rooms, water-cooler gossip, sermons, cafe-chats, fireside musings and Usenet posts so glibly? And do we have acceptable criteria for identifying "anti-cult websites" -- as opposed to other web-sites, blogs, letters and emails that just may touch on the perceived evils of Landmark Education? Speculation on the source of "such accusations" (loaded word!) needs validation or elimination, or at least balance. If we keep the morpheme "milieu", it may need a proper plural. -- Pedant17 04:05, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

The proposed formulation "However, there have not been any allegations of LE being a cult being made by any recognised authority on the subject, that were not subsequently retracted" has severe problems. The passive constructions continue in a tangle. Let's get rid of them for a start before addressing the substance. Try: "No recognised authority on the subject has alleged that Landmark Education is a cult without subsequently retracting that allegation." -- This re-revised formulation still includes the verb "to be", which careful researchers will avoid but which Landmark education itself likes to use -- perhaps to support its binarist views on such matters. Let that pass, just for the moment, and let's turn to the semantics. The use of the phrase "recognised authority" begs the questions as to who recognises authorities, and in what areas such authorities (should) have competence. Upon examination, the sentence as a whole reduces to meaningless/undefined marketing-speak. But worse ensues. The implication that allegations get refuted does not hold water. We discussed this above. A few newspapers and magazines have issued retractions in the face of Landmark Education's legal posturings. But retractions from the likes of the French government, the Austrian government, the Berlin Senate and cult-watchers in general appear lacking. -- The claim still abounds in negative language: "no ... without ... retracting". As such it becomes very difficult to prove or disprove: the absence of evidence does not prove a positive. But if we want to use such a claim, we may need to point out, in all neutrality, that various authorities have not (yet) retracted their their claims of culthood. -- Pedant17 04:05, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

The inconvenience of French authorities writing in French and of Belgian authorities writing in French and in Flemish provides a red-herring. We need sensitive translations expressing an awareness of semantic fields and quoting their non-English originals, not Anglo-centric implications that ignorant foreigners should speak English. -- Pedant17 04:05, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

The negative suggestion that Landmark Education fails to get mention or discussion in listed government reports outside listings speaks to the nature of the reporting and to the relative insignificance of Landmark Education in those jurisdictions. Insofar as it has any validity (see below), it stands in contrast to the German and Austrian reports, which focus more on smaller numbers of specific cults and report on them in considerable detail -- facts which could bear mention in a more balanced treatment of governmental reports. -- Pedant17 04:05, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

The claim that Landmark Education receives no specific mention in the main body of the Belgian Parliamentary report appears at variance with the discussion of Landmark Education's origins on page 110 of that document and mention in connection with trans-border recruitment on page 111 of the same document: http://www.dekamer.be/FLWB/pdf/49/0313/49K0313008.pdf

The claim that Landmark Education in the French Parliamentary report of 1996 receives mention only in an appendix appears at variance with its appearance in listings in the body of the report under the heading of Les adeptes des sectes. The report ( http://www.assemblee-nationale.fr/rap-enq/r2468.asp ) lacks any appendices. -- Pedant17 04:05, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

The mention of "about 200 widely assorted groups" in both the French and Belgian Parliamentary reports overeggs the random scope aspect: the Belgian report lists 189 groups (see Cults and governments, while the French report appears to cover at least 176 (see Groups referred to as cults in government reports). -- Pedant17 04:05, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

In the unattributed block-quoted "Caution" section, mention and discussion of the "Belgian language" seems unclear. The French-language version of the Belgian Parliamentary report refers to sectes, whereas the Flemish-language version speaks of sekten -- see http://www.dekamer.be/FLWB/pdf/49/0313/49K0313008.pdf Perceptive readers will realize that few foreign-language semantic fields translate exactly and precisely into English-language equivalents. But the context and content of the government reports in question suggests "cult" as the most exact English-language equivalent of their subject-matter. -- Pedant17 04:05, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Given the amount of discussion on the current mediation project-page, the lack of integration of discussed topics into the proposed text appears disappointing. The overall tone of the proposed text, devoting much attention as it does to unattributed refutations of the "cult" concept, might make it a better candidate for incorporation into the "not-a-cult" text than for use in the proposed examination of who has called Landmark Education a cult and why. -- Pedant17 04:05, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Ckerr's Revision of Timb66's text
I feel very sorry for the mediator who has to wade through 170 KB of this fodder. Here is my version of Timb66's text:


 * Main article: Criticisms of Landmark Education


 * Landmark Education has received criticism primarily for their marketing technique, in which participants are strongly encouraged to persuade friends and family to take Landmark Education courses. As a result, Landmark has sometimes been described as a "cult", although every mainstream publication that has made such an allegation has been sued by Landmark and has subsequently issued a retraction (see Landmark Education litigation).  Other criticisms of Landmark include (i) its courses do not produce the promised results and hence are a money-making scam; (ii) its courses have harmful effects on some participants; (iii) an unusually large proportion of its staff (90%) are volunteer; and (iv) it is too closely connected to est and Werner Erhard.

Changes welcome. As you can see, I shifted the emphasis away from the "cult" allegation (which at least some of us agree is pointless and semantic) towards the actual objections against Landmark, based on DaveApter's list. I also strongly believe, as I've said before, that in the interests of keeping the article balanced and a reasonable length, there should be just a paragraph on the criticisms, with a link to a separate article for interested readers to pursue in depth. Finally, I think Landmark Education litigation is not the place to discuss all criticisms of Landmark. Ckerr 08:05, 17 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I have no objection to a criticism section. I'm not comfortable with making the claim that "every mainstream ... has been sued...subsequently retracted". Are we sure of that? Did any of them retract without being sued? Did any retract with only a threat of a lawsuit? Was/were the retraction(s) voluntary or forced under the lawsuit(s)?


 * Main article: Criticisms of Landmark Education


 * Landmark Education has received criticism primarily for their marketing technique, in which participants are strongly encouraged to persuade friends and family to take Landmark Education courses. As a result, Landmark has sometimes been described as a "cult", although mainstream publications that have made such an allegations have subsequently issued a retraction (see Landmark Education litigation).  Other criticisms of Landmark include (i) its courses do not produce the promised results and hence are a money-making scam; (ii) its courses have harmful effects on some participants; (iii) an unusually large proportion of its staff (90%) are volunteer; and (iv) it is too closely connected to est and Werner Erhard.


 * Lsi john 13:31, 17 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Ckerr's version of the statement appears to be quite thorough. Lsi john, if you believe that 'every ... sued' is too strong, then please give a counter-example. It would be easy enough to reword with 'most' or 'many'. As the link to the article containing the details, this seems an excellent solution. ER Talk 12:15, 20 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Ckerr's version of one of the proposed paragraphs (on "criticisms", but confused with the "cult" paragraph we also continue to work on) may appear "quite thorough", but has serious deficiencies -- as discussed above. -- Use of words like "most" or of "some" as opposed to "every" would invite edit-warring over these vague terms: we need specific examples, well-documented, rather than vague summarizing. -- Pedant17 07:16, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Re proposed text on Landmark Education issues
I too feel sympathy for anyone trying to follow the argument in this discussion. Indented comments inserted in the appropriate places would (of course) have helped a lot to constrain wordiness and to structure the debates in the tradition of Wikipedia talk-pages. -- Pedant17 06:16, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

By all means let us discuss a potential text on issues/criticisms, but let's not confuse that text with the proposed text on cult-labeling. Semantic arguments can cover whether one should label Landmark Education as a sect (sect of what?) or as a cult. But historically attested facts will demonstrate whether or not someone listed or referred to Landmark Education as a cult, and when, and in what context. -- Pedant17 06:16, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

The formulation that "Landmark Education has received criticism" suffers from weasel-passive-like construction in that it discourages us from saying who has generated such criticism and when and how often. -- Pedant17 06:16, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

The in itself tendentious assertion that criticism of Landmark Education relates "primarily" to "marketing technique" needs a citation or some other proof. Other criticisms also figure prominently, if not more so. -- Pedant17 06:16, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

The passive formulation "participants are strongly encouraged" fails to make clear who or what does the encouragement. -- Pedant17 06:16, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

The reference to "Landmark" tout court disparages other respectable entities which use the name "Landmark". We can use the fuller moniker "Landmark Education", if not for legal reasons or to comply with Landmark Education LLC marketing and branding, then at least to drive home the disparity between Landmark Education and more conventional and respected views on education. -- Pedant17 06:16, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

To imply that Landmark Education has earned its "cult" tag solely or primarily through its recruitment practices distorts and over-simplifies the arguments about Landmark Education's culthood. -- Pedant17 06:16, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

To speak of "[every] mainstream publication" retracting distorts and disguises the degree to which published suggestions of Landmark Education's culthood have spread largely unchecked or unretracted. -- Pedant17 06:16, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

The link to Landmark Education litigation could embrace a wider spectrum of opinion by becoming a link to the (currently synonymous) better-named Landmark Education and the law. -- Pedant17 06:16, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

The concept of "too closely connected" (to est/Erhard) needs extrapolation/explanation, optionally in the Landmark Education article and certainly in any Issues relating to Landmark Education article. Some commentators worry about the content of Erhardistic teachings too. -- Pedant17 06:16, 19 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Wouldn't these points be addressable in the suggested main article? ER Talk 12:52, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Suggestions please - or are we going to have to move on?
Hello all. So far I see no realistic suggestions on how to proceed with presenting critical information on LE. Lots of well sourced and neutrally stated critical edits were removed (for no good reason) and as far as I see no reasonable alternative suggestions have been forthcoming. My own suggestion stands: Basically just have those sourced statements in NPOV neutral and simple form (pretty much as they were) without any unsourced commentary added either way. Here is the basic info:. If there are any dead hyperlinks they can be removed. But basically the information is very neutrally presented. I see no problem with the Singer controversy being added, together with her statements after LE's litigious activities. If there is anything stating a retraction of LE being a cult, then it can be added. If there is no statement to that effect, then it fails burden of proof.

Alternatively, we can agree that we have not reached any consensus and move to another level of dispute resolution. Feel free to comment. Jeffrire 05:09, 20 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually, I see several suggestions. But, notably, no specific text presented here in this discussion from you. If you feel the suggestions are not realistic, perhaps you could contribute some text suggestions? Lsi john 18:04, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

-

*Suggestions from Jeffrie*
(I have migrated Jeffrire's link to this discussion as text)

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)

In the International Religious Freedom Report 2005, the government of Austria included Landmark Education among the "sects": "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 International Religious Freedom Report 2006, however, did not list Landmark Education among the examples of cults, although the wording makes it plain that the list is not intended to be comprehensive.

Scandinavia
In a 2002 article: "Psychogroups and Cults in Denmark", the researchers assert that some people have thought of Landmark Education as associated with "cultic groups" due to the "high level of one-sided sales pressure that many people report."

On June 6, 2004 Landmark Education ceased operating in Sweden. As in France, the causes of the closure included a diminishing public interest in participating, evinced in connection with very critical articles in the press and on television.

The airing of two documentaries on national Swedish television by the broadcasting corporation TV4 on October 28, 2003 and on March 15, 2004 called "Lycka till salu" (Happiness for sale) in the program series "Kalla Fakta" contributed to the termination of the organization there.

Belgium
A Parliamentary Inquiry of the Belgian Chamber of People's Representatives into cults and their dangers listed and discussed Landmark Education in an official report of 28 April 1997.

Germany
In 1994 a report of the Senate Committee of the State of Berlin in Germany included Landmark Education in a report on cults with the sub-title "entities espousing a world view and new religions". Landmark Education sued for correction and, on May 14, 1997, the Berlin court (Volksgericht 27A) endorsed a new classification-scheme which now represented Landmark Education as a "Providor of Life Guidance"(Anbieter von Lebenshilfe).

Allegations of brainwashing
Three court cases involving Landmark have included the claim of brainwashing; none resulted in Landmark being ruled as brainwashing anyone. Each had a slightly different outcome:
 * 1) In Ney vs. Landmark Education et al. (1992), Stephanie Ney sued Landmark claiming she suffered a mental breakdown following participation in the Landmark Forum. The court ruled that while her participation may or may not have played a part in her breakdown, this had no relevance as Virginia law did not allow her to claim damages since she suffered no physical harm.
 * 2) In Been vs. Weed and Landmark Education (2002), Jason Weed claimed that the Landmark Advanced Course had caused him to experience a psychotic episode in which he killed a postal service employee. The court ruled that Landmark did not precipitate his psychosis in the Federal criminal trial of Weed. There is an ongoing [as of December 2006] wrongful death civil suit against Landmark and others by the family of the deceased.
 * 3) In Landmark Education vs. Lell, Landmark sued Martin Lell for using the word "Brainwashing" in the title of his book on Landmark Education (Das Forum: Protokoll einer Gehirnwäsche: Der Psycho-Konzern Landmark Education [The Forum: Account of a Brainwashing: The Psycho-Outfit Landmark Education], Deutscher Taschenbuch Verlag, Munich, 1997, ISBN 3-423-36021-6). The court ruled the description "brainwashing" a matter of opinion, and let the title of the book stand.

In 1999 Landmark Education asked Dr. Raymond Fowler, a psychologist and past President of the American Psychological Association (APA), to evaluate the effectiveness, safety, and appropriateness of the procedures in the Landmark Forum. Fowler reported that he saw nothing to suggest that the Landmark Forum itself would cause harm to participants, and that the course had none of the characteristics associated with a cult, and that the Landmark Forum did not place individuals at risk of "mind control", "brainwashing", or "thought control".

Use of "loaded language"
Some articles have reported that the Landmark Education's coursework uses "loaded language" and "jargon": A former Erhard Seminars Training disciple made the comparison to "loaded language", in an article in NOW Toronto.

In an article in New York Magazine, Vanessa Grigoriadis states that "the Forum drives its points home with loaded language, relentless repetition, and a carefully constructed environment."

The Times referred to Landmark Education's use of language as "eccentric jargon".

Religious implications
Some references to Landmark Education's courses compare them to religious subject matter:

Paul Derengowski, formerly of the Christian cult-watch group Watchman.org, states that Landmark "has theological implications".

The Apologetics Index (an online Christian ministry providing research resources on what it considers cults, sects, other religious movements, doctrines, and practices) maintains a page on Landmark Education.

An opposing view appears in the article "A Very Nineties Weekend" in the international Roman-Catholic weekly The Tablet stating that several Catholic priests have endorsed Landmark, and that the Trappist monk Basil Pennington has praised the Forum for bringing about a "full human enlivenment".

Other examples of commentary from clergy appear on the Landmark Education Website.

In 1993, two years after the emergence of Landmark Education, Rev. Dr. Richard L. Dowhower conducted a survey of clergy to assess their opinions of cults, entitled "Clergy and Cults: A Survey". The 53 respondents came from the Washington, DC area and included 43 Lutheran clergy and seminarians, one Roman Catholic and one Jewish clergyman, and an Evangelical minister. The highest percentage (28%) of those questioned about "The cults I am most concerned about are", gave the answer of "Scientology, est/Forum, Lifespring".

In James R. Lewis' 2001 book (published 10 years after the establishment of Landmark Education), Odd Gods: New Religions & the Cult Controversy, Werner Erhard, Erhard Seminars Training and The Forum are discussed. Odd Gods describes the spiritual influences of the coursework, including Zen Buddhism, Abilitism, Subud, Dianetics, Scientology and Asian spiritual leaders.

In 2002 theologians Deacon Robert Kronberg, B.Th. and Consultant Kistina Lindebjerg, B.Th. of the Dialog Center International in Denmark discussed the religious aspects of Landmark Education, stating: "Also we see a large number of people joining groups, such as Landmark and Amway, which become controversial because of their sales practices."

Specifically, Kronberg and Lindebjerg posited that Landmark Education's courses seem to fill a void in the lives of disillusioned young adults, who have not found answers in religion: "Landmark seems to appeal to young people between 20 and 35 in liberal professions who are disillusioned with or discouraged about their lives. Landmark seems to be a scientific substitute for the need for religious answers to life's fundamental questions."


 * This is a rehash of the same material being pushed again and again without any partnership in the text trying to get created.  I thought this mediation was about compromise and coming to an agreement if possible.  This is the same stuff- IMO non-notable and not particularly relevant either- that kept being auto-posted on the page and ended up getting it frozen. I suggest we go with Ckerr's latest version which seems to have general support. Alex Jackl 05:27, 24 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Calling well-documented material a "rehash" does not further the mediation. This mediation process, like all mediation processes, aims at employing compromise and coming to agreements. The paragraphs suggested by User:Jeffrire and copied here add body and extension to the inadequate listing-method proposed previously, and provide material we may wish to incorporate in whole or in part (though I for one would oppose the inclusion of the text from Raymond Fowler as deriving from a non-independent non-reliable source, as discussed above). If fellow-editors find some of the material non-notable, they can argue the toss at the time when each item comes up for spinning off into a separate article, in accordance with the WP:NOTABILITY guideline. If fellow-editors find some of the material "not particularly relevant", they may put up a case for considering material which discusses Landmark Education as irrelevant to an article about Landmark Education -- or accept that other editors may find the material relevant anyway. In either case, we can discuss the appropriateness of inclusion/exclusion paragraph by paragraph, sentence by sentence, and clause by clause -- all within the mediation process. -- Vague allegations of auto-posting do not appear to further the mediation process. -- Suggesting that the latest version on "controversies" by User:Ckerr seems to have general support ignores the undiscussed (to date) criticism of that very material and smacks of advocating a lack of "partnership" in "trying" to develop a "text" on this sub-topic. -- Pedant17 07:16, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Are we there yet?
I'm pleased to see at least patchy support for my suggested text. Now, I'm not saying my text is perfect, but I think it's clear that we're never going to have unanimous agreement: for example, my text has been criticised from both sides. Personally, I think it's too pro-Landmark, but I wrote it with the aim of getting agreement, not to push my views.

I think the information in Jeffire's large block of text is essential, and I believe it deserves its own article. I agree with Jeffire that this material should be presented directly, without editorial interpretation. That said, there isn't anything wrong with having a paragraph which summarizes the main points of that separate article.

By the way, remember that having a separate article on "Landmark Education litigation" didn't solve everything, but it did help. I think the same would be true here.

I final thought: I am sick of this debate, and I hope you all are too, since there are so many better things we could be doing. So anyone who wants to start an edit war over "many" vs. "most", as suggested above, should be committed to an asylum for the obsessed. Ckerr 11:51, 11 July 2007 (UTC)


 * If we can then revise your proposed text on issues in the light of the criticisms expressed and with a view to forestalling edit wars, we might then reach a position where we can go back to discussing the suggestions on the extent of cultishness. -- Pedant17 01:16, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Guidelines for issues
I've criticized the proposal to limit past, present and possible future controversial material (the "Issues" stub potentially linking to a Landmark Education issues article) to a static set of defined topics. Instead, I propose we need do no more than diligently apply the standard Wikipedia policies: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Verifiability and No original research. Mere opinions about balance and disputes or personal views on accuracy then vanish and we retain the reliable published material. -- Pedant17 01:02, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Suggested revised text for "Not-a-cult" section
Revised in the light of comments on this section:


 * Persons benignly disposed towards Landmark Education sometimes attempt to portray it as non-cultic, thereby trying to dissociate Landmark Education practices and ideas from some of the shorthand connotations which the general public uses to conveniently classify such organizations in general and Landmark Education in particular. Such attempts to prove a negative sometimes get published as spin or as personal opinion, but no reputable commentator has independently arrived at a conclusion definitively unlinking Landmark education from the idea of culthood.


 * Sometimes, supporters of Landmark Education try to justify the claim that Landmark education lacks cult-like characteristics by appealing to statements or opinions expressed by other parties. Such statements may fall into one or more of several categories, such as:


 * 1) Partisan claims/denials made by Landmark Education itself or by its representatives. Landmark Education's persistent efforts to portray itself as a not-cult in its turn speaks to the widespread public perception of the organization as a cult, and to the reluctance of most groups labeled a "cult" to accept that label.
 * 2) Statements made by entities compelled by Landmark Education's legal resources to make such statements — such as Margaret Singer. (Landmark Education devotes considerable legal efforts to obtaining such statements, often characterized as "retractions". See Peter L. Skolnik and Michael A. Norwick, "Introduction to the Landmark Education litigation archive", online at http://www.rickross.com/reference/landmark/landmark193.html (retrieved 2007-06-01 in the context of the documentation of the "Landmark Education litigation archive" online at http://www.rickross.com/groups/landmark.html, retrieved 2007-06-01: "Repeatedly, Landmark has brought litigation against its public critics — quite transparently for the improper purpose of harassing and intimidating them. It is not the recovery of financial losses that Landmark seeks; rather, Landmark uses litigation to send a message to its critics that anyone attacking Landmark’s practices does so at the risk of an expensive and burdensome lawsuit... Landmark generally ended up settling these cases without any financial recovery, but instead by extracting some relatively innocuous statement by the defendants that they do not believe or have no knowledge that Landmark is a "cult."  Even those statements never reach the merits of Landmark’s far more important allegations -- i.e., whether Landmark’s programs are, in fact, dangerous and abusive." )
 * 3) Testimonials from satisfied customers. (Any personal testimonial, per se, carries very little weight in a logical argument, given the perils of observer bias and the irrelevance of claims of "enjoyment" or "getting value" to evaluation as to whether an organization has cultic qualities.) An American study found : "[E]valuations [...] based on testimony [...] are easier to manipulate for self-interested ends [...] While testimony can be regarded as a form of confirmatory evidence, it does not provide any of the disconfirming evidence needed to reduce uncertainty. [...] People are typically weak at identifying the range of [...]  alternatives [...] and at distinguishing the different ways in which the causal forces might operate. How can people know how they would have matured over time in the absence of an intervention (technique) that is being assessed? How can people disentangle effects due to a pleasant experience, a dynamic  leader, or a sense of doing something important from effects due to the critical components of the treatment per se? Much research has shown that individuals are poor intuitive scientists and that they recreate a set of known cognitive biases (Nisbett and Ross, 1980, Griffin). These include confirmation bias,  selective memory, errors of attribution, and over-confidence. These biases influence experts and non-experts alike, usually without one's awareness of them."  - Daniel Druckman and John Swets (editors): Enhancing Human Performance: Issues, Theories, and Techniques . Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1988,  pages 33 - 35. Online version, retrieved 2007-06-01. Note too, however, that the organisation (Landmark Education LLC, formerly Landmark Education Corporation) well knows of the general public perception of it, and attempts to instruct its "graduates" in countering the "cult" claims. Landmark Education's CEO Harry Rosenberg has made reference to this spin-exercise in Landmark Education jargon as "altering the public conversation" (Hukill, Tracy, 'The est of friends: Werner Erhard's protégés and siblings carry the torch for a '90s incarnation of the '70s 'training' that some of us just didn't get" in Metro (July 9-15, 1998). http://www.metroactive.com/landmark/landmark1-9827.html Retrieved 2007-06-01). Rather than (say) ignoring an undesirable "cult" label, Landmark Education persistently reinforces it by opposing it.
 * 4) Testimonials from prominent persons. — Such examples of the fallacy of appeal to authority, though logically unconvincing in themselves, also suffer from the disadvantages exhibited by testimonials from satisfied customers. In this category belong the oft-cited leterts to Landmark Education from Raymond Fowler, who specifically disconnected his opinion from that of the American Psychological Association (APA), and while emphasizing his experience as a psychologist produced not a piece of peer-reviewed research, but a personal opinion based on short-term observation. Note too that Landmark Education has attempted to appeal to Norbert Nedopil and Jean-Marie Abgrall, psychologists who have researched the organization in some depth and who have subsequently issued statements condemning Landmark Education's practices and methodology.
 * 5) "Market" research. The survey associated with the name of Daniel Yankelovich has become an often-referenced favorite in Landmark Education circles. Landmark Education publishes (on its commercial web-site), what it calls (http://www.landmarkeducation.com/display_content.jsp?top=21&mid=80&bottom=116&siteObjectID=114 retrieved 2007-06-01 ) the "full study" ( http://www.landmarkeducation.com/display_content.jsp?top=21&mid=80&bottom=116&siteObjectID=350 retrieved 2007-06-01) of this survey — without revealing the detailed methodology of participant selection. The results, as interpreted by a declared supporter of Landmark Education (Yankelovich himself personally endorses Landmark Education in his book The Magic of Dialog: Transforming Conflict into Cooperation. New York: Touchstone, 2001. ISBN 0-684-86566-1, pages 143 - 144)), purport to show customer satisfaction: but even if valid, this does not address the cult-hood of Landmark Education.


 * All in all, the "not-a-cult" advocates provide little solid evidence for their claims, largely relying instead on questionable logic and disputed definitions to attempt to counter the widely-held popular perception that something of cultishness clings to the reputation of Landmark Education.

-- Pedant17 01:22, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Give me a break
The spin doctor is in! :-) Come on. The thing that scares me most about this last section is that it is written in such a serious tone and surrounded by such spin that an unwary reader might miss the fact that you just said: "Well- just because LE has a bunch of different types of people endorsing it and saying it is not a cult - from experts, to people who have done it, to priests, to doctors, to psychologists, to studies- doesn't mean it is true.  Yeah!  That's it!  They haven't PROVEN that they are NOT a cult!!! "

Wow. Okay. Neither has my local grocer. He has also not proven it. I suppose I should wear my tin foil hat to keep him from brain washing me. Come on! I hate to be so sarcastic but this is such doggerel! I expect better from you Pedant 17!

How about this- read the current article.! No one has ever successfully called LE a cult in the United States (because there are strong legal protections in the US against slander and libel), everyone that we have had referenced on the site has retracted, or has "clarified" that "they did not mean to call it a cult" or they pointe dout that they hadn't "actually" called LE a cult. Every time someone puts up someone declaring outright that it isn't a cult the "pro culties" find some reason to disregard the truth.

Look- it isn't a cult. There is no evidence for it no matter how many times you say "yes there is, yes there is". Now- LE may have had some questionable practices. It may have some organizational inefficiencies. It may not always do things the way I think they should! Well- it is a human organization. IBM has a bunch of questionable practices too. OK.

I am sorry if I seem flip but it is wearying to deal with the kind of spin above. If people just look behind the rhetoric they will see a series of facts which pretty clearly tell a story of NO CULT. And LE does somehow generate a VERY VOCAL but small minority of people pissed off at it like the above commenters. I am not sure why. Some of it has to do with some sales practices that pissed people off and LE is turning around and eliminating form its practices. Some of it is just people not understanding and hating that which they do not understand.*shrug* Oh well. I have been staying away for a while. I will go quite again. Alex Jackl 04:00, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Break granted
An apparently fearful reaction to a serious proposal for a proposed balancing/balanced block of WP:NPOV text reads: "The thing that scares me most about this last section is that it is written in such a serious tone and surrounded by such spin...". I make no apology for using a serious tone in writing for an encyclopedia. I suggest that we identify any surrounding spin so that we can unravel it and if necessary replace it. Vague allegations of spin do not help.

I suspect we agree that endorsements do not prove anything: "just because LE has a bunch of different types of people endorsing it and saying it is not a cult ... doesn't mean it is true". Hence the focus in my proposed text on analyzing the patterns and the logical inadequacies of those who pronounce Landmark Education "not a cult". Unquestioning acceptance of their views would contradict some other widely-expressed views, some of which would appear in any (separate) section addressing the perceived cultishness of Landmark Education.

We also agree, I feel confident, that proving a negative (such as the proposition that Landmark Education does not class as a cult) faces very severe logical difficulties. Given that, it seems entirely appropriate to point out the illogic and to highlight the alternative strategies (such as emotionalism, dogged assertion, deflection, spin) that some defenders of the Landmark Education experience deploy from time to time, despite the inherent weakness of their position. The persistence of such efforts calls for comment in itself.

I accept it as quite plausible and likely that a local grocer has not proven that (say) his/her grocery does not qualify as a cult. If such grocery faced widespread allegations of culthood and itself devoted considerable resources to affirming the negative, then in that case I might accept the analogy. In the meantime, the grocer seems like a red herring in respect of our discussion on cult-denying.

I note the implication that I have written doggerel. Believing that in general doggerel does not provide suitable material for Wikipedia, I suggest that we identify and polish up any portions of my suggested text that appear as doggerel.

The appeal to "read the current article" favors a version of Wikipedians' work on Landmark Education that happens to represent a frozen non-endorsed state. The archives of both the main article-space and the discussion on it reveal a more complex picture which we would do well to take into account as well.

I note the claim that "No one has ever successfully called LE a cult in the United States (because there are strong legal protections in the US against slander and libel)". Limiting the area of discussion to the United States of America would distort the world-wide view that Wikipedia aims for. Jurisdictions with less rigid preconceptions about preventing freedom of speech provide for alternative -- and valuable -- views on Landmark Education and its potential culthood. But even in the United States people do refer to Landmark Education as cultic, cultoid, or even (gasp!) "a cult". The current state of legal restrictions/threats may affect major publishers, but a persistent vein of popular culture happily associates Landmark Education and aspects of culthood -- even in the heartland-homeland of Landmark Education's activities. Wikipedia's citation-rules discourage us from cherry-picking in that corpus. But it would seem unwise and tendentious to act as if that public opinion did not exist. -- Once again, discussion along the lines "nobody successfully calls Landmark Education a cult" attempts to assert an unprovable negative.

The statement also appears that 'everyone that we have had referenced on the site has retracted, or has "clarified" that "they did not mean to call it a cult" or they pointe dout that they hadn't "actually" called LE a cult'. Such a claim patently disregards the references to European government agencies and to media in France and in the Netherlands, raised previously on this very mediation-page. One cannot act as if French television had never broadcast Voyage au pays des nouveaux gourous, or as if the Berlin Senate had dropped Landmark Education from its documentation on cults. To deny the existence of cult-labelling distorts the facts -- even the facts that Wikipedia has unashamedly and appropriately published (with painstaking referencing) in the past. -- Apart from all that, attempts at refuting cult-labelers belong not in the section under discussion (the analysis of the cult-denial school) but under the rubric of some other heading. We could set up a separate section or a separate Wikipedia-article on Meta-accusations about those whose discuss Landmark Education. The topic would not want for material.

I note too the claim 'Every time someone puts up someone declaring outright that it isn't a cult the "pro culties" find some reason to disregard the truth.' This assertion appears to posit a "truth" and seems to shore it up with "declaring outright that [Landmark Education] isn't a cult". Such appeals to "authoritative" non-neutrality carry little weight in the Wikipedia environment. One can certainly quote such views, but we have the task of assessing too the reasons that the alleged "pro-culties" provide, evaluating their citations and incorporating their point of view rather than assuming some absolute "truth". (I do see hope in the mention of "reason", though.)

The assertion that "it isn't a cult" remains just that: an assertion, -- however strong, however often repeated. But even if some overwhelming majority of peer-reviewed sociologists/theologians/psychtherapists were to make the case for Landmark Education's non-culthood, the evidence of alternative views flickering away in the unenlightened backwaters of the 1990s would deserve mention and discussion in Wikipedia as part of any balanced coverage of the LGAT/Scientological/human-potential-movement phenomenon.

I trust I have written enough already -- today and earlier -- to make it clear that evidence does exist in the matter of Landmark Education's potential culthood. I therefore dismiss the claim that '[t]here is no evidence for it no matter how many times you say "yes there is, yes there is".' But that discussion belongs in a different section -- on culthood -- not clogging up the current discussion on those who deny culthood. Such outbursts provide raw material, but contribute little to rational discussion.

The apparent attempt to deflect discussion about defense of Landmark Education into the generic topic of "questionable practices" needs no attention here. Questionable practices belong in yet another sub-section of "Landmark Education controversies" if they do not relate to alleged cultic activity.

"If people just look behind the rhetoric they will see a series of facts which pretty clearly tell a story of NO CULT." Let's see those facts then -- stripped of the spin emanating from enthusiastic "graduates" and a compliant corporate web-site. Show us the "facts" from good and reliable Wikipedia-worthy sources and let them stand alongside the carping underswell of the Austrian government and the French labor-inspectorate and the repeated accusations of "cult" against est and all the rest of the published objects to Landmarkism.

No discussion of the so-called "public conversation" about Landmark Education should miss out on accusing detractors of forming a "small minority". We've heard the tag before, but we have yet to see any plausible evidence of the "minority" status, let alone how "small". Wikipedia needs evidence. -- Not that deriding opponents as a minority has any place in the development of a neutral point-of-view, in any case.

We have also come to expect standardized vague speculation as to the motives of those who call the corporate rhetoric of Landmark Education into question. But we don't need to pad out Wikipedia with such stuff: we simply assume good faith on the part of all editors. If Landmark Education does indeed "somehow generate a VERY VOCAL but small minority of people pissed off at it ... I am not sure why" then let us do some research and then publish and then cite our findings. Vague dismissive assertions of the type "[s]ome of it is just people not understanding and hating that which they do not understand.*shrug* Oh well." -- these would get tagged as speculative original research and thrown out of the main Wikipedia-space in short order. Here they do not further the mediation process -- a process invoked to aid us in citation.

-- Pedant17 03:36, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Cult, cult-like, cult-hood and cultic
Within the task of identifying sources which have labelled Landmark Education as a "cult" or a "sect", we have yet to add sources that -- perhaps wisely -- skip around the precise legal minefield of specific forms of words and suggest that Landmark Education shows "cultic" tendencies or displays "cult-like" behavior. This subsection of the discussion may need to come to terms with sources like (for example) Samways, Schwertfeger and infoSekta.

The Australian psychologist Louise Samways has linked Landmark Education with undesirable practices in Dangerous Persuaders: An exposé of gurus, personal development courses and cults, and how they operate (Penguin, 1994) ISBN 0-14-023553-1. Formerly cited in the Landmark Education article but innapropriately removed as an out-or-print non-expert, Samways continues to provide a non-US English-language viewpoint and places Landmark Education in a context of cultdom as seen through her therapeutic practice in Mebourne.

Bärbel Schwertfeger, a German psychologist/journalist, wrote a foreword to Martin Lell's memoir of his experiences in a "Landmark Forum". As Frau Schwertfeger has researched and written on "trainings" (note especially her article: "Landmark und seine Ableger" [Landmark and those who reject it] in her book: Schwertfeger, Bärbel (1998) Griff nach der Psyche - Was umstrittene Persönlichkeitstrainer in Unternehmen anrichten [Grab for the Psyche: what controversial personal-development trainers set up in organizations]. Campus: Frankfurt am Main. ISBN 978-3593359106), her comments on and interest in Landmark Education provide interesting expertise. See furthermore her book ''Der Therapieführer. Die wichtigsten Formen und Methoden.'' [The therapy-guide: the most important forms and methods] (Heyne, 1989 und 1995 and 2002, ISBN 978-3453091337), and her article: "Probleme, Konfliktpotentiale, staatliche Reaktionen im Zusammenhang mit 'vereinnahmenden Gruppen' sogenannten Sekten und Psychogruppen" [Problems, the potential for conflict, and state responses in connection with "monopolistic groups" of so-called cults and psycho-groups]. In: InfoSekta (Ed):"Sekten" Psychogruppen und vereinnahmende Bewegungen: wie der einzelne sich schützen kann, was der Staat tun kann ["Cults", psycho-groups and monopolistic movements: how individuals can protect themselves, and what the state can do]. Zürich: NZN-Buchverlag/Theologischer Verlag Zürich, 2000, ISBN 978-3290200107. infoSekta, a Swiss consumer-rights group, has had the experience of a legal tussle with Landmark Education, but survived to tell the tale: In the matter of content we can happily assert that the substantive points of infoSekta's work stand. As previously, we can claim that Landmark shows cultic traits, so long as we emphasize at the same time that we wish to avoid a facile labeling as a cult (Sekte). (Such a labeling we would wish to avoid on principle and in any case.) As before, we can continue to express doubts as to the professionalism and the seriousness of Landmark's course-offerings (the legal agreement expressly states this). And finally, when asked about the matter, we can advise against attending [Landmark] courses. In the original German: ''Inhaltlich können wir zufrieden [... ]festhalten, dass die wesentlichen Punkte der Arbeit von infoSekta standgehalten haben. Wir dürfen nach wie vor behaupten, dass Landmark sektenhafte Züge aufweist, wenn wir gleichzeitig betonen, dass wir eine blosse Etikettierung als Sekte vermeiden möchten. (Letzteres möchten wir aus Prinzip und in jedem Falle vermeiden.) Wir dürfen im weiteren nach wie vor Zweifel an der Professionalität und Seriosität des Kursangebotes von Landmark äussern (dies ist im Vergleich ausdrücklich erwähnt). Und schliesslich dürfen wir, wenn wir danach gefragt werden, auch vom Kursbesuch abraten.'' See: Dieter Sträuli: "Landmark vs. infoSekta: Geschichte eines Prozesses", in infoSekta-Tätigkeitsbericht 1997 ["Landmark vs infoSekta: Account of a Trial" in the infoSekta Annual Report, 1997], pages 16-20. Online at http://www.infosekta.ch/is5/gruppen/lm_straeuli1998.html, retrieved 2007-09-24.

infoSekta's [summary] of the status of Landmark Education cuts both ways: Landmark Education AG places great emphasis on the claim that it is neither a cult (Sekte) nor a mind-cult (Psychokult). Since infoSekta in its work always takes great care not to rely on simplistic labels ("cult"/"not-a-cult") but to come to a balanced judgment, we maintain: Theologically, in the case of Landmark Education (LM) one cannot indeed speak of a cult (Sekte). LM does not constitute a splinter-group from a main church, nor do religious matters play a role in LM. Also, the structural characteristics of a cult (as derived from sociological abd psychological criteria) which infoSekta has used do not predominate and appear only partially in the case of LM. However, there fact remains that time and again those who have participated in the Forum or people who have become aware of LM through acquaintances do contact infoSekta's advice-bureau, for example because they suspect or observe cult-like tendencies in LM. A black/white labeling system ("LM is a cult" or alternatively, "LM is not a cult") does not help these affected parties. In order to do justice to the interests of its clients, infoSekta has addressed the matter of LM, its practices and history, in more depth. One outcome amongst others of this research is a lengthy essay by our colleague Susanne Schaaf, lic. phil. The other components of the documentation present further reports, include further accounts of personal experiences, and document LM's own view of itself. With this selection available, readers should find it easier to form their own opinions. [In the original German:] Die Landmark Education AG legt großen Wert auf die Feststellung, daß sie weder eine Sekte noch ein Psychokult sei. Da infoSekta in ihrer Arbeit stets bemüht ist, keine bloßen Etiketten zu verteilen ("Sekte"/"Nicht-Sekte"), sondern differenziert zu beurteilen, halten wir fest: Bei Landmark Education (LM) kann aus theologischer Sicht tatsächlich nicht von einer Sekte gesprochen werden. Weder stellt LM eine Abspaltung von einer Hauptkirche dar, noch spielen bei LM religiöse Inhalte eine Rolle. Auch die von infoSekta aufgestellten (aus soziologischen und psychologischen Kategorien hergeleiteten) strukturellen Merkmale von Sekten[...]) sind bei LM nicht in der Mehrzahl und nur ansatzweise vorhanden. Tatsache ist jedoch, daß immer wieder AbsolventInnen des Forums oder Personen, welche von Bekannten auf LM aufmerksam gemacht wurden, von sich aus die Beratungsstelle infoSekta kontaktieren, z.B. weil sie bei LM sektenartige Tendenzen vermuten oder wahrnehmen. Diesen Betroffenen ist mit einer Schwarz-Weiß-Etikettierung ("LM ist eine Sekte" bzw. "LM ist keine Sekte") nicht geholfen. Um den Interessen der Anfragenden gerecht zu werden, hat sich infoSekta eingehender mit LM, ihrer Praxis und Geschichte auseinandergesetzt. Resultat dieser Auseinandersetzung ist u.a. ein längerer Aufsatz unserer Mitarbeiterin lic. phil. Susanne Schaaf [...] Die übrigen Teile der Dokumentation belegen weitere Auffassungen, enthalten Erfahrungsberichte und dokumentieren die Selbstdarstellung von LM. Mit dieser Auswahl soll der Leserin/ dem Leser die eigene Meinungsbildung erleichtert werden.

These samples represent a small fraction of the bodies of work associating Landmark education with culthood. Their nuanced views may find a place in a balanced NPOV treatment of Landmark Education and its alleged culthood. (To the best of my knowledge Landmark Education has not as yet succeeded in obliging these authors or their organizations to recant or apologize for such implications.)

-- Pedant17 04:00, 11 October 2007 (UTC)