Talk:Landmark Worldwide/Archive 5

message: I noticed that when you search on Landmark Forum you get directed to Landmark Education. Should they be two seperate articals. eg Some reports speak directly about the Landmark Forum and not Landmark Education or thier other courses; Do we know if all Landmark's courses are LGAT specific, etc. Also as the Forum appears to have changed over time it would give some room to talk about that (eg 4day to 3day)
* Opps forgot to sign yet again Mark1800 12:48, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Landmark Education vs Landmark Forum 

message: I'v noticed in my reading of the references in this document that the same reference materials are reference time and time again. I believe we could cut the reference section in half if we used the same number to reference the same artical.
* eg The est of Friends, Metroactive Features, July 15, 1998 issue of Metro, Metro Publishing Inc. is refered to 4 times.
Anyone know how to do that? Mark1800 08:07, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  How do we tidy up the reference section 

message: I think the article is a lot better than it has been.  However, I thought it still had problems, particularly in the opening paragraphs; much of it was just awkwardly constructed.  I've removed the reference to what Landmark's general consul said about the Time Magazine article for three reasons: first, it's not introductory material; second, it didn't link to the actual article; and third, it was rather dubious.  Although the Time Magazine article doesn't mention the word cult, it does quote someone who states that the Forum turned her husband into a "robot"--hardly any better.  Instead, I've included the actual reference to the Time Magazine article (was it really missing before!?).  Also, the opening implied that Landmark has won all its defamation suits, which isn't true.  I think the opening is more balanced now, and I think it actually reads like an introduction.  Recently, it has contained both pro- and anti-Landmark statements which are much too specific to be in the introduction.
I've also modified the "Religious implications" section, as it was pointed out quite some time ago that volleys of links to the Landmark website are undesirable.  I've replaced this with a link to the Landmark page on clergy's views.
Perhaps the most contentious change I made is from "many clergy" to "some clergy", and changed the wording from "have found no conflict with their faith" to "have made statements that they find no conflict".  Speculating on the mental state of clergy is, I believe, more perilous than saying something about what they have actually done; while it is probably true that "many" clergy have found no conflict, I think the term "some" better reflects the number who have made statements on the matter.
The first half of this section desparately needs references with actual links, rather than suggestions to where one might go.  As it currently stands, with the only linked references stating that it is a non-issue, it is hardly worthy of a section. Ckerr 12:35, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've reinstated the changes to the "Religious Implications" section, as User:Sm1969 seems to have reverted them without discussing this on the talk page.  The changes to the intro are fine.  But please, Sm1969, if you are going to do a simple revert, it's probably best to discuss it here before making the changes.  Also, perhaps you missed it, but this topic came up before, and the majority view was that there is no point having seven links that point straight to the Landmark website.  The link I provided contains links to five of the seven articles, and includes one other (Rev. Shearer) that is omitted in the current article.  This is sufficient. Ckerr 08:56, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, we should avoid having way too many links that forward to Landmark's corporate website, or if they do, this should be mentioned.  Yours, Smeelgova 09:04, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm not sure what the issue is with the links to LE's web site.  Can we include statements of the clergy?  Some of them hold very high positions, such as Father Banaga, President of Adamson University, with over 20,000 students in Manila?  By the way, the "religious implications" always comes up under the context of the "cult" allegation and is part of LE's refutation to the "cult allegation" (aside from the legal tests). Sm1969 03:39, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The article as it stands now is fine, I think.  There's no problem including statements by the clergy; the problem is including things directly from the Landmark website, as regardless of who they quote, it's still a single source.  If they are quoting notable people making notable statements, then these should be possible to find in other sources, as you have for Basil Pennington. Ckerr 09:31, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

text:  Regarding your edit stating that ilovepossibility.info is created by Landmark Forum graduates: this is true, but I think it's unnecessary.  The paragraph starts off by saying "Many clergy have attended the forum...", so it's implicit that they're forum graduates.  Also, the way you've stated it has the effect of reducing some of the site's credibility.  This might not unjustified, but I wouldn't be surprised if other users like Mark1800 and Sm1969 took issue with this.  Personally, I would be happy with your comment about ilovepossibility.info to either stay or go. Ckerr 14:55, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Well, you make some valid points.  Hopefully editors of opposing POV will come here first and share their reasoning with us and enlighten us, before making changes with no discussion.  Yours, Smeelgova 19:48, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Here is a statement from The Tablet, A Weekly Catholic Magazine:  which states:
 Several Catholic priests and religious sisters have endorsed Landmark. The Trappist monk Basil Pennington has praised the Forum for bringing about a "full human enlivenment" which make people "more lively" in the practice of whatever faith they have.
You can also get this at the web site of the Tablet, but it requires free registration there. Sm1969 03:44, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

text:  Reference at The Tablet (requires free registration) Sm1969 03:48, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Intro & religious implications 

message: The article as it currently stands does not explain the content of Landmark's courses.  Readers who have not actually participated in Landmark need at least a paragraph attempting to summarize what it is that they are teaching that has been so controversial.  DaveApter requested this back in August, and I'm reiterating it now because I agree and I'm archiving that comment.  The proportion of information about the company itself vs. the controversies surrounding it has gotten a bit better, but the article is still over optimal length due to excessively wordy controversy and lawsuit info, so I will see what I can do about that. -- Beland 15:00, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Here is a reference from the "Journal of Contemporary Philosophy" on Landmark Education, entitled "The Promise of Philosophy and the Landmark Forum" (authored by professors and a Landmark Forum leader) The Promise of Philosophy and The Landmark Forum:
We describe a contemporary experience of Socratic philosophy in-the-making provided by an employee-owned, private educational organization, Landmark Educational Corporation. Its introductory program, called The Landmark Forum, brings philosophy practically into a person’s life.3 It is a three and one-half day course in which trained leaders, in the Socratic tradition, challenge conventional thinking, discursively examine the nature of human nature, and facilitate participants' explorations of their lives. The method, format and style are Socratic (it is good theatre), but the discourse itself reflects a systematic and accessible integration of Eastern and Western philosophies. 
Our thesis is that the Landmark Forum constitutes a return to the original roots of philosophy, to the examined life, to philosophy in action as Socrates envisioned. Participants in this inquiry examine the human condition in a way that leads them to self- knowledge, to new levels of responsibility, and to reformed and revitalized commitments. In drawing attention to the Landmark Forum one of our purposes is to invite a discussion of its value for higher education. Would it be beneficial if college curricula included more courses like the Landmark Forum? Sm1969 05:12, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Summary of course content

message: I removed the following text:
----
According to the United States Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor's International Religious Freedom Report 2006, Sweden has labeled Landmark Education as an "active religious group".
A significant number of smaller, internationally active religious groups have also been established in the country. Such groups included the Church of Scientology (approximately 3,000 members), Landmark-Forum, Hare Krishna, Word of Faith, and the Unification Church.Sweden: International Religious Freedom Report 2006, US Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor, 2006, Section I. Religious Demography.
----
This quote is misleading and the introduction is factually incorrect, by my reading of the referenced source.  The State Department was listing active religious groups in the country, and included those in the above list along with Christians and Muslims.  The label is apparently assigned by the State Department, not the government of Sweden. -- Beland 15:40, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Status in Sweden 

message: As far as I can tell, the 2006 State Department report on religious freedom in Germany  does not substantiate any of the claims the article makes about the status there, so I am removing it as a reference and requesting a corrected citation. -- Beland 16:34, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Status in Germany 

message: I was surfing and came across this []. It's interesting. It looks like a copy from this page and yet it seems close to NPOV. Any thoughts, people? Mark1800 04:27, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: More here [] Mark1800 04:28, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: These simply appear to be copy-cat Wikipedia sites from older versions of this article.  You could do exactly the same thing by browsing the article's history on Wikipedia itself.  In fact, it is often most enlightening to do this, and go back to the "earliest" page creation, and then step forward to see how the article evolved, and if there is useful information from the past that was cut out, that could go back in at a later point.  Yours, Smeelgova 04:40, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Similar yet closer to NPOV 

message: I agree that some discussion of whther LE is a "Cult" is appropriate, given that the accusation is sometimes levelled.
Clearly it's in the realm of Opinion rather than fact.  The challenge lies in identifying who says it is (and what they mean by that), and who says it isn't (and why).  The trouble is that there seems to be almost nobody notable who has unambiguously said that it is.  I have tried to get a sensible debate going on these issues in previous archived sections of this page but without much success.
I would love to see the issue addressed sensibly within the WP:NPOV policy.
I strongly disagree with CKerr's suggestion as the previous version was strongly pushing a particular POV. DaveApter 10:31, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually I don't think you do disagree with me.  I completely agree that the previous version was strongly POV too.  That said, I think it did have some reasonable referenced sources, and if the material were presented in the manner of "X says Landmark is a cult" rather than "Landmark is a cult, as stated by X" then it would be acceptable.  The previous version of the page went too far, I thought, but at least it explained what the allegations were--here, the reader is left in the dark. Ckerr 07:57, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Problematic

message: This is poorly sourced negative material.  1) The book is long since out of print. 2) The author states that she has neither done nor observed the Landmark Forum. 3) The juxtapostion with events in Europe is a non-sequiter. 4) Placing this under the "cult" defamation tort is even more bizarre.  Let's redact this poorly sourced negative material. Sm1969 07:42, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Duly referenced source from a large publisher, Penguin Books.  Let's see what others think about this.  Smeelgova 07:50, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  It's also a self-selected quote from a book that is long since out of print, and we see what the author's actual experience is. Sm1969 08:03, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

text:  Also the statement "techniques allied to hypnosis" is probably borderline "factually false and defamatory" and should probably be redacted based on that and the statements by the head of the American Psychological Association who did directly observe the Landmark Forum. Sm1969 08:06, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  By the way, I really enjoyed parts of the French video, like Mayor Brard getting into his pyramid scheme and cleaning out the students' wallets.  It was a nice hack job. Sm1969 08:41, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't think it's the best content ever to appear on Wikipedia, but I do think it adds something to the article.  To answer your points above: 1) Yes, but this doesn't ipso facto invalidate it.   2) This fact should be duly noted in the article, and it is.  I don't think this should be the death knell for the section, since the author is only making broad claims about organizations that try to get "quick results".  3) I completely agree; the fact that Dr. Samways is Australian is completely irrelevant to the section.  4) At least in the current revision, it is not under the cult section at all, but rather under "Criticisms and controversies".  With regard to your second statement, I think it is neither untrue nor defamatory.  Some of the techniques used in my Forum ("Close your eyes...")  were quite close, in my view, to hypnosis; nor can I see how comparing something to hypnosis would be defamatory, since it is a widely studied technique with some useful clinical applications.  In summary, while I agree that this section could use copyediting, I do not think it can be classed as a "tort", nor need it be "redacted". Ckerr 11:47, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I guess proving that something is or is not "allied to hypnosis" is hard to prove one way or another and is thus merely an opinion, based on distant knowledge. The section needs improvement and balance.  Separating it to "In Australia" is downright bizarre.  Sm1969 12:12, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: In Australia

message: 1) The first report on notes LE, but refers to it as an "other group active in the country" (not in the "sect" classification.
2) The second report--hosted at the US state department--says nothing about LE.
3) LE never had operations in Austria.
This is being removed as poorly sourced negative material;  at best, it is a misinterpretation;  at worst, baseless, and the official sources indicate it is baseless. Sm1969 01:56, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, the source does indeed clearly state this, and please do not summarily remove this again without discussion on the talk page.  I have added a blockquote which further shows that this is spelled out within the cited source.  Smeelgova 13:04, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  It is spelled out in the cited source;  however, the source notes LE as an "other group" in the country.  Furthermore the page at the US State department itself says nothing about LE.  Admnistrator Beland removed your quote as a mis-interpretation previously.  Finally, there is zero evidence LE ever had operations in Austria.  Sm1969 03:23, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I request that you remove Austria.  Again, the copy of the same report at the OFFICIAL web site does not even list Landmark Education as being active in the country.  Furthermore, the allegation of LE being a cult is factually false and defamatory;  however, the first argument is decisive. Sm1969 03:25, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

text:  It is also possible that the US State Department's web site does *NOT* list Landmark Education because Landmark Education wrote to them to correct the factual error.  Again, I repeat the request that you either A) substantiate this statement or B) redact it.
===Invalid citation===
The quotation from the http://www.allamericanpatriots.com/m-news+article+storyid-16247.html site on the page has clearly been doctored to have a reference to Landmark inserted, as there is no mention of LE in the otherwise identical citation on  http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/irf/2006/71367.htm.
I have therefore removed it. DaveApter 09:37, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Austria 

message: The quotation from the http://www.allamericanpatriots.com/m-news+article+storyid-16247.html site on the page has clearly been doctored to have a reference to Landmark inserted, as there is no mention of LE in the otherwise identical citation on  http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/irf/2006/71367.htm.
I have therefore removed it. DaveApter 09:37, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Invalid citation

message: Neither of the two references on Sweden's Government say *ANYTHING* about Landmark Education.  I will redact this unless you substantiate it. Sm1969 03:28, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Alright, allow me time to find another source, I believe that another one exists.  Smeelgova 03:29, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sweden 

message: I've reverted several changes to the "Criticisms and controversies section".  The two most significant ones are:
* I removed the "In Australia" heading, since it didn't describe the section it purported to.  This was the way the article was before (a well-meaning but misguided editor changed it).
* I reverted the text of the first paragraph of this section to my version of several weeks ago, since the modifications since then were POV in favour of Landmark.  (I could easily "explain away" the three court cases which Landmark won, as this editor did to the two they lost.)  
There seems to be a perception that making strongly POV edits in some parts of this article balance out the other parts that are strongly POV the other way.  No, they don't, they just make it a weak article.  I plead with all editors to make each sentence they write as NPOV as they possibly can, regardless of the article's past history and the content of other sections.  And for the pro-Landmark editors, please consider: are you sometimes making people wrong with your edits and comments? Ckerr 09:23, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm trying to remember what you reverted.  I believe there were several inaccuracies in the statements and was trying to get it accurate.  Again, you would have to read the court cases.  1) In the "Elle Magazine" case, the judge ruled that the article was a matter of opinion (not assertions of fact), and dismissed the libel case.  In the Rick Ross case, there was a change in case law after the case was started.  Landmark Education has never "lost" a case per se.  These are more like a "draw" than winning or losing.  Where the issue of "cult" (that particular word) was taken on, Landmark Education has always obtained retractions:  Self Magazine, Margaret Singer, Cynthia Kisser/Cult Awareness Network, the case in the Netherlands (Panorama).  I don't know of any case where that particular word ("cult") has been allowed to stand.  In other words, Landmark Education's record in legal cases is rather good.   Sm1969 11:41, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I never said "lost" in the article; I said "dismissed".  The reason for dismissal is irrelevant in this context. Ckerr 13:00, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

text: This was certainly a legal loss, and this part of the article is discussing legal cases.  Hence I don't think it would be misleading to call it a loss, although the article currently does not, nor do I think it should. Ckerr 13:00, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Either way, the case was dismissed; the article didn't call it a "loss" and didn't give a reason.  This was fair.  What was not fair, in my opinion, was quoting only Landmark's version of events.  Ckerr 13:00, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I think here you're conflating the issues of a legal loss with a conceptual loss.  In my view, only if you come from the space of "This article is anti-Landmark" will you read "The case was dismissed" as "Landmark is a cult".  That their case was dismissed is a verifiable fact.  Everything else is a story!  Ckerr 13:00, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I know you are trying your best to be accurate, as is everyone else here.  I agree with you that it's inaccurate to classify them as win/lose, which is why I instead classified them into the categories I did.  Anyway, I appreciate the civility you are showing towards me, and I hope you can show it to Smeelgova too.  Ckerr 13:00, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reverts & civility 

message: The Austria quotes have two conflicting statements regarding Landmark Education.
1. The American Patriots web site giving the "Austria 2006 Religous Freedom Report" has "Landmark Education" listed among the other groups.
http://www.allamericanpatriots.com/m-news+article+storyid-16247.html
2. The US State Department gives the exact same report without Landmark Education:
http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/irf/2006/71367.htm
3. Zero persons have asserted that Landmark Educaiton ever had operations in Austria.
4. I will redact this content because it is the same source, and the US State Department web site is the authoritative one.
Sm1969 11:55, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you look more closely, the only reason here is because the US gov't site does not include the full report.  The other citation does.  Smeelgova 20:04, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I did look more closely.  Not only is your source unofficial, it even has advertising on it.  Would you like to A) redact this or B) get the administrators involved again?
Sm1969 01:32, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The fact that it has advertising is irrelevant.  It is the quoted report as Released by the US Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor.  Smeelgova 04:57, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The fact that it has advertising indicates that it is NOT from a US Government web site. It is NOT from the US Department of State.  The other URL, the official one from the US Department of State does *NOT* have anything about Landmark Education in it. Sm1969 06:04, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Passed 6 to 0 at 14:24, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As User:Jossi stated on User:Sm1969's talk page, this is a separate ruling and does not pertain to this particular article.  Smeelgova 04:56, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think, then, that this is poorly sourced information and can not be used for such an allegation for an ongoing enterprise per the page at the top. The US State Department's English language version should be decisive.  Also note, that this is a report of the US State Department--we have not seen the original German language report.    This edit should remain redacted until decisive evidence is produced that it can be introduced.  Sm1969 13:03, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Here is the State Dept. report which mentions Landmark Education: http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/irf/2005/51539.htm. The confusion may come from how the annual reports are labelled. -Will Beback · † · 20:05, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The 2005 report does have it.  The 2006 report does not have it.  Between 2005 and 2006, the US State Department removed it from their official web site.  Sm1969 21:28, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: They did not remove it. The link I posted is on the State Dept. website. By law, the department is required to prepare an annual report. The contents of the report change every year, but an omission from one year to another does not mean that the actual facts have changed. It is verifiably true that the 2005 report says that Austria lists LE among the "sects" in the country. -Will Beback · † · 22:46, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  No, I am saying that they removed it from the 2006 report.  It is in the 2005 report.  I think the 2006 report has to be taken as decisive, until better information comes along.  The 2006 report does not have it.  Both reports are posted at the State Department web site.   Landmark Education has never had operations in Austria.    How do you know that an "omission from year to year does not mean the facts have changed."  Where are you getting that information?  Sm1969 22:51, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So long as we clearly indicate that the source is a 2005 report then it is verifiable. If you like we can also say that the informaiton was omitted in the 2006 report. -Will Beback · † · 22:59, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

text: And I have done exactly what User:Will Beback just suggested.  Smeelgova 23:03, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's right, but unless we want to erase history it is still true that the report was made 2005. Without some source for it, we can only speculate as to why that aspect of the report changed in 2006. -Will Beback · † · 23:14, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  We are going to need to find the original Austrian report which is second-sourced by the US State Department. Sm1969 23:16, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds like a good idea.  Smeelgova 23:44, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Please stop removing this information, it is historically accurate and factually cited.  Thanks.  Smeelgova 21:14, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What is factual? The only fact is that it is an opinion of some anonymous Austrian bureaucrat that Landmark Education was an appropriate oganisation to be included in some miscellaneous list, of which we don't even have any idea of the selection criteria. This adds no useful information whatsoever to the article. I will continue to remove it. DaveApter 11:19, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes, it seems that way, I am afraid. The pinning of the "cult" label is so misused and misapplied by detractors in many a article, only because of the negative connotations of the term. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 17:14, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunately, the item is factual, and a fact that the reader will most certainly be interested in.  We have been through this and the information is accurately cited from a referenced source.  Smeelgova 00:45, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What is factual? The only fact is that it is an opinion of some anonymous Austrian bureaucrat that Landmark Education was an appropriate oganisation to be included in some miscellaneous list, of which we don't even have any idea of the selection criteria. This adds no useful information whatsoever to the article. DaveApter 12:02, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

text:  We must be careful, though, to portray that in its correct context, lest the English language reader come to believe that Landmark Education is a "cult" which has been ruled a "triable question of fact, capable of being proven true or false," and we have the retractions of Margeret Singer, et al, and the Wikipedia content policy of libel, and the fact that LE sued for correction in Germany, and obtained that correction.  This alone merits our putting in some contextual information around it, lest the English-language reader take away that factually false and defamatory impression.  Alas, LE (and this is original research) never had operations in Austria.  Sm1969 00:51, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: All of the contextual information that you have cited is presented in detail in the legal actions page, Landmark Education litigation, and the reader is referred from this article to there.  Thanks.  Smeelgova 00:53, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The reader should be clued in right here about the retractions/refutations and libel policy, not have it deferred under the theory the reader might pursue it to another article section.  Sm1969 01:02, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is not "deferred", it is in the proper location.  The proper location to mention Landmark Education's extremely litigious history would be the page about Landmark Education litigation.  As stated above, the information in question is properly sourced, and the article mentions the absence of the info in the 2006 State Dept. report.  Thanks.  Smeelgova 04:09, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't think LE's history is that litigious at all.  Litigation against LE consists I think of 4 cases in 15 years.  Outbound litigation in the US consists of 5 cases in 15 years.  Outside the US, I can think of another 4 cases.  This is for a company that will soon have had 1,000,000 customers and 16 years in business.  The inbound litigation surely is small.  The outbound is notable for it being mainly on one topic:  defamation.   In the litigation, there is always a consistent pattern--people needing to take extreme positions to sell books, get high ratings on TV shows, get customers to deprogram.  Then, we have the recent subpoenas that you seem to be obsessed with, but copyright infringement really is a pretty new one for LE.  Sm1969 06:51, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Then, we have the recent subpoenas that you seem to be obsessed with - I have said this many times before and I will say it again:  If you wish to attempt to have a cordial relationship on the talk pages, please do not make these generalizations and assumptions into what you perceive to be my POV or motivations.  Thanks.  Smeelgova 10:04, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Austria:  Conflicting Evidence from US State Department

message: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Hunger
The principles of editing articles about ongoing enterprises are analogous to those which govern Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. As applied to this matter, unsourced or poorly sourced negative material may be removed without discussion, such removal being an exception to the 3 revert rule Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Remove_unsourced_criticism. This extension of policy is based on the proposition that any unsourced or poorly sourced negative material is potentially harmful.
:Passed 6 to 0 at 14:24, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As User:Jossi stated on User:Sm1969's talk page, this is a separate ruling and does not pertain to this particular article.  Smeelgova 04:56, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think, then, that this is poorly sourced information and can not be used for such an allegation for an ongoing enterprise per the page at the top. The US State Department's English language version should be decisive.  Also note, that this is a report of the US State Department--we have not seen the original German language report.    This edit should remain redacted until decisive evidence is produced that it can be introduced.  Sm1969 13:03, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Here is the State Dept. report which mentions Landmark Education: http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/irf/2005/51539.htm. The confusion may come from how the annual reports are labelled. -Will Beback · † · 20:05, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The 2005 report does have it.  The 2006 report does not have it.  Between 2005 and 2006, the US State Department removed it from their official web site.  Sm1969 21:28, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: They did not remove it. The link I posted is on the State Dept. website. By law, the department is required to prepare an annual report. The contents of the report change every year, but an omission from one year to another does not mean that the actual facts have changed. It is verifiably true that the 2005 report says that Austria lists LE among the "sects" in the country. -Will Beback · † · 22:46, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  No, I am saying that they removed it from the 2006 report.  It is in the 2005 report.  I think the 2006 report has to be taken as decisive, until better information comes along.  The 2006 report does not have it.  Both reports are posted at the State Department web site.   Landmark Education has never had operations in Austria.    How do you know that an "omission from year to year does not mean the facts have changed."  Where are you getting that information?  Sm1969 22:51, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So long as we clearly indicate that the source is a 2005 report then it is verifiable. If you like we can also say that the informaiton was omitted in the 2006 report. -Will Beback · † · 22:59, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

text: And I have done exactly what User:Will Beback just suggested.  Smeelgova 23:03, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's right, but unless we want to erase history it is still true that the report was made 2005. Without some source for it, we can only speculate as to why that aspect of the report changed in 2006. -Will Beback · † · 23:14, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  We are going to need to find the original Austrian report which is second-sourced by the US State Department. Sm1969 23:16, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds like a good idea.  Smeelgova 23:44, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Please stop removing this information, it is historically accurate and factually cited.  Thanks.  Smeelgova 21:14, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What is factual? The only fact is that it is an opinion of some anonymous Austrian bureaucrat that Landmark Education was an appropriate oganisation to be included in some miscellaneous list, of which we don't even have any idea of the selection criteria. This adds no useful information whatsoever to the article. I will continue to remove it. DaveApter 11:19, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Take Notice:  Articles regarding ongoing enterprises, ArbCom ruling

message: A selective extract from a bureaucratic document is being used here, out of context, to cast aspersions on Landmark Education.  The whole thrust of the original paper was to demonstrate that the Austrian state is not opressive to minority religious movements.  To illustrate the point, the official who compiled it grabbed a random list of minority groups and pointed out that the Austrian state does not persecute or opress them.  The fact that LE is included in the list does not in any way imply that there was any official evaluation of the merits or characteristics of the organisation, or that it has anything in common with any of the other groups mentioned.  Landmark does not even have an office in that country or hold any courses there.  This is another example of detractors grabbing any rag-bag items they can dredge up to pin the "cult" label on Landmark.  This item is completely irrelevant and I am removing it. DaveApter 17:06, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it seems that way, I am afraid. The pinning of the "cult" label is so misused and misapplied by detractors in many a article, only because of the negative connotations of the term. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 17:14, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunately, the item is factual, and a fact that the reader will most certainly be interested in.  We have been through this and the information is accurately cited from a referenced source.  Smeelgova 00:45, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What is factual? The only fact is that it is an opinion of some anonymous Austrian bureaucrat that Landmark Education was an appropriate oganisation to be included in some miscellaneous list, of which we don't even have any idea of the selection criteria. This adds no useful information whatsoever to the article. DaveApter 12:02, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  We must be careful, though, to portray that in its correct context, lest the English language reader come to believe that Landmark Education is a "cult" which has been ruled a "triable question of fact, capable of being proven true or false," and we have the retractions of Margeret Singer, et al, and the Wikipedia content policy of libel, and the fact that LE sued for correction in Germany, and obtained that correction.  This alone merits our putting in some contextual information around it, lest the English-language reader take away that factually false and defamatory impression.  Alas, LE (and this is original research) never had operations in Austria.  Sm1969 00:51, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: All of the contextual information that you have cited is presented in detail in the legal actions page, Landmark Education litigation, and the reader is referred from this article to there.  Thanks.  Smeelgova 00:53, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The reader should be clued in right here about the retractions/refutations and libel policy, not have it deferred under the theory the reader might pursue it to another article section.  Sm1969 01:02, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is not "deferred", it is in the proper location.  The proper location to mention Landmark Education's extremely litigious history would be the page about Landmark Education litigation.  As stated above, the information in question is properly sourced, and the article mentions the absence of the info in the 2006 State Dept. report.  Thanks.  Smeelgova 04:09, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't think LE's history is that litigious at all.  Litigation against LE consists I think of 4 cases in 15 years.  Outbound litigation in the US consists of 5 cases in 15 years.  Outside the US, I can think of another 4 cases.  This is for a company that will soon have had 1,000,000 customers and 16 years in business.  The inbound litigation surely is small.  The outbound is notable for it being mainly on one topic:  defamation.   In the litigation, there is always a consistent pattern--people needing to take extreme positions to sell books, get high ratings on TV shows, get customers to deprogram.  Then, we have the recent subpoenas that you seem to be obsessed with, but copyright infringement really is a pretty new one for LE.  Sm1969 06:51, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Then, we have the recent subpoenas that you seem to be obsessed with - I have said this many times before and I will say it again:  If you wish to attempt to have a cordial relationship on the talk pages, please do not make these generalizations and assumptions into what you perceive to be my POV or motivations.  Thanks.  Smeelgova 10:04, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The key issue here

message: === Landmark Education ===
*I am filling a WP:AN/3RR about this page Landmark Education.  If you have any further questions or statements please DO NOT leave them on my talk page. Please place them here on the Talk:Landmark Education page.  This is only because you evidently cannot be civil and comport yourself in dealings with me, so it is best we keep communications to article talk pages.  Thanks.  Smeelgova 04:47, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I would really appreciate it if neither of you used bold or caps.  It's hideous and contributes nothing.  If you want people to listen, then whisper. Ckerr 13:04, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The 3RR was dismissed. Sm1969 12:59, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would really appreciate it if neither of you used bold or caps.  It's hideous and contributes to nothing.  If you want people to listen, then whisper.  - I agree with User:Ckerr, the USE OF CAPS in this manner is inappropriate and not constructive in any fashion.  Please stop.  Thanks.  Smeelgova 01:00, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notices of [[WP:AN/3RR]] 

message: *I am filling a WP:AN/3RR about this page Landmark Education.  If you have any further questions or statements please DO NOT leave them on my talk page. Please place them here on the Talk:Landmark Education page.  This is only because you evidently cannot be civil and comport yourself in dealings with me, so it is best we keep communications to article talk pages.  Thanks.  Smeelgova 04:47, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I would really appreciate it if neither of you used bold or caps.  It's hideous and contributes nothing.  If you want people to listen, then whisper. Ckerr 13:04, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The 3RR was dismissed. Sm1969 12:59, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would really appreciate it if neither of you used bold or caps.  It's hideous and contributes to nothing.  If you want people to listen, then whisper.  - I agree with User:Ckerr, the USE OF CAPS in this manner is inappropriate and not constructive in any fashion.  Please stop.  Thanks.  Smeelgova 01:00, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Landmark Education]] 

message: YES  Landmark Education: 2005: http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/irf/2005/51539.htm
NO  Landmark Education : 2006: http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/irf/2006/71367.htm
They removed it from one year to the next.  The US State Department is doing the classification, not the Austrian government.  At least no one has produced a report from the Austrian government of what their actual language is.  It may be too much bureaucratic work for the State Department to remove 2005, 2004, etc., and prior versions, so they took it out of only the current year.  The US State Department's official web site has to be taken as decisive, and the copies that Smeelgova is asserting are trumped by the official one.
Sm1969 22:56, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please see User:Will Beback's comment above.  Thanks.  Smeelgova 23:16, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Religious Freedom Report, Austria 2005 / 2006

message: Please see Talk:Landmark Education jargon.  Thanks.  Smeelgova 23:19, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Do not merge section

message: Where is the quote from Dan Gayman regarding the statement allegedly made in March 2006?
I will redact this negative, poorly sourced material in 24 hours unless substantiated;  further, when substantiated, it must be notable.
Sm1969 00:36, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just what about the referenced citation do you consider to by poorly sourced?  Smeelgova 00:59, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  What page?  Their magazine is on-line.  Put in the URL, give the page, and then we can discuss notability. Sm1969 01:53, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sigh, I will re-add  after the citation.  Please be patient and give time for people to research this.  Thanks.  Smeelgova 08:39, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Where in Fast Company Magazine from March 2006?

message: This section was extremely weighted and didn't follow Wikipedia Standards for being NPOV.  In an attempt to reduce this section and represent a more balanced view, I have begun to make the changes listed.Nsamuel 01:49, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, we agree that Wikipedia is controversial, but it just means that we need to be careful.  Is there something specific on the web pages that you don't think the people actually said?  Furthermore, some of the sources are only available from Landmark Education, like the customer participation statistics, which "Time Magazine" also accepted.  If there were something directly conflicting, I think people would have bring it out.  Let's look at the stuff on a case-by-case basis--that shall be our particular care.
I have reduced the article to 2 sizeable criticisms and 2 brief accolades.  This should absolutely allow for both views to be heard as well as reduce the size of the article.  While this could be a section that contained an exhaustive list of both the controversies as well as praises, it would seem that representing both viewpoints with two issues accomplishes what this section set out to do.  Any more on either end seems to be overkill. Nsamuel 22:42, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

text: This is not acceptable.  The prior version was heavily sourced with relevant information.  I have restored it and will continue to work on getting more citations, especially as new information on these developing topics comes to the fore.  Smeelgova 08:19, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Critiscm and controversies

message: There are currently at least twenty-three citations which lead to the Landmark Education Corporate Website at this point.  This is way too many citations for an article that claims to be neutral and encyclopedic.  Not only are there too many, most of them are messy and not cited properly.  This all needs to be cleaned up and/or removed.  Yours, Smeelgova 03:54, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We will work on them over time.  I don't think you dispute that the people said what they said on the Landmark Education web site, do you? Sm1969 04:17, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I think it is a little odd that in an article about the company itself, the company's website is used as a source reference this many times.  Smeelgova 04:08, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

text: From Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Company_and_organization_websites:
Company and organization websites
Caution should be used when using company or organization websites as sources. Although the company or organization is a good source of information on itself, it has an obvious bias. The American Association of Widget Manufacturers is interested in promoting widgets, so be careful not to rely on it exclusively if other reliable sources are available, in order to maintain a neutral point of view. Exercise particular care when using such a website as a source if the company or organization is a controversial one.
Wikipedia seems pretty clear on this.  Especially the part about:  Exercise particular care when using such a website as a source if the company or organization is a controversial one.  Smeelgova 04:10, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

text: We just need to be careful and look at things on a case-by-case basis.  Many of the citations are also found elsewhere in court documents.  Sm1969 04:18, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, we should be careful not to use a Corporate Website as a source, particularly with regard to a controversial company, on that company's article page.  If other sources can be found as you say, they should be used instead.  If not, these references are inappropriate, certainly inappropriate to be used so many times.  Smeelgova 04:20, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Are you honestly disputing that people said what they said?  Also, where Landmark Education is the only possible source of the information, they should be cited and that should *not* count towards a "magic number of links."  Can we agree on that?  Sm1969 04:23, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  It just comes down to whether or not Landmark is a reliable source on itself; Wikipedia rules would tend to indicate it isn't.  If the "only possible source of information" for some topic is a twelve year old's blog, then this means that we should not include this information on Wikipedia, not that we should cite the blog!  Likewise, no matter how beneficial it would be to the article to have a neutral estimate of customer satisfaction (say), the fact of the matter is that we don't.  In theory, something that's important enough to include on Wikipedia will be mentioned by an independent source; else it doesn't belong.  I agree that there can and should be exceptions to this rule, but I think the rule itself is a good one. Ckerr 19:19, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You may be mistaken. Landmark can be a reliable source on itself, providing that the material it is properly attributed to them and not stated as a fact, is not unduly self-serving, is not used as a source for defaming third-parties, and it is pertinent to their notability. Also note that we do not have "rules" in Wikipedia.  We have content policies (WP:NPOV, WP:V, WP:NOR, and guidelines. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 19:31, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

text: See WP:V#Self-published_and_dubious_sources_in_articles_about_the_author.28s.29 ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 19:32, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  One of the criteria on the page you cited is that the material not be contentious, and there is plenty of non-contentious material sourced to Landmark which no one complains about (for example, who the vice president is); no one is suggesting the removal of that sort of information.  Instead, I'm talking about material which is contentious, such as the customer satisfaction rate or the fraction of clergy who are favorable to Landmark.  According to the policy you cited, we should not use Landmark itself as a source on that. Ckerr 00:49, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The customer satisfaction rate may be contentious, but it is published by Harris.  You can also cite the clergy testimonials, but not make quantitative assessments about percentages.  All of the clery testimonials, by the way, are in the court documents.  Sm1969 02:06, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

text:  The other thing--even some of the stuff you are construing negatively is provided by Landmark Education, e.g., the 7500 volnteers.  The only way that could be known quantitatively is through Landmark Education.  In other words, you are welcome to challenge any specific link, but not just the number of links.  Sm1969 04:27, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am disputing that a Corporate Website should be used to reference that they "said what they said", yes.  Smeelgova 04:34, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I am not construing anything positively or negatively.  But it is not appropriate to reference a Corporate Website this many times in an article.  There are often other places to find information.  I am welcome to do whatever I see fit, especially in light of the Wikipedia Policy quoted above, which gives special warning about "controversial" companies.  Thanks.  Smeelgova 04:34, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't believe it is the number of references that is the issue.  The policy does not say anything about the quantitative references, but rather to use particular care.  (It's not going to make a difference to the Google ranking of "Landmark Education" as #1 on a search for "Landmark Education.")  Likewise, at this point, I'm not going to challenge the RickRoss web site for using articles in violation of copyright infringement in many cases as link targets.  I believe the documents there are accurate thefts of intellectual property. Sm1969 04:38, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sorry, I have no idea to what specifically you are referring in this case.  Smeelgova 05:04, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As noted in the Judge Fadeley opinion, Rick Ross makes a living off of quoting other people's opinions.  In the case of Rick Ross, he copies whole articles outright from magazine web sites onto his web site.  That is copyright infringement, and it is against Wikipedia policy for us to be linking to them.  However, since I believe the copies to be accurate, I am not going to challenge them at this point.  Similarly, I request that you not challenge a link to Landmark Education solely because it is a link to Landmark Education.  Sm1969 05:38, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please give me a specific example as to what you are referring.  Thanks.  Smeelgova 07:07, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Um, literally thousands of websites do this.  It's called properly attributing the article to the author and magazine with the proper date.  Thanks.  Smeelgova 07:13, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, not if the copyright is owned by someone else.  Rick Ross does not own the link target.  That URL should point to the link at Elle Magazine, if it exists there.  If not, it is contributory copyright infringement.    It does not matter how many do it.  It's like the analogy with speeding that I gave you--the rules (law) is enforced against only a small percentage, but that does not change the law.   Sm1969 07:48, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Printed media is a different matter entirely than your video argument (which was also bogus, but that is another matter).  Proper attribution is given to a previously published article.  In the case of referring to the Landmark Education Corporate Company's Website, these are only personal statements from individuals, not previously published in any source.  And, they are not reproduced in full, so we can only assume that the company is doing its own form of "original research" and excerpting certain parts.  If the links in question went to other publications/journals in which those attestations appeared, that would be another matter.  Smeelgova 08:23, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  No one disputes that "France 3" owns the video copyright;  that argument is on point;  I'm sorry if you don't understand copyright law.  The statements from individuals are published in full, and it would not be too hard to contact the respective individuals, e.g., heads of universities.  Where they are excerpts, the original is almost always on-line.  Sm1969 15:31, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Using a Corporate Website as "Source"

message: An editor asked my opinion about the "Successive organizational names and Customer Registrations" table in this diff: . Compared to the table in an alternate form, , the proposed version appears to take far more room and to use bold formatting to convey a small amount of data. The data on registrations could probably be handled in a more compact fashion, such as a line or two of text. Bold formatting is strongly discouraged by the WP:MOS beyond a few special uses.  -Will Beback · † · 08:40, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The data on registrations is already mentioned in a few other locations in the article.  This change to the table is inappropriate to say the least, and it makes the table look like a form of advertising, rather than a simple historical chronology.  Smeelgova 09:10, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Table 

message: Here is what the "Ongoing Enterprises" article says.   Adding  is not the right thing to do.  Removal is correct, until it can be sourced. Sm1969 06:39, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: While that may be what he said, the fact is there is currently a citation there.  The  was only added because you were not satisfied with it.  In the meantime, I will search for a second suitable citation.  Thanks ahead of time for your patience in this manner.  Smeelgova 06:49, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  You do a Google search on "Roger Gayman" and you will see that there is such a guy working for the Department of Labor in San Francisco;  however, nothing comes up in conjunction with Landmark Educaiton;  furthermore, you go to the web site of "Fast Company" and do a search there and you also get nothing.   Sm1969 06:57, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Very industrious.  However, simply because a quoted statement is not yet available on the internet, does not mean that it is not citable or available by other means.  I will keep you posted when I have more information on this.  Thanks.  Smeelgova 07:11, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The standard, per Jimmy Wales, is that removal is "particularly true of negative information about living persons." [Here the "living person" is the "ongoing enterprise" where the quote is lifted from the "articles about ongoing enterprises."  This should be removed until you can substantiate it.  If you saw it in "Fast Company" you should know the page number, and then we can decide whether it is notable.  Sm1969 07:34, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The facts remain, that the quote has a citation already, and will soon have a second one.  The fact that you could within seconds easily verify that "Roger Gayman" works at the Department of Labor in San Francisco, lends credence and verifiability to the notion that this investigation is actually taking place into Landmark Education's controversial labor practices.  And an investigation by the United States Department of Labor is most certainly a notable event, especially when coupled with a prior 1998 investigation, and a very similar labor investigation in France that drove the company out of the country.  Smeelgova 07:47, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Without knowing anything about the terms of reference of the "inquiry" it is not possible to know whether this is notable or not. Possibly it's not really notable until we know the outcome. The unusual fact that people volunteer their time to a for-profit corpoaration is prima facie debate-worthy (one of the few aspects of the so-called Controversies that is).  This citation does nothing to cast any light on the issue.  When the Department of Labor looked into it before, they concluded that there was no cause for concern.  I don't know what it was that caused the French government to declare the practice illegal, but I wouldn't want to live anywhere the government took it upon itself to lay down what I can and can't choose to do in such matters. DaveApter 09:45, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

text: By the way, thank you in this particular instance for sticking to a content debate, and holding yourself back from personally attacking editors or making assumptions as to their POV.  It is most appreciated.  Thanks.  Smeelgova 07:47, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't think I have been "personally attacking editors" as noted by Will Pittenger.  You are predisposed to that interpretation.  An investigation by the Department of Labor may or may not be notable.  If "Fast Company" included it, I'm sure they had a reason.  The fact that I can verify Roger Gayman says little, given that the official US State Department link you had up for 2006 did not have LE in it.   Sm1969 07:52, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That is a separate matter, and was a good faith edit on my part.  And as we saw, the 2005 report does mention LE, we have been over this.  It was quite interesting to note how quickly certain editors falsely assumed that the information was "forged", as opposed to assuming good faith and that there must have been some sort of reason as to why the two reports had differed.  Perhaps acting under a certain "already always listening" in that instance...  Smeelgova 08:00, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The first one to use the "forged" terminology was William Connelley.  Sm1969 08:22, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Interesting, thanks for pointing that out.  In any event, "forged" was an erroneous classification, and a conclusion that was reached in extreme haste, as pointed out by the 2005 report which indeed does mention Landmark Education as a "sect".  Smeelgova 09:04, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: For reasons I stated above in the paragraph discussing this item, it is not a notable fact and I am removing it again.  Please  address the points I made and secures some agreement before re-inserting it. DaveApter 09:45, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

text: One investigation may not be noteworthy, but multiple investigations most certainly are.  Thanks.  Smeelgova 12:51, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please see my comments above at [The key issue here], which user:Jossi seemed to endorse and no-one has refuted. Please do not put this item back until you have addressed this point and gained a consensus of agreement here. DaveApter 13:25, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Substantiation of Labor Department Investigatation 

message: A huge amount of time and energy is being expended on the question of whether or not Landmark is called a "Cult".  This is completely futile for several reasons:
#There are several different definitions and usages of the term.
#It is generally perceived has having pejorative overtones, which may or may not have been intended by the original commentator.
#It is listed amongst the Wikipedia 'words to avoid'
#The problem is compounded where translation from another language is involved - for instance I have no idea how the Austrian 'Sekt' maps onto the complex of meanings and implications of the English word 'cult'.  Does anyone else who edits this article?
More constructive and informative would be to describe specific (observable and measurable) characterisitics of LE which might be described as 'cult-like'.  It is clear that it does not exhibit the most common and serious of them:
#It does not prescribe any specific lifstyle, clothing or diet
#It does not require on-going membership of any organisation
#It does not request the donation of money or other assets
#It does not isolate its customers from friends or family (in most cases the reverse is reported)
#It does not require the performance of duties (although in any given year about 1% of customers do choose to volunteer to assist the operations, most of them for a modest amount of time; perhaps 30 - 60 hours over the year).
#It does not restrict their options in life (generally it is reported that these are expanded).
#It does not conflict with any religious belief that may be held by customers.
About the only "cult-like" characteristic I can see is that some customers become extremely enthusiastic.  Opinion divides as to the extent to which this is an understandable reaction to the benefits they got from the courses or something inisidious. DaveApter 12:37, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The "Cult" issue

message: Smeelgova - I don't really follow your justifications for removing the citations I just put in. I was trying to address the  flags which I think had mostly been inserted by yourself.  All of the pages I referenced were places where the assertion in the article could be verified.  Where else other than from Landmark Education are you going to get information on matters susch as how many people take their courses each year or whether the Introduction Leaders' Program is a pre-requisite for other Program Leader roles?
And how is it 'Original Research' to give USC's phone number where copies of the cited research document can be obtained? This was in response to a (legitimate) complaint on this page that there was no way of verifying the information quoted. DaveApter 13:56, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Smeelgova, your edits have little justification at this point.  This was all sourced information, and Admin Jossi had stated that LE was an acceptable source on itself, as long as we made the attribution.  Sm1969 17:31, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My name is "Jossi" and not "Admin Jossi". My intervention here has nothing to do with my status as an administrator. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:53, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My apologies for titling you "Admin Jossi."  I've gotten the impression over time that Smeelgova rarely takes me seriously, but if Jossi reverts an edit, Smeelgova takes it seriously.  Sm1969 20:23, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We must strive to find other sources for this information other than a Corporate Website, on an article about a for-profit, privately held company.  This really looks like advertising for the company when there are this many citations directly from the company's website.  Some minor statistical information is alright, but we should really find other reputable sources.  And yes, posting a phone number in an encyclopedia article is highly inappropriate.  Smeelgova 00:41, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Who says? You appear to be making up policies to suit yourself. You sprinkle the article with  flags to make it appear that statements which do not suit your POV are questionable, then - when the article is edited to indicate how the point can be verified, you remove the information according to some criteria of your own. DaveApter 08:41, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citations 

message: Whoever is adding these silly and not relevant Wikilinks: please stop. Also note that linking from within quoted text should be avoided, unless absolutely necessary. See WP:MOS#Wikilinking, and Wikipedia:Only_make_links_that_are_relevant_to_the_context ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:47, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: These appear to be contributions from User:Smeelgova who used to Wikilink addition tool, as noted in a user comment from Smeelgova;  see this diff from User:Smeelgova http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Landmark_Education&diff=prev&oldid=90088362
Sm1969 03:13, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Jeez, guys, don't come down so hard on me!  It was a simple experiment with a new Wikilink tool, and had nothing to do with POV or anything like that.  Thanks for not assuming good faith.  Yeesh.  Smeelgova 07:49, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The lack of assumption of good faith is an interpretation on your behalf.  Jossi found them silly, and I merely identified the source.  Sm1969 09:13, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Smeelgova, you have the tendency to go a bit overboard with links, so please if you want to try new tools, please use the sandbox. Thanks. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:00, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Silly wikilinks? 

message: No, we don't have a consensus (you and I) on the "succession of organizational names" for the following reasons:
A) Courts have upheld no successor liabilty, and several prongs of that test failed.
B) Rick Ross even acknowledged in his response to LE that he would keep Est, LE and the Forum separate, and there is some intent to keep them separate there
C) Many of the names are not notable (e.g., Breakthrough and Transnational having been in existence for a week and a few months)
D) The courses are not the same, and even "Time Magazine" has stated that.
E) Very large corportions, such as IBM, had previous names which are not mentioned at all.
This should be redacted from all sections, and in a few cases, the transitory names used only in footnotes.  This manner of portraying things appears in no major journal and scarcely even in blogs.  Sm1969 06:45, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This was stable in the article for a while.  It is all sourced information, does not take up much space, and is highly relevant.  The previous names are an important part of the article, not to mention they help serve as an important navigational box.  Thanks.  Smeelgova 06:47, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Stability is irrelevant.  You have put in 2000+ edits on LE and others don't have all day to spend editing Wikipedia.  It is sourced, but does take up too much space, and gives undue weight to things that are factually in error, i.e., it is not the same corporation.  Go look at other corporations that have similar facets and you will not see this at the beginning, e.g., the renaming of IBM.  Sm1969 06:50, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The amount of edits I put it are irrelevant.  Please try to keep the discussion to the content at hand.  Thanks.  Smeelgova 07:25, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

text: It may not be the same corporation, but the organizations are very very highly linked.  Virtually all of the entire executive staff are the same, and most who make high level decisions have been involved with the company since before there was a company.  And IBM is not a good example.  IBM is not a controversial company like Landmark Education, and has not been labeled as a "cult" or "cult-like" by members of the press and foreign governments.  This is not a good comparison.  Thanks.  Smeelgova 07:25, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  These are separate issues.  The amount of edits you put in is relevant regarding stability.  You put in so many edits that it would take an army to refute them, which is why certain items remain "stable" but highly non-compliant with Wikipedia content policies, such as notability, undue weight, verifiability.  This is a refutation to your stability argument.  Thank you for acknowledging that it is not the same organization.  Further, in a direct rename (as in "Borland" to "Inprise" then back to "Borland" all of the corporation is the same, including the assumption of assets and liabilities.  IBM at one time was a very controversial company, from say 1960 to 1985, where it was considered a monopoly, and that has nothing to do with your argument for the succession of organizational names.  Members of the press--where there is accountability--have been held to account in Canada, the Netherlands and the United States for their tortious acts of calling a "cult" when that was subject to concrete meaning, capable of being proven true or false.   France is the only place that has retained that characterization, from a now defunct parliamentary committee.
IBM is a relevant comparison for corporate renames.  This successioon of organizational names is both factually in error as they are not the same corporation and undue weight.  Sm1969 08:47, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  No consensus on succession of organizational names 

message: "Landmark Dating" is not a subsidiary, but a service they offer.
What evidence do you have for "Techniko"?
Sm1969 06:48, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The information is already sourced.  Thanks.  Smeelgova 06:49, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

text: See the citation and appropriate reference.  Tekniko is and always was a subsidiary of Landmark Education.  Thanks.  Smeelgova 06:52, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Tekniko is sourced, but "LandmarkDating" is not a subsidiary, neither is Rancord. The Japanese centers are fully owned.  Sm1969 06:55, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you have secondary sources for this?  Thanks.  Smeelgova 07:04, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The burden is on you for LandmarkDating and Rancord, in either bringing it in to the article or in preventing me from striking it, for you to provide sources that they are "subsidiaries." Sm1969 07:20, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: From where do you have this alleged information that Rancord is "fully owned"?  And what do you mean by "fully owned"?  Owned by whom?  The centers themselves?  Are they connected to Landmark Education in any way?  Does Werner Erhard own them?  Does Harry Rosenberg?  Thanks.  Smeelgova 07:23, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, you can point to the LE web site and see the Japanese centers as part of LE.  The burden of proof is on you editor to show that Rancord even exists in 2006 to bring it into the article.  As you yourself noted, LE bought the Japanese operation from Erhard in 2001. Redacting. Thanks. Sm1969 08:49, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Landmark Dating and Evidence for Techniko 

message: I have removed the section on the rules of the Landmark Forum as they are not notable and frankly, out of date. I have renamed it the STructure of the Landmark Forum to better suit the content. 
Just because something is sourced does not mean it belongs in an encyclopedia article on the topic.   For instance , if the National Enquirer published that George Bush had a rule that he enver went to bed without consulting space aliens that would be a referencable piece of information about the topic of the article.  However, you would not include because it is patently untrue (or at last a majority of people would assume it is not! :-) ) 
Likewise for if you were doing an article on HP you could find hundreds of articles mentioning Carly Fiori as the head of the company.  Legitemate, sourced references that could be entered following Wikipedia's guidelines- they would just be wrong and out of date.  
It takes notability and appropriateness to be included as well. If there is five lines on all the courses put on by Landamrk- a company that does courses - seven out-of-date and innacurate lines on the rules in ONE of the dozens of courses Landmark holds is totally out of proportion. Please let's use some judgement in attempting to stay NPOV.   Please do not revert this back without discussion. 
Alex Jackl 06:57, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This information is highly sourced and includes recent sources.  It is notable as a key part of the beginning of "The Forum", and has been commented on in multiple articles.  Thanks.  Smeelgova 07:49, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you read my comments above you will see that I don't doubt that they are sources- only that they are not relevant and non-notable.  If we mention the rules then we need to restore all the course descriptions- that were taken out to "reduce size" yet are far more relevant and notable than a series of agreements at the beginning of the course.    Alex Jackl 15:38, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rules of the Landmark Forum 

message: The closer you look at this pathetic article, the more it suggests that Landmark Forum graduates and sympathizers -- and Landmark has been accused widely of using abusive, cult-like methods to indoctrinate its novitiates -- are CONTINUALLY seeking to steer the article away from any hint of effective criticism of Landmark. Even on the talk page, criticism of Landmark is often stamped out. One of the worst examples is the use of Raymond Fowler as an authority which supposedly clears Landmark. Fowler is a Forum graduaute. But there are countless examples here. It's a miracle that any critique appears, but it is totally buried. The disclaimer about "passionate" views in the opening is an anemic excuse for valid, factual reference. I urge readers of this article to take what they see with a big grain of salt. 65.78.116.33 17:44, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Landmark graduates may be trying to control this article 

message: Seems very non-standard to label all external links as opinion vs. not opinion. Why is one first-hand account a "published article" and another "published opinion"? 
Also, the labeling itself seems suspect. I am deleting the "primarily opinion" label from the "Cherries" link: it appears to be primarily a list of links, roughly two-thirds of which are links to articles in standard major newspapers.
I'd suggest deleting all of these link-specific labels, and just leaving the links under the "Generally unfavorable opinions" and "Generally favorable opinions" headings. No need to go beyond that, I don't think . . .  
192.150.10.200 22:56, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not think that we need to qualify these external links. Just a label and a short description of what it is will do. I would also argue that Wikipedia is not a web directory, and as such, we ought to reduce the number of links substantially. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:52, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I removed some links as per WP:EL#Links_normally_to_be_avoided, and consolidated two subsections. It still needs to be pruned a bit more. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:05, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks good, thanks! 192.150.10.200 00:31, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  (Not opinion)/(Opinon)? 

message: When an editor adds a dispute tag, such as  it is expected that some comments about the reasons is described in talk. Dispute tags are not devices to assert a POV about an article's quality, but to encourage discussion. I see no reason stated about why this article is any different than Microsoft. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:31, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Advert tag?

message: It's becoming increasing clear to me that this article is just an ongoing disaster and a continuing, petty battle of wills. This is more than an editing war. It's a complete breakdown of Wikipedian good will. The administrative work on the discussion has sometimes shown good intentions, but I don't see it leading to anything but more of the same. There is a profound ownership WP:OWN issue continuing here, which they don't seem to recognize, and it has really ruined the piece. Indeed, the editing history strikes me as totally dysfunctional. Even as the dispute resolution process tries to get on its feet, the usual suspects continue to manipulate, tweak, adjust, blank, and rewrite their agenda into this article. Why can't you leave your hands off the article for a while? I have, and I have strong feelings about it. Why can't you editors who seek to control the debate leave well enough alone? After all, it's your best intentions that have helped get us into this mess. What do they call that in Landmark jargon? Oh, yeah, running a "racket." Well, we need a "breakthrough," as the Landmarkians put it, because we're wracked with rackets. Please, those of you who have had a long history of editing this article, can you please consider keeping your hands off it for a while? Wbroun 03:01, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia is a collaborative writing effort. We do not usually ask editors to stop editing, on the contrary, unless they are disruptive of course. If you think that these type of comments will make editors "go away", you may be mistaken.  ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:25, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Jossi, you are not the only arbiter or even a reliable interpreter of Wiki policy. My suggestion is that editors AND ADMINISTRATORS with ownership issues stop [rm expletive] around with the article for a while. Let others have a go. Apparently that's too much to ask! Wbroun 15:26, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please do not use foul language. Editors of Wikipedia are free to edit any articles they want to edit, as long as they do that within the spirit of WP content policies. If you have any complaints about specific editors, you may want to consider user filing an RfCs against them, or seeking dispute resolution. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:35, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: First of all, I wasn't talking about ANY editor. I meant people like you, who are trying to own WP:OWN this article. I really, honestly don't see you trying to resolve anything. And I have never encountered an admin so fond of quoting rules. Foul language? Since when did FOOKING become foul? As for your patronizing talking-down to me about Wiki policies, you may want to review them yourself. It's clear that you're totally out of touch with WP:IAR. Wbroun 19:14, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See ]. And please stop. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:18, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Jossi, have you ever thought about "taking the course?" Just curious. Wbroun 19:27, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No. What about you? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 13:25, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Believe me, I'm beyond help. Wbroun 21:30, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hands Off The Article! 

message: This is a dispute about how prominently any reference to Landmark Education's controversies -- which is itself a controversial question -- should appear in the article's lead. Some editors believe some reference to issues such as brainwashing allegations should feature prominently in lead. Others believe that a brief reference at the end of the introduction is sufficient. 
; Comments
*Come here via RfC. My initial thought, without even looking at the page is balance. Does the initial paragraph proclaim the glories of Landmark Edu (according to some). If so, adding in a really direct allegation would balance things out. 
:Looking at how things are, the lenght of the controversy, etc., I might add a slightly stronger tone, but in no way add the brainwashing in the initial paragraph, given weakness of the allegations (2 failed court cases, 1 court case saying "it's just an opinion"), and a former AMA president scoping it out. That would be serious Undue weight in my opinion. 
:I'll keep this page marked and participate in the dialogue. Sethie 04:17, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, yes, a real objective opinion here! Check out "AJackl's" hack-job blanking of the intro. Can we have some new voices here? Wbroun 20:21, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Read above and below. And please remain civil in your comments about other editors. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:23, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Jossi, when are you going to start offering some objectivity in your attacks on editors? You label me "uncivil" while allowing to pass without comment dozens of enormous, hack-job blankings and reverts. The history of this article looks like what you find in a shredder bin. It's a shameful reflection of the sometimes total failure of Wikipedia. This article is CONSTANTLY moving towards become a big Landmark ad, and you sit back and mainly obstruct any editor who tries to object to that. Are you "taking a stand," to quote the Landmarko-zoids?  Wbroun 19:25, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Would you be open to sharing why you believe it "should" be summarized?Sethie 16:12, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Encyclopedia articles are summaries of reliable sources. Article introductions are summaries of those summaries. They should give an overview of the main points of the article, but they shouldn't go into details unnecessarily. -Will Beback · † · 19:34, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Will is right. But the dispute is about the composition of that summary, and what detail needs to include. For a good example, see Microsoft. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:38, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

text: (Smeelgova: this section is for non-involved editors responding to the RfC) ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:28, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I see that, and will not comment any further in this section.  However, how does that make it appropriate for User:Spruceforest to comment here?  Confused.  Thanks.  Smeelgova 22:36, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Could you please clarify? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:56, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I was responding the Smeelgova's request that we include the allegations.... as I look through the cult section the only "strong" (for me) piece is the French governments assesment- the rest is dismmissed allegation, hearsay or actually saying it isn't a cult. When I read the brainwashing section- I see 2 failed court cases and a third which basically says, "No comment." So I don't see a lot of hard evidence to warrant a major mention in the inital paragraph.Sethie 03:22, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: RFC summary: Prominence of controversy reference in lead

message: As per the above discussions I am taking the advert off.  This has been discussed twice on THIS talk page, and Jossi mentioned that when you tag an article with an advert you should justify your addition. 
Since there is no discussion of it I am relating to it as vandalism and removing it. 
Alex Jackl 07:37, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is most certainly not vandalism.  Let's all give the editor who originally added it the chance to respond here.  Thanks.  Smeelgova 07:39, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  This has been discussed already- there was ample time.  Let us listen to your advice and not make changes.  If you feel this is advertising please discuss the reasons and give people time to comment.  If an advert tag is warranted ther emust be some compelling evidence for that.  Please read the prior references to the advert tag and the non-existence of justification and discussion.  Thanks. Alex Jackl 07:45, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Of the cited references, over twenty of the current citations point to various parts of Landmark Education's corporate website.  As mentioned before, this is in violation of Wikipedia Policy, and is highy inappropriate for an encyclopedia article about a for-profit company.  Thanks.  Smeelgova 08:09, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

text: NOTE:  I will not put the advert tage back in again, but I do feel that you are all being way too quick to remove this tag, and not giving the editor who put it in enough time to respond as to his reasoning here on the talk page.  Thanks.  Smeelgova 08:13, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I feel for you, Smeelgova. But I fear we face a Sisyphus-like task. The quick removal of the advert tag is just the latest disgusting example of the damage that a couple biased admins and obsessive editors can wreak on a Wiki article. Remember -- we are dealing with a possible cult here. The forces of resistance are extreme, and that may be what we're encountering. I am growing convinced that Landmark Forum grads and adherents have colluded to steer and own this article. Who knows what lengths they are willing to go to? It may indeed be time to try some other methods of dispute resolution. But I think that may not even work. Landmark Education grads, I suspect, are desperate to control the outcome of this article. Wbroun 19:35, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

text:  Jossi pointed out that it is not a violation of policy to use LE's web site for quotes.  Jossi even gave the specific guidelines.  The number of links to LE's web site is irrelevant.  What they are substantiating is what is relevant.  Of course, if external web sites can be found that substantiate, they should be cited as well or in lieu of the LE web site.  As we also discussed before, only LE is a possible source for certain data, such as customer participation statistics.  So, if there are 500 links to LE's web site for customer participation statistics, the article just needs to note who is providing the source.  Sm1969 09:22, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

text:  I simply do not see what is the difference between this article and the article on Microsoft. Both are for profit companies, both are the target of substantial criticism, both have a lot of info sourced from the companies' websites and other self-published materials, both have links to their official websites, etc. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:54, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sheesh! The whole tone of the intro is pure advertorial. It's about as obvious as the Himalayas. Wbroun 19:40, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why don't you propose an alternative version? It would be much better than complaining. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:43, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Links to the home company don't make a page an advert for me. Text which says, "this is the best," "everyone has benefited," if you want more infor, etc. are what make a page an advert. Sethie 16:11, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Advert 

message: I have added about a dozen or so references to the controversial public profile of Landmark from numerous high-circulation, respected newspapers, and one major wire service:
Among many recent articles: “Mixed view of forums.” Sunday Times (Perth, Australia). June 25, 2006 Sunday. Country Edition. Pg. 32; "Murder in Mexico: Chatelaine exclusive"; Canada NewsWire. July 27, 2006 Thursday 9:00 AM Eastern Time; DeKok, David. “Tuition expenses probed.” The Patriot-News. December 18, 2005; “New-school-to-open-amid-high-hopes.” The Miami Herald (Florida). July 16, 2006 Sunday; Mullally, Una. “Una, I'd really encourage you to do the London and do it.” Sunday Tribune (Ireland). July 31, 2005. Pg. N04; Hind, Purves, Watts. “Pete Signs Up for Cult Clinic”; Daily Star (UK). March 22, 2005. Pg. , 13; Beam, Ale. “A Harvard Forum For Self-Promotion?” The Boston Globe. November 6, 1998. Pg. D1; Pallister, David. “Libel Award of £20K Bankrupts Cult Watcher”; The Guardian (London). August 3, 1996. Pg. 12.
''
Before judging, please go read the articles for yourself. I have countless more I could add. I honestly don't see how anyone can argue that the idea of "controversy" is NOT a huge part of Landmark's public profile. Whether or not that's deserved is another matter. All I have ever wanted to see reflected in the intro was an accurate representation of how Landmark appears in our culture, as a whole. I feel the current intro, where I strove for balance, reflects fairly on both sides. Wbroun 06:57, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I actually agree with some of the Landmark-supporter editors that some of the new language you have added in the introduction section could be regarded as inappropriate.  However I do appreciate all of the sources you have utilized in your citation, and perhaps we can work with this "2 sides" idea you have put forth.  Do you know of hyperlinks for some of these sources, or places where we can read some of these articles online?  Also, it would be helpful if you broke up each separate article into its own citation, for ease of referencing and fixing up the citation individually.  In short, parts of your argument/idea in the intro seem valid, but the way you are attempting to put it forth with certain language won't last long here.  Smeelgova 07:39, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The "Murder in Mexico" article is actually the "Untold Story of Lulumon".  Sm1969 07:43, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I found hyperlinks to some of the above articles, couldn't find the others, but it is interesting the number of controversial articles that have appeared in high-circulation media as of late.  If others can find hyperlinks to some of the other articles in the blockquote above, that would be helpful, for discussion purposes.  Smeelgova 08:00, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  References Galore Added 

message: The recent changes to the introduction by Wbroun, might be appropriate in the controversies section, but give far too much weight to minority opinion for an introductory paragraph. I don't see consensus in the above discussion for this re-structuring.
Some time back I inserted this as the opening paragraph of the "Controversies" section, but it was deleted somewhere along the way in the course of the various edit wars this article has suffered.
Critics of Landmark Education make accusations which generally fall into one or more of these areas:
* Questioning whether the courses do really produce worthwhile benefits, or produce harmful results (discussed in the section above)
* Suggesting that participating in the programs may have harmful consequences
* Speculating that the Landmark Education system may exploit customers (financially or otherwise)
I still think this is a fair, accurate and neutral summary, and I propose to re-insert it.
There seems to me to be on-going confusion in the way material is presented in this section between matters of fact and matters of opinion.
Virtually everything in the section is a report of opinion, and the references only serve to substantiate that one person (the one quoted) holds that opinion. In accordance with NPOV policy, we can report the fact that some identifiable population holds a certain opinion, but should give due weight in proportion to the size of the population which holds that view. There is substantial evidence that a large majority of the 880,000 plus customers of LE are broadly satisfied. There is no evidence that any more than a tiny fraction of that number of people hold adverse views.
Much of the criticism is based on factually inaccurate, or deliberately misrepresented, information.  For example there is no evidence whatsoever of statistically significant incidence of harm occuring from participation in Landmark programs.  And no-one is making financial profict from the operation. DaveApter 11:15, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Minority opinion? Are you a Landmark graduate? You see how many articles in recent big-circulation, respect papers REFERENCE the controversy?????? WTF?? If you don't make reference to the controversial cultural status of Landmark prominently in the lead, you are writing a deceptive entry. Wbroun 17:17, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Newspapers articles can be used as sources to illustrate the specifics addressed in these articles (provided that these are not op-eds), but not to make assessments as for such "cultural status", unless such cultural status has been reported by secondary sources. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:45, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Thanks. I have attempted to summarize the criticism section in the lead. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:33, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks good. -Will Beback · † · 20:35, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Controversies  

message: Unbelievable. I wake up today and look at the article and there is NO MENTION OF CONTROVERSY WHATSOEVER in the lead. All the references I dug up through tons of hard work have been buried. What a joke. It's obvious that Landmark Education's minions control this article. Reader beware: this article is completely skewed. Absurd. Sad. Exactly what Wiki is NOT supposed to be.Wbroun 17:16, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  More Editing Craziness 

message: Please let the process play out, editors. Obviously, since I'm the one who submitted it for mediation, I hope that the parties named will agree to mediation. If not, the dispute resolution process goes up to Arbitration, I believe. I will be interested to see how Wiki handles this. Here's the link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/Landmark_Education
Wbroun 17:55, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not sure we have exhausted options before resorting to mediation. One RfC is not enough. If there is good will, if editors refrain from being uncivil, and assume good faith, I do not see why this dispute cannot be resolved by the collaborative editing effort. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:04, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Comment :  Here is the comment I added to the mediation page, along with my disagree vote. The 3RR was on a totally unrelated issue, namely total lack of sourcing for negative information that was decided as a non-block.  The RFC was initiated recently by user Wbroun, but that user appears to have ignored the true third-party comment.  For these reasons, mediation is too soon.  Further, the proposed rewrites of Wbroun are not neutral in tone and totally unprofessional for an encyclopedia. Sm1969 18:12, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Second comment: Jossi's tone is professional in his rewrite of the introduction. Sm1969 18:21, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Third comment: I have changed my position to agree on the mediation page.
As stated in Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/Landmark_Education I have removed myself as a party, and will recuse myself from editing this article if other involved editors agree to mediation. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:25, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

text: As stated above, the introduction of the article could use one or two more lines detailing the nature of the controversies (cult allegations, brainwashing allegations, and labor investigations, etc.), to name a few.  Smeelgova 19:36, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That will be for the mediators to mediate, amongst other disputes. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:42, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

text: That was my edit, Wbroun I am glad you find it acceptable. I would suggest that you continue pursuing mediation to address any other concerns that, by reading this talk page, seem to still be outstanding. Calling for mediation is not a trivial task and should not be contemplated as a such. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:27, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't really have any other concerns, to be honest. I can't speak for Smeelgova or others. As I have said before, I don't disagree (or agree) that the allegations against Landmark may be unfair and unfounded. The present intro is fine with me.Wbroun 21:42, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes, it's a good thing. :) I had not really expected the mediation to go forward, due to non-participation -- but you cannot proceed through dispute resolution without making an honest effort, so it was done in good faith. Wbroun 03:58, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notice: Article Submitted For Mediation 

message: Is there any supporting material that describes this company as a subsidiary? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:46, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes.  Please see the multiple citations that I have provided.  Smeelgova 21:41, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

text: The company is one of Landmark's "wholly owned subsidiaries" :
The qualified candidate would be accountable for managing all administrative and financial aspects of one of Landmark Education’s wholly owned subsidiaries, Tekniko Licensing Corporation.  Working with Landmark Education Business Development, this person acts a liaison and resource for a wide variety of corporations that License Tekniko’s Technology for use in their corporations.  Smeelgova 21:45, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Thanks. Note that I have moved all quotes to the Ref section. Too many long quotes are not suitable for an encyclopedic article. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:42, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tekniko Licensing Corporation 

message: I have been reflecting about this article and my involvement in editing it. My current thoughts are that given that I have no personal interest on the subject, and the enormous difficulty in attempting to curtail POV pushing from both pro and con sides to have an informative and neutral article on the subject, it is not worth my time. Rather than tediously follow editors to correct their edits, I prefer to engage on articles whose active editors care for this project more than they care about their viewpoints. So as of this comment, I am removing this article and other related articles from my watchlist. If any of you would like my opinion on the article's status at any point in the future (as it related to achieving NPOV status, for example), please leave a message on my talk page. My last edit to this article is the one in which I state my opinion of this article, by placing the  tag. May you have an interesting time editing this article (a pun on an ancient Chinese curse). ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:32, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems like a very wise decision! Wbroun 17:25, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Be well!  Perhaps the best places for resources on this particular subject will remain to be off-Wikipedia.  Indeed - Google Users can simply search "Landmark Education" and find lots of great resources excluding the actual corporate websites of the for-profit company itself.  Smeelgova 20:55, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed! Hey, what's your opinion on the Rick Ross website  ?? Wbroun 21:10, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As far as that particular section of the site goes, it is most interesting.  Not too familiar with that many other groups on that site.  The Landmark Education litigation archive is most interesting, as are all of the older archived media articles.  Smeelgova 21:25, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I am sorry to see you go, Jossi. You added a lot of NPOV strength to the article. It will be more difficult without you but I understand your frustration. Alex Jackl 07:06, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disengaging 

message: Restored the "ontology" part of the intro. I also the bulk of stuff that was in the "loaded language" section under jargon and the loaded language terms in the Jargon section. Jossie recommende dthe loade dlanguage stuff be moved to the criticisms section of the article and I agree, howeve rin the interest of not starting a revert war I left a reference to loaded language so that POV would be expressed there. 	 Alex Jackl 07:06, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, sounds good.  I don't know who removed the "ontology" - it was not me, and I have no objection to you putting it back in.  I have followed Jossi's suggestion and moved the "loaded language" section to the criticism section, looks like that is what you wanted as well.  Glad to see that we can compromise on some of these things from time to time.  Hope you are doing well.  Smeelgova 07:21, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Alex, why do you call that "drive-by vandalism?" First of all, editors don't have to be "approved" to make changes to any article in Wiki. Nor does every change (even on controversial articles such as this) have to be done by consensus. If that was the MO of Wikipedia, it simply would not exist. As for who did it user:fossa, it is recorded very clearly in the editing history. Your characterization of that as drive-by vandalism is a mean-spirited, unfair attack. Can you explain how Landmark's course is based on ontology? Wbroun 16:59, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have added the "citation needed" marker after ontology until this can be corroborated from secondary sources.  Landmark Education claims that there courses deal in ontology - but it would be interesting to see if this is also verified in reliable secondary sources.  However, User:Wbroun - I must suggest to you again that even if you do not agree with the tactics of other editors - you will get by much better if you argue with issues involving content, and try to improve the politeness of your tack a tad.  Smeelgova 06:56, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Okay- fair enough.  "drive-by vandalism" was too strong. My apologies- I was being overly sensitive.  Will go into ontology when I have a little more time (in van going to airport) Alex Jackl 13:45, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removing drive by vandalism in intro 

message: Would it not just be easier to have the legal disputes section read like this:
For details of litigation involving Landmark Education, see Landmark Education litigation.
For general discussion of legal matters not necessarily resulting in court cases, see Landmark Education and the law.
and just let the reader go on to those articles for more information?  Given that we have separate articles on this on Wikipedia anyway, I don't see the need for us to get contentious over this legal disputes section and have so much detail on the main-page.  Smeelgova 07:25, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmmm.. I agree.... I think that would make the page much cleaner and reduce it in size considerably AND handle Jossi's concerns about the number of quotes . That sounds like a good plan.... Alex Jackl 07:30, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, great.  I removed the text of that section from the subsection, but left in the brief mention of their most recent (and ongoing) active litigation regarding the French documentary.  Smeelgova 07:33, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I would prefer something more neutral like:  "Landmark Education:  Other Legal Issues".  I don't think either Microsoft or Enron have as much detailed legal reporting as Landmark Education, but I haven't looked.  I'm willing to be wrong on this.  Sm1969 17:57, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Legal disputes

message: :Hmmm.. I agree.... I think that would make the page much cleaner and reduce it in size considerably AND handle Jossi's concerns about the number of quotes . That sounds like a good plan.... Alex Jackl 07:30, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, great.  I removed the text of that section from the subsection, but left in the brief mention of their most recent (and ongoing) active litigation regarding the French documentary.  Smeelgova 07:33, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I would prefer something more neutral like:  "Landmark Education:  Other Legal Issues".  I don't think either Microsoft or Enron have as much detailed legal reporting as Landmark Education, but I haven't looked.  I'm willing to be wrong on this.  Sm1969 17:57, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Agreeing with Smeelgova 

message: I am removing this section again, for the following reasons
#The fact that Landmark was removed from more recent reports indicates that there is doubt about the appropriateness of its inclusion in the first place.
#It is not clear whether the German word sekte carries the same derogatory connotations as the Enclish word cult.
#There is no indication of the criteria by which the list was compiled, or the qualification of the compiler, or the degree of knowledge they posess.
#Since Landmark has no operation in Austria, it is unlikely that the opinions of anyone there are based on any actual acquaintance with it.
It does not improve the article to keeep trying to pin ambiguous derogatory epithets onto Landmark Education.  If you want to express that LE resembles a "cult" in some way, please indicate the specific defining characteristics that it posesses.DaveApter 14:25, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is from highly reputable and heavily referenced sources.  Please see the article sect for more on your issues above.  Smeelgova 10:02, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  It actually only appeared on the Austrian report once, but the US State Department kept reissuing their reports annually.  Sm1969 04:34, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

text: This is one of those things that is so NOT notable- the fact that there have NEVER - to my knowledge - been any operations in Austria this is only notable because some clerk in Austria decide to add LE to his list because he heard of it somewhere?  Who knows- that aspect is all speculation.  The point is that it isn't worth the space on an already large article and the point is already made. Alex Jackl 16:44, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is a classification by a Federal Government - and is notable because it is extremely rare for for-profit, privately owned companies to be classified in such a manner.  And it is also notable for the number of times throughout the years that the classification has been upheld, from 1999 to 2006.  Smeelgova 04:45, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  It is a classification by the US State Department of some unknown source in Austria.  Sm1969 04:34, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

text: None of this bluster addresses my points above, or the more general observations of the whole cult non-issue.  It would be great if you would engage constuctively with the debate, with a view to creating a balanced, compliant article. DaveApter 08:57, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

text:  Again, you do have libel issues with the term "cult" in the United States.  Governments sometimes make mistakes, as they did with the wrongful disclosure of false information re Werner Erhard and his tax returns.  It might be the same thing with Austria, given the disappearance from the US State Department's web site.  (This is all independent of the Wikipedia content policy against libel that we have talked about numerous times.)  Sm1969 04:34, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Without knowing the criteria for the selection in the list, it is not a "fact" of any consequence whatsoever.  DaveApter 10:02, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And yet the classification by the Austrian Government in and of itself is indeed factual, relevant, and notable.  Smeelgova 10:06, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Only in your opinion. Perhaps ask yourself the question - would you be happy to include a reference to a similarly vague and insubstantial listing if it were one which was complimentary to Landmark? DaveApter 10:19, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, you are assuming something about my opinion, instead of directly addressing the issues themselves.  And this is not vague at all, but a reputable citation from the United States Government.  Smeelgova 10:23, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Please take notice also regarding the Wikipedia content policy on libel.  The term "cult" has been found to be a triable question of fact.  Absent any clear meaning by the Austrian government or the US State Department of the term, I do believe we have a Wikipedia content policy issue on libel.  Sm1969 06:32, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Austrian classification 

message: I have restored the noncompliant tag.  There have been no significant improvements to the article since Jossi attached it. DaveApter 09:04, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Noncompliant 

message: *This will be the section for Request for Comment on the Austrian classification issue.  As of this particular timestamp, the information was located at Landmark_Education#Allegations_of_cult_or_cult-like_status.  Smeelgova 11:41, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Smeelgova forgot to note that this information was struck from the 2006 report at the web site of the US State Department itself.  The 2006 report referenced above is not from the US State Department, but the others are.  Thus, if the US State Department were to change the report, it might not propagate to the other web sites that purport to copy it.  Sm1969 11:57, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We have no idea why the information does not appear at the State Department web site, but we cannot assume that it was "struck" from any record anywhere simply because it does not appear at one website.  Please see  and especially  from the United Nations Refugee Agency, a highly reputable source.  Notice that in the second ref there is a NOTE stating: The copyright for this document rests with the U.S. Department of State. - and this instance of the document actually does include "Landmark Education" and is from 2006.  The United Nations Refugee Agency is asserting here that the information came directly from the United States State Department.  But even regardless of the 2006 issue, we still have the fact that the classification has existed in every report since 1999 - which is still very unusual for a for-profit company to be classified as a "sect" by a foreign Federal government.  This makes it notable for inclusion.  At the most - we could put a mention that it does appear in the 2006 report as cited by the United Nations Refugee Agency, and they state that this information came from the State Department - but does not appear at the State Department website itself.  Smeelgova 12:07, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

text:  The other problem you have is the Wikipedia content policy against libel that I mentioned above and that we have mentioned numerous times. Sm1969 04:36, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

text:  Also, for that particular report, the State Department's web site is the authoritative source, no other.  If the State Department were to change their statement, they would be the first to do so, and other sites might possibly not get updated.  Sm1969 06:38, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

text: RFC Is ,"... published a list of 200 groups it considers to be sects" correct? Is source for this classification reputable? If so, such classification is notable and should be included. Material on State Dept listing appears of limited relevance, and contains truncated sentence. If current state of classification is debated I suggest working from original Austrian documents. There is a German Wikipedia. SmithBlue 01:27, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Request for Comment: Inclusion of Austrian classification

message: This long list of references, which took me a long time to organize, were cut for no apparently solid reason. These aren't blogs. They're not opinions by cranks. They are large newspapers, a highly respected wire service, some Sunday national papers, and large regional pubs such as the Boston Globe and Miami Herald. If these sources aren't respected on Wiki, I don't know what is.
Among many recent articles: “Mixed view of forums.” Sunday Times (Perth, Australia). June 25, 2006 Sunday. Country Edition. Pg. 32; “Murder in Mexico: Chatelaine exclusive”; Canada NewsWire. July 27, 2006 Thursday 9:00 AM Eastern Time; DeKok, David. “Tuition expenses probed.” The Patriot-News. December 18, 2005; “New-school-to-open-amid-high-hopes.” The Miami Herald (Florida). July 16, 2006 Sunday; Mullally, Una. “Una, I'd really encourage you to do the London and do it.” Sunday Tribune (Ireland). July 31, 2005. Pg. N04; Hind, Purves, Watts. “Pete Signs Up for Cult Clinic”; Daily Star (UK). March 22, 2005. Pg. , 13; Beam, Ale. “A Harvard Forum For Self-Promotion?” The Boston Globe. November 6, 1998. Pg. D1; Pallister, David. “Libel Award of £20K Bankrupts Cult Watcher”; The Guardian (London). August 3, 1996. Pg. 12.
The refs were attached, and quite aptly for logic's sake, to the last sentence of the intro. Even if that last sentence were to be cut, the references ought to remain somewhere in the article. Why? These references establish an important, recent, and globally manifest history of public questioning -- if not controversy -- related to Landmark, and that is obviously of signal interest to some editors here.
Why so many refs in a row? Consider the giant (and growing) Talk archive an indication that establishing firmly "public perception" or "media perception" or "cultural profile" is not easy here. Big statements need to be backed with big references.
I can see no Wiki policy that justifies their removal, but WP:Verify totally supports their inclusion. If there is a format issue (which seems a stretch), fine, reformat them. But any expungement of these references requires ironclad reasoning, and I see nothing that even comes close. And why on earth would a preponderance of relevant evidence (placed in a references section, mind you, not in the body text) from major publications be removed by anyone on Wiki in the first place? Wbroun 19:13, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see that an arbitrary list of references adds to the quality of the article.  If you think that a coherent point can be made about this content, why not write up a summary in an appropriate section of the controversies section, and reference the sources to the points being made there? DaveApter 11:18, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't believe you want to have this battle, but I guess I should believe it. This is Wikipedia, after all. Arbitrary? There is nothing random about the references in the least. Since it's highly unlikely that you've even read them, I find the charge of arbitrariness remarkably, well, arbitrary, as well as high-handed. The point the references make is a general and important one. Why in heaven's name would you want to remove them, unless you were trying to hide something? They are totally necessary to establish's Landmark's controversial profile, and they are placed in a modest, non-attention-grabbing way. Have you read them? (And Wiki policy for verifiability does not require hotlinks, obviously, because only an infintesimally fraction of sources are hotlink). Wbroun 18:12, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sorry you see my attempts to have a constructive debate as a "battle", and I don't understand why you feel the need to make your points so agressively.  The point I was making is this: One expects an encyclopedia article to give a summary of the issues, and provide references to back up that summary.  Simply saying that it's controversial and giving a reading list doesn't make for a useful article. And in an online article, hotlinks would be most helpful.  There is already a completely disproportionate coverage of the so-called controversies.  I am completely committed to the article giving appropriate coverage of these in accordance with the WP:NPOV policy.  It is true that all sorts of accusations are thrown at Landmark, and it is clear that the majority (not all) are the result of either misunderstanding or deliberate and malicious misrepresentation. DaveApter 18:55, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Strong references removed for no solid reasons? 

message: The "Labor investigations" section was deleted entirely, with this edit summary:
*Finding of fact in favor of Landmark Education in the US / French issue is otherwise; should be merged into content on France 
It does not appear to have been merged elsewhere. The material appeared to have been sourced. Why was it deleted? -Will Beback · † · 07:08, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed.  I have restored this.  This is highly notable and sourced information.  Smeelgova 07:19, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think the two parts should be put in separate areas.  The US investigation went in favor of LE and we don't know if it wasn't a standard labor department review (original research).  The article it was in was incredibly biased, and again, the finding of fact went in favor of LE.  In fact, I'm not sure that the original author (Hukill) even took the article in context.  The French investigation is a different matter entirely and could have been an investigation into LE in specific, whereas the first one may have been general to many US companies.  Sm1969 07:45, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you think it ought to be split then split it, don't delete it. Deleting sourced info isn't helpful. -Will Beback · † · 07:50, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The information should not be split into separate sections.  The investigation by the United States Federal Department of Labor actually did not go in Landmark's favor - more volunteer employees would have been needed to come forward and file an official complaint for the report itself to have actualy negative affects.  The French investigation is relevant to this specific section - because both involve investigations by the Department of Labor at the Federal level of government.  I will try to find more sources as to the United States investigation.  Smeelgova 07:57, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you have any information to back up these assertions? There is no evidence as far as I am aware to suggest that the 'investigation' was anything other than a routine matter, which discoved no irregularities.  Where did the suggestions about "volunteer workers coming forward to file a complaint" come from.  Nobody assists at Landmark unless they choose to do so, if they find they don't like it they can stop, and most report the experience as be enjoyable, fulfilling and instructive. The fact that the company is structured as a 'for-profit' corporation is frequently cited in support of the assumption that the 'volunteer workers' must be being exploited for the benefit of the shareholders, wheras in fact the beneficiaries are the customers, whe get the courses for a fraction of what they would otherwise cost. DaveApter 11:13, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

text: We actually only know two things: 1) the DoL looked at the issue; and 2) They didn't take any action.  Everthing else is speculation, assumption or rumour.  What is the source for the assertion that "all of its volunteers are "employees", and subject to the provisions of the act as well"? Hukil is not a primary source for that because she wasn't a party or witness to the Enquiry.  Neither is she a secondary source that meets the requirements of WP:V or WP:RS, because she doesn't provide any references that would enable a researcher to trace back to a primary source.  For all we know, she might have heard a rumour to that effect, or even just made it up.  There is plenty in the article which is pure assumption, and some of that is actually false. (For example, she assumes that Landmark assistants participate because they expect to become Forum Leaders, whereas in fact the overwhelming majority have no such ambition). Let us not lose sight of the fact that newspaper reporters are in the entertainment business. DaveApter 16:54, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is not speculation, this is based on a reputable secondary source, which clearly states that the United States Department of Labor ruled that all of Landmark Education's volunteers are actually "employees" and subject to the Fair Labor Standards Act.  This is stated very clearly in her article.  Smeelgova 00:34, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A statement in a newspaper article with no supporting references (especially one littered with as many unsupported and incorrect speculations as this one) does not meet the requirements of WP:V or WP:RS. DaveApter 10:54, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Metro Newspapers has a readership of 500,000, and is a very reputable paper.  The New York Times, The Washington Post, Associated Press, are all reputable sources which do not necessarily always provide "supporting references".  This is not a qualification for reputability of an article in a respected paper.  Smeelgova 08:20, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You are confusing two entirely different points:  The New York Times, The Washington Post, Associated Press, are all reputable sources as you correctly point out, and are sometimes described as Newspapers of Record, so that assertions printed in them can be taken at face value unless a strong reason can be shown for suggenting otherwise. The size of readership is no guarantee of quality or accuracy (frequently quite the reverse!).  If this were so, presumably the National Enquirer would be the most prestigious source!  Do you suggest that we should be happy to reprint every claim made there in Wikipedia?  I don't know about the rest of Metro's content, but this article in particular is clearly written in a sensationalist tabloid style and contains many innacuracies as noted above.  DaveApter 11:28, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Labor investigations 

message: This has two problems:  1) The DOL finding of fact was in favor of Landmark Education and 2) they are doing it voluntarily.  The world is now well familiar with this business model, and all of open source, for example, is based on it.  (Anyone can file any complaint asserting anything.)
Filing a Complaint for Back Wages Under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), United States Department of Labor, retrieved 12/20/2006.. Investigations in the United States dealing with these complaints are handled by the Wage and Hour Division of the United States Department of LaborWage and Hour Division, United States Department of Labor, updated August 15, 2006..
Sm1969 15:29, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please see discussion above.  Smeelgova 00:34, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, this is not original research, and even if it were, I can find additional secondary sources for this.  The United States Department of Labor website is not the primary source, but the Fair Labor Standards Act is the primary source, and I have not cited that directly.  Smeelgova 00:59, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  No, the primary source would be a "Department of Labor" ruling, but the article itself says the DOL itself dropped the issue.  This is not the first time you have had way off interpretations and inferences.  Sm1969 05:09, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: When did the DOL allegedly "retract" their own ruling?  Do you have sources for this?  If so, this is not justification for deleting the entire section, but rather more information should be added for clarification.  The very fact that there have been numerous Labor Investigations is notable.  Smeelgova 05:12, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

text: We have no idea what "Drop the issue" means.  The section should remain, because the investigations themselves are notable.  And the ruling and the dropping of the issue are 2 separate points.  The reader can see that clearly within the blockquoted portion.  The ruling means that "volunteers" are actually employees, and subject to the Fair Labor Standards Act.  The "drop the issue" most likely means that the Department of Labor decided not to pursue a case against Landmark Education further in Federal Court.  But the ruling still stands.  Smeelgova 05:12, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Drop the issue means at least they decided not to pursue a case.  No, the ruling does not "still stand" because it says they "dropped the issue."  Clearly, LE offered opposing evidence (choice in the matter) and they dropped their initial opinion.  "Ruling" might not even be the right word.  It might be Tracy Hukill's word.  Sm1969 05:26, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The article is very clear.  There was an explicit ruling prior to 1998 which stated that Landmark's volunteers are subject to the Fair Labor Standards Act.  Smeelgova 08:18, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See the discussion above regarding the unreliability of this as a source. DaveApter 11:28, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed.  See discussion above regarding awards won by the paper and reputability as a source.  Smeelgova 11:58, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Labor Investigations:  Original Research and Error

message: This paper has several references to Heidegger:
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=278955
Do you have any references to Synanon?
Sm1969 09:57, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Took out references to Synanon since there is apparently no connection between Landmark and this group. Alex Jackl 07:10, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Heidegger versus Synanon 

message: Does the cite support the statement "It remains unclear what role the investigation played in the official ending of Landmark Education operations."?  Or is that OR? Tanaats 18:11, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is an interesting question.  According to sourced material, this is a chronology of events, but I'm sure there is more detail:  France 3 documentary is broadcast May 24, 2004, then French Federal Labor Department investigations, June 2004.  By July 2004, the official French branch of Landmark disbanded, and they continue to recruit new members in France, with offices based out of London.  It will be interesting to see if/when more French media articles about this chain of events are translated to English...  Smeelgova 06:46, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  It remains unclear? 

message: Actually, this stuff has even more problems than just WP:V and WP:RS.  It is seriously overweighting insignificant minority opinions.  For example, Mona has nothing specific to say regarding vocabulary.  "Stern" does not further elaborate on someone's suspicion.  Xenu can make up anything it wants.  The Labor Department conclusions are Smeelgova's original research.  Sm1969 08:10, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Mona's statements were indeed very specific, and relevant to the "religious implications" section.  "Stern" is a very reputable secondary source.  The Labor Department issues are sourced with reputable citations.  These are not my conclusions, these are the only options in a Labor Department investigation, the next actions would have been to open a case in Federal Court.  Check the citations if you wish.  Smeelgova 08:18, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I have corrected this, thank you for pointing this out.  It was not Landmark that was listed, but "The Forum".  However, the report was put out when Landmark was in existence, and not EST, (1992), therefore it stands to reason that this reference to "The Forum" referred to Landmark, as it was from 1992.  Smeelgova 09:19, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  No, Tracy Hukill is not a reliable source and it is your conclusion that the next action would have been to open a case in Federal Court.  The whole intent of the FLSA was to prevent people who were being paid from "volunteering"--in other words being pressured by their employers to volunteer.  The people who assist/volunteer at LE were never PAID employees "volunteering" on the side (under "pressure" from LE).  They were always pure volunteers.  Otherwise, you would have to impute backwages for all the people who work at Wikipedia in non-paid capacities, and you would have to impute backwages for all the people who develop open source software.  These individuals did the volunteering with no expectation wages and never worked in any paid capacity.  Both Smeelgova and Tracy Hukill are misinterpreting the FLSA (if that's what she meant to say).   Sm1969 08:51, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please stop insinuating what you think I am interpreting.  I am simply citing reliable secondary sources.  Please see the detailed discussion on the reputability of the source, in the section above.  And no, this is in no way similar to Wikipedia and its contributors.  Wikipedia is a non-profit.  Landmark Education is a for-profit, privately owned corporation, whose volunteers are actually "employees" subject to the Fair Labor Standards Act.  This is not my interpretation, these are simply the facts.  Smeelgova 09:18, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The Recent Revert Cycles

message: Merry Christmas, guys!  Things still look surprisingly civil, and I have to say I'm pretty happy with the article, from the quick glance I had--it seems to be clearer, and have better balance, than it has at many times in its history.  I'm also pretty happy with the fact that I no longer really contribute to it.  I have to say, having ceased editing for several weeks now has definitely helped me see the article less myopically, and the spirited debates and dozens of edits a day seem even less consequential than they used to.  Ckerr 08:52, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Merry Christmas!   Sm1969 09:25, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Well! 

message: The section on Scientology belongs in the "Religious Implications" section.  The issue has been raised in Stern (magazine), the Frankfurter Neue Presse, in a study on both organizations by Norbert Nedopil, on France 3, and by Susan J. Palmer at the recent 2006 CESNUR conference.  Though indeed, more could be said in the article itself about the history and the mentions of Scientology/Landmark Education, all that we are doing currently is reporting that issues were raised, and citing the appropriate reputable sources.  Smeelgova 08:31, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You could mention Scientology in connection with Werner Erhard or possibly even est, but that's 20 years ago.  The references you gave are sourced and vacuous:
* The mention and then correction/retraction by Palmer is meaningless.
* The study by Nedopil is *not* to compare the two organizations but to evaluate certain criteria.  Scientology was the other entity evaluated.
* The "Stern" magazine article is on "Block Training" in the context of Scientology.
* The "Frankfurter Neue Presse" is another opinion which is a vague insinuation.
* Mona's comparison was another vacuous one and she gave no examples but said, in Smeelgova's words, "all of the terminology was the same."
At best, these are insignificant minority opinions within NPOV guidelines that do not belong in an encyclopedia.
Sm1969 16:38, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Your statement that these are insignificant minority opinions within NPOV guidelines that do not belong in an encyclopedia. - is clearly your opinion.  The referenced are sourced and certainly not "vacuous".  The mention by Palmer is notable and recent, it is not a "retraction" but a clarification by Palmer, referencing a comparision by another journalist - who did not issue a retraction.  The study by Nedopil clearly compares the two organizations, going back and forth from one to the other.  The "Stern" and "Frankfurter Neue Presse" are not vague insinuations, but clearly articles dealing with Landmark which compare Scientology.  The Vasquez comments are not "vacuous", but were featured to 1.5 million people.  I have provided sources from each of the statements, and did not draw conclusions, but merely cited the sources themselves.  Smeelgova 16:48, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

text: The Vasquez comments are most certainly not factually false and defamatory, as it is ridiculous to assume that comparing one organization to another is defamatory.  If, as you say, the purpose of the Nedopil study was to evaluate separate organizatoins on common criteria, then this in and of itself is notable.  The German papers make direct mention of Scientology in their articles.  The Palmer issue directly mentions and discusses Landmark Education and Scientology in the statements, as recently as 2006.  Smeelgova 17:05, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

text: One importnat point here is that it may be that there is a resonable justifictaion in linking est to Scientology in some obscure way but that is AT LEAST once removed from Landmark and probably three times removed since I believe the connection has to do with the Scientology people getting pissed at Werner Erhardt in the early 70s for "squirreling"  or "stealing" Scientology stuff.  Given that that kind of reference MAY belong to an article on est but certainly not Landmark.  Seems more like a "Werner Erhardt - 70s" thing than a Landmark thing.Alex Jackl 06:43, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Scientology in "Religious Implications"

message: Martin Leaf was neve a 'counsel' of Landmark Education, and the cited sources do not indicate that he was. He was merely an employee of a legal firm that they engaged for one of their cases. DaveApter 12:40, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay.  Smeelgova 12:42, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Martin Leaf 

message: The introduction has been worked on very carefully over many, many months with much contraversy.  These changes are abrupt and ther eis absolutley no discussion about them on this page.  I am reverting them back and request that if you want to make a change to the introduction you discuss it and reach consensus on this page.   I understand that the WIkipedia motto is to be bold but please do not be upset if I just revert it back if you just change something we have worked on for so long.   Polite protocol is to discuss on this page.  If you don't you risk having your changes regarded as vandalism. Alex Jackl 07:08, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Though I am of a different opinion, I will wait on this and see if perhaps the original editor who put in the citations/references will comment.  Smeelgova 07:31, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I appreciate that.  While just adding a citation in one domain is not a big change or issue, the article has been cited by WIkipedeans as being overly citation and quote heavy.  Given that it is not a disputed fact that Landmark has drawn criticism and thare is a whole section of the site devoted to that it is hardly necessary to add more citations in the introduction. Also, if you look at standard practice across Wikipedia you will find rarely is there much, if at all, citation going on in the introductory paragraphs. Alex Jackl 16:16, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: On the other hand, User:EstherRice and User:Wbroun have a point - much criticism has not just been voiced by expert commentators, but also by the media.  Perhaps an extra sentence saying this, instead of all of the citations, would be appropriate in the introduction.  That being said, those citations are all from reputable secondary sources, and if they found their way into other parts of the article, they would be reputable and verifiable sourced citations.  Smeelgova 16:26, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Introduction 

message: Please discuss current reverting - some of the changes - not all - look to be improvements to article. SmithBlue 14:03, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I refer you both to Assume good faith And further suggest that content over-rides contributor (Ok if A. Hitler starts editing then maybe not). I find "automatic" reverting uncivil and not kind to new contributors. I see now that the editor involved has warned the user for vandalism. Oh dear. SmithBlue 01:53, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jan 07 reverting 

message: I agree with Smeelgova about anonymous edits- they should be reverted.  If you can't bother to sign on you shouldn't expect your edits to be treated with much courtesy.  However one change that is positive and which I have re-instated is the "provides" vs. "marketing".  The emphasis on "Marketing" is actually deceptive in that it makes it sound like Landmark is a marketing company rather than one that provides programs.  Fixing accordingly.  Alex Jackl 23:42, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I refer you both to Assume good faith And further suggest that content over-rides contributor (Ok if A. Hitler starts editing then maybe not). I find "automatic" reverting uncivil and not kind to new contributors. I see now that the editor involved has warned the user for vandalism. Oh dear. SmithBlue 01:53, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "marketing" vs. "providing" 

message: One change I made though is that I took out "Understanding" as a Landmark term defined in its literature because it is not, and the link attached to it was to an old Landmark web page detailing the history of Werner Erhardt NOT about vocabulary.  *shrug* Alex Jackl 14:24, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Understanding 

message: I just went to these links and they are sufficently useful and informative about the subject matter that they certainly should be kept. These are not eggregious.  There is only five links!  If there is such a desperate need to rduce link count we can remove some of the citations to stuff only peripherally related to Landmark as opposed to these links which are spot on related.  I really think these should be kept in or it justified on this page why to take them off.  Alex Jackl 03:06, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please read Wikipedia:Spam#External_link_spamming.  There is no need to link to this many sub-pages of a for-profit, privately-owned company's website.  These are all pages that the reader can navigate to from the main pages provided already.  Thus this is redundant information, and amounts to link spam.  Smeelgova 10:47, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I did read it and I agree with Alex Jackl Those links point to relevant information and reference not promotion of a product per se.Mvemkr 16:39, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not promotion of a product?  LOL.  That is the only thing that they are doing.  Linking to 2 official sites, as is policy on Google by the way in top hits, is the best way to do this.  Any more and it amounts to Wikipedia:Spam#External_link_spamming.  All of the links go to a for-profit company, advertising a product.  To assume anything else is biased.  Smeelgova 16:42, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I just thought those links made it easier for a reader to find those particularly relevant sections of the Landmark website.Mvemkr 18:58, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Landmark Education website itself  makes it particularly easy to find relevant sections of their own website.  That's why they pay their webmasters the big bucks.  Smee 19:27, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Landmark Links