Talk:Landmark Worldwide/Archive 9

message: This section as it stands is way over-large and violates the WP:NPOV policy by giving undue weight to minority views, and by reporting opinions as though they were facts.
: The size of the "controversies" section reflects the degree of controversy surrounding almost everything to do with Landmark Education. Attempting to corral the disputes into one section limits the unfolding of the neutral point of view in the article as a whole. -- Pedant17 05:46, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see a "neutral point of view" here.  Stating that "the degree of controversy surrounding almost everything to do with Landmark Education" does not indicate a neutral point of view.  Simplyfabulous 16:42, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  If you regard a "neutral point of view" as consisting of denial of the existence of controversies, then using a phrase like "the degree of controversy surrounding almost everything to do with Landmark Education" sounds like Wiki-heresy. But if you recognize that acknowledging different points of view and presenting them in a balanced way forms a core component of Wikipedia's strategy for achieving NPOV, then any problem clears up in the process of editing itself. To quote the official Wikipedia Policy at WP:NPOV: the fabled "neutral" point of view" consists of "representing views fairly, proportionately and without bias" -- Pedant17 06:36, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

text: It may seem that way to you, but the presumption of good faith inherent in Wikipedia-editing prevents you from making unprovable claims in this arena. -- Pedant17 05:46, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sorry - I thought the advice to "assume good faith" referred to fellow wikipedians with whom we were debating, not to everyone on the planet! And actually I didn't think I was accusing anyone of "bad faith" anyway - my impression is that the overwhelming majority of critics make it quite clear that they have never observed or participated in any of Landmark's programs or courses.DaveApter 11:52, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The assumption of good faith applies indeed to Wikipedians, and thus applies as we edit here. You accused no-one of bad faith: I simply pointed out that fellow-Wikipedians should respect the work of editors representing the majority (broadly-speaking, skeptical) view here. -- Pedant17 05:31, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Please provide references for the "variety of scholarly research papers completed ... from USC and from Harvard". -- Pedant17 05:46, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Interesting notes. I still await the referencing of the "variety of scholarly research papers completed ... from USC and from Harvard". -- Pedant17 06:36, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why the controversies, and what are they about? 

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

message: I am proposing that the entire labor dispute section be removed as non-notable spin representing a minority view.   There seems to be agreement by all the editors but the one editor with the aforementioned minority view.  Other editors? Alex Jackl 19:56, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have unprotected the page. CMummert · talk 02:34, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request to Have Labor Dispute Removed 

message: The same as above, but more so –  this  is a completely absurd accusation, which does not merit even inclusion in a serious encyclopedia article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by DaveApter (talk • contribs).(It was not unsigned - see above DaveApter 14:39, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: EDITORS PLEASE TAKE NOTE: This is unbelievable.  It is like you are channeling Smee.   Are you sure you are not a sock puppet of Smee's?  You are so hooked in your radical belief that Landmark has powerful enchantment powers (possibly acquired from space aliens)) and has brainwashed over a million people.  You can't even see the POV dripping from your statements.  That paragraph is nothing other than spin mud-throwing.  The cult controversy IS NOTEWORTHY.  However- it  has been debunked over and over again.  No serious study has ever called Landmark a cult.  Every time a journal article has said "Landmark is a cult" they have retracted.  The fact is that people have written books and it has been in the media so people assume it and have added Landmark to their "list of cults/sects".  It has NOT ONCE.  NOT EVEN ONE TIME survived study and investigation in a legal environment.  How non-notable do you want to get.  Now it is worthy of being mentioned in the article because it IS something that has been associated with Landmark in the public eye. But that is what make sit notable.  Fact is: It is not a cult. All the studies and legal history support that.   Please stop littering this page with that POV weaselling- it is what has been the source of all the troubles with this page. Alex Jackl 15:37, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Do I channel Smee or vice versa? Difficult to determine -- apart from our different styles, interests, and activities on Wikipedia. However, to return from the joys of gossip and the pastime of insults and the minority-viewpoint discussion of the issue of cultdom, I note a lack of specific relevant response to my discussion of Ms Spears and brainwashing. -- Pedant17 05:31, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Brainwashing accusations

message: It is completely ridiculous to devote aboout a page to this issue.  We have no idea what the criteria are the the compiler of the report used.  It is a report about the tolerance of the Austrian government towards minority groups, not about the characteristics of the groups themselves, and LE has never had an operation in Austria anyway.  The whole section should come out. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by DaveApter (talk • contribs).(It was not unsigned - see above DaveApter 14:39, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is also notable that Landmark was dropped in 2006 from that report.  Notice how little weight that was given.  All POV pushing trying to get a single POV justified. Alex Jackl 14:06, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Dropped or simply omitted? -- The decline of Landmark Education across Europe may deserve some weight. I append for reference the relevant section -- recently excised. -- Pedant17 05:31, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Austrian Classification

message: As I've said above, there are controversies but the prominence given to them in the article is out of all proportion to the number of people holding these views or the quality of the evidence to surpport them.
People who have an agenda of using this article to propagate damaging fallacious stories about Landmark frequently defend their edits by referring to the “reliable sources” on which their edits are based.
But on examining the references, we see that many of them are highly questionable:
===The "cult" issue===
Samways has not observed the conduct of any Landmark courses, 
: Observing the conduct of all or any Landmark education "courses" does not constitute a pre-requisite for commenting on the observable outcomes of attending such things. -- Pedant17 03:38, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "entirely speculative"? -- The self-selecting individuals compare neatly with those self-selecting individuals who choose to boost Landmark Education. Samways has the advantage of fitting Landmark Education into an array of similar cults and dodgy operations. -- Pedant17 03:38, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Asides have particular merit in the evaluation of objects of popular culture such as Landmark Education. Where a full-blown investigation  might seem silly and time-wasting, an aside can reveal the everyday mainstream opinion on a matter. -- Pedant17 03:38, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

text: So do some research, find out about the circumstances, and report in the article of the degree of alleged sensationalism and the balance of the programs. Deletion does not promote NPOV as well as further impeccable research. What a great opportunity to expand one's Swedish-language skills! -- Pedant17 03:38, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

text: The Belgian, German and Austrian reports themselves go into considerable detail on criteria and methodology. Bring that to the table. -- Pedant17 03:38, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree that court cases provide an unrepresentative sample. We could expand this section to deal with other allegations and degrees of allegation.
-- Pedant17 03:38, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

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

text: The very title of the Austrian ministerial report (Cults: Knowledge protects") and the grouping of Landmark Education with other "Psycho-groups"  suggests that the Austian ministerial report does more than advertise tolerance. See http://www.ilsehruby.at/Sektenbroschuere.html -- Pedant17 03:38, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is there an english translation? My german/austiran is not that good.Mvemkr 20:12, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I know of no English translation. Have you tried one of the on-line web-page translation services? -- Failing that or in addition to that, any translator or bilingual person could help out. I believe User:AJackl has excellent German. -- Pedant17 06:36, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

text: If and only if one dismisses documented links, one can make such claims. -- Pedant17 03:38, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Some people do regard Scientology as a religion. Others treat it as a commercial enterprise quite similar in several ways to Landmark Education. Wikipedia has the flexibility to cover different categorizations. -- Pedant17 03:38, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Examination of sources 

message: Samways has not observed the conduct of any Landmark courses, 
: Observing the conduct of all or any Landmark education "courses" does not constitute a pre-requisite for commenting on the observable outcomes of attending such things. -- Pedant17 03:38, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "entirely speculative"? -- The self-selecting individuals compare neatly with those self-selecting individuals who choose to boost Landmark Education. Samways has the advantage of fitting Landmark Education into an array of similar cults and dodgy operations. -- Pedant17 03:38, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Asides have particular merit in the evaluation of objects of popular culture such as Landmark Education. Where a full-blown investigation  might seem silly and time-wasting, an aside can reveal the everyday mainstream opinion on a matter. -- Pedant17 03:38, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

text: So do some research, find out about the circumstances, and report in the article of the degree of alleged sensationalism and the balance of the programs. Deletion does not promote NPOV as well as further impeccable research. What a great opportunity to expand one's Swedish-language skills! -- Pedant17 03:38, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

text: The Belgian, German and Austrian reports themselves go into considerable detail on criteria and methodology. Bring that to the table. -- Pedant17 03:38, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: The "cult" issue

message: There are two instances quoted of attempts to sue Landmark for allegedly prompting a mental breakdown.  Apart from the possibility of these cases being opportunistically motivated, and the fact that the courts did not uphold the contention that Landmark could be established as a cause, two cases out of almost a million is clearly statistically insignificant (and in any event is vanishingly smaller than the number of instances that would be expected from a random sample of this size drawn from the population at large). And incidentally, neither of these cases actually reference the section heading of “brainwashing”.
: I agree that court cases provide an unrepresentative sample. We could expand this section to deal with other allegations and degrees of allegation.
-- Pedant17 03:38, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The reference to Lell reflects the writing of a detailed memoir which publishers deemed worthy of publication and defense. The inclusion of comments from the field of psychology and the expansion to include the account of Lell's parents give it weight far greater than that of "subjective unsubtatntiated opinion" -- even before the court case lent some support to the expression of that opinion. -- Pedant17 03:38, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Brainwashing accusations

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

message: There is no connection between Scientology and Landmark, and attempts to pretend that there is is merely deliberate scaremongering.  
: If and only if one dismisses documented links, one can make such claims. -- Pedant17 03:38, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Some people do regard Scientology as a religion. Others treat it as a commercial enterprise quite similar in several ways to Landmark Education. Wikipedia has the flexibility to cover different categorizations. -- Pedant17 03:38, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Scientology

message: In 1992 the Church of Scientology (which has the classification of a religious organization in certain jurisdictions, such as that of the United States of America, but not in others) included Werner Erhard, EST (Erhard Seminars Training) and "The Forum" on a list of "Suppressive Persons and Groups".
Suppressive Persons and Groups, Flag ED 2830RB, 25 July 1992.
"When it comes to Landmark Education Corporation, There's no meeting of the Minds.", Westword, April 24, 1996, Steve Jackson.Landmark contends that all the bad publicity ultimately can be traced to one enemy: the Church of Scientology.  And in fact, there is some truth to the charge. The church's own records indicate that Erhard and his organization were placed on an enemies list by the late L. Ron Hubbard, Scientology's founder. There's also evidence that the church hired private detectives to dig up dirt on Erhard and disseminate it to the press.
Scientology has a special procedure that new Scientologists must go through if they have previously participated in either Erhard Seminars Training or in the Landmark Forum. Scientologists refer to the procedure as the "Est Repair Rundown".
Scientology Missions International, website, 2006. "Est Repair Rundown." "If you attended Erhard Seminar Training (EST) or Forum (one of its off-shoots), this rundown can repair any damage done by this off-beat activity. EST practices contained just enough truth, “borrowed” from Scientology processes, to get a case into restimulation — and then left it in that state without any means to repair it. This rundown undoes the damage and removes any stops so you can get everything Scientology has to offer.
   
The German Stern (magazine) has compared Landmark Education to the Church of Scientology.    
Soul Strip Tease, Stern, Germany, April 2, 1998.    
    
They consistently promise total control to the same people whom are then subjected to total control. A good example to read up on in regards to this is Scientology founder L. Ron Hubbard.
The Frankfurter Neue Presse, stated that: "They are suspected of having connections with the Scientology Church."
Green Party detects a scandal in hall rental, Frankfurter Neue Presse, May 29, 1998., by Kristiane Huber.
   
In 2003 a Bavarian Study on Scientology compared the practices of Landmark Education and of Scientology.  The objective of the description and assessment of the Scientology and Landmark organizations was the investigation of the psychic, physical and social effects of the psycho- and social-techniques applied by those organizations respectively upon members and participants. The third objective also included the presentation of legal problems, conflicts or violations by the two organizations, along with pointers as to possible paths of resolution.
Heinrich Kuefner, Norbert Nedopil, Heinz Schoech, Robert Doerr, Stefanie Eiden, Raik Werner, "Expert opinion: Effects and risks of unconventional psycho- and social- techniques", Munich, Germany, February 17, 2003.
In 2004, Mona Vasquez appeared in the documentary "Voyage to the Land of the New Gurus" addressing what she saw as extensive and precise similarities between Scientology terminology and the jargon utilized by Landmark Education.
"Voyage to the Land of the New Gurus", France 3, Pièces a Conviction, May 24, 2004, Mona Vasquez.
A member of Scientology for seven years, Vasquez wrote the book Et Satan créa la secte [Satan Created the Cult: Memoirs of an escapee].
In 2006, Susan J. Palmer discussed Landmark Education at a CESNUR conference. She referenced a statement by journalist Martin Mireille who had stated that Landmark Education is "a branch of Scientology". However, in Palmer's remarks, she rejects this assertion.
Susan J. Palmer, "France's About-Picard Law and Neo-Phare: The First Application of Abus de Faiblesse", CESNUR 2006 International Conference, July 16, 2006. "Landmark Education, founded under the name 'est' by Werner Erhardt in the early 1970s, incorporates techniques from the Human Potential Movement, and is not, as journalist Martin Mireille wrote, 'a branch of Scientology'."
.
</blockquote>
The first two references, from the Scientology organisation itself, merely demonstrate that Scientology is antagonistic to Landmark, and do nothing to demonstrate any similarities.
: The very existence of antagonism implies causes in the past, which investigators of Landmark Education may or may not find of interest. Should we delete such points on the off-chance? -- Pedant17 03:38, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Did the text of the Landmark Education article provide a fair summary of this reflection of popular culture? -- Pedant17 03:38, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Add a note on that alleged conclusion, then. Include some quotations (and translations). Account in passing for the comparing of the two entities in the first place. -- Pedant17 03:38, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

text: ... but Mona Vasquez, whatever her background and knowledge, professed to recognizing extensive similarities... Once again, ask the question: why did a editors of a mass-media outlet see fit even to link the idea of Scientology and Landmark Education, let alone broadcast a suggestion of that link to an audience of millions? -- Pedant17 03:38, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know - I wasn't party to the decision to make or screen the program.  But since you are asking, my guess would be that they were assured of a large audience for a muck-raking program on a purported "cult". As you probably know, "cults" have the guaranteed grip on the public attention in France as, say, the Royal Family does in England. DaveApter 16:13, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Fair guess. And it implies that the editors reflect the fabled majority-opinion -- at least the majority opinion in France. -- The single guess does also potentially gloss over other possibilities: the possibility that the editors believed in the link on the basis of this and other evidence; the possibility that the editors thought they had sufficient grounds to withstand any potential legal challenge from the reputedly litigious orgs involved (Scientology and Landmark Education); and the possibility that the editors wanted to perform a public service in exposing or airing the link between Scientology and Landmark Education. -- Pedant17 06:36, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Perhaps an example of balance and contradiction. We do that in Wikipedia sometimes to promote something we call the "Neutral point of View "(NPOV). -- Pedant17 03:38, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

text: How many persons of expertise in the somewhat specialized field of "loaded language" need one seek out? And does publication of a mention of Landmark Education jargon in an august journal such as The Times carry any particular weight? -- Pedant17 03:38, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Seek out and reference and quote those countervailing accounts, then. Don't complain on the talk-page: take action! -- Pedant17 03:38, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scientology 

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

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

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

message: Hello, pedant17, and thank you for your contributions to this discussion.
You have made a large number of comments on this talk page, 
: No. really: a mere few. -- Pedant17 06:36, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: They aim at improving the article. Why do you ask? -- Pedant17 06:36, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

text: We have very little peer-reviewed work to support any view of Landmark Education. A Wikipedia editor has recently deleted an attempt at explanation as to why. We once referenced a sociological commentary by Drew Kopp on the layout and management of "Landmark Forum" rooms: http://www.u.arizona.edu/~kopp/Finalmat3.pdf . A Wikipedia editor subsequently removed that reference. Much of the remaining material does not meet the high standards that Wikipedia prescribes as optimal, and we fall back all too often on appeals to the marketing hype perpetrated by the Landmark Education web-page. Yet still we cherish the Wikipedia mission of providing balanced information. -- Pedant17 06:36, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The standard for most articles outside scholarly fields such as science, history, mathematics, etc. is the presence or absence of references in authoritative mainstream printed media. Most of the sources are recognised authorities by that criterion.ERTalk 10:28, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

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

text: Some Wikipedians edit at random, or edit for style rather than content or interest. Editors who know nothing about a given subject can often see the structural or logical or grammatical flaws in articles more readily than "insiders". Wikipedia encourages the boldness and contribution of such valued "drive-by" editors. -- Pedant17 02:12, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly, that is how I came across this page. However,  as an observer, sometime confidante, and sometime mark of people who've done EST/Landmark and similar "training", I do have experience that is just as valid as that of someone who has done a "course" (or is a "trainer") and is less PoV than either. Neither type of experience qualifies as anything but original research, as you should know. The argument above is thus invalid.ERTalk 15:06, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

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

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

text: This speculation as to personal reactions does not further our collective aim of determining the true objective majority/minority/significant-minority views on Landmark Education and all its works. -- Pedant17 06:36, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  ... and the idea of sources is again being diverted by this red herring.ERTalk 10:28, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Not necessarily. Impartial external observers have much more credibility. -- Pedant17 06:36, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Once again, the argument 'Surely those who have done Landmark courses are well placed to comment on them.' is completely at odds with policy.ERTalk 10:28, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Participating in Landmark Education activities does provide a bad indicator for objectivity. But Wikipedia can tolerate the opinions of such people -- in this case as minorities. -- Pedant17 02:12, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think anyone is talking about exclusion, the article is full of advertising copy but well-sourced criticism is constantly being thrown out.ERTalk 10:28, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

text: You need to take into account as well the opinions of those who have attended Landmark activities but not done "the Forum". Such people may have encountered Landmark Education at any time within the last 16 years. An attendee from 1991 has as much right to comment with as much weight as an attendee from 2007. Not that accounts of personal experience can convey much objectivity in an encyclopedic evaluation of Landmark Education and its effects on the wider world. -- Pedant17 02:12, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Pedant17, having attended distastefully manipulative (I could say more) social events. However, this still has nothing to do with policy.ERTalk 10:28, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

message: You assert several times that it is a Minority viewpoint that “that Landmark Education represents a worthy and worthwhile endeavor”. On what possible evidence or information do you base this extraordinary opinion?
This is important because it relates to the wikipedia policies on NPOV and Undue weight.
This is how it seems to  me:
In round figures, about 1,000,000 have done the Landmark Forum
Surveys from several reputable organisations consistently report 93% - 95% “highly satisfied” or some such. It’s reasonable to assume that most of the remaining 5-7% are broadly satisfied to some degree, leaving say 1% who are actively hostile.
: Whatever the reputation of the organizations involved in the polling, doubts often persist as to the methodology used. And regardless of these polls, measurement of customer-satisfaction may serve as a marketing tool, but says little about other aspects or effects of Landmark Education. We know that Landmark Education has a marketing method. We can expect that (say) carefully-selected groups of "graduates" in a Landmark-drenched environment will answer questionnaires "appropriately". We need more research on the broader picture before we paint all of Landmark Education as rosy. -- Pedant17 06:36, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The figures from Landmark Education's website (recently removed from the Wikipedia article on Landmark Education) may suggest how ineffective a strategy results. -- Pedant17 06:36, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

text: We have very little peer-reviewed work to support any view of Landmark Education. A Wikipedia editor has recently deleted an attempt at explanation as to why. We once referenced a sociological commentary by Drew Kopp on the layout and management of "Landmark Forum" rooms: http://www.u.arizona.edu/~kopp/Finalmat3.pdf . A Wikipedia editor subsequently removed that reference. Much of the remaining material does not meet the high standards that Wikipedia prescribes as optimal, and we fall back all too often on appeals to the marketing hype perpetrated by the Landmark Education web-page. Yet still we cherish the Wikipedia mission of providing balanced information. -- Pedant17 06:36, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The standard for most articles outside scholarly fields such as science, history, mathematics, etc. is the presence or absence of references in authoritative mainstream printed media. Most of the sources are recognised authorities by that criterion.ERTalk 10:28, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

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

text: Some Wikipedians edit at random, or edit for style rather than content or interest. Editors who know nothing about a given subject can often see the structural or logical or grammatical flaws in articles more readily than "insiders". Wikipedia encourages the boldness and contribution of such valued "drive-by" editors. -- Pedant17 02:12, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly, that is how I came across this page. However,  as an observer, sometime confidante, and sometime mark of people who've done EST/Landmark and similar "training", I do have experience that is just as valid as that of someone who has done a "course" (or is a "trainer") and is less PoV than either. Neither type of experience qualifies as anything but original research, as you should know. The argument above is thus invalid.ERTalk 15:06, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

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

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

text: This speculation as to personal reactions does not further our collective aim of determining the true objective majority/minority/significant-minority views on Landmark Education and all its works. -- Pedant17 06:36, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  ... and the idea of sources is again being diverted by this red herring.ERTalk 10:28, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Not necessarily. Impartial external observers have much more credibility. -- Pedant17 06:36, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Once again, the argument 'Surely those who have done Landmark courses are well placed to comment on them.' is completely at odds with policy.ERTalk 10:28, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Participating in Landmark Education activities does provide a bad indicator for objectivity. But Wikipedia can tolerate the opinions of such people -- in this case as minorities. -- Pedant17 02:12, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think anyone is talking about exclusion, the article is full of advertising copy but well-sourced criticism is constantly being thrown out.ERTalk 10:28, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

text: You need to take into account as well the opinions of those who have attended Landmark activities but not done "the Forum". Such people may have encountered Landmark Education at any time within the last 16 years. An attendee from 1991 has as much right to comment with as much weight as an attendee from 2007. Not that accounts of personal experience can convey much objectivity in an encyclopedic evaluation of Landmark Education and its effects on the wider world. -- Pedant17 02:12, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Pedant17, having attended distastefully manipulative (I could say more) social events. However, this still has nothing to do with policy.ERTalk 10:28, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

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

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

text: Artificial pseudo-consensus may exclude majorities too. -- Pedant17 06:36, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Majority or minority viewpoints?

message: I have restored the well-researched criticism sections that must have taken a lot of work to assemble but were removed by people acting on behalf of Landmark.
I have read this page but cannot see any concensus (except among the Landmark people) for their removal.
Arguments by analogy are not always appropriate, but the above statements by Dave Apter really beg for it. By analogy, Dave is saying that, for example
i. only members of the LAPD who were personally involved in beating Rodney King can offer a valid opinion on any matter to do with Rodney King;
ii. only guards of former concentration camps (whether in the Boer War, WWII, 50's Malaysia, or elsewhere entirely) are capable of knowledgeable comment about said concentration camps;
iii. only members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints can have a valid opinion on the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints;
iv. only personnel with US Marine training can have a valid viewpoint on the US Marines, etc. etc.
Obviously Landmark is a much smaller phenomenon than e.g. the Church of Scientology and fewer outsiders would have heard of it. There is a good chance that more people have done the courses than have heard of Landmark but have a negative opinion. In fact, the high-pressure tactics used by Landmark believers to attempt to get their friends to cough up for the courses (e.g. the fact that a refuser will end up on the periphery of or completely ostracised by a group dominated by believers) makes this all the more likely, since in a group taken or formed by the Landmark meme only those who are willing to make waves and risk not going with the flow will feel able to avoid the courses. 
The Church of Scientology would almost certainly be able to make the same argument: our members outnumber our critics. Most people just don't have any interest, and why should they? That is, the arguments regarding size [sic] of various populations are specious and not worthy of any serious response.ERTalk 08:54, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Response by Esther Rice

message: Thanks Esther for your contributions to this discussion. However you seem to have misunderstood the points I was making.
Firstly, the examples you give bear no resemblance to my position: to take just the first one, it is clearly the case that a number of groups could have "valid opinion" on the beating of Rodney King - a) Rodney King himself, b)eye-witnesses at the scene, c) those who had seen the events on videotape, d)those who had received accounts directly from any of the foregoing. Any of the above might qualify as a Reliable Source for the purposes of a Wikipedia article. Neither am I questioning the "validity" of the opinions held by individuals whose sources of information were less direct than these, but it is unlikely that such opinions would count as sources of factual data for an encyclopedia article.
: In each of Esther's four tentative analogies, one group may comment, and others may not -- regardless of the existence of other groups with potentially different viewpoints; regardless of perceived majority/minority/significant-minority status. Identifying other parties to the Rodney King incident highlights the problems of selecting a single group or viewpoint and declaring it the majority. -- Pedant17 02:12, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ghettoizing discussion to a controversies section artificially breaches the neutral point of view  by implying that some areas or alleged facts lack controversy. -- Pedant17 06:36, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I realised later that even using the word opinion was in error, but it was in response to the odd comments about numbers, which were indeed couched in such terms. I am familiar with the NPOV policy; perhaps the people who are so intent on removing the criticism could try reading it. The removal of well-researched information essentially on the grounds that 'I don't like it' or 'I disagree, and don't care if good references have been given' (precisely what's happening here) is clearly POV.ERTalk 15:06, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

text: We have very little peer-reviewed work to support any view of Landmark Education. A Wikipedia editor has recently deleted an attempt at explanation as to why. We once referenced a sociological commentary by Drew Kopp on the layout and management of "Landmark Forum" rooms: http://www.u.arizona.edu/~kopp/Finalmat3.pdf . A Wikipedia editor subsequently removed that reference. Much of the remaining material does not meet the high standards that Wikipedia prescribes as optimal, and we fall back all too often on appeals to the marketing hype perpetrated by the Landmark Education web-page. Yet still we cherish the Wikipedia mission of providing balanced information. -- Pedant17 06:36, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The standard for most articles outside scholarly fields such as science, history, mathematics, etc. is the presence or absence of references in authoritative mainstream printed media. Most of the sources are recognised authorities by that criterion.ERTalk 10:28, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

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

message: Dear EstherRice.  I can only speak for myself when I assure you that I am not "acting on behalf of Landmark."  I am acting to ensure NPOV in this article.  You write: "I have read this page but cannot see any concensus (except among the Landmark people) for their removal." I imagine the majority of editors for this page, if not all, have either done Landmark courses or have some specific knowledge through talking to people who have.  As you say, who else would be interested enough to bother?  And that is fine: I expect that substantial edits to most Wiki pages are only made by those who have some direct knowledge or interest.  
: Some Wikipedians edit at random, or edit for style rather than content or interest. Editors who know nothing about a given subject can often see the structural or logical or grammatical flaws in articles more readily than "insiders". Wikipedia encourages the boldness and contribution of such valued "drive-by" editors. -- Pedant17 02:12, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly, that is how I came across this page. However,  as an observer, sometime confidante, and sometime mark of people who've done EST/Landmark and similar "training", I do have experience that is just as valid as that of someone who has done a "course" (or is a "trainer") and is less PoV than either. Neither type of experience qualifies as anything but original research, as you should know. The argument above is thus invalid.ERTalk 15:06, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

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

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

text: This speculation as to personal reactions does not further our collective aim of determining the true objective majority/minority/significant-minority views on Landmark Education and all its works. -- Pedant17 06:36, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  ... and the idea of sources is again being diverted by this red herring.ERTalk 10:28, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Not necessarily. Impartial external observers have much more credibility. -- Pedant17 06:36, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Once again, the argument 'Surely those who have done Landmark courses are well placed to comment on them.' is completely at odds with policy.ERTalk 10:28, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Participating in Landmark Education activities does provide a bad indicator for objectivity. But Wikipedia can tolerate the opinions of such people -- in this case as minorities. -- Pedant17 02:12, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think anyone is talking about exclusion, the article is full of advertising copy but well-sourced criticism is constantly being thrown out.ERTalk 10:28, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

text: You need to take into account as well the opinions of those who have attended Landmark activities but not done "the Forum". Such people may have encountered Landmark Education at any time within the last 16 years. An attendee from 1991 has as much right to comment with as much weight as an attendee from 2007. Not that accounts of personal experience can convey much objectivity in an encyclopedic evaluation of Landmark Education and its effects on the wider world. -- Pedant17 02:12, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Pedant17, having attended distastefully manipulative (I could say more) social events. However, this still has nothing to do with policy.ERTalk 10:28, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

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

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

text: Artificial pseudo-consensus may exclude majorities too. -- Pedant17 06:36, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Another reply to Esther Rice

message: I was going to comment on all of Pedant17 and EstherRice's comments but I have found a theme and it is that same theme that caused all the isuses when Smee was editing here.
: I hate to diagnose stuckness "in the past". I prefer to look back on the glory-days. -- Pedant17 02:12, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am very sorry that the Landmark devotees have managed to tire Smee by organising (yes, I know it might have been spontaneous self-organisation) to monitor the page around the clock etc.ERTalk 10:28, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

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

text: Debate occurs in much of the scrabbling-together of human knowledge that Wikipedia reflects. I would expect the Wikipedia article on Landmark Education to reflect/summarize  and even continue this debate -- citations and all. Landmark Education, of course, has nothing to fear when all the cards appear on the table. -- Pedant17 06:36, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The statement that "these are valid, well-formed citations" is perfectly correct in this context, the page with the critical material could not be construed as an attack page. The fact that Smee made a mistake or accidentally offended the wrong people elsewhere has no bearing on the LE page.ERTalk 10:28, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Balance and NPOV 

message: ... and should be tagged as such.  Thousands of KB of highly-sourced material, meticulously sourced to reputable secondary sourced citations, has been removed unjustly.  Smee 07:02, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Note too that material representing a significant minority view (such as the view that Landmark Education constitutes merely a legitimate and innocuous business, for example) can even stay in the article if sufficiently well-sourced. -- Pedant17 02:12, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

text: How much weight constitutes "too much weight"? How can one definitively make a distinction between "negative" and non-negative views? How many minorities can you count?  -- Pedant17 06:36, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Again, Smee, you think that any negative material that is sourced is justifiable.  It has to be within the balance guidelines of NPOV.  Just as the article on Microsoft is controversial, you have to spend some space describing LE's products as you do Microsoft's products.  This article has already more than enough criticism.  Sm1969 18:28, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The article has virtually no criticism, actually, at the moment.  Much of the information that was sourced to highly reputable citations was removed.  The article reads like a PR push / shill piece, advertising everyone to go and try out The Forum...  Smee 04:35, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

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

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

message: Smee, it would be great if you would actually engage constructively with the debate here instead of just parroting the same assertions over and over again and simply ignoring points made by other contributors which do not coincide with your viewpoint.
You have not seriously addressed the questions that have been raised regarding the quality, verifiablity and relevance of many of the sources you have cited.  Simply saying over and over again that they are "meticulously sourced to reputable secondary sourced citations" does not make that the case.  In many instances they fall far short of the standards one would expect to justify an encyclopedia entry. When we actually look at the sources you have drawn from, we find that many of them are one or more of the following:
# Statements by partisan commentators
## One would legitimately expect to find partisan comments in such a contested field. They may come in handy to provide the balance associated with the neutral point of view. -- Pedant17 02:12, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Quality of sources

message: Motivated people esp those motivated by financial gain
can make an extended effort to write and maintain pages favorable to them
Through a mixture of hardheadiness, will and perhaps a number of persons they can employ round the clock.
I'm not familar with this subject at all
but just a cursory reading of this page I can see how skewed it is in favor of LE. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.22.78.184 (talk • contribs) 
*Thank you for voicing your comments.  And the fact that random people like this come by and make comments like this is very illustrative of the problems with all of the sourced citations and material that has been removed from the article, in favor of re-writing it to look more like an advertisement / publicity-stunt piece...  Smee 12:02, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Even a casual reader can react validly to the tone and language of an article. -- Pedant17 03:08, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Non-specific musing/speculation on possible behaviors does not constitute an allegation that Landmark Education employs editors of this article. -- Pedant17 03:08, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

text: You may indeed wonder about mainstream skeptics, but doing so here may not further the editing of the Wikipedia "Landmark Education" article much. -- Pedant17 03:08, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

text: That conclusion does not necessarily follow. -- Pedant17 03:08, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Most views (on any subject) start as minority views. In the case of Landmark Education, have you distinguished extreme minority views (such as "we can fix Landmark Education's faults") from other minority views (such as "Landmark Education adopted the for-profit model to show how benignly it plans to treat humankind")? If so, how? -- Pedant17 03:08, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Whether or not your whole family drowned, you have every right to expand the article on drowning with well-referenced and relevant relevant material. -- Pedant17 03:08, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

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

message: There is a constant theme to all this that involves how well-sourced the non-noptable material is and how much the "public deserves to see all sides and then the Wikipedia readers can figure it out".
# 1. Bad, non-notable, non-appropriate material can be as well-sources and from respected journals even but does not belong in the article.  The problem is that the majority of editors feel that the links are non-notable. 
# 2. Wikipedia is not designed to be a newsgroup or a debate page. Over and over again this debate happens with this page and then when it escalates to a Wikipedia admin it always resolves in favor of the people against the non-notable negative attack entries. 
Let's stop the edit warring please... Alex Jackl 16:48, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well-sourced material, as published, has already started on the journey to potential notability. "Respected journals" do not always deign to notice popular-culture fringe activity such as that of Landmark Education. That simply means that Wikipedia editors need to cut their cloth to fit the appropriate case. Hypersensitivity -- to the degree of branding mainstream criticism as "negative attack entries" -- hardly helps. -- Pedant17 03:08, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not a Debate page for minority-held views 

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

message: Wow guys, wow.  So interesting.  Score one for the advertising / marketing / public relations department...  Smee 14:05, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks gone to me...  Score one for the public relations reps / volunteer laborers... Smee 15:41, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Entire criticism section is gone?