Talk:Landmark Worldwide/Archive 4

message: After clearly annoying people with my edits, I thought before I did anything big, I'd ask
* Does this section Landmark_Education#University_of_Southern_California contain advertising.
** It has a contact number and a cost.
***Mark?  (Please sign in and sign your posts with four tildes).  You're right.  It should have a standard bibliographic reference, which it's lacking, but not ordering information.  I'll let you fix it; I'm starting to feel like a maid.  :)  Something which may explain the controversy about Landmark to you.  If you're experienced in military history, you're familiar with partisan military accounts which exaggerate the victories and minimize the defeats.  Generally speaking, they can't hold a candle to what Landmark advocates do.  It takes a huge battle to try to get to something accurate, balanced, and neutral.  Kat'n'Yarn 20:41, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is this Advertising 

message: I noticed in my reading of the site and modification to the above discussed section that several of the studies and some of the information refers to LEBD, not Landmark Education. I'm also left with the impression (no facts found yet) that LEBD runs a course based on the Forum technology, but it is not the same as what Landmark Education (LE) runs. I also note that LEBD is a subsidury company, with it's own directors, etc. Given some of the information on this page is for LEBD and not LE, would it reduce the page length, to pull out the studies and information about LEBD and place them on a seperate page Mark1800 01:56, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should Landmark Education Business Development (LEBD) have it's own wiki page 

message: The section as a whole is about varied opinions which are held by different groups of people, rather than about matters of material fact which can satisfactorily be substantiated (matters of fact, if they belong in the article at all, would belong in some other section).  The relevant wikipedia guideline from WP:NPOV is:
:Assert facts, including facts about opinions — but don't assert opinions themselves….Where we might want to state an opinion,…we "convert" that opinion into fact by attributing it to someone. It's important to note this formulation is substantially different from the "some people believe..." formulation popular in political debates. The reference requires an identifiable and objectively quantifiable population or, better still, a name.
: But it's not enough, to express the Wikipedia non-bias policy, just to say that we should state facts and not opinions. When asserting a fact about an opinion, it is important also to assert facts about competing opinions, and to do so without implying that any one of the opinions is correct. It's also generally important to give the facts about the reasons behind the views, and to make it clear who holds them. It's often best to cite a prominent representative of the view.
: We should not attempt to represent a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserved as much attention as a majority view, and views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views. To give undue weight to a significant-minority view, or to include a tiny-minority view, might be misleading as to the shape of the dispute. Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation among experts on the subject, or among the concerned parties.
The "populations"are as follows:
a) Satisfied Landmark customers
b) Dissatisfied Landmark customers
c) Non-customers impressed by Landmark
d) Non-customers critical of Landmark
e) Persons presenting themselves as "authorities on Cults and similar groups"
Objectively quantifying these is a challenge, especially groups (c) and (d).  Group (e) is a small subset of group (d).
The following reservations should be borne in mind with respect to group (e):
#They are essentially self-appointed, and there is no accreditation process for such practitioners
#They have a vested interest in stirring up alarm and concern about unconventional groups
#They have a vested interest in not owning up to errors of fact or interpretation in their pronouncements
#They have no first-hand observation of Landmark’s programs
#They base their conclusions substantially on opinions solicited from groups (b) and (d) above – clearly an unscientific procedure and one suffering systematically from selection bias
#For the above reasons, they are not reliable sources of WP:NPOV data.
The sizes of populations (a) and (b) can be estimated as follows: total number of Landmark customers: 800,000 (LE figures); Proportion rating the course good or excellent in at least one respect :95%.  Of the remaining 5% rating the course fair or poor, only a small proportion would be actively hostile, say 1%.  This would indicate roughly 760,000 in group (a) and maybe up to 8,000 in group (b).  I appreciate that detractors will object to using the DYG survey on the grounds that it was commissioned by LE, and reported by them.  On the other hand, it was carried out by a reputable and highly respected researcher.  Does anyone know of any scientifically sound studies indicating any alternative estimates, or have other suggestions on arriving at them?
: I question your numbers here, having come as you say from Landmark itself.  (The fact that DYG is reputable is almost irrelevant--tobacco companies used to hire reputable firms which showed that smoking didn't cause lung cancer.)  If you excuse my appeal to original research (I'm not suggesting this should go in the article!), of the people I talked to who did the same Forum as me, about 15-30% had strong criticisms of it--criticisms of the sort which are discussed in the article.  Besides, I think you have a false dichotomy here: for example, I would consider myself a "satisfied" customer, yet I don't think the phrase "actively hostile" misrepresents my view of Landmark.  Ckerr 15:16, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Dave says a lot of things that aren't relevant unless he knows of published sources which say the same thing.  No point in debating irrelevant comments.  :)  Kat'n'Yarn 05:48, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Kat'n'yarn's opinons of the relevancy of my comments aside, the identifying of the populations holding various viewpoints, and giving due weight to the reporting of those viewpoints is a requirement of the WP:NPOV policy.  DaveApter 11:16, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It isn't possible to identify numbers, there haven't been any studies done.  Are there any areas of criticism/controversy where there is objective evidence that the criticism/controversy is not significantly held?  If would be much easier to focus on those than to try to speculate about everything.  Considering that the article doesn't even yet have an accurate representation of most of the controversial areas, it may be premature to do the niggling now.  Just the fact that these same controversies have a long-standing pattern and won't go away should provide evidence that they're significant enough to be fairly represented.  Kat'n'Yarn 06:42, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It feels to me Kat'N'Yarn like you are not listening to the people you are debating with:  #There have been studies done- you just don't like them.  I think this is because some of them, particularly DYG, were funded by Landmark.   Please suggest an alternative!   Remember- get a perspective here- Landmark is a company.  Consulting companies are not falling over themselves to do studies on Landmark.  It just isn't a big topic! 
#There is a LOT of evidence that the the criticism/contraversy is not widely held.  ALL the studies cited of people who have actually taken the course indicate an overall level of satisfaction.   This doesn't match your world view apparently because you choose to deride that and instead go on your opinion about it.  I am not suggesting in ANY way that your criticisms are invalid or should not be referenced in the article- just that they are exaggerated and held by a minority.  Currently the page is clearly - based on the above points- unbalanced and POV in favor of the negative view of LE.   This is supposed to be an article about LE and its work NOT a debate page.  What works about Wikipedia is NOT using it for that. 
#You say: "Just the fact that these same controversies have a long-standing pattern and won't go away should provide evidence that they're significant enough to be fairly represented. " You are right but to have them be fairly represented would mean cutitng about half the material out and NPOVing half of the remainder.   If you compare the LE page to other Wikipedia pages it far overly exaggerates the negative opinions held by a vocal minority.  
As a result I did revert the Key Ideas section.  This is an ENCYCLOPEDIA article about an educational organization and the work that it does - deleting the core ideas that represent a major part of its pedagogy is innapropriate unless you can demonstrate that these are NOT the key ideas.
Alex Jackl 13:33, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: General

message: Apart from cutting out the multiplicity of references, as suggested above, this seems to be a succinct statement of the spectrum of opinions.
What further suggestions / comments? DaveApter 14:13, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Religious implications

message: * Please do not remove whole sections of the article before establishing a consensus on the talk page.  The sections you removed without consensus had been present in the article for a long period of time, and are sufficiently sourced in the blockquoted, citation format for referencing.Smeelgova 17:24, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: DaveApter's Deletions

message: I've removed the section "France 3 documentary" due to inaccuracies.
NOTE: Landmark Education was the subject of a sensational and inaccurate broadcast on France TV3.  The broadcast and promotion of the broadcast was identified as inappropriate and against the French journalistic standards.  Based on this information, the station removed this entry from their website and pulled the program which was originally scheduled for re-broadcast.Blondie0309 14:56, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please back up your claims with cited sources. Yours, Smeelgova 01:07, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You have one link that does not lead where it claims to and your other links go to an unreliable, self-published online source.  Please review these policies before adding materialBlondie0309 18:43, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: * Please do not remove blockquoted, referenced sources in citation format.  Information is factually accurate and relevant.  Yours, Smeelgova 18:59, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Landmark Education in France

message: * I removed this section.  The study cited is on the est training, and belongs if anywhere on the est page.  The opinion of Dr Langone belongs if anywhere in the controversies section. DaveApter 14:28, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Other opinions" 

message: From its creation in 2002 by an anonymous editor this article was written from a strong anti-Landmark POV.
After many edits by a field of different editors and with much constructive discussion, it reached a state in November 2005 where differing viewpoints on the subject were all represented and there was qualified agreement on the talk page that the article was broadly fair and in accordance with the WP:NPOV policy.
The entry maintained its stability and balance for a period of about six months until the sudden arrival in May 2006 of User:smeelgova, who embarked on a very aggressive determined editing initiative to shift the POV of the article firmly in an anti-Landmark Education direction.
In July 2006, User:Kat'n'Yarn appeared and announced that the article had a pro-Landmark bias and was too long and that he would boldly edit it to reduce the length.  The proceeding edit by [kat'n'yarn] excised almost all the practical information that a reader would want to know about the company - its principles, courses, the results customers received; but leaving substantially untouched (and even expanding) any negative bias and/or report of allegations from detractors.  
Since that time there have been many attempts by various editors to restore the balance of the page that have been almost always met by an blitz of immediate reversions by either Smeelgova or Kat'n'Yarn. 
This summary is an attempt to give a context for any new readers trying to make sense of the revisions happening on this site.  PLEASE do not remove this summary without discussion on the talk page.Alex Jackl 15:28, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: However, it is not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception.
On commonsense grounds there is clear merit in having it at the top of the page.  The writer made it clear that it was intended to provide a context for the debate, and I see no reason to contest that. Your moving of it is however definitely an example of Behavior that is unacceptable. DaveApter 13:57, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Summary of the History of this Article

message: I personally resent the personal attacks made by the above editor, as well as by the prior editor who reverted my formatting which was in accordance with the Wikipedia Policy : New topics and headings on talk pages.  I would feel much more comfortable sticking to a discussion of sources, references and the content of the article at hand, rather than wasting time attacking each other.  This is in clear violation of Behavior that is unacceptable, at Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. Let us all try to instead focus on the content and debate of sources, rather than discussions of which editors did what when.  It would seem that certain editors are set in their resolve to "make others wrong". - Smeelgova 09:53, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: However, it is not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception.
On commonsense grounds there is clear merit in having it at the top of the page.  The writer made it clear that it was intended to provide a context for the debate, and I see no reason to contest that. Your moving of it is however definitely an example of Behavior that is unacceptable. DaveApter 13:57, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Above editor's Personal Attacks

message: On the contrary there is nothing in the Summary of the Hisory section which is a personal attack.  It is an entirely clear statement of a number of objective facts, about the article itself, namely:
#The article as originally created in 2002 had a clearly anti-Landmark POV. (would anyone dispute that?)
#There was qualified agreement on the talk page that differing sides of the debate were represented in the version of around November 2005. (as can be checked on the archived talk page).
#It was reasonably stable for about six months (as can be checked from the history).
#You, smeelgova, did appear in May 2006 and make a large number of edits (over 2500 to date, almost all on topics related to Landmark Education, or Werner Erhard, or related individuals or organisations).
#Your edits do almost universally shift the POV in a particular direction (and I think you have said as much on occasions - even if from your viewpoint, you regard that as shifting from a 'pro' to a 'neutral' balance).
#It is true that you have often done widespread and repeated reversions of other editor's work.
#It is true that Kat'n'Yarn removed much information about Landmark courses and results, while leaving much negative material, and to some degree enhancing it (and I am clear that he felt justified in doing so, even though I do not agree).
I do not see how any reasonable person could characterise any of that as a personal attack, insult or threat.
Regarding your high-handed interference with the post however, you should be aware that the item you refer to is a Guideline, not a Policy, and as such this qualification applies:
::However, it is not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception.
On commonsense grounds there is clear merit in having it at the top of the page.  The writer made it clear that it was intended to provide a context for the debate, and I see no reason to contest that. Your moving of it is however definitely an example of Behavior that is unacceptable. DaveApter 13:57, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Acceptable behaviour?

message: Dave asked me to take a look at Outrageous Betrayal, which I did. 
My two cents is that the problem of being neutral lies primarily with decisions about which points to assert as fact, and which to tag as disputed.-
The good news is that there's a simple rule of thumb for making these decisions: if two Wikipedians can't agree whether something is a fact, then there is probably a dispute in the real world about it too. So the way to deal with it is to say that it's disputed, and to give both sides of the story.
Like:
*Proponents of est say the seminars worked wondrous transformations in their lives. For example, "Now my life works!"
*Opponents call Erhard and his seminars abusive and worthless. "Nurture this, dad!"
That's the general flavor. I'm not saying to use those 2 specific quotes :-) --Uncle Ed 14:56, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Former admin wanders by

message: Cut 2 sentences:
:The suit was brought under the pretext of compelling discovery for use in the then-active Cult Awareness Network litigation.  However, Pressman concluded that the suit was brought primarily to harass him.  
This is word for word the same as the old version of Outrageous Behavior. I see no reason for this passage to be in both places. And it's entirely from Pressman's anti-Erhard point of view.
We can't call anything a pretext without saying who's calling whom a liar. --Uncle Ed 15:01, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pressman 

message: I added a series of changes that took out some POV stuff and some innapropriate placement of things- like a long historical thing in the middle of the opening paragraph that was a also in, and more appropriately in the origin section.  I also edited some of the stuff that was included and gratuitous.  For instance if you cite an article to demonstrate a fact then don't include other POV stuff that might happen to be in that same article- just put the reference in that supports the fact.   Anything else is just an innappropriate  sliding in of POV content. 
ALso- the issues with "lot " of the data coming from the Landmark Education sites... Come on!  This is an article about a company and its offerings.  That is expected.  The Wikipedia guidelines correctly "caution" users to not overly rely on that data- but it will be a big chunk of where information about an organization comes from. *SIGH*  The Wikipedia guidleines staate  "be careful not to rely on it exclusively if other reliable sources are available, in order to maintain a neutral point of view."  Note the word "EXCLUSIVELY".    Frankly this web site now needs a lot more of that kind of content replaced that was taken out to make it even close to NPOV.
Alex Jackl 15:24, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Current Edits 

message: Here is my outline proposal for an intro:
Landmark Education LLC (LE) is an international employee-owned for-profit private limited liability company headquartered in San Francisco, California which offers self-development courses and trainings.  Its primary product is The Landmark Forum.  Many of the techniques used in Landmark's courses have been developed or borrowed from Werner Erhart's est.
Landmark Education's courses are primarily designed for individuals.  Its subsidiary Landmark Education Business Development (LEBD) provides training and consultancy to organizations.
Landmark Education and its methods evoke controversy, with passionate opinions held both by supporters and detractors.
...
This is too brief for the intro of a 51KB article, but I think the balance is better than that of the current article.  I think it is absolutely essential that the first sentence state exactly what Landmark is (that is, a personal development corporation), but I also think some mention of est needs to be made early on in the intro.  I also think the intro should cover a bit more of the structure of Landmark (i.e. the "curriculum for living").  Unfortuantely I don't have time to actually write something myself along these guidelines, but hopefully if others agree then they can. Ckerr 01:53, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed intro 

message: See:
* WP:EL#Links_normally_to_be_avoided
* WP:COPY#Linking_to_copyrighted_works
Please do not add links to sites that are or may be violating the copyrights of others. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 19:44, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The only person who has alleged copyrights so far anywhere on the internet is User Sm1969 here on Wikipedia.  There is no citable evidence anywhere else as of yet.  Yours, Smeelgova 19:48, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The video can only be verifiable if it was made available by Pièces à Conviction. The clips in the video sharing site can be easily tampered with, specific POV selections could have been made by the uploader, etc. Hence, these fail WP:V.  The BitTorrent file from, no more and no less than from "thepiratebay.com", is a copyvio. And the text encouraging others to dowload and share, is totally out of place. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 19:52, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

text: The burden to check if the material is a copyvio or not, is on the editor wanting to add that material. You can email Pièces à Conviction and ask them if they have given permission to distribute their documentary to thepiratebay. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 19:57, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

text: That is better, thanks. Readers that are interested in that documentary can request a copy from the producers. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 20:27, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I do not understand, I have not added any external links, in fact I have removed links.  Exactly how am I close to violating 3RR?  Please specify, and I will immediately cease said actions, however I think that you are missing the difference between 3RR and new edits on a new theme.  Thanks for engaging in discussion, however.  Yours, Smeelgova 00:28, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Aren't any refereces to PirateBay and EMule "contributory copyright infringement" with no place in Wikipedia? Sm1969 01:08, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not really. We are not linking to the offending material now. Questionable is the fact that that section may be violating WP:NOR. I would suggest that both of you take a well deserved break from editing these articles. Let some time pass, and see what other editors can accomplish in your absence. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 02:08, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Why the sudden animosity? I have made a suggestion to both of you to take a break, as I believe that it is the best for both of you at this point. I have no agenda to support anyone of you in particular. The "legal threats" argument of yours, does not stand, IMO, it is a bit of an exaggeration, same as the personal attacks you claim to have been a victim of. Fact is, if I may say, that both of you have an agenda: one pro and one anti. Wikipedia is one of the few places that opponents get to interact with each other, and I know from experience that it is not easy. But it is possible if we take refuge in Wikipedia policy and respect each other despite the obvious differences in POV. Having said so, Wikipedia is not for everyone, and if the process is too painful to bear, or too stressful, better is not to edit. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 02:27, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links section 

message: IBM History
IBM Wiki
Here are the history of name changes for IBM:
*1889 - Bundy Manufacturing Company
*1896 - Tabulating Machine Company
*1901 - Computing Scale Company
*     - Dey Register Company
*1911 - Copmuting-Tabulting-Record Company
*1924 - International Business Machines Corporation
We have about six name changes, let alone all the subsidiaries of IBM.  IBM, one of the largest companies on the planet, does not have any of this information on its Wiki page, but yet LE has every trivial detail.  I wonder why this is?  Sm1969 06:54, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: History of Name Changes for IBM vs. Landmark Education