Talk:Landmark Worldwide/Archive 3

message: Unless you want your grandchildren to still be haggling over this, this needs a fresh start!  This article has been closer to being NPOV in the past than it is now.
To begin with, all participating editors need to have an overriding commitment to reaching a consensus on a well-written, well-organized, clear and concise encyclopedic article (according to Wikipedia's standards, not your own) where all points of view can agree that they are fairly represented.  Some research may be needed to apprise yourself of the background needed to do that.
Since there was a message that the previous talk page was too long, I have moved it to Archive 2.
This entire article needs to be scrapped and begun anew.  I suggest first developing an outline of sections and subsections to be covered, then fleshing out the outline.  Some sections which have been previously deleted should be considered for re-inclusion.  Kat'n'Yarn 17:13, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article needs a fresh start! 

message: This is where what's already been written can't be salvaged.  Wikipedia's guidelines on Reliable sources states:
"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."
I think a few allowances can be made, but the present article relies wholesale on Landmark Education's website.  "Wikipedia articles should use reliable published sources."  See also Neutral point of view.  Kat'n'Yarn 03:18, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Use caution when using a company website as a source

message: I originally started by attempting to clean up the Management article, however, the more I look through this entire article the more I notice bizarre additions of people all over.  As I mentioned in a previous discussion, I researched other major company's articles for comparisons sake and found the following:
I researched other major companies to see what their articles said about     their management persons/structure and found very little (please see: Tony Robbins, The Learning Company, Target Corporation, and Wal-Mart). At most, I discovered a list of Wal-Mart board members and a link to a very brief biography of the company's CEO. Even Tony Robbins article gave only a minimal description of Mr. Robbins personal life. While the heads of a company are pertinent and important to an informational article about a company—the slew of disjointed employees is not, and calls into question the NPOV of that article. Thus, I've removed a number of unnecessary persons from this article due to the fact that they have little to nothing to do with Landmark Education at present and the fact that they may have been involved at some previous point is neither pertinent nor standard information for other similar articles Blondie0309 18:18, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I looked at Blondie's deletions.  As much as we need to shorten this article, I agree that persons significant in the history of the organization are appropriate under the "See also" section.  Encyclopedia's don't live in the present moment.  I don't understand Blondie's statement that listing them is POV, although I'd like to hear about it if there's something I'm not thinking of.    Kat'n'Yarn 01:37, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Persons Associated with Landmark Education

message: (also posted on Talk:Landmark Education Vocabulary)
The "Landmark Education Vocabulary" article, and related "Vocabulary" section of this article, do not follow a number of Wikipedia guidlines:  
*The "Landmark Education Vocabulary" article should be renamed and moved to "Landmark Education jargon" as "vocabulary" is not an accurate description.  Also be sure to modify all links to the page.
*The current article content is not aceptable as uncited original research.  Personally, IMO it's a public service to define these terms, but can you post them elsewhere and then link to that site under "See Also: External Links"?
*Reliable published sources should be used as a basis for the article's content, e.g., the metro article, and any other published works which refer to the subject.
*In order to make the article NPOV, fair representation needs to be included on the published work of cult experts (for lack of a better term) regarding "loaded language."  Kat'n'Yarn 19:43, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree. Terminology is used to describe specialized language in more widespread and traditional fields. Scientists use terminology. Data processing uses terminology. Use within a specialized group is most commonly called "jargon". Can you find any published sources which establish a precedent of referring to Landmark Education's verbage as "terminology"? I don't recall ever hearing that reference, but "jargon" has been used many, many times. Kat'n'Yarn 22:12, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  While I agree that "vocabulary" is not necessarily the best word, it is the word that Landmark uses, and if I were trying to find information on the topic, I would do a search for "Landmark Education vocabulary", because that's what it's called.  (For example: the Democratic People's Republic of North Korea is not particularly democratic, but that doesn't mean its article should be renamed.)  I think the page should be moved back to "vocabulary", and I think "vocabulary" should be one of the words on the vocabulary page, since vocabulary has a special meaning in Landmark.  I also disagree that its lack of sources is a serious problem; anyone who has attended the Forum is in some sense an "expert", so I think this is a case where original research is justifiable, since it is verifiable in a way that most original research isn't. Ckerr 14:01, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Since the article concerns Landmark's unorthodox use of the English language, Landmark's own use of the English language should not be the basis of deciding what language should be used outside the Landmark context. I again note that Wikipedia's guideline is to base articles on published sources, not personal opinion.  The purpose of Wikipedia is not to allow everyone to form an article on their own personal "expertise", unless it's published.  That is precisely what the policy on original research is designed to eliminate.  Wikipedia makes no exceptions in allowing some original research.  Kat'n'Yarn 01:31, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that the term "jargon" is inaccurate and misleading.  In the Harvard Business School Case Study: "Landmark Education Corporation: Selling a Paradigm Shift", Karen Wruck & Mikelle Eastley (1998), the authors use the word "distinction" in discussing the terminology of Landmark Education.  Never do they use the words "jargon", "vocabulary", or "terminology".  The term "distinction" is also used in "The Promise of Philosophy and the Landmark Forum", Steven R. McCarl, et al. Contemporary Philosophy 23, 51 (2001).  While I don't think the word "jargon" is appropriate, some mention might be given of the participant's confusion in understanding some of the terms.  User:Sketchjoy 02:30, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Substantial revisions needed in "Landmark Education Vocabulary" section/article

message: I wanted to allow a few days for comments, so I wouldn't send everyone into shock.  Unless there are objections, I'd like to do some bold cutting, reorganizing, combining, summarizing to shorten the length of the article, not particularly change its content.  The article is presently 52K, the recommended maximum length is 32K (see Wikipedia:article size.  We need to get the job done!  Kat'n'Yarn 00:37, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: I feel an irrestible bold cutting urge coming on

message: Having had another look at the article, what seems to me to be missing now is any sense of what the whole operation is about or why anyone would bother.  It now seems to be disproportionately involved with disputes about the validity or otherwise of the operation.  There also seems to be an excessively detailed account of the historical issues. DaveApter 20:22, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Personally, if I were writing the article from scratch, I'd prefer more of a general overview of who and what Landmark Education is rather than a list of courses.  I don't look at anything as finalized, just on the way.  The history is important, but that's not saying it can't be treated differently.  Again, information from published sources should be primarily used.  As I said above, I hope the controversy sections can be shortened.  That wasn't something I could do just by cutting.  It'll take some time to do research to treat them properly.  I may begin with "Is it a cult?" which, it turns out, is quite easy to make NPOV.  Wait and see.  :)  I'm trying to get this into a generally improved ballpark, we can go back and do the fine-tuning.  Kat'n'Yarn 03:51, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Given that the topic of this article generates quite so much controvesy and emotion, A section outlining possible reasons, sources or ways of understanding the controvesy might help explain the one of the impacts of Landmark.  And help settle down some of the editing and edit turf wars going on? I dont have the expertise to even kick it off.  Any takers? 203.217.88.50 11:54, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that would just get us off track, never to return.  It's been going on for years on several discussion boards.  There is one school of thought that the zealousness of Landmark supporters goes overboard and creates an "equal and opposite reaction."  If all editors would just stick to Wikipedia's guidelines, we could get this done.  Kat'n'Yarn 19:52, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: PERSONAL OPINION: I want to state so that anyone reading this is clear that this new talk page is almost irrevocable POV assault against this Landmark article and is spun to an unbelievable degree.   The sheer scale of changes done in the last six weeks is staggering expecially given all the really hard work that was done by dozens and dozens of people over the last two years to reach a compromise on this very clearly polarizing topic.  Even then some of us felt it still was strongly leaning to the negative POV but at least a consensus of sorts had been reached.  This latest wave of changes has been a extremely clear attack on the NPOV of the article towards the negative.  I haven't had the time to fight this wave of POV attacks so I was shocked, when I returned to the page, by the blatant disregard for consensus that Kat and Smeelgova have displayed. 
Alex Jackl 15:53, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Balance in current article

message: The "Other Programs", i.e., Assistant's Program and ILP were removed by User:Nsamuel as superfluous to reduce size of article.  In all fairness, I don't agree that that information is superfluous or a necessary cut.  I already cut the program information to the bone.  I think further cuts should be made elsewhere.  Kat'n'Yarn 04:51, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Cuts by User:Nsamuel

message: I know this has been a running battle, but if other editors are going to refer to Rick Ross as a self-styled expert, it would be fair to refer to Landmark as a self-styled education company.  While Rick Ross did choose the profession, he has gained expertise through long experience, and has been widely recognized as an expert.  
BTW, this article has gotten 2K longer than it was when I first cut it's length.  It needs to get shorter!  Kat'n'Yarn 22:31, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I get your point and would simply note that Landmark Education is not refered to in the article as a "recognized authority" on education.  Perhaps a more neutral title can be given.  In the past, terms like "recognized authority" have been shuned as they offer a point-of-view.  Typically, titles which are a function of education or accredidation have been used as they are basically non-pov.  Ross poses a problem in this area because he doesn't have typical education accredidations.  Perhaps something like: "exepert witness on cults" is more appropiate in that it is incontrovertable and conveys a level of knowledge in this area. --Tealwarrior 01:29, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Self-styled" is also pov.  There needs to be something to identify who he is.  If you like "expert witness", so be it.  Kat'n'Yarn 02:50, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In it's disambiguation page, Wikipedia currently identifies Rick Ross as a Consultant, and that's a more neutral term, assuming no one sticks "self-styled" on it.  I'll change it in the article.  Kat'n'Yarn 02:05, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Running battle on characterization of Rick Ross

message: It may have been longer than ideal a few weeks ago, but it was reasonably informative and reasonably balanced.  The recent extensive cuts have been disproportionately of material about the principles and methodology of Landmark's courses, whilst leaving substantially unscathed reports of various critical opinions (and even adding material which puts a positive spin on them).
A more appropriate title for the present incarnation would be "Disputes and arguments about Landmark Education".  A rough analysis of the content at present is:
:40% Criticisms and Controversies
:30% links and related topics (many of them pretty tenuous)
:20% Studies
: 4% Origin and evolution
: 3% Summary of objectives and claimed results
: 2% List of course titles (uninformative)
: 1% Corporate structure
User Kat'n'Yarn made an admirable call for the principles which should underlie the edits to this article (opening paragraph on this page), but it is not at all clear to me that recent changes have improved its balance or its neutrality; nor making it any more of a "well-written, well-organized, clear and concise encyclopedic article".
I'm inclined to think that deleting the article completely and starting from scratch would be the best way to go, but I'll have a try at addressing some of the major shortcomings .
All of us have points of view, and a good start to being able to contribute to a collaborative venture which is consistent with Wikipedia's NPOV policy is to make a clear and straight declaration of where we stand ourselves.  My position is that I did the Landmark Forum about four years ago, and have done several other courses since.  I found them all challenging, beneficial and good value for money, and my impression is that somewhere between 90% and 98% of the other participants did so too.  I'm not doing any Landmark courses at the moment and I've never worked for them.  I think the organisation itself has its shortcomings and its peculiarities, as does any enterprise created by human beings, but none of them seem to be to be catastrophic.  My committment to this article is the one articulated by Kat'n'Yarn: that it be a "well-written, well-organized, clear and concise encyclopedic article".  Though no doubt our opinions on what that would look like are entirely different.
The rest of you who have written on this talk page presumably have strong views on this subject?  I invite you to declare what they are, as well as what is your experience and knowledge of Landmark Education. DaveApter 14:17, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article is a mess as it stands now 

message: Not to be rude, but my personal life and feelings are no one's business.  I will say, however, that I'm an experienced researcher, and that is the approach I'd like to bring to this article.  It's entirely possible for one to "have" a point of view and to be able to separate themselves from it, which is what this article needs.
:Relax! I didn't ask about either your personal life or your feelings.  I invited you to declare your opinion and your experience of Landmark Education.  I agree that it's possible to separate oneself from one's point of view.  However it's not at all easy because, by definition each of us sees the world from our own point of view, so this tends to occur to us as "just the way things are".  Declaring our point of view can empower us in being objective.  You plainly do have strong views on Landmark and Werner Erhard, or you wouldn't have suddenly appeared here and made over a hundred edits, pretty well exclusively on topics related to them. DaveApter 16:05, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My opinion and experience of Landmark Education are about my personal life and feeings.  You're welcome to do things your way, but, as an experienced factual researcher, I'm just fine at being objective and separating myself from my point of view, no sharing required.  It's what I do.  I hadn't originally planned on the editing I've been doing, in fact avoiding this article like the plague seemed like a good idea.  But then I realized how far off-base it had gotten.  As I said, when something needs to be done ....  Kat'n'Yarn 05:33, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I have no doubt that you sincerely believe that. DaveApter 17:11, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That was uncalled for.  Let's stick to talking about the article, okay?  Kat'n'Yarn 04:14, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

text: My apologies.  I had no intention of causing offence. DaveApter 15:44, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: DaveApter's "Call to Share"

message: From Wikipedia:Reliable sources :
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.
* I agree RE: above comment: unpublished material on Landmark's website should not be used in areas of controversy., and it seems that the above Wikipedia:Reliable sources Wikipedia Policy is in-line with this line of thinking as well. 
* At present, 10 citations from the reference section use the Landmark Education Corporate Website as a source. Smeelgova 20:32, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Wikipedia policy on the issue

message: I was reading this article (a friend of mine wants me to do the Landmark Forum) and I noted that; this artical Outrageous_Betrayal and this artical Steven_Pressman have been completely written by User:Smeelgova. Both Articles look like advertising (and if anyone can tell me how to mark the pages as such I would love to know) Mark1800 07:16, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In accordance with Wikipedia's policy, please do not engage in personal attacks.  Both these articles are comparable to other similar Wikipedia articles, and are NPOV.  (There's a difference between NPOV and not agreeing with your own personal POV.)  They aren't advertisements just because you say they are.  I removed your tags.  Please discuss specifics if there's something you think isn't neutral.  Kat'n'Yarn 08:02, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Didn't mean it to be a personal attack (have changed heading), I just noticed they look like adverts. I have noted on the pages my opinion and request we take this discussion there Mark1800 08:07, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Are these references NPOV 

message: I'm losing my patience on this.  This article fails badly to present controversy fairly, and, instead of improving, it keeps getting worse.  Using characterizations to downplay, dismiss, or discount controversial aspects is not, by any stretch of the imagination, fairly representing them.  If you want to do that in your own lives, fine, but that is not allowed on Wikipedia.  Kat'n'Yarn 10:54, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Except for the fact that Wikipedia's guidline recommends that we discuss the article, not express opinions about the subject of the article.  We spend an awful lot of time discussing subjects which would be unnecessary if more editors followed Wikipedia's guidelines.  Kat'n'Yarn 03:37, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Bias, Bias, Bias, Bias Bias!  Kat'n'Yarn 03:37, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Bias