Talk:Voyage au pays des nouveaux gourous/Archive 2

message: There is something wrong with the previous section since if you try to edit it, the material from the last two paragraphs does not come up in the editing window.
I was going to make a comment on ≈ jossi ≈'s claim not to be a Landmark dude.  If you look at his web page, you will see he is in another cult.  From long experience with scientology, they often use members of other cults to shill for them.  Currently they have a moonie on a.r.s contributing noise.  Since Landmark is a scientology offshoot, I would not be surprised at the same policy.
Incidentally, I agree that it is a well written article and should not be deleted.  Keith Henson 05:39, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Editing problem with the above section

message: More concerning, actually,  as it relates to original research is the fact that the editors that have created this article are reporting directly about a primary source (the documentary). As such, the choice of quotes and commentary is original research of the editors of the article. For this article to be compliant, the article needs to report just basic information about what the documentary is itself, and leave it at that. If there are reports by reliable sources that describe this documentary or the controversy surrounding it, these can be used in the article, if properly attributed. For more details see WP:NOR. Wikipedia is not an investigative journalism site, or an advocay site. It is an encyclopedia that reports what secondary, reliable sources have said about a subject. It is not the role of editors to describe primary sources, in particular when the subject is controversial. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 14:33, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not think that it wrong to summarize certain things in a book. See e.g. The Making of a Moonie in which I summarized some parts of the book. If it is wrong then why do you think it is wrong and where is your opinion that this is wrong supported by guidelines and policies? Andries 16:58, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not familiar with that article, but I will take a look. Summarizing a primary source is dangerous, as the editor doing the summary is making an editorial decision of what to cite, what not to cite, in which context, etc. That is an editorial decision better left to reliable sources that have published a critique. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 17:45, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We do it all the time. If it is dangerous then Wikipedia is dangerous. Andries 17:47, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You may have misundertood. I mean "dangerous" as "dangerously close to violation of WP content policy". ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 17:51, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I took a look at The Making of a Moonie article  and all I see is the Table of Contents (that is verifiable), a mention of what Barker wrote (with a verifiable quote from the book), and a description of a critique/praise of the book by Len Oakes. That is an excellent way to write an article on a primary source: short, concise and without OR. Compare with this article... ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 17:49, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Original research of a primary source

message: If the French report was mentioned, please re-write the section to describe what the documentary says about it, and link to the Status_of_religious_freedom_in_France where the report is discussed. Thanks. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 03:26, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: French report

message: I removed the following very confusing section:
----
Section title: Jokingly refers to Landmark as "Cult"
And it’s useless to formulate the idea that this mumbo-jumbo clouds the thoughts/ideas, Alain Roth will not hesitate to impose his truth: "I’m the boss. So show yourselves to be trainable!" Total submission required. But the absolute weapon of Alain Roth is humor. You ask yourself if you are not in a cult? Any occasion will be good for joking on the subject. "Especially, when going to dinner, don’t forget to take off your badge. Otherwise people will think that you are in a cult!""At home with the gurus in neckties.", Nouvel Observateur, French newspaper, May 19, 2005, by Marie Lemonnier.
----
This appears to be a bad translation; it really would suffice to have the quote "Especially, when going to dinner, don’t forget to take off your badge. Otherwise people will think that you are in a cult!" somewhere in the article, with the attribution to this article.  Though it would be good to have the original French, so the translation can be easily verified. -- Beland 00:37, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confusing section 

message: The below section reads like "Absolutely nothing happened on Tuesday, and certainly nothing at Mrs. Baker's farm.  Just in case...anybody wanted to know."  It does not contain any interesting information.  Now if someone had actually sued, that would be worthwhile to report.  It's unfair to presume that Landmark even contemplated it, and this makes it sound like they might have, without coming out and saying that. -- Beland 00:55, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's correct that there are no known lawsuits.  Both France 3 and LE could claim copyright over the entire film (France 3) and parts thereof (Landmark Education for the unpermitted videotaping of a course in progress).  Just because someone does not sue, does not mean they don't have copyright.  The recording industry sues a very small number of the music copyright infringers.  Legal recourse is just too expensive, generally, and (my interpretation) would not have made a difference in France.  Nonetheless, even at the lower evidentiary threshhold, France 3 still has copyright over the video.  It's the same thing going on with YouTube and Google Video right now--people are putting up their own videos with copyrighted music in the background, and the music copyright holders can go after any of the following: A) the person who publicized the video or B) the person who downloads it or C) the entity that hosts it (if it does not take it down per "digital millenium copyright act" after having been notified to take it down).  Wikipedia follows the US law.  Just because the music copyright holders don't go after every instance does not mean that they don't hold copyright.  Indeed, with YouTube and Google Video, the LE video was taken down with a message, "This item has been removed due to violating terms of use."  Wikipedia in its copyright policy--where Wikipedia follows US law--should not be used to publicize (put links to) copyrighted material.  The whole "Internet chronology" is more or less original research with the goal of telling people how to get the video.  In my opinion, the whole "internet chronology" section should be redacted.  Sm1969 07:09, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed insubstantive text 

message: :At this time, it is currently unknown whether France 3 and Pieces a Conviction, Landmark Education, or some other entity complained simultaneously to the various hosting companies to have the videos removed.  Youtube and Google Video decided to removed the video clips after Art Schreiber, General Counsel and Chairman of the Board of Directors of Landmark Education sent the organization a Digital Millenium Copyright Act notification.  Pieces a Conviction and the France 3 television network have issued no complaints to date regarding the video's posting on the internet..
These claims are unreferenced, and given the controversial nature of the material, I would consider them dubious until someone can cite reliable sources. -- Beland 00:57, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Note on removal 

message: *I'm curious, why do you have some portions blockquoted and others italicized?  Is this simply for style?  Smeelgova 03:12, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: At least in my browser, it's very hard to tell that the blockquotes in the "Landmark Forum leaders" section are quotes, because they are not indented.  All that tag does is change the font size a little.  This is possibly because of the left-aligned pictures.  Which are only left-aligned because of the hugantic infobox.  ::sigh::  I changed the formatting to firmly indent and italicize, which is fairly standard typography, and which makes things much more obvious.  If the image layout is changed, the blockquote tag might be OK. -- Beland 04:22, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, an even better solution would be to summarize the quotes and save direct quotation for only the most choice phrases.  That would make the article much more concise, flow more smoothly, and have a prose/quote balance more like a typical Wikipedia article. -- Beland 04:26, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Blockquoting vs. Italics

message: Shouldn't there be a clarification that there is no good translation of ":fr:secte" that is sometimes translated as cult and sometimes as sect? Andries 21:27, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[cult]], [[sect]], and [[:fr:secte]]

message: *Cults are discussed in detail by numerous authorities within the film.  Also, the listing of "Secte" by the French government was a prime piece within the film, and a reason that Landmark pulled out of France.  It is appropriate and relevant.  Smeelgova 02:12, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That is as absurd as adding the cult template to the Kabbalah article, and also to the Wikipedia article as both have been labeled as a cult. This is what I said in previous communications to you: your are pusshing too hard your viewpoint in these articles. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 02:27, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Cults and parameters which define a cult are discussed in great detail by 5 different and noted experts on the subject within the film, not to mention the report Les sectes en France.  I think it is your POV that I am pushing a POV too hard.  Please, stop attacking me personally, and engage in a discussion about the material and content.  Smeelgova 03:05, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Cult template

message: Did the French 3 channel broadcast this documentary with English subtitles? If not, where are the English subtitles from? This info is needed for WP:V. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 21:30, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a good question.  I will attempt to research this.  I think it's safe to assume that France 3 did include the English subtitles, as this is very common in Europe, and actually many other countries outside the U.S., nevertheless, I'll look into it.  Smeelgova 21:38, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. From what I know, is very unlikely that a French TV station will have subtitles in English. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 21:59, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just give me a little time.  Smeelgova 00:38, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  English subtitles 

message: The blockquote in the "Sectarian Risks report" has been put back into the body of the article.  I pushed it into a footnote because the quote mostly just repeats what is said in the main text, which is that   Landmark Education was listed as a cult by the French government.  There's lots of extraneous, rather inflammatory material in the rest of that quote which serves to sensationalize the controversy, but which is not really all that informative.  It is also poor English; all this combines to make it hard reading.  I agree that it is useful to have a transcription to make verification easy for those who do not have access to the video, and it useful to have an English translation for those who do not speak French.  I'm not sure where the text we have here now comes from; it really should say.  In any case, this text should be in a footnote, not the body of the article.  Can we move it back, or does someone have some reason why they would object to this? -- Beland 22:57, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A different editor had requested that this quote be kept in, to back up the relevance of the Parliament Report as contextually related to the film. (lots of comments/changes to response to, phew.  Wish there were more people knowledgeable RE: the film to help out here.  Smeelgova 00:38, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: On second thought, the blockquote as it stands now seems to simply be a factual reading and explanation of Landmark's entry in the report.  As it stands with the new issuance by the former prime minister in 2005, this should read relatively neutrally. Smeelgova 00:45, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blockquote 1 

message: The article seems somewhat contradictory on whether or not he appears in the documentary.  What's up with that? -- Beland 23:25, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: He appears in the documentary for most of the time. Smeelgova 00:36, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Then why does the article say that the documentary explained that they wanted to talk with him, but ended up speaking with a U.S. spokeswoman instead? -- Beland 02:58, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Roth 

message: The graphic used by the infobox has some ugly artifacts because it is being up-converted from a very low resolution copy.  This could be fixed by getting a higher-resolution image. -- Beland 23:28, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Give me a bit of time, I will replace the image with a different screenshot.  Smeelgova 00:35, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

text: For the moment I don't know if there's a way to resize the current image within the infobox to make it appear smaller??? Smeelgova 05:36, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image cleanup 

message: Her blockquote is also very confusing.  At first she's talking about Scientology, then Landmark.  Was she a Landmark participant, or is she merely commenting on video supplied by France 3? -- Beland 23:31, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: She is an author and past Scientology participant, who commented on the program about the similarities in jargon between the two groups. Smeelgova 00:35, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Right, that much is apparent from the article, but it doesn't answer my question. -- Beland 02:45, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

text: What I read is that she was invited to comment to make a parallel between scientology and Landmark. There are several "ex" people that have made their "exiting" (or apostasy, depending who you ask) a business, by writing books and becoming sudden experts. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 03:06, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, but was she glued to video clips that the producers were showing her, or that Landmark was showing her? -- Beland 03:17, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mona Vasquez 

message: His blockquote is also context-free.  What are the childhood fears that are being discussed?  Whose are they?  What is "the notion of the subject"?  Is this a bad translation or technical jargon or just unclear language?  -- Beland 03:15, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is a mess... We would bne much better if someone could provide context and sumamrize their viewpoints rather than quote them. As it reads now, it is just propaganda that only those making it understand what is all about. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 03:20, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps you are both right.  Have you viewed the video?  This might give you some context with which to converse and paraphrase the quotes better.  Smeelgova 04:46, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No. I have not. That is why is always better to use secondary sources where possible, rather than summarize a primary source which this one is. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 05:08, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: True, I'm just making a suggestion on the talk page, not a caveat for all readers of the article page.  Might be a good idea for editors to view it, to create a context, but readers needn't view it.  You are correct on that one.  We should modify the contents somewhat to provide a better context for the (assumed ignorant) readers' ease of understanding.  Smeelgova 05:12, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Jossi, may be you can study the subject in this and other article before making comments, questions, and edits etc. I think you are causing contributors unnecessary work by your behavior. Andries 21:03, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lujan 

message: Please note that adding wikiliks to quoted text is not an accepted practice. Also note that it is enough to link once to a specific article. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 03:18, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Jossi, the MOS does indeed state that an article should only be linked to on its first occurrence, as a general rule.  However, I've never heard of anything like the other thing that you state, that "adding wikilinks to quoted text is not an accepted practice".  Can you please tell us where you find that prohibition? -- Antaeus Feldspar 19:45, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is not a prohibition, Antaeus, but common sense. When quoting a person, we should leave the quote alone. The quoted person did not intend that his/her words be hyperlinked to something the person did not have previous notice of, or that the person may object to; as the original quote did not contain such link. If there is such "prohibition", it would be along the lines, "don't mess up with quoted text, just present it verbatim." ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 19:57, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see how there's much difference between a hyperlinked version of a text and an annotated edition, such as have been prepared by some of the most respected scholars and published by some of the most respected presses for decades.  I'm afraid I just don't see why it is perfectly acceptable practice in the academic world to insert a footnote in, say, A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court, explaining what the "chromo" is that Twain refers to, and yet "common sense" that quoted text in Wikipedia must never be hyperlinked, even simple nouns like "guru" and "witness".  Is it possible that someone might hyperlink in a bad way -- link to an article that does not reflect the sense of the original?  Yes, that is possible.  But that is an argument against bad annotation, not against annotation. -- Antaeus Feldspar 21:21, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly, Antaeus. But as WP editors are not "some of the most respected scholars", and we are warned not to engage in OR. When we quotes scholars quoting others, we may include wikilinks, though, as these would be verifiable. In the example in question is excellent: an editor wikilinked "witness", hardly what a scholar would do. And if the scholar wanted to provide an annotation, it will have proper reasons, not just do it for the heck of it. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 21:54, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sorry, but I really can't agree with your argument.  Wikipedia does prohibit original research, but it does not prohibit source-based research, and it does not prohibit -- to use a term you brought into the discussion -- common sense.  Your proposed de facto blanket ban on wikilinks in quoted text would prohibit all three, and Wikipedia would suffer as a result, while the harms you claim are either theoretical or, if manifest, rather doubtful (why, exactly, would providing a pointer to information about "witness", when the quoted text requires knowledge of what a witness is to be meaningful, be "hardly what a scholar would do"?)  I've considered your argument but I think we have to treat this as we treat the very process of editing Wikipedia in the first place:  deal with the errors if and when errors are made, not prohibit the practice altogether because errors might be made. -- Antaeus Feldspar 00:23, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I see your point, Antaeus, but I still think that it is not appropriate to wikilink within quoted text. May I suggest we place a question at the Village pump, to seek other editors' input? ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 00:28, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good idea.  I've submitted something at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Wikilinking within quotations. -- Antaeus Feldspar 04:33, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See also Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style#Wikilinks_in_quoted_text ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 12:00, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikilinks in quoted text 

message: *Adding "atrocity story" to the See Also section, would be equivalent to adding "puff piece" to movies that I thought were not professionally done, this is in essence a way of labeling the article negatively just the way that a category would.  I will remove it.  Yours, Smeelgova 20:37, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The Atrocity story article is as pertinet as the article on cults as it relates to this article. It is a scholarly viewpoint that is discussed, in particular about journalism covering the subject of "cults". ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 20:59, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Alright, fine, but I just hope the random reader coming along does not think that it was put there as a "label" to this film.  Smeelgova 21:10, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Atrocity story

message: What is the point of even mentioning that the French video has made it onto the Internet, albeit in two different forms?  It was not released by France 3 (who has copyright on it) or by Landmark Education (who also holds copyright over substantial portions).  Sm1969 06:21, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Locations of French Video

message: I moved the Schreiber quote to the front for several reasons.   We don't have an official transcript of this anywhere.  France 3 removed the transcript as noted in the statement of Art Schreiber.  Thus, what we have is an unauthorized translation of some of the tapes, together with selective quotes from it, along with an assertion by Art Schreiber that the broadcast was factually false and defamatory.  For those reasons, I think the Art Schreiber quote needs to be up top to put the reader on  notice. Sm1969 07:44, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It actually does seem very confusing when it is not in chronological order.  Several other editors have commented on this.  Everything else in the article conforms to chronological order.  This section should not be the exception simply to suit your POV and put the reader on notice.  Smeelgova 07:50, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Greetings!  Are you back editing again?  The reader should be "put on notice" because we have several defects with the source upon which it is based as noted by administrator Jossi above and we have a statement that the underlying source is factually false and defamatory.  I'll re-add the non-compliant tag that administrator Jossi had. Sm1969 07:57, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for being kind and greeting me.  I am not sure if I am back editing again.  I have received many kind comments from users on my talk page, which is pretty much all I'm using my talk page for these days.  Right now I'm just commenting on talk pages for the moment.  I am still not sure whether I am waiting for all of the hurtful and depressing personal attacks to blow over, or if I'm going to leave Wikipedia.  As stated above, I think the article should be organized chronologically.  You can debate the other issues separately, but it goes to ease of organization primarily, and really is not related to other issues.  But this seems to be getting to be a back and forth at the moment.  Why don't we leave this one for now, take a break, and see if other editors will comment here on the talk page in this section with their opinions?  Yours, Smeelgova 08:03, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Location of Schreiber Quote

message: Please explain where and why this article is non-compliant in actionable points. Thanks. Andries 18:15, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed the tag and obvious OR. The article needs to summarize the content of the documentary rather than provide quotes. See Bowling for Columbine as a good example of an article about a doumentary. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 22:00, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Why the non-compliant tag

message: 01. Mona's quotes re the Scientology jargon being exactly the same as LE's are factually false and defamatory.  She is either lying or does not know what she is talking about.
02. The PostChronicle is still referenced as a source.
03. LE's responses are not interleaved, but are pushed to the end, in violation of NPOV.
04. The Abgrall quote is not refuted in-line.
05. The term "cult" is a triable question of fact (not an opinion) and has been repudiated in both the United States and the Netherlands.  The reader could be left with that impression and should be put on notice.
06. LE's assertion is of operating at a loss is not placed opposite Jean-Pierre Brard's quote regarding the "network of money."
07. We still don't have the original French-language transcript, so we're relying on someone else's translation.
08. LE is responding to accusations not made, so we only have a selection of the entire video, which was likely longer than 60 minutes.
09. The quotes that are still here are self-selected;  more benign quotes could have been self-selected, such as Jougla's assertion that LE is based on the philosophical concept that we can teach people to be authentic.  Rather, all the quotes are critical, in some cases arguably defamatory, particularly Monas.
10. LE's experts are not given the same length to explain their positions.
It goes on and on. Sm1969 10:02, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Persistent Problems: NPOV, Libel, Verifiability, Self-selection of quotes 

message: 1. Mona's statement that the language of Scientology is similar to that of LE is factually false and defamatory:  "There was a whiteboard at the beginning with exactly the same words that Hubbard would use, the founder of Scientology."  Other false statements, previously redacted, were that "the terminology is all the same."  This stuff still needs to go. Sm1969 11:11, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Here is the current language that I assert is FACTUALLY FALSE and DEFAMATORY for at least two separate reasons:
1) It implies Landmark Education is a cult, which, in the US has been found to be a triable question of fact, capable of being proven true or false, and inarguably derogatory.  US cult experts have retracted assertions that LE is a cult when sued for defamation.
2) It states an assertion of fact which is factually false and defamatory:  "...because I heard all the terminology from Scientology.  There was a whiteboard at the beginning with exactly the same words that [L. Ron] Hubbard would use, the founder of Scientology."  She emphasized this further, stating, "I know the terminology very well."  Sm1969 11:30, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Could you clarify the meaning of your comment? ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 21:27, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

text: In  Wikipedia, we ask users to behave civilly and avoid making any type of personal attacks. We encourage contributors to discuss the edits and not the editor, and discuss the article bt not the subject. If any one crosses these lines, the cooperation needed to edit controversial articles gets rapidly compromised. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 21:29, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Mona and Factually False, Defamatory Statements

message: There is no need to repeat external links that are already used as references. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 01:34, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: On the other hand, it's useful for those who don't want to dig through the references to find relevant links.  Also a handy way to keep track of things.  Smeelgova 03:22, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

text: And, the occasional Wikipedia reader who doesn't edit might never think to look in the references section, or even read much of the article, but just use the External Links section as a resource/jumping point.  Smeelgova 04:54, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

text: There are some conventions that we follow in WP articles:L wikilink only once, and do not repeat links used in references. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 15:51, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links 

message: I tought that there was understanding that links to copyvios are not allowed in WP. Unless that website has received permission form the producers to have the documentary online, it should not be linked. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 15:51, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The transcript has several problems:  1) It is itself a copyvio, 2) it is from only part of the movie, 3) it is unauthorized and anonymous, so it's integrity against the original can not be checked.  In my opinion, the copyvio problem (here:  contributory copyright infringement against Franc 3) is sufficient to get it removed. Sm1969 18:14, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  This article is again linking saying: 1) the streaming video is available, 2) the name of the web site that has it.   It also *appears* that the copyright holder in France has, in fact, invoked copyright per the Washington Post article.  Wikipidia should really take down all references to sites that host the purloined video and explicit references to its transcript. Sm1969 18:42, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: At the moment we do not know whether or not it is Landmark Education that has again falsely claimed copyright, this time in France.  There are no longer direct links to the material in question, and this has been explained in a succinct legal sentence.  There are no longer any "explicit references", just short simple statements of fact.  And there are now very, very major press sources that are mentioning the same information and references, so I highly doubt this is a problem.  Perhaps an issue for the actual websites in question, but most certainly not for those that talk about them.  This would now mean Landmark must go after perhaps hundreds of websites that even mention this, if we follow your logic.  Smeelgova 19:09, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  You don't need to know whether it is LE or France 3 that invoked copyright.  The fact is, at this point, the issue is legally contested and France 3 does hold copyright.  It does not matter how many outside sources cite it.  Wikipedia still has a policy against contributory copyright infringement--France 3's copyright and it looks like they invoked it.  You would not give a link to a free music CD or televsion episode that was covered by copyright?  The intent of putting up where it is now is clearly to enable people to get the stolen video.  No one is going to go after the hundreds of web sites.  Sm1969 21:41, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See Jossi's comment below.  This has indeed become a significant newsworthy item, with mainstream media around the globe reporting on this.  Numerous sites now refer to the items in question, and I don't think Landmark or France 3 or anyone else is going to go around suing hundreds of various sites for any alleged "contributory copyright infringement". Smeelgova 22:00, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

text:  This has become a newsworthy item, and as such it should remain as a . When the legal issues are resolved, one way or another, we will know how to address it in WP. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 19:26, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

text:  There are two separate entities that assert copyright:  #1) Landmark Education, #2) television station "France 3".  No one disputes that "France 3" holds copyright.  Wikipedia policy is clear on copyvio:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Copyrights#Linking_to_copyrighted_works
Here is the Wikipedia policy.  User Smeelgova is well aware that "France 3" television station holds copyright.  The Wikipedia policy text is quoted below:
External sites can possibly violate copyright. Linking to copyrighted works is usually not a problem, as long as you have made a reasonable effort to determine that the page in question is not violating someone else's copyright. If it is, please do not link to the page. Knowingly and intentionally directing others to a site that violates copyright has been considered a form of contributory infringement in the United States (Intellectual Reserve v. Utah Lighthouse Ministry). Also, linking to a page that illegally distributes someone else's work sheds a bad light on us. If the site in question is making fair use of the material, linking is fine.
Sm1969 04:34, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I think it would be best for trying to further open and kind communications with User:Grub, that you attempt to convince him to remove the material you find disagreeable.  Smeelgova 06:33, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I did, but there can be no assurance that Grub will act in a timely manner.  It would be great if you took this on. Sm1969 06:58, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for the kind request.  I have User:Grub's talk page on my watchlist, and hopefully you two will engage in an open dialogue.  I think we should give the benefit of the doubt, assume good faith, and give him a little time to respond.  Smeelgova 07:13, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I posted an update about there being a full version of the video available as the existing video isn't complete. This will allow the viewer to see the full video with discussion among cult experts, not just the first bit within the Forum itself. I didn't provide a direct link to the file nor did I give directions on how to access it. Seriously, if anyone wants to fine a torrent they can just google "$WHATTHEYWANT torrent" and they're off to the races. Should we be petitioning google to remove that feature? We may as well sue Cisco next... Grub 16:24, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, it is at least to your credit that you did not post any direct links to any particular websites.  And I agree with your point about how ridiculous it would be for Wikipedia to seriously have ANY liability in this at all.  But I am going to tweak your syntax a bit, for now.  Let's see what User:Sm1969 has to say, and if he can start off this new communication relationship with you in a kind demeanor.  Smeelgova 20:08, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would kindly request that we err on the side of caution. Ther is no need to drag Wikipedia into the legal dispute. Some patience is needed: when the legal dispute is resolved between Landmark and Google, we can report that. Until then, let's avoid adding any material that may have negative consequences to our project. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 20:22, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair enough. In reality I think people come to this page just to see what is said about it, not looking for a way to get it. Anyone with a quarter of a brain can find it easily enough as it's on many torrent sites now, just google "landmark french video torrent"  Really, Landmark's legal fumbles have done nothing but driven up interest in this "forbidden fruit" (in fact I should hit 100 GB of this within the week) Grub 23:54, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Link to copyvios

message: *Jossi, sorry about that, sometimes it's hard to tell where in the article something has been wikilinked previously.  Thank you for sprucing it up and taking out the duplicate wikilinks.  Yours, Smeelgova 23:53, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Dup wikilinks

message: *That's a mouthful.  Wikipedia should be in no danger by sticking to only citing sites that cite the sites.  Smeelgova 05:07, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Sites that cite the sites

message: Points of clarification:
#1) There are two entities which assert copyright over the "France 3" television broadcast:  A) Landmark Education, B) "France 3".  The issue of A) Landmark Education is being litigated per the subpoenas.  However, it was, is and remains clear that "France 3" has copyright over this.  Jossi continually thinks this is about Landmark Education.  More importantly, it is about "France 3" and their rights that are unquestioned.  The Wikipedia standards for contributory copyright infringement
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Copyrights
Linking to copyrighted works
External sites can possibly violate copyright. Linking to copyrighted works is usually not a problem, as long as you have made a reasonable effort to determine that the page in question is not violating someone else's copyright. If it is, please do not link to the page. Knowingly and intentionally directing others to a site that violates copyright has been considered a form of contributory infringement in the United States (Intellectual Reserve v. Utah Lighthouse Ministry). Also, linking to a page that illegally distributes someone else's work sheds a bad light on us. If the site in question is making fair use of the material, linking is fine.
Specifically, the issue we are dealing with is whether it is the editor's intent to tell people how to get illegally distributed copyright material.  It does not matter who else cites it.  Wikipedia policy is crystal clear.  Until "France 3" relinquishes copyright, this is their material.
Sm1969 05:20, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds good.  We shall await further developments in the news sources.  Smeelgova 21:42, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Repeated Links to Copyvios:  Contributory Copyright Infringement Against "France 3"

message: *This is clearly an interview with the Electronic Frontier Foundation, at their EFF headquarters.  The fact that it is from a blog in this case is irrelevant.  It is commentary by one of EFF's attorneys on the ongoing legal actions involving the improper use of DMCA subpoenas by Landmark Education, is sourced properly, and relevant.  Thanks.  Smeelgova 07:56, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Interview with Electronic Frontier Foundation

message: What basis do you have for believing France 3 is aware of the video on the Internet?  I know EFF asserted that, but they have no evidence for their assertion either.  Rick Ross is known for purloining content.  Sm1969 20:57, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would certainly think that the Electronic Frontier Foundation knows what they are talking about in this particular case.  Thanks.  Smeelgova 05:31, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  France 3's Asserted Awareness of the Video on the Internet 

message: Please avoid using the See Also section for asserting a certain POV. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:59, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The two articles referred were both directly mentioned in the film.  The book is actually cited several times as part of the film's bibliography.  Any assumed assertion of POV, is itself a POV.  Thanks.  Smeelgova 05:30, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

text: The documentary has a very specific POV, and you are asserting their POV by adding these links to the See also section. But the see also section does not need to reflect the POV of the documentary. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:37, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not understand, are you saying that books and movements directly discussed and even cited and given credit in the film are not appropriate and relevant to the article?  Smeelgova 05:39, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The article is about a highly controversial TV documentary. The documentary asserts that Landmark is a cult. That is their opinion and we are describing that opinion in the article. The "see also" section, does not need to "side" with a specific POV. Otherwise, some could add Witch hunt, Bigotry, Character_assassination and other similar wikilinks to assert the opposing POV, and we should not allow that neither. Hope you reconsider and self-revert. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:44, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting.  Then under your argument we can also remove Atrocity story, as this is an unreferenced assertion of POV.  I will go ahead and remove all those as a compromise.  Thanks.  Smeelgova 05:48, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

text:  Please also remove the "Puff Piece" that you added to the Werner Erhard movie.  Sm1969 02:45, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:55, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Glad to see after some discussion we can come to an amiable compromise from time to time.  Hope you're doing well Jossi.  Quite an interesting amount of news that has come out about this article topic recently, especially the Reuters piece that got covered worldwide.  Yours, Smeelgova 06:00, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting indeed. As always, both sides are claiming victory after the settlement... ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 06:03, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh?  I had not found any sources promoting the Landmark POV on the issue?  Smeelgova 06:09, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

text: It is interesting to note that the frivolous use of litigation by Landmark actually made the video much much more popular, downloaded and highly trafficked on the internet, not to mention the amount of negative press it generated.  Seems like a strategic bad move on their part.  Smeelgova 06:09, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Let's not engage in these discussions. This page is to discuss the article. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:48, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

text:  I think LE learned about litigation on the Internet versus ligitation against print media (articles and books) where the standards are much higher.  They should have moved to prevent disclosure of the video, but not the subpoenas.  What the web really needs is both journalistic accountability and/or something like the right-to-reply laws that exist in Europe.  That video--in fair context--is basically non-news.  Only when you remove all supporters from LE, add lots of sound effects and twist things out of context do you get something newsworthy.  It reminds me of how the United States thought it was being invaded by Martians in the 1939.  See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_War_of_the_Worlds_%28radio%29 .   They added lots of sound effects and hid the disclaimers in that movie, too.  Sm1969 02:56, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  See also section 

message: The article has too many long quotes. These can be summarized on the body of the article and the long quotes moved to the footnotes section or to Wikiquote. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:56, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have shortened many of the quotes over the course of the article, in compromising voluntarily with other editors.  However, I do see your points, there are numerous quotes on both sides of the issue in the article.  Please let me get to this and I will shorten/paraphrase them and see how it looks from there.  I will make an effort to try to do this in an NPOV manner.  But thanks for pointing this out.  If anything else, stylistically shorter quoting and paraphrasing might look better.  Smeelgova 10:30, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Too many quotes 

message: The section on why the comments were not removed from the France 3 web page is original research.  It could be either A) they were removed at LE's request as Art Schreiber notes in the subpoena or B) they are removed "in the normal course of operations."  The EFF case came two years after the video was last seen at archive.org.  This section is both factually false and original research. Sm1969 21:22, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You are correct about this.  I have edited that explanatory section to reflect what factually happened with regard to the archiving of the web page.  Thanks for pointing that out, I believe that was probably User:Pedant17's good faith mistake.  Smeelgova 10:16, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Wikipedia:  No Original Research