Talk:Voyage au pays des nouveaux gourous/Archive 1

message: Several references to material which infringed copyright (and was taken down at the destination URLs) were removed.  -Sm1969
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources
Do they have an agenda or conflict of interest, strong views, or other bias which may color their report? Remember that conflicts of interest are not always explicitly exposed and bias is not always self-evident. However, that a source has strong views is not necessarily a reason not to use it, although editors should avoid using political groups with widely acknowledged extremist views, like Stormfront.org, Al-Qaeda, or the British Socialist Workers Party. Groups like these may be used as primary sources only, i.e. as sources about themselves and their own activities or viewpoints, and even then with caution and sparingly. Extremist groups should not be used as secondary sources.
Rick Ross has a direct financial interest in attacking LE.  Furthermore, CultNews was removed from Google News as a source for front page stories for being authored by an individual. See the following reference: http://www.cultnews.com/?p=2082
* Cult News was most certainly NOT removed from google searches however, and can be found in a search here.  Cult News is a reputable source which is also published by .  In fact, Google News indeed carries Cult News' articles through the Post Chronicle here.
In what way does Rick Ross have any financial interest in attacking LE? Surely only in as much as he is a cult exit consultant, therefore he has no more financial interest in attacking LE than he would with any other cult.  He provides information about landmark but as far as I know he has never received money for helping anyone leave landmark. I think he even calls it a Large Group Awareness training, rather than a cult.
:: Rick Ross has served as an "exit counselor" and "expert witness" on LE.
Search for Rick Ross on this web page:  here on 2/24/2005 and this one here.  There are more of them.  For Rick Ross, it's all about the money.
:::For Rick Ross, it's all about the money.  Sure, on a discussion page, you could get away with saying something like that.  But one could easily make similar inferences about Landmark Education and all of its past incarnations.  Smeelgova 07:54, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  References 

message: Does anyone know if anything good was said in this doco about Landmark. Or even what the comments from Landmark's spokesperson were. The whole article mentions everything that says "Landmark is Bad" There appears to be no POV from the other side (Landmark's that is).
* Mark1800 06:45, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The entire program was a hatchet job which sensationalised everything the makers could dig up to cast Landmark Education in a bad light, without any attempt whatever to provide anything resembling a balanced account.  It should be borne in mind that anything to do with a purported "secte" is a populist hot topic in France - in a similar way that the Royal Family is in Britain, for example.  Any progam maker is guaranteed a ready audience there for material of this type, regardless of its merit. DaveApter 17:20, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "The entire program was a hatchet job..."  This is obviously the POV of the prior editor.  This is an organization that has received international recognition from 60 Minutes, International Herald Tribune, and Time Magazine as well as being a featured expert on investigative journalism at the October 2006 International Conference on Investigative Journalism, sponsored by the Nieman Foundation of Harvard University.  Yours, Smeelgova 02:33, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *All those plaudits notwithstanding, it clearly doesn't meet the standards of neutrality that we would expect in a wikipedia article.  There is no doubt that it is strongly pushing a particular agenda and a particular viewpoint.  We need to bear in mind that  journalists are not immune from having their own axes to grind, and also that 'being controversial' for its own sake is often used as a deliberate stragegy for gaining publicity and attracting an audience.  Any responsible documentary would at least give some indication of what results people get from doing Landmark courses, why thousands of people do so every month, and why thousands recommend them to their friends and family, as well and airing the (often prejudiced and ill-informed) concerns and criticisms. DaveApter 09:52, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article Bias 

message: I'll start this discussion, with the sentence As Landmark has no copyright claim over the video, copyright belongs to TV channel France 3, it is unclear how they would have done this..
: I wrote this as while I've been unable to find any direct references, my basic understanding of copyright law is that the author of the article is the only entity that has copyright over a article, unless they assign that right to another entity. Based on this, channel France 3 is the author and we have no evidence of any other entity being assigned copyright. Now it it is possible that Landmark rang France 3 and requested that they request YouTube to remove the video, but we don't know what happened and may never. To claim otherwise is not NPOV without facts. I wrote the last section of the sentence to allow the reader to consider the preceeding sentance and make up thier own mind.
:*Mark1800 03:18, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, I'm of the opinion that, until we can access better sources, we remove this section entirely.  Instead, we can replace it with a chronological history section.  This section would detail the video's various sources on the internet, and the factual chronological dates that those sources were removed.  We could then theorize at the end, by stating something like: it is unknown specifcally why these sources were removed, or who complained to have them removed from their respective locations.  However, commentators on bulletin boards have theorized that..., we could then provide links to said bulletin boards, because we have now made the reader aware of the fact that this is where we are taking him to. Yours, Smeelgova 03:47, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I will work on a draft of what I mean by what I said above and place it here below.  Smeelgova 03:47, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion on above section

message: This page appears to have originally been a cut and paste from . While some further edits have been made the original Page is nearly identical to the site listed and the site is also used as a reference for this page.
===Removing Possible Copyright Infringement===
* I am going to remove the Possible Copyright Infringement notice.  The article itself is obviously NOT a copyright infringement.  
#Utilizing small sections of an article from a news source in blockquoted citation format does not consist of copyright infringement.  
#Of (11) citations, only (2) come from the article in question.
#The Cult News article does not contain nearly the depth and breadth of the current article, nor the extensive references and blockquoted citations from expert panelists.
#The Cult News article does not contain anything similar to the extensive detail used to describe the television production staff of the investigative journalism program that the current article does.
#The current article does not contain any mention of Werner Erhard, Erhard Seminars Training or his relatives in the body of the text, the Cult News article refers extensively to this and makes unreferenced insinuations that this article does not.
#The current article utilizes a functional organizational style, whereas the Cult News article utilized a chronological organizational style, utilizing "parts" of the video as subheadings.
#The Cult News article refers to the film Transformation: The Life and Legacy of Werner Erhard in the body text, and makes insinuations that this is a puff piece, and claims that documentary was done with Erhard’s full cooperation, the current article does not.
#The Cult News article discusses the saga of the video on the internet and on YouTube.  This information was not in the article or any edits of the article by the article's creator, and the current section is actually not similar to the Cult News postscript section.  If an editor were to update this particular section, currently titled "Voyage_Au_Pays_Des_Nouveaux_Gourous#Censorship, it would have to utilize not citations from the Cult News article, but rather citations from the YouTube sources.
#The pictures used in the article do not come from the Cult News article.  Rather, they are extremely low resolution :Category:Fair use screenshots which are utilized as part of Wikpedia's fair use policy on low resolution film image screenshots.
#Please do not reinstate this obtrusive heading until a consensus is reached on the talk page.  Yours, Smeelgova 05:32, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree with that assessmnet. The material, unless there is a clear statement from the producers that is not a copyvio, should not be linked as per WP:EL and WP:COPY. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 23:12, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copywrite Violation added 

message: * I am going to remove the Possible Copyright Infringement notice.  The article itself is obviously NOT a copyright infringement.  
#Utilizing small sections of an article from a news source in blockquoted citation format does not consist of copyright infringement.  
#Of (11) citations, only (2) come from the article in question.
#The Cult News article does not contain nearly the depth and breadth of the current article, nor the extensive references and blockquoted citations from expert panelists.
#The Cult News article does not contain anything similar to the extensive detail used to describe the television production staff of the investigative journalism program that the current article does.
#The current article does not contain any mention of Werner Erhard, Erhard Seminars Training or his relatives in the body of the text, the Cult News article refers extensively to this and makes unreferenced insinuations that this article does not.
#The current article utilizes a functional organizational style, whereas the Cult News article utilized a chronological organizational style, utilizing "parts" of the video as subheadings.
#The Cult News article refers to the film Transformation: The Life and Legacy of Werner Erhard in the body text, and makes insinuations that this is a puff piece, and claims that documentary was done with Erhard’s full cooperation, the current article does not.
#The Cult News article discusses the saga of the video on the internet and on YouTube.  This information was not in the article or any edits of the article by the article's creator, and the current section is actually not similar to the Cult News postscript section.  If an editor were to update this particular section, currently titled "Voyage_Au_Pays_Des_Nouveaux_Gourous#Censorship, it would have to utilize not citations from the Cult News article, but rather citations from the YouTube sources.
#The pictures used in the article do not come from the Cult News article.  Rather, they are extremely low resolution :Category:Fair use screenshots which are utilized as part of Wikpedia's fair use policy on low resolution film image screenshots.
#Please do not reinstate this obtrusive heading until a consensus is reached on the talk page.  Yours, Smeelgova 05:32, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Removing Possible Copyright Infringement

message: # There is a note on the copywrite violation, not to remove it before discussion. If I'm wrong I will be disiplined. I did not add it lightly.
# If you go here and check what is what is written [(unreliable source - do not use) www.postchronicle.com/commentary/article_21242688.shtml here] They are the same copywrite artical.
# If you check here vs the wiki artical you'll find that more than half of what is in the copywrite articals are posted here. My understanding of copyright and fair use is that this wiki artical is breaking it. I'm not saying it was done deliberately. Confussion may have resulted from the same artical existing in two places and not looking the same.
# All the pictures on the copywrite artical are located in the wikiarticle.
# There is a similar look and feel. Picture locations, what is said, etc.
* Where did my sig go Mark1800 05:12, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  As per Request on my talk page 

message: As per Wikipedia:Copyright_problems :
* Voyage Au Pays Des Nouveaux Gourous ([ history] · [ last edit]) from . Mark1800 05:22, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree with that assessmnet. The material, unless there is a clear statement from the producers that is not a copyvio, should not be linked as per WP:EL and WP:COPY. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 23:12, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Administrator resolution, No Violation

message: * Smeelgova, Thank you for your inclusion in Wikipedia of the link to the french video, I was able to watch it, for research puposes. BTW: I noted with interest that the time stamp on the live posting of the video on the Google site and the time stamp on your inclusion of the reference in Wikipedia were less then 30 min apart. I also note, that Googles policy states "After you've entered your metadata, your video will be in the "Processing" stage for up to several days and then will become "Live." I also note that when I found the reference here, I did a search on Google.com and the google engine had not yet added any links to the video. I'm curious, how did you find it. Is there a section in Google Video that lists upcoming video's?
*Mark1800 04:42, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I did a search for the phrase "Landmark Forum" on Google Video.  2003_Inside_Landmark_Forum was the first hit that showed up there.  I am glad to see that you have reserved your opinion on the organization, and are not sure which way you "lean".  I as well have some reserved opinions regarding the organization.  I agree with the Transformation Reformers, on some of the changes that should be made to the organization, particularly with regard to the realm of full financial disclosure.  Thank you for the frank and open discussion.  Yours, Smeelgova 04:45, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Posting of Video on Google Video 

message: Grrr some people have placed a`proposed deletion for this article up.  I wonder what group they might be involved with?:):)  Some people seem to be very keen to oppose this article in any random way, via adding random templates.  I think it's an interesting and useful article.  My vote is KeepMerkinsmum 11:12, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  'deletion?????????????' 

message: ===Linking to Copyrighted Texts, Burden of Investigation on the User===
1) As I have shown below, the issues of links is just as serious, from a Wikipedia policy perspective, as putting the content directly into a Wiki.
2) Smeelgova asserts that I have a burden of proof to cite evidence that the item in quesstion is copyrighted or was taken down for copyright.  However, if you read the policy, it says exactly, "...as long as you have made a reasonable effort to determine the page in question is not violating someone else's copyright."  The policy does not say, "Use whatever you want, unless you see an explicit message that it is copyrighted."
3) We now have *three* separate web sites that have been the Wikipedia link target, added by Smeelgova, that have taken down the content:  1) YouTube, 2) Archive.org and 3) Google Video.  They have left messages at the Wikipedia link target which are very explicit:  "This item has been removed for violating terms of use" and "This item has been removed due to a problem with the item's content."
4) The link target in question is a 1 hour 5 minute news broadcast from the country of France.  You would not assume that a full hour news broadcast is fair use absent written permission.
5) Smeelgova's argument is that we don't know that it was taken down for copyright is non-sensical.  The Wikipedia policy states in precise language, "...as long as you have made reasonable effort to determine that it is not violating someone else's copyright."
6) Smeelgova and I in a revert war again regarding this video as it has now popped up elsewhere after having been removed three times, and Smeelgova is citing the new locations.
7) If we apply Smeelgova's interpretation, we could link to any copyrighted material until the link target posts an explicit message, "This item is copyrighted."  Smeelgova's burden is way too high in interpreting the Wikipedia policy.  It's not at all the standard "cite and reference burden" which is appropriate virtually everywhere else on Wikipedia.
8) Finally, with this content, the broadcast was in French.  The entity doing the English subtitles will not identify itself, i.e., take responsibility for having done the translation.  They are avoiding this responsibility, I believe, precisely for copyright infringement reasons.  That is not a viable Wikipedia source until the source of the translation (English subtitles) identifies itself.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Copyrights#Linking_to_copyrighted_works  	 
			
- 	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.
Sm1969 18:36, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please do not link to unverifiable and /or copyvio material. See WP:EL and WP:COPY. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 23:10, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I do see your point, and I would like to work with you on this one.  I also wish very much not to edit war.  However, all links to said material has been removed, except for links contained within referenced citations.  Is this not an appropriate place, in order to verify the history of the internet chronology section?  Yours, Smeelgova 23:30, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have modified the material in question in accordance with discussion above.  Yours, Smeelgova 23:51, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Standard of Proof for Copyright and Wikipedia Link Targets 

message: 1) As I have shown below, the issues of links is just as serious, from a Wikipedia policy perspective, as putting the content directly into a Wiki.
2) Smeelgova asserts that I have a burden of proof to cite evidence that the item in quesstion is copyrighted or was taken down for copyright.  However, if you read the policy, it says exactly, "...as long as you have made a reasonable effort to determine the page in question is not violating someone else's copyright."  The policy does not say, "Use whatever you want, unless you see an explicit message that it is copyrighted."
3) We now have *three* separate web sites that have been the Wikipedia link target, added by Smeelgova, that have taken down the content:  1) YouTube, 2) Archive.org and 3) Google Video.  They have left messages at the Wikipedia link target which are very explicit:  "This item has been removed for violating terms of use" and "This item has been removed due to a problem with the item's content."
4) The link target in question is a 1 hour 5 minute news broadcast from the country of France.  You would not assume that a full hour news broadcast is fair use absent written permission.
5) Smeelgova's argument is that we don't know that it was taken down for copyright is non-sensical.  The Wikipedia policy states in precise language, "...as long as you have made reasonable effort to determine that it is not violating someone else's copyright."
6) Smeelgova and I in a revert war again regarding this video as it has now popped up elsewhere after having been removed three times, and Smeelgova is citing the new locations.
7) If we apply Smeelgova's interpretation, we could link to any copyrighted material until the link target posts an explicit message, "This item is copyrighted."  Smeelgova's burden is way too high in interpreting the Wikipedia policy.  It's not at all the standard "cite and reference burden" which is appropriate virtually everywhere else on Wikipedia.
8) Finally, with this content, the broadcast was in French.  The entity doing the English subtitles will not identify itself, i.e., take responsibility for having done the translation.  They are avoiding this responsibility, I believe, precisely for copyright infringement reasons.  That is not a viable Wikipedia source until the source of the translation (English subtitles) identifies itself.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Copyrights#Linking_to_copyrighted_works  	 
			
- 	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.
Sm1969 18:36, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Linking to Copyrighted Texts, Burden of Investigation on the User

message: Per Wikipedia administrator William M. Connolley, re: user Sm1969 block regarding violation of Wikipedia:3RR in related issue :
Yes, I know you have. I'm not going to go into the copyright issue - I don't know it well enough. I'm only dealing with 3RR. In my judgement, the copyright issue wasn't serious enough to warrant you breaking 3RR. If it *had* been serious enough, you still  shouldn't have broken 3RR - you should have listed it on copyright infringements, or somesuch, and other people would have agreed with you and helped (or not, if they didn't). You path, now, if you want to take this further, is to get a definitive opinion from the copyright people (whoever they might be). But *please* stick to 3RR, it will make your editing so much happier William M. Connolley 18:54, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please do not link to unverifiable and /or copyvio material. See WP:EL and WP:COPY. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 23:10, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I do see your point, and I would like to work with you on this one.  I also wish very much not to edit war.  However, all links to said material has been removed, except for links contained within referenced citations.  Is this not an appropriate place, in order to verify the history of the internet chronology section?  Yours, Smeelgova 23:30, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have modified the material in question in accordance with discussion above.  Yours, Smeelgova 23:51, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Related response of administrator re: editor's violation of 3RR

message: There are a number of bad links on this page.  In the case of the Rick Ross site, according to the blog that the site redirects to that site has been down since March 9th.  Spruceforest 17:17, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The links will be back up momentarily.  Please WP:AGF and stop removing them, as this amounts to vandalism.  Thank you.  Smee 17:20, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

text: These links are down again and do not appear to be relialbe. Please take the content out or get reliable references, and not from individuals. Spacefarer 04:33, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please Assume Good Faith.  The links will be back up soon.  Thank you for your patience.  Smee 04:40, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Invalid External Links 

message: I marked this to bring it to the attention of neutral, third-party editors.   I will wait and see what other say about it. Alex Jackl 15:19, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Marked the Article as POV 

message: It may make sense to move this article to the downstyle version of the title, Voyage au pays des nouveaux gourous, or to the translated title, Voyage to the Land of the New Gurus. Cirt (talk) 22:54, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Title 

message: I'm removing this section, for two related reasons: it's synthesis, and sources are not reliable.The suggestion is made, though it isn't stated explicitly, that Landmark in France closed because of the documentary. This may or may not be true, but it's not borne out by the sources. If this site is to be trusted, the documentary was on TV, and afterward Landmark closed--but there is no explicit connection drawn between the two events. The link to "culteducation.com" is dead. Without an explicit connection in a reliable source, the suggestion and thus the relevance of the entire section in an article on the documentary is pure synthesis.Second, this Cult Education Institute, even if the link were alive (there are relevant articles on the site), is not acceptable as a reliable source. Whether it should be allowed as such is a matter for WP:RSN, maybe, but advocacy websites are certainly not automatically acceptable. The other link also goes to an advocacy group, though the claim is made that the material comes from Nouvel Observateur. The problem is that a. this may be a copyvio but, more importantly, b. the NO archive does not list any such article for Landmark or for "nouveaux gourous". But, even if the material were acceptable and indeed from a reliable source, the problem of synthesis remains.The AfD is going on, which is why I left such a lengthy explanation. But this is important enough to be done now: I believe I have compelling reasons for removal, and at the AfD a number of uncritical "keeps" are based on arguments such as "plenty of sources"--but these sources, and the conclusions drawn from them, are highly problematic, so I think this removal is valid. Drmies (talk) 17:43, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: The reference is an article from the  Nouvel Observateur, "the most prominent French general information magazine in terms of audience and circulation". It may be that the section doesn't reflect the source, but it should be re-written in this case, not removed. Zambelo; talk 17:53, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

text: FWIW, some foreign press articles also drew the connection, among them România Liberă  and the HuffPost entry by Karin Badt. I'm guessing at the root of this idea/connection is some French press article. It's probably worth reporting the connection with attribution under these circumstances. JMP EAX (talk) 22:14, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with JMP EAX here. Given the fact that multiple sources either explicitly state it or distinctly imply it, reporting the connection is appropriate. LHMask me a question 22:21, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Repercussions" 

message: Here's another highly problematic section. Of course a 1995 report has nothing to do directly with a 2004 documentary. The second part, starting "Coincidentally" is even more problematic: "coincidentally" already indicates synthesis (and there is no valid or complete reference given--which, at any rate, would be primary). Nowhere in the text is any connection indicated between the documentary and the circulaire, so it might as well be coincidence--and what it has to do with the documentary is anyone's guess. The only reason I can discern that this is in the article is to suggest something, some importance for the documentary for the French legislature. Drmies (talk) 17:49, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Report of the 1995 French Parliamentary Commission" 

message: I was able to find one of the removed dead links at the Wayback Machine:
* p2pnet Yngvadottir (talk) 18:46, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed dead links 

message: Substituted at 20:13, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment