Talk:Landmark Worldwide/Archive 7

message: This section as it stands is way over-large and violates the WP:NPOV policy by giving undue weight to minority views, and by reporting opinions as though they were facts.
A “controversy” by its nature is a matter of conflicting opinions.
What are the disputed matters? I’d say they are:
* Does it really produce worthwhile results?
* Is it sometimes harmful?
* Is it a rip-off, or a money making scam?
The concerns over the Assisting Programs would be quite properly discussed under the latter two headings.
The fact that some commentators have applied adjectives such as “cult” and “brainwashing” is not in itself informative, unless we know what they mean by the words, and what evidence they draw on to justify the description.
It seems to me that the majority of those expressing critical opinions on Landmark Education actually know very little about it, and quite disproportionate weight is given to uninformed speculation and hearsay.
I have replaced the compliant tag, since the article certainly hasn’t improved since Jossi placed it there; in fact it’s deteriorated substantially. DaveApter 11:29, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why the controversies, and what are they about? 

message: === Labor Practices ===
Smee said: "... And no, the cult debate and labor investigations are most certainly not minor issues at all.  Both are extremely rare and unusual for for-profit companies, especially in so many instances and sources. "
:Two, or three or four labor investigations of an international 80-million dollar company is hardly a lot- go find an expert you trust and ask them and they will let you know.  The fact that they all ended with "no violation" and "no action taken" makes it even more un-notable (if that is a word:-)).   The cult thing is one we keep fgoing in cricles about in these articles.  It is UNUSUAL.  It is therefore worthy of SOME space in the article but is hardly definitory.  Alex Jackl 19:51, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for your suggestion.  I have spoken with "an expert", and found that it is indeed quite unusual...  Smee 20:50, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The pdf's that you linked to indicate that the original complaint to the DoL was not from a Landmark volunteer, but by Liz Summerlin - who is identified in the Time Magazine article as an anti-Landmark activist.  There have been recent posts on the discussion forums on Rick Ross's sites encouraging participants there to file complaints against Landmark.  This whole thing looks like a deliberately contrived campaign, especially since the DoL has apparrently concluded that no action is necessary. The 'Asssisting Program' is a legitimate topic for discussion, but this line of enquiry seems spurious. DaveApter 12:20, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps that was the case for the Colorado investigation in the 1990's by the United States Department of Labor, but certainly not for the 2006 investigation by the United States Department of Labor, out of the Texas District Office.  But it is interesting to note that you leap to see conspiracies in every corner...  Smee 16:38, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

text: As you yourself have pointed out- Let's remember it is about the content not the contributor Smee... no need to make personal comments about editors.  On the content of what you said: Texas is no different.  Same "no violation" and "no next action" result.  You can build as much of story around it as you want and while I agree the investigator clearly had questions- the end result of the investigation is what matters.  The truth is it is unusual how dedicated people are to the work that Landamrk Education does and for some people if they can't understand it - they attack it as a bad thing.  No one is forced to do anything.  People go into the assiting program in Landamrk because they want to and because they want to make a difference and get the training doing so provides.   It is an amazing thing!  I did say I would keep quite on this topic for a bit and let other editors speak so tata for now!Alex Jackl 05:43, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please do not insert POV interpretations into the Labor Violations Investigations.  Some instances for certain subsections of the law did not find violations, but other subsections did have violations.  Smee 18:09, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Actually Smee is technically correct - there were some violations found in minor techical issues with the actual staff.  My point was that none of the matters regarding people who assist are violations.  Alex Jackl 18:35, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

text: There is no interpretation of the facts.  There are the facts.  The Federal Department of Labor has ruled that "assistants" are actually "employees":
#"Minimum wage violation found.  Volunteers (Assistants) are not paid any wages for hours worked while performing the major duties of the firm."  
#"An overtime violation resulting from the firm not paying the additional half time to non-exempt salaried employees."  
#"record keeping violation resulting from keeping a record of hours worked for non-exempt salaried employees, and for assistants that are actually employees."
So clearly, your assesment that no violations were found, only applies to certain sections of the law, but violations were found for other sections.  Smee 19:01, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

text: It is however a little out of type since Scientology declares itself as a religion, has "followers", and a set belief system which people who "join" this thing are supposed to follow.  None of these are the case with Landmark Education.    Landmark's business model is one for offering courses.  It is a tuition per course based organization that offers courses.  You can't "donate money" or "tithe" or whatever people do with religions.  Thus LE is much more like an institution of higher learning than a religion/cult/whatever like Scientology.Alex Jackl 20:01, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

text: "Many" is innaccurate by the way.  At least you should acknowledge that this part of your POV on it- I would and many - perhaps most - of the editors of this article would contend that that is a minority viewpoint held by a very vocal but generally uninformed group of POV holders.  So let us ignore "Many" for now and say "Some" 
#Landmark has courses and program participation.  All of these are defined agreements.  Nobody goes on a list of "believers" or "Church members" or anything like that.  It just isn't accurate- do you have any notable references by informed authors.
#Well do you have any authoritative references that show that Landmark has "set belief system"- the LE Forum syllabus is quite clear that this isn't case.  There is certainly a pedagogy - as one would expect from a professional education company.
#So does Harvard- hardly a basis for comparison. Alex Jackl 20:30, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *At best I could acknowledge that there is a conflict over just how many individuals think that Landmark could be compared to a religion like Scientology.  There is certainly a "set belief system".  Individuals go on a list of "graduates" that Landmark brags about.  Landmark keeps calling these individuals about more courses, sort of like a membership list (Scientology maintains a database on all its members and files).  We are not talking about authoritative references here, this is the talk page, and at any rate, comparisions have been made in multiple sources, yes.  Harvard is not what we are discussing at the moment, you are changing the subject, we are discussing Landmark's similarities to a religion like Scientology.  You stated that Landmarkians do not "tithe" or "donate", and I stated that neither do Scientologists.  Just like Landmark, Scientologists pay money for more and more courses, not for just being members.  And some would say that like Scientology, in Landmark there is always just one more course to take, the next one is the best one, I swear, the next, you gotta take this seminar - some would say it is eerily very similar in Scientology with their "levels" of coursework...  Smee 20:38, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I was not the one who initially made the use of those quoted phrases, with regard to Landmark's followers, belief systems, and paying for course after course after course.  That was User:AJackl.  And you cannot make a comparison between unpaid laborers and unpaid internships - that is - unless you want to consider them both employees?  In one instance, the unpaid laborer expects in return "coaching" and "self-improvement".  In the other, the unpaid intern might expect a paid job and/or a recommendation/reference on a resume.  Smee 21:26, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Not sure where this discussion is intended to lead. A really nice template has been posted above by a mediator and is being totally ignored. Under each point for "Controversies" there is the opportunity to voice a viewpoint (supported by references) and then post the rebuttal to that viewpoint (with references). The disagreements are not going to be resolved here - but each side should be made available with the opportunity for interested readers to learn more about the issue beyond the encyclopedia article. I suggest focusing your energies there. Forget other articles or the definition of religion for the time being. Also, what happened to the tone of civility that DaveApter introduced? Nposs 07:41, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: COMMENT: - Nposs, it should be noted that Daveapter is not a neutral uninvolved "mediator", but an individual with his own staunchly positive POVs about the organization.  This article has been worked on for a long time, has lots of good reputable citations, and should be worked with from the existing current model.  Smee 16:37, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Smeelgova's comment about neutrality can be confirmed by a quick look at the page history. Some editors constantly try to remove his contributions, which include reliable or noteworthy citations, he or occasionally someone else puts them back. The nice thing is that it all proceeds rather politely and the article stays in equilibrium. The less nice thing is that it wastes people's time.ERTalk 11:35, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I have moved some material around to more logically order the page and reflect some of this work.  I was relatively conservative: I just moved the content stuff about what Landmark actually does up higher in the article and moved the legal disputes and labor stuff into contraversies (which they clearly are).  None of that should be inflammatory and starts to organize the article a little more like DaveApter's suggestions.  I agree in one domain (folks mark your calendars) with Smee that we should make gradual changes to the website rather than a wholesale replacement but I agree with what others have said that the website is now currently a litlte bit of a mess. It is getting there.  Let's just discuss things here and give opposing or neutral editors a chance to comment before adding any any dramatically new material. Alex Jackl 16:15, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Your move was inappropriate.  It is obvious that we should first describe the history of the organization, before filling up loads of space with "content".  Smee 16:44, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have changed back your reversion - I invite you to check out other Wikipedia sites and be responsible for your bias.  You want a super brief overview that includes the 100,000 foot history- which we have- and then you want to talk about what it is.   Look around a little bit.  If you wish I owuld be happy to compile a list of reference articles and you will find that in general it follows the model I have described.   As to the legal and labor disputes not being contraversy- are you kidding?  COme on - they are clearly contraversial and paint an extreme POV on Lndamrk that many of us think innaccurate.  Many of us don't even think they are noteworthy and you seem to think they are important.  That alone makes it contraversial in my book. I think we should bring in some other opinions since we seem somewhat polarized.  Alex Jackl 17:54, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I invite you to be responsible for your bias!  The legal and labor disputes are completely separate issues, these are not "controversy" show me one sources that has stated that these are "controversy".  Look at any other article on relevant topics.  History of the organization is described first. Smee 18:06, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am doing my best to proceed that way.  It is difficult to do because it SEEMS that you operate that: 
(1) There is something wrong with the oprganization this article is about, 
(2) That it is a "topic" rather than an encyclopedia article to give infomration about an organization, in which describing the organization is probably the first order of business.
(3) That you think a section labeled "labor dispute" in which a 15-year old company making ~70 million in revenue or so a year has had TWO labor investigations- NEITHER of which ended with the Department of Labor taking any action (no matter what the investigator opined in the report itself)- is either notable or non-contraversial.  Or that a "legal" section where one of the references is to a website put up just to create a POV platform for lawyers hired to engage against Landmark Education is NOT contraversy or criticism? 
I think we need some less involved parties to weigh in. Alex Jackl 18:16, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I have created a new section below for this debate, I am finding it VERY confusing to discuss issues in-between all of Daveapter's subsections and headings...  We have been over all of your points time and time again.  I will not respond to your personal attacks and accusations about what you think my thought process is like.  I will state again that I was not the individual to bring up your conflict of interest.  Please continue the discussion about your inappropriate lumping together of investigations by sovereign governments into this company, and legal disputes in the "criticism" section, below.  Thanks.  Smee 18:19, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We are not discussing that article, are we? This page is to discuss this one. If we can have 50% of citations from scholarly sources and secondary sources such as books, in this article  that would be excellent. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:37, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

text:  In any case, note that I am not interested in editing this article. I was just offering my assessment, with the hope that it would be useful for involved editors in their quest to improve this article. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:39, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for offering your assessment.  Smee 19:01, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Perhaps, the study was done months before the formation of the "Landmark" company, yes.  However, the study was a study of "The Forum" which can arguably be seen as the exact same thing as "The Landmark Forum", not to mention the close time proximity, and the fact that Landmark and Werner Erhard's sites and many many other sites cite this research as well.  Smee 16:46, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No one argues that the "WE&A Forum" is not the predecessor course to the Landmark Forum- but they certainly are not the same.  Landmark Education was a new company- with new ideas and a new context for all the course content that WE&A provided.  ALthough I cannot speak from personal experience - never having taken courses with WE&A- I have spoken with many who have taken both and there is clear agremeent AT LEAST of stylistic and emphasis change as well as several people asserting content changes even in that initial period.  This all precedes the first major re-design I was aware of perosnally that happened, I believe, the next year. So - I don't the Fisher study is a bad thing and do not have a strong opinion on it. It should probably go onto the Werner Erhardt and Associates article and not on the Landmark article OR -if it is here- then as a extrmeely minor and non-notable element given it was an anlysis of a course by a prior company.   Those are my thoughts?  We have heard from SpruceForest (I think it was SPruceForest that did the initial change) and I for removing it and Smeelgova against... Anyone else?  Alex Jackl 18:07, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fine, whatever, if you want to believe that "The Forum" and "The Landmark Forum", are different courses, I will not object further and edit war on this topic, until more sources present themselves.  Smee 18:12, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion on the 'Controversies' section

message: Smee said: "... And no, the cult debate and labor investigations are most certainly not minor issues at all.  Both are extremely rare and unusual for for-profit companies, especially in so many instances and sources. "
:Two, or three or four labor investigations of an international 80-million dollar company is hardly a lot- go find an expert you trust and ask them and they will let you know.  The fact that they all ended with "no violation" and "no action taken" makes it even more un-notable (if that is a word:-)).   The cult thing is one we keep fgoing in cricles about in these articles.  It is UNUSUAL.  It is therefore worthy of SOME space in the article but is hardly definitory.  Alex Jackl 19:51, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for your suggestion.  I have spoken with "an expert", and found that it is indeed quite unusual...  Smee 20:50, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The pdf's that you linked to indicate that the original complaint to the DoL was not from a Landmark volunteer, but by Liz Summerlin - who is identified in the Time Magazine article as an anti-Landmark activist.  There have been recent posts on the discussion forums on Rick Ross's sites encouraging participants there to file complaints against Landmark.  This whole thing looks like a deliberately contrived campaign, especially since the DoL has apparrently concluded that no action is necessary. The 'Asssisting Program' is a legitimate topic for discussion, but this line of enquiry seems spurious. DaveApter 12:20, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps that was the case for the Colorado investigation in the 1990's by the United States Department of Labor, but certainly not for the 2006 investigation by the United States Department of Labor, out of the Texas District Office.  But it is interesting to note that you leap to see conspiracies in every corner...  Smee 16:38, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

text: As you yourself have pointed out- Let's remember it is about the content not the contributor Smee... no need to make personal comments about editors.  On the content of what you said: Texas is no different.  Same "no violation" and "no next action" result.  You can build as much of story around it as you want and while I agree the investigator clearly had questions- the end result of the investigation is what matters.  The truth is it is unusual how dedicated people are to the work that Landamrk Education does and for some people if they can't understand it - they attack it as a bad thing.  No one is forced to do anything.  People go into the assiting program in Landamrk because they want to and because they want to make a difference and get the training doing so provides.   It is an amazing thing!  I did say I would keep quite on this topic for a bit and let other editors speak so tata for now!Alex Jackl 05:43, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please do not insert POV interpretations into the Labor Violations Investigations.  Some instances for certain subsections of the law did not find violations, but other subsections did have violations.  Smee 18:09, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Actually Smee is technically correct - there were some violations found in minor techical issues with the actual staff.  My point was that none of the matters regarding people who assist are violations.  Alex Jackl 18:35, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

text: There is no interpretation of the facts.  There are the facts.  The Federal Department of Labor has ruled that "assistants" are actually "employees":
#"Minimum wage violation found.  Volunteers (Assistants) are not paid any wages for hours worked while performing the major duties of the firm."  
#"An overtime violation resulting from the firm not paying the additional half time to non-exempt salaried employees."  
#"record keeping violation resulting from keeping a record of hours worked for non-exempt salaried employees, and for assistants that are actually employees."
So clearly, your assesment that no violations were found, only applies to certain sections of the law, but violations were found for other sections.  Smee 19:01, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Labor Practices 

message: Smee said: "And no, the cult debate and labor investigations are most certainly not minor issues at all.  Both are extremely rare and unusual for for-profit companies, especially in so many instances and sources. "
:It is however a little out of type since Scientology declares itself as a religion, has "followers", and a set belief system which people who "join" this thing are supposed to follow.  None of these are the case with Landmark Education.    Landmark's business model is one for offering courses.  It is a tuition per course based organization that offers courses.  You can't "donate money" or "tithe" or whatever people do with religions.  Thus LE is much more like an institution of higher learning than a religion/cult/whatever like Scientology.Alex Jackl 20:01, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Many" is innaccurate by the way.  At least you should acknowledge that this part of your POV on it- I would and many - perhaps most - of the editors of this article would contend that that is a minority viewpoint held by a very vocal but generally uninformed group of POV holders.  So let us ignore "Many" for now and say "Some" 
#Landmark has courses and program participation.  All of these are defined agreements.  Nobody goes on a list of "believers" or "Church members" or anything like that.  It just isn't accurate- do you have any notable references by informed authors.
#Well do you have any authoritative references that show that Landmark has "set belief system"- the LE Forum syllabus is quite clear that this isn't case.  There is certainly a pedagogy - as one would expect from a professional education company.
#So does Harvard- hardly a basis for comparison. Alex Jackl 20:30, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *At best I could acknowledge that there is a conflict over just how many individuals think that Landmark could be compared to a religion like Scientology.  There is certainly a "set belief system".  Individuals go on a list of "graduates" that Landmark brags about.  Landmark keeps calling these individuals about more courses, sort of like a membership list (Scientology maintains a database on all its members and files).  We are not talking about authoritative references here, this is the talk page, and at any rate, comparisions have been made in multiple sources, yes.  Harvard is not what we are discussing at the moment, you are changing the subject, we are discussing Landmark's similarities to a religion like Scientology.  You stated that Landmarkians do not "tithe" or "donate", and I stated that neither do Scientologists.  Just like Landmark, Scientologists pay money for more and more courses, not for just being members.  And some would say that like Scientology, in Landmark there is always just one more course to take, the next one is the best one, I swear, the next, you gotta take this seminar - some would say it is eerily very similar in Scientology with their "levels" of coursework...  Smee 20:38, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I was not the one who initially made the use of those quoted phrases, with regard to Landmark's followers, belief systems, and paying for course after course after course.  That was User:AJackl.  And you cannot make a comparison between unpaid laborers and unpaid internships - that is - unless you want to consider them both employees?  In one instance, the unpaid laborer expects in return "coaching" and "self-improvement".  In the other, the unpaid intern might expect a paid job and/or a recommendation/reference on a resume.  Smee 21:26, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Not sure where this discussion is intended to lead. A really nice template has been posted above by a mediator and is being totally ignored. Under each point for "Controversies" there is the opportunity to voice a viewpoint (supported by references) and then post the rebuttal to that viewpoint (with references). The disagreements are not going to be resolved here - but each side should be made available with the opportunity for interested readers to learn more about the issue beyond the encyclopedia article. I suggest focusing your energies there. Forget other articles or the definition of religion for the time being. Also, what happened to the tone of civility that DaveApter introduced? Nposs 07:41, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: COMMENT: - Nposs, it should be noted that Daveapter is not a neutral uninvolved "mediator", but an individual with his own staunchly positive POVs about the organization.  This article has been worked on for a long time, has lots of good reputable citations, and should be worked with from the existing current model.  Smee 16:37, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Smeelgova's comment about neutrality can be confirmed by a quick look at the page history. Some editors constantly try to remove his contributions, which include reliable or noteworthy citations, he or occasionally someone else puts them back. The nice thing is that it all proceeds rather politely and the article stays in equilibrium. The less nice thing is that it wastes people's time.ERTalk 11:35, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scientology and Religions 

message: Can we please cut back on the interpersonal battles, and try to move towards agreement on how to improve the article. 
I had hoped that someone else would make a start on filling in within the overall framework, but here are my suggestions to get the ball rolling:DaveApter 15:29, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have moved some material around to more logically order the page and reflect some of this work.  I was relatively conservative: I just moved the content stuff about what Landmark actually does up higher in the article and moved the legal disputes and labor stuff into contraversies (which they clearly are).  None of that should be inflammatory and starts to organize the article a little more like DaveApter's suggestions.  I agree in one domain (folks mark your calendars) with Smee that we should make gradual changes to the website rather than a wholesale replacement but I agree with what others have said that the website is now currently a litlte bit of a mess. It is getting there.  Let's just discuss things here and give opposing or neutral editors a chance to comment before adding any any dramatically new material. Alex Jackl 16:15, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Your move was inappropriate.  It is obvious that we should first describe the history of the organization, before filling up loads of space with "content".  Smee 16:44, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have changed back your reversion - I invite you to check out other Wikipedia sites and be responsible for your bias.  You want a super brief overview that includes the 100,000 foot history- which we have- and then you want to talk about what it is.   Look around a little bit.  If you wish I owuld be happy to compile a list of reference articles and you will find that in general it follows the model I have described.   As to the legal and labor disputes not being contraversy- are you kidding?  COme on - they are clearly contraversial and paint an extreme POV on Lndamrk that many of us think innaccurate.  Many of us don't even think they are noteworthy and you seem to think they are important.  That alone makes it contraversial in my book. I think we should bring in some other opinions since we seem somewhat polarized.  Alex Jackl 17:54, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I invite you to be responsible for your bias!  The legal and labor disputes are completely separate issues, these are not "controversy" show me one sources that has stated that these are "controversy".  Look at any other article on relevant topics.  History of the organization is described first. Smee 18:06, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am doing my best to proceed that way.  It is difficult to do because it SEEMS that you operate that: 
(1) There is something wrong with the oprganization this article is about, 
(2) That it is a "topic" rather than an encyclopedia article to give infomration about an organization, in which describing the organization is probably the first order of business.
(3) That you think a section labeled "labor dispute" in which a 15-year old company making ~70 million in revenue or so a year has had TWO labor investigations- NEITHER of which ended with the Department of Labor taking any action (no matter what the investigator opined in the report itself)- is either notable or non-contraversial.  Or that a "legal" section where one of the references is to a website put up just to create a POV platform for lawyers hired to engage against Landmark Education is NOT contraversy or criticism? 
I think we need some less involved parties to weigh in. Alex Jackl 18:16, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I have created a new section below for this debate, I am finding it VERY confusing to discuss issues in-between all of Daveapter's subsections and headings...  We have been over all of your points time and time again.  I will not respond to your personal attacks and accusations about what you think my thought process is like.  I will state again that I was not the individual to bring up your conflict of interest.  Please continue the discussion about your inappropriate lumping together of investigations by sovereign governments into this company, and legal disputes in the "criticism" section, below.  Thanks.  Smee 18:19, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We are not discussing that article, are we? This page is to discuss this one. If we can have 50% of citations from scholarly sources and secondary sources such as books, in this article  that would be excellent. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:37, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

text:  In any case, note that I am not interested in editing this article. I was just offering my assessment, with the hope that it would be useful for involved editors in their quest to improve this article. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:39, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for offering your assessment.  Smee 19:01, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Another attempt to get a constructive discussion going

message: *Is there any evidence of anyone gaining financial advantage from Landmark's operations?
*Are the courses high-priced or poor value?
=====The Assisting Program=====
*Are participants in this program being exploited for the profit of others?
*Do they actually derive any benefits from it for themselves?
DaveApter 15:29, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Is it a rip-off, or a money making scam?

message: *Are participants in this program being exploited for the profit of others?
*Do they actually derive any benefits from it for themselves?
DaveApter 15:29, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: The Assisting Program

message: *All of these issues are already raised in the current article.  If individuals do not think it is perfect - fine.  But it has been worked on for a long time and should be tweaked as the model to base things off of.  Smee 17:06, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We are not discussing that article, are we? This page is to discuss this one. If we can have 50% of citations from scholarly sources and secondary sources such as books, in this article  that would be excellent. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:37, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  In any case, note that I am not interested in editing this article. I was just offering my assessment, with the hope that it would be useful for involved editors in their quest to improve this article. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:39, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for offering your assessment.  Smee 19:01, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Current article

message: Actually the Fisher Study was NOT about the Landmark Forum.  This should be particularly obvious inside the fact that Landmark Education did not exist in 1990 when the study was done- this study was about Werner Erhardt and Associate's Forum.  Alex Jackl 07:41, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps, the study was done months before the formation of the "Landmark" company, yes.  However, the study was a study of "The Forum" which can arguably be seen as the exact same thing as "The Landmark Forum", not to mention the close time proximity, and the fact that Landmark and Werner Erhard's sites and many many other sites cite this research as well.  Smee 16:46, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No one argues that the "WE&A Forum" is not the predecessor course to the Landmark Forum- but they certainly are not the same.  Landmark Education was a new company- with new ideas and a new context for all the course content that WE&A provided.  ALthough I cannot speak from personal experience - never having taken courses with WE&A- I have spoken with many who have taken both and there is clear agremeent AT LEAST of stylistic and emphasis change as well as several people asserting content changes even in that initial period.  This all precedes the first major re-design I was aware of perosnally that happened, I believe, the next year. So - I don't the Fisher study is a bad thing and do not have a strong opinion on it. It should probably go onto the Werner Erhardt and Associates article and not on the Landmark article OR -if it is here- then as a extrmeely minor and non-notable element given it was an anlysis of a course by a prior company.   Those are my thoughts?  We have heard from SpruceForest (I think it was SPruceForest that did the initial change) and I for removing it and Smeelgova against... Anyone else?  Alex Jackl 18:07, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fine, whatever, if you want to believe that "The Forum" and "The Landmark Forum", are different courses, I will not object further and edit war on this topic, until more sources present themselves.  Smee 18:12, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fisher Study 

message: The whole point of  the Berlin thing is that they originally classified and now don't.  Part of what an ecyclopedia is distill knowledge and then cite it. If what I put in is original research than much of that section has to go.  Choosing what part sof a source to quote and what to not include is as critical as including a citation or not.  POV is most often revealed in what what leaves out.  That paragraph need sto be written in an NPOV way.  I am not going to do it- at least not now because I don't want to do the edit war thinking but I am looking for some other editors to weigh in here so we can get some agreement on it.  I will leave this one be for a while to give some distance.  Alex Jackl 19:50, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The best way to do this is to mention/cite the classification pre and post being sued by Landmark, exactly as is, and not to put POV spin on what those classifications meant or implied in either circumstance.  Smee 19:53, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Berlin Cult thing 

message: "In 16 years of the organizations existence there is only a record of two investigations. Both investigations ended with "no further action" by the US Department of Labor. See below for more details."
I am going to put this back unless you can show me which pieces of this statement are not factual.  Let me help you:
#16 years -> Landmark Education incorporated 1991. 
#The most recent Labor investigation - almost current REFERENCES that there had been only one other. See your own references- the document states that there has been one other investigation- and names it!  SO I am using the source documents you have introduced into the converstaion. I trust the Dept. of Laboir to know better than anyone else if it has had investigations.  This is valid, factual and source data. 
#BOTH investigations were CLEARLY labled - see again the action reports you have cited- as "no further action".  
I know you don't like it but those ar ethe facts.  Now I know you think that the violatins that they list and the narrative mitigates that- but you make that case over and over again in the paragraphs that follow.  I just want the facts as we know them to be stated once and then you can go on about the other stuff for ten paragraphs if you want but let us have both sides represented.  Thes eare the facts - please stop taking factual sourced material out of the article.  Thanks!Alex Jackl 08:35, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: These are most certainly not the facts.  This is a blanket statement that you have inferred from the material available at present, but your statement is, in fact, factually inaccurate.  We should refrain in any way from making lead-in blanket assumptions like this, that constitutes a violation of Wikipedia:No Original Research.  Instead, we should simply describe the facts as they exist in the individual cases, one by one, and not attempt to make incorrect categorizations about the number of times the for-profit, privately-owned company has been investigated in the past...  Smee 08:39, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have corrected the "summary" at the beginning of this section to be factually accurate, and so as not to make blanket assumption statements, and removed original research...  Smee 08:46, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In the interest of compromise I have left the violation work on but added the other facts in. If you read the above I laid out the facts and you have not addressed my comments on the facts at all.  From my perspective and my understanding of the facts your interpretation of this is an innacurate spin.  Please do not accuse me or other editors or OR when I clearly have the position that you are spinning this and are doing massive OR and interpretation.  I feel my latest edits leave your "assertions" and leave mine.  Let's not edit war more about this. Alex Jackl 15:35, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, incorrect information, that was not the "final assessment", but a statement about individual line-items.  Bear with me one moment please...  Smee 19:51, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have further clarified the actual facts in the summary.  There was never any statement of "no further action", but rather in the Colorado case information was redacted from the recommendation, and in the Texas case there was an apparent transfer of the case to a different office, and again a redaction of the final recommendation.  Smee 19:56, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

text:  I don't know how to be more clear... I am once again going to tstep back and deperately ask some other person to step in.  The Colorado document did indeed redact the "narrative" piece of the recommendation but please observer items 15 and 16 on the front page where it clear as day answers the question of "further action" with a "no" and a "no".  This is clear, factual and obvious.  I will restore one more time the accurate information- keeping as much of your material as possible but please reference your own source material- ref name="coloradoviolations".  If you remov eit again in the face of overwhelming evidence I can only assume you are committed to a POV attack on this article without even a pretense of NPOV. Alex Jackl 02:53, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

text:  If there were legal action taken by the Department of Labor, their would be court records.  The notion that one district office had one interpretation a particular way is refuted by the lack of a follow through enforcement action by the DOL.  You can call my statements "original research" but to give the reader the impression that the DOL took enforcement action is also "original research" and it is "original research" contradicted by the absence of a follow through enforcement action.  LE made concessions on one or two employees for misclassifying them, and so have thousands of other businesses.  What would have been unique is if the DOL took enforcement action based on the assistants being employees, but they have not.   This whole is really non-notable and deceptive as currently written.  Sm1969 05:16, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Department of Labor 

message: The original program delivery corporation was "est:  An Educational Corporation".  The other two entities (The Foundation for the Realization of Man and the Est Foundation) were both non-profit entities that did not deliver programs.  1) Est:  An Educational Corporation and 2) Werner Erhard and Associates both delivered "The est Training" and later "The Forum".    Both of these entities were for profit.  Sm1969 05:11, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Est:  An Educational Corporation

message: I have been away for a while and I come back to discover same old same old.  The intro has been stable for many months with lots of agreement. Given how volatile this page is lets use some decorum and discuss this on the talk page and reach consensus before major changes.  I have reverted the page back (only the intro) to its former state. The rule with this page should be slow and steady otherwise the fanatical forces on both sides will ignite into another edit war. 
Alex Jackl 05:31, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Other editors have come along and added to the intro, I was merely restoring their changes.  In addition, I suggest you look over WP:LEAD.  The intro can be 4 paragraphs, and should summarize points in the article - not gloss over them.  Smee 05:34, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I am familiar with WP:LEAD.  The introduction has stabilized in its current state because of the agreement reached that those paragraphs DO represent the point sin the article.  I refer you to WP:NPOV as a guide to keeping the introduction aligned with the consensus on this very volatile page.  Alex Jackl 01:24, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *User:Tazmaniacs is correct.  The intro glosses over any "controversy" with a very, very brief mention, instead of giving it due summary as a piece of the article.  Smee 03:29, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

text:  I really do understand your point of view but remember this is an article about Landmark Education - a full quarter of the intro deals with the "controversies".  Frankly - even that is a little much.   Please don't paint it as anything other than what it is.  The people who obsess about the controversies are usually (1) talking about est and Werner Erhardt which is a 16 year old story or (2) conspiracy theorists who believe Landmark is out to wash their brains with its evil powers.   I am in no way saying that Landmark is perfect or that there haven't been controversies but for God's sake it is a company that puts on seminars on personal development  let's keep it in scale shall we? If you want to fight evil go fight against genocide in Rwanda or an organization that is a real cult and hurts people. Alex Jackl 05:13, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Let us focus on specific comments about content please.  Thank you.  Smee 05:58, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Introduction 

message: We have discussed the introduction above and consensus is clearly for leaving it.   It is, IMO, unethical to label a set of changes as "fixing dead references" and then make a change to the introduction that we have been discussing and has been - by consensus- reverted before.
Also- Wikipedia policy is clear in that primary sources are always preferable to secondary sources when available. SO replacing a primary source with a secondary source that has copied that primary source is ridiculous. 
Let's discuss these changes here to keep this civil and in agreement. Alex Jackl 04:24, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Recent Changes- Use Primary Sources when available 

message: This is the intro paragraph that was added by User:Tazmaniacs:
The organization has been accused by various states and governmental reports of being a cult (See below). Following the diffusion of Voyage Au Pays Des Nouveaux Gourous (Travel to the Country of the New Gurus) in France, Landmark Education ceased all activities on French territory.
Let us discuss here why or why not this should be included in the introduction, as per WP:LEAD ...  Yours, Smee 04:23, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Intro paragraph added by Tazmaniacs 

message: Lets- I quote from WP:LEAD:
When writing a lead section about ideas and concepts (such as "truth"), it can be helpful to introduce the topic as follows:
   1. Context - describing the category or field in which the idea belongs.
   2. Characterization - what the term refers to as used in the given context.
   3. Explanation - deeper meaning and background.
   4. Compare and contrast - how it relates to other topics, if appropriate.
   5. Criticism - include criticism if there has been significant, notable criticism.
It also states that for larger articles (30,000 words plus) the length should be a maximum of 3 to 4 paragraphs.   The first part of the current intor describes what we are talking about, the second describes some history and its predecessors,  the third explains what it does and how that fits with some of its other sibling/subsidiary entities, and the fourth addresses criticisms.   
There is a large contingent of us (see above discussions) that think the intro is already overly leaning towards talking about the far past too much and think MOST of the criticism stuff is pretty non-notable and minority POV driven.   The fact is this intro was gotten to voer weeks and weeks of patient effort by editors to keep it balanced.  I think we should move very carefully to not disturb that. WIkipedia does say be bold but I suspect others will be bold back and that leads to edit wars.  Lets take the consensus route.Alex Jackl 04:36, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Intro Paragraph 

message: There are two things: 
1. There is a POV statement that the courts have "sometimes sided" with Landmark.  That is a misleading statement - in NO case have the courts gone against Landmark with regard to the cult stuff.  It is one of the reasons many editors consider this to be non-notable.  Therefore I think this whole section needs to be radically reduced but as a stop gap at least acknowledging that the courts have never ruled AGAINST Landmark will hold that space. 
2.  The DOL has not ruled on anything.  You can check court records and the DOL website.  It is an investigator, an employee, that made whatever conclusions they made and then took no further action and no legal proceedings resulted. This is just a fix of an obvious misdirection in the text (intentional or otherwise).
These are I think the minorest changes to make this slightly less skewed. Please let me know if there is any question about this.  Thanks! Alex Jackl 01:56, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV rationale for minor changes to the Labor stuff