Talk:Landmark Worldwide/Archive 6

message: Once again this talk page has got over-long, so I have archived it.  Looking through the archived pages, it’s pretty clear that the discussion has gone round in circles with the same points being made over and over again, and more time being spent on re-iterating editors’ own viewpoints than seriously working towards a consensus on the structure of the article.
At present the article is a total mess, as a result of the POV-pushing and edit-warring over the last seven months. It is also much longer than it should be.
My request is that we work together to establish a consensus on this page regarding a desirable structure for the article, and then find acceptable references to build the page in that form.
I propose that an acceptable encyclopedia article on Landmark Education would provide readers with informative content regarding:
:1) Broadly what it is about: what it offers and how it delivers it; why people do the courses, and what they get from them.
:2) A summary of the ‘controversies’ surrounding the operation: what are the conflicting opinions on the various areas of debate, who hold these opinions, and what is the supporting evidence.
Does anyone disagree with this as a satisfactory ‘big-picture’ overview of what the article should deal with? (Please start the discussion in a new section below to preserve the flow of this overview paragraph – thanks).
My suggestions for how these areas could be dealt with are:
===What is it about? ===
This section of the article should address the following questions:
* What issues do Landmark courses deal with?
* What is the methodology?
* What results do participants report?
* How does it differ from conventional academic philosophy?
(again - please discuss below).
=== Why the controversies, and what are they about? ===
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:  Summary of Current State of Play 

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: I don't have any immediate edits but agree that this is a good overall high-level structure. Alex Jackl 05:06, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion on the overall structure