Talk:Landmark Worldwide/Archive 1

message: DO NOT EDIT OR POST REPLIES TO THIS PAGE. THIS PAGE IS AN ARCHIVE.
This archive page covers approximately the dates between DATE and 16 November 2005.
Post replies to the main talk page, copying or summarizing the section you are
replying to if necessary.
Please add new archivals to Talk:Landmark Education/Archive02. (See Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page.) Thank you. FuelWagon 01:54, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

message: While being bold, please make your edits relevant and documented.  If you make a large scale edit without comment, then expect it to be reverted.
: After exhibiting boldness, consider how much information you may have censored. If you make a small-scale or medium-scale edit without merit, then expect a thousand eyes to enhance it.  - Pedant17 01:40, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notes to users 

message: copied from User talk:63.172.9.25
To 63.172.9.25 / 69.91.15.70, you may wish to check out Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, particularly our strict Neutral point of view (NPOV} policy.
The changes you've made to this page do not conform to this policy, hence they are getting reverted. Please don't overwrite the changes but make use of this Talk-page to discuss the changes you wish to make. Jay 04:51, 23 Jan 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Common issues 

message: I have read the definition of Multi-level marketing. I think one of the main points of MLM is that there are Independent Business Owners (IBO) who associate with a parent company. The IBO expect to earn a profit. They are in it for the money. However, the participants in Landmark forum, do not expect to get any financial gain from bringing others to Landmark. I think it is far more accurate to classify the marketing strategy of Landmark forum as Word of mouth.  So, again, this is another change I would like to introduce.
Landmark doesn't use advertisement or direct marketing. These require mass media like TV or newspapers, or (for direct marketing) email, telephone calls, or regular mail which is not based on personal aquaintance.
Participants of Landmark forum only invite family and friends to "introduction to landmark" meetings. They do so, not to earn a profit, but because they think the courses are good. Thats why I think word of mouth is more accurate. --eladm 7 Apr 2004
----
Can User:Pedant17 clarify on what a "Western-oriented country" means ? Jay 18:04, 11 Apr 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Pedant had responded in the above discussion. Perhaps you missed that out. Jay 09:56, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't think I missed his response. But Pedant reversed a lot of things which his response does not address. Just for example, the references about scientology, but there is a lot more, which he didn't explain. --eladm 10:06, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Multi Level Marketing 

message: This They also include journalists (some initially sceptical), some psychologists, and religious leaders. Many supporters who enter the public debate are prepared to do so on the record, and to put their personal and professional reputations on the line describes the supporters in a very positive light. Some initially sceptical implies the POV that people convert, leaving their former scepticism behind. Here meanwhile Many detractors freely admit that they have no personal experience of Landmark's courses, and also include some who do but did not find them useful. the detractors are put in a negative light. The whole thing implies that the critics don't know what they are talking about, and some who were sceptical finally found out what it is really like, and they think it is great.  This They claim that those who have done the course in its entirety and remain critical amount to a tiny proportion, well under one percent. They also point out that, since most of the detractors make their comments anonymously, the claims are often difficult to verify slags off the detractors and minimizes their number repeatedly. Pure POV, especially given the controversial nature of Landmark. to me this is all so much Landmark propaganda.  Supporters of Landmark Education characterise the organisation as a straightforward business selling highly effective training courses  empowering their course-participants to reach their full  potential in all areas of  life. Detractors disparage these claims, which they see as subjective and unprovable, despite a wealth of personal accounts describing detailed and specific measurable results, such as increased earnings, weight loss, sporting and artistic accomplishments, and charitable fund-raising (in addition to more subjective results such as "greater enjoyment of life" or "improved relationships"). is pure propaganda, disparaging the claims of the detractors while confirming the claims of the supporters, SqueakBox 17:15, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)
Hi Squeakebox.  first of all, apologies for not signing my last comment - it was just an oversight.  My commitment is to have this page be an objective and neutral factual account of the issues as befits an encyclopedia.  From my observations over the past year it seems that detractors of Landmark have continually been trying to hijack it to propagate their own agenda.  Much of what is posted here seems to me to be factually innacurate, or purely subjective, or unattributed, or some combination of these.  I appreciate that there are differing opinions, and what I have tried to do is to accurately portray what protagonists on both sides say, so as to give an account of the debate.  My understanding of this is that it is 100% in line with the NPOV policies.  You edits on the other hand appear to me to have undermined the structure which reported alternately one side then the other by interspersing critical comments into the reports of supporters' positions (without making it clear whether this an opinion or a purported fact).  
My position, by the way is that I did the Landmark Forum 3 years ago and found it useful.  Many of my friends have done it too, and all except one would say the same.  I'm not currently doing any Landmark courses or assisting agreements.  I don't see myself as trying to promote it or propagandise for it, but I do want to see it portrayed fairly and accurately (including a frank account of some of its shortcomings).  What's your experience and point of view?
As to your specific points:
They also include journalists (some initially sceptical), ....  This carries none of the implications you ascribe.  It is a statement of fact. And it is true. Some supporters are journalists.  Some of these were initially sceptical, and they did conclude in the course of their investigations that the scepticism was unfounded e.g. uk_news/story/0,6903,1106927,00.html | Amelia Hill, Observer, London, 14 December 2003. Also Vanora Bennett, The Times, London, 15th July 2000.  The relevance of this is that they were not already Landmark supporters writing an article as a whitewash job.
Many supporters who enter the public debate are prepared to do so on the record, and to put their personal and professional reputations on the line  Again it's a matter of fact.  I'll put up a list of examples over the next day or so.  I think it's relevant.  Whether it put's them 'in a positive light' is for the reader to decide.
I suggest you re-read the things you described as pure propaganda, and look at them as a report of the conversation.
I'm out of time for now - I'll add more tomorrow.  Thanks for entering the debate.
DaveApter 20:38, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Why POV?

message: Under Operation: The statement “aids in maintaining the minutiae of an environment” is out of date.  This was the case with EST and to a lesser extent WEA but those days have long passed. Also, to imply that attention to small details is of negligible importance is an opinion or judgement and not a statement of fact? Gary C 29 June 2005 08:38 (UTC)
:Here's the whole section you're referring to:
:* Participants in LE's Assisting Program ("graduates" of the Landmark Forum) aid in maintaining the minutiae of an environment that fosters acceptable group-based behavior and participation - what Landmark Education terms "getting" Landmark's technology. (See Kopp's academic analysis of the Landmark Forum milieu for an analysis of the delivery-setup and of the importance of control of the perceived environment.)
:So you are saying that the participants in the Assisting Program do not provide aid in running seminars? Did they ever in the LE's history (setting aside EST and WEA)? Just trying to get this clear.  Thanks, -Willmcw June 29, 2005 08:47 (UTC)
While they do assist in running seminars as well as leading them providing aid in runnning seminars is one thing, to "aid in maintaining the minutiae of an environment that fosters acceptable group-based behavior and participation" is something else.  In the days of EST we were very meticulous; hours were spent lining up chairs and the pencils/papers underneath them.  It is just not that way anymore.  I find this article to be quite factual in many many areas, yet there is distinctly negative tone that pops up here and there.  Where does "fosters acceptable group-based behavior" come from? It sounds a little controlling hence negative to me.  I can only imagine that the writer(s) are people who either have not participated in the programs or are incomplete about something, which is fine, the NPOV warning fits well.  Thanks for asking, -Gary C 1 July 2005 06:22 (UTC)
:I just attempted a cleanup towards NPOV, got halfway through when I realized how deeply biased it is.  Perhaps it is better left in its POV state given the condition prior editors have placed it in? -Gary C 1 July 2005 07:26 (UTC)
::OK, so I've actually coughed up the dough and gone to one of these. I can't remember what all I signed at the time, but if I were them, I'd have made me sign something that said I won't give away the details of their course. So I'll simply assume I did that and instead report on what happened to me that weekend:
::*I was recruited by a friend and told that I needed to go to this course. One of those "this will change your life" sorts of conversations that set my teeth on edge and made me wonder how fast I could learn counter-interrogation techniques, but I rolled with it and signed up. $400 later I was $400 poorer and standing around outside a nondescript building outside of Boston.
::*I think I actually started on Friday night, but if so, it was mercifully brief, and I don't remember much of that.
::*I had to be there fairly early Saturday, and when I got there, there was a fair amount of waiting. The chairs seemed comfortable enough once I sat down, but at various times I had to get up. It seems there's always one more form to fill out, and the number of times I was pressured to sign up for the "Advanced Course" is a detail I lost track of....
::*I noticed that every time we had a break, we would all be moved out of the room. A friend who went trhough it after me noticed that every time he came back in, they would have moved the chairs a bit closer together. Interesting item, that.
::*I watched a lot of people get up and pour their hearts out. I heard some very, very disturbing stories from people who I'm pretty certain were not planted (though some of them might have been).
::*By the time they let me out at night I was exausted. 2.5 days of this seemed an impossible task. But on top of it there was "homework", which I did only half-heartedly. It occured to me, though, that the homework in question was of the sort that was likely to turn into logn conversations with loved ones for many of the participants. I could only imagine that most of the people the next day would be sleep deprived.
::*On the second day the food-related pattern seemed to become clearer. I was getting in early, so I was eating early and meal breaks were spread out to ensure that at the time that "big revelations" were given out, everyone's stomachs were growling. Thankfully I knew something of the technique that this mapped to, and was able to stay detatched, even while everyone else was reacting to low blood sugar like a revelation.
::*The "big deal" was at the end of the second day. It was minor, and while I won't divulge teh big truth they deliver, I will say that you can find it in any casual read of a book on 19th century existentialism. A comraderie had developed between a reporter and I. I'd gotten a ride home from him, and he was there because a co-worker had told him it would be a good idea. We came to roughly the same conclusions about the big revelations they had. Simple pop psycology with environmental and blood-sugar inducement to make it seem exciting and important.
::*Other than that the only thing we could really think of to say about it was that it was a weekend jam-packed full of more advertising for the "Advanced Course" than you could shake a stick at. They harped on it over and over, and made it sound like I was a failure in life for not signing up on the spot!
::*We returned a day or two later in the evening. It was a sort of "feel good" get-together where people talked about how much better they felt in the day or two since the bulk of the course. Our "sponsors" were invited to attend, and they, along with the instructors pushed everyone to sign up for the "Advanced Course" all over again.
::Well, that's about it. I hope my "what I did on my Landmark weekend" recap has been helpful in sorting out the cruft from the facts. Enjoy, folks! -Harmil 01:45, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Minutiae no more

message: To my surprise, I just found on this Wikipedia listing a link to a paper I wrote concerning the role the production of space has on the transformation of the participants of the Landmark Forum. I'm very curious if someone who has participated in LE has read my paper and is willing to give me feedback on it. Please feel free to email me: kopp@email.arizona.edu. 68.0.168.8 06:24, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  This is Kopp 

message: The basis for the estimate of 'millions of dollars' being raised for charity by projects carried out on Landmark Self-expression and Leadership Program is as follows:
# Landmark states that over 30,000 have done this course (and this is consistent with the published shedule of courses and the typical size);
# Program Leaders report that charity fundraising is a popular choice of project and that typically over 10% select this option.
# If we assume an average figure raised of $1,000 per project, this would yield a total of 3,000 x $1,000 = $3m.
$3m is definitely 'millions' but this is almost certainly an under-estimate, as all the numbers above are chosen to err on the conservative side.  In particular, few of the fund-raising projects yield less than $1,000, many produce several thousand and some raise tens of thousands.  The real total is likely to be an order of magnitude larger than this. DaveApter 11:49, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: On what basis might one assume an "average figure" of $1000 per SELP "project"? - Pedant17 01:41, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It's based on an informal survey I carried out last year. This involved observing two SELPs (one of which I participated in) and interviewing five SELP leaders who between them had led twelve programs to a total of over 570 participants.  The aggreagate of their estimates of the money raised per project in each of these bands was as follows: 00-$100: 12%, $100-$1000: 9%, $1000-$5000: 53%, $5000-20,000: 24%, over $20,000: 2%.  The average of these comes to about $5,400, so I thought a fifth of that was a safe conservative estimate even given the small size of the sample and the unscientific methodology.  Do you have information to suggest any alternative figure? DaveApter 13:52, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

text: I don't see that my observations are particularly incompatible with yours. On my figures, 90% of course participants did projects not involving charity fundraising. Furthermore, 12% of the ones who did, "failed" or dropped out of the program (probably most in the '0-$100' range were in fact $0 raised). And a further 9% performed poorly.  Also your estimate is based on a "sample" of one Program (as recalled from two years ago) rather than my fourteen.  Courses vary quite widely, depending on the experience and effectiveness of the instructor and the dynamics of the group.DaveApter 10:19, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Charity Fundraising Estimates 

message: I used to work for Landmark, at their HQ, and this "encyclopedia" article appears to be little more than a lengthy advertisement for Landmark's services and products; neutrality? None here. I don't yet have the supporting data, but someone needs to further address the litigious nature of the company, and the Rosenberg/Erhard connection. And while not a cult, per se, they do act in a peculiarly "culty" way, and seem to live in their own universe (all in all, they're pretty harmless, as far as ideologies go).
-pterantula
== Response re Free Advertising and Litigation ==
Hi Pterantula,
The encyclopedia entry requires attributions and references.  For example, the studies of the "effects of Landmark Education" is from the third-party surveys.  If, instead, the encyclopedia entry were to have customer testimonials instead, they could be struck on grounds they are not verifiable.  (We've gone around in circles on that many times as well.)
As well, the 20 points of critique are all against Landmark Education (with rebuttals in many cases).
As for litigation, I am aware of five outbound cases:
Pre-emptive warning
1) Traci Hukill "The Est of Friends" (1998, pre-emptive warning, no suit filed)
Actual litigation, outbound
# Elle Magazine   (1998, LE achieved no result)
# Cynthia Kisser  (1997, LE won retraction)
# Margaret Singer (1997, LE won retraction)
# Rick Ross       (2005, LE cancelled suit for product disparagement)
# German Volksgericht (LE successfully sued to block characterisation as a promulagator of a "world view")
# German court re Martin Lell and "Brainwashing" in the title of the book, where the court held that "brainwashing" was a matter of interpretation/opinion, not an assertion of fact.  As such, the court ruled that it was free speech, not the tort of defamation.
There are about three inbound cases (against LE) in 14 years since 1991:
# Stefanie Ney (court ruled in LE's favor)
# Been versus Weed (2002; 10 claims, 3 settled (LE may have paid $0), 7 dropped;  LE was a cross-defendent)
# Tracy Neff (1997, sexual harrassment, settled out of court;  LE lacked a "sexual harrassment" policy at the time and got pulled in on this)
Does anyone have anything more than this from LE's inception in 1991 (14 years ago)?  Litigation regarding "est" should be on the "est" page.   For a company with $70 million in revenue and over 800,000 customers of the Landmark Forum, this is a tiny amount of litigation.
Finally, the Erhard/Rosenberg connection is documented in two places:  1) one noting that Werner has family, consulting and royalty ties and 2) under "Management" noting that Harry and Joan are Werner's brother and sister, respectively.  I believe the royalties have reached their financial cap as well.
Sm1969 16:55, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Free Advertising 

message: Hi Pterantula,
The encyclopedia entry requires attributions and references.  For example, the studies of the "effects of Landmark Education" is from the third-party surveys.  If, instead, the encyclopedia entry were to have customer testimonials instead, they could be struck on grounds they are not verifiable.  (We've gone around in circles on that many times as well.)
As well, the 20 points of critique are all against Landmark Education (with rebuttals in many cases).
As for litigation, I am aware of five outbound cases:
Pre-emptive warning
1) Traci Hukill "The Est of Friends" (1998, pre-emptive warning, no suit filed)
Actual litigation, outbound
# Elle Magazine   (1998, LE achieved no result)
# Cynthia Kisser  (1997, LE won retraction)
# Margaret Singer (1997, LE won retraction)
# Rick Ross       (2005, LE cancelled suit for product disparagement)
# German Volksgericht (LE successfully sued to block characterisation as a promulagator of a "world view")
# German court re Martin Lell and "Brainwashing" in the title of the book, where the court held that "brainwashing" was a matter of interpretation/opinion, not an assertion of fact.  As such, the court ruled that it was free speech, not the tort of defamation.
There are about three inbound cases (against LE) in 14 years since 1991:
# Stefanie Ney (court ruled in LE's favor)
# Been versus Weed (2002; 10 claims, 3 settled (LE may have paid $0), 7 dropped;  LE was a cross-defendent)
# Tracy Neff (1997, sexual harrassment, settled out of court;  LE lacked a "sexual harrassment" policy at the time and got pulled in on this)
Does anyone have anything more than this from LE's inception in 1991 (14 years ago)?  Litigation regarding "est" should be on the "est" page.   For a company with $70 million in revenue and over 800,000 customers of the Landmark Forum, this is a tiny amount of litigation.
Finally, the Erhard/Rosenberg connection is documented in two places:  1) one noting that Werner has family, consulting and royalty ties and 2) under "Management" noting that Harry and Joan are Werner's brother and sister, respectively.  I believe the royalties have reached their financial cap as well.
Sm1969 16:55, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Response re Free Advertising and Litigation 

message: Your complaint flags up yet again the massive difficulty of pleasing everybody.  Supporters are convinced that the entry has an anti-Landmark bias, and opponents are equally convinced that it is biased in favour.  The article contains about five screens-full of more-or-less factual assertions and over nine of discussion of accusations levelled by Landmark opponents, yet it occurs to you as an "advertisement".  I'm also baffled by your inability to provide concrete information to articulate your misgivings, especially if you really were a Landmark staff member at any time.
The two specific points you raise seem to me to be complete non-issues.  The point about litigation has been answered above, and I couldn't care less how much influence Werner Erhard has or doesn't have.  What I care about is whether the courses deliver worthwile tangible results for the time and money that they cost.  Everyone I know who has actually met Erhard says he is a great guy, and they are all people whose judgement I would trust.DaveApter 11:36, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Another Response

message: I am reverting this massive edit.  We have gone over these points several times now in the discussion.  Please make small edits and cite references.   The DYG estimates were referenced, as was the survey methodology.    Add the critique to the 20 points of critique against LE as this allows for integrated rebuttal and the substantiation required by hyperlink.  Sm1969 00:03, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Revert of massive anonymous edit (18:17, 6 November 2005)

message: just saw a message from DaveApter 09:50, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: newbie

message: Does any of this have sources? Or did a bunch of editors just make it up?
-----
The value and validity of the course content, or the manner in which the courses are conducted This includes suggestions that the courses:
are meaningless, trivial, or comprise a simplistic amalgam of derivative material; 
appeal to the irrational, or require people to suspend their critical faculties; 
include religous, evangelical, or mystical elements; 
effectively function as psychotherapeutic sessions, but using unqualified practitioners; 
are conducted in an aggressive and humiliating manner. 
2. The methods of marketing and promoting the courses This includes suggestions that Landmark Education:
utilises and encourages aggressive "hard-sell" tactics to promote its courses; 
resembles in some way a multi-level-marketing or a pyramid-selling scheme; 
seduces its customers into an endless sequence of ever more demanding and expensive courses; 
3. Alleged consequences This includes suggestions that Landmark Education:
is a "cult", or appears "cult-like"; 
employs "brainwashing" or "hypnotism"; 
has caused mental instability in some participants. 
4. Questions of ethics, and the interests of customers This includes suggestions that Landmark Education:
comprises a callous money-making scam, preying on the credulous; 
encourages nihilistic and/or amoral and/or solipsistic and/or selfish characteristics; 
exploits those who assist in its operations; 
uses the threat of litigation to supress legitimate debate on its methods and results. 
5. Comments about history, and personality issues This includes suggestions that:
Landmark Education continues to function as did "est" and that it has not changed since it replaced the "est training"; 
Werner Erhard remains in effective control or exercises influence beyond what Landmark Education publically admits to. 
-----
Anytime a highly biased term like "cult" appears, it should be reported from a source and a URL should be provided for verification. Who says it's a cult? Who says its "brainwashing"? 
Also, NPOV says to report views "in proportion", so it would help if the number of critics were quantified somehow. 
Any statements presented as fact but are obviously going to be disputed by supporters of the topic, must report the disputed piece as someone's poitn of view, not as fact, i.e. the statement "Werner Erhard remains in effective control or exercises influence beyond what Landmark Education publically admits to" admits that Landmark disputes the first half of the sentence. This should be rewritten to say "John Smith states that Werener Erhard remains in control of Landmark Education. Landmark Education states that he isn't." (Or whatever Landmark does state. FuelWagon 16:47, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Any instance of the word "cult" in the article should have a URL beside it to verify in what context it is being used. The word "cult" is too biased to leave in the article in unsourced form, or in a laundry list of accusations. It is POV and it could also be an issue with defamation. Any occurrence of the word "cult" that does not have a URL near it should be deleted. FuelWagon 16:12, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Then the article should report the source of the connection between Erhardt and Landmark as being Time Magazine 1997 and Rick Ross. URL's should be provided. Otherwise, the allegation of connection is unfounded and should be removed. FuelWagon 16:12, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

text: the only sources we can quote or refer to are "notable sources". Personal complaints on someone's personal website or blog do not count and cannot be reported in wikipedia. Nor should they count towards figuring out "undue weight". A poll by a reputable source may be used to determine customer dissatisfaction. But without some notable source, it is original research. FuelWagon 16:12, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Criticism should be reported in any article where notable criticism exists. And it should be reported in proportion to the number of critics. If there was no criticism section before, then it's an improvement that there is a criticism section now. However, criticism cannot simply be the views and opinions of the editors themselves. Criticism, especially the more biased criticism, should be attributed to a source "Time magazine reported blah" with a URL to verify accuracy. FuelWagon 16:12, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

text: I think the first thing would be to source all the criticism: rewrite all criticism in the form of who reported the critcism, who said it, when they said it, and a URL to verify that they actually did say it. "Time magazine reported blah" or "Rick Ross said blah". Once that's established, it becomes easier to see if criticism is out of proportion or not. FuelWagon 16:12, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: original research

message: 1) The assertions of "cult" (where Landmark Education forced a retraction) are documented in the Margaret Singer retraction, the URL for which is in the article.  Landmark Education has also obtained retractions of the use of the word "cult" in the Netherlands.  Historically, Landmark Education has always won (either at trial or by retraction) statements describing it or its programs as a "cult."   (The Netherlands references from Art Schreiber, general counsel at Landmark Education, are included in the rebuttal to Martin Lell.  That URL also notes several other retractions LE obtained in the US and Europe.) Sm1969 19:47, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Any instance of the word "cult" in the article should have a URL beside it to verify in what context it is being used. The word "cult" is too biased to leave in the article in unsourced form, or in a laundry list of accusations. It is POV and it could also be an issue with defamation. Any occurrence of the word "cult" that does not have a URL near it should be deleted. FuelWagon 16:12, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Then the article should report the source of the connection between Erhardt and Landmark as being Time Magazine 1997 and Rick Ross. URL's should be provided. Otherwise, the allegation of connection is unfounded and should be removed. FuelWagon 16:12, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

text: the only sources we can quote or refer to are "notable sources". Personal complaints on someone's personal website or blog do not count and cannot be reported in wikipedia. Nor should they count towards figuring out "undue weight". A poll by a reputable source may be used to determine customer dissatisfaction. But without some notable source, it is original research. FuelWagon 16:12, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Criticism should be reported in any article where notable criticism exists. And it should be reported in proportion to the number of critics. If there was no criticism section before, then it's an improvement that there is a criticism section now. However, criticism cannot simply be the views and opinions of the editors themselves. Criticism, especially the more biased criticism, should be attributed to a source "Time magazine reported blah" with a URL to verify accuracy. FuelWagon 16:12, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

text: I think the first thing would be to source all the criticism: rewrite all criticism in the form of who reported the critcism, who said it, when they said it, and a URL to verify that they actually did say it. "Time magazine reported blah" or "Rick Ross said blah". Once that's established, it becomes easier to see if criticism is out of proportion or not. FuelWagon 16:12, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Response re Original Research

message: Thanks, FuelWagon, for your input.  I would welcome any attention you can give the article. The background is that a year or so ago it was an unabashed soapbox for anti-Landmark POV postings.  There was a clumsy attempt by pro-Landmark editors to make wholesale revisions which were (justifiably) shot down as failing to conform to the NPOV policy, and reverted.  I and others have made gradual changes in an attempt to produce a genuinely informative NPOV article.  Periodically there are (what appear to me to be) blatant wide-ranging anti-Landmark edits - notably by Pedant17 and SqueakBox, and several anonymous contributors.  I have made my own point of view explicit earlier in this discussion page.
In response to your question above ("Does any of this have sources? Or did a bunch of editors just make it up?") - the short answer is that for the most part "it is just made up".  I did most of the work of collating the accusations previously posted onto the article into that summary.  I look at that paragraph as a report of 'what the opponents say' forming part of an account of the "controversy", rather than as purported statements of fact.  The "sources" - such as they are - are usenet groups, forums, blogs, and personal web-pages as referenced in the "generally critical" links section.
My best estimate of the numbers involved:
*Customers of Landmark Education: over 800,000. (a matter of record)
*Of those, the ones who were, on balance, "satisfied": well over 700,000. (scale the above by the survey results)
*Of the customers, the ones who were moved to post complaints or negative accounts on the internet, or elsewhere: a few hundred, or maybe a few thousand. (personal estimate based on trawls through the links)
*Non-customers posting critical comments on the basis of hearsay, rumour or speculation: maybe a few thousand. (likewise)
*Journalists and other commentators publishing critical accounts: maybe a few dozen.
I'm open to hearing estimates anyone else has, or any rigorous studies...DaveApter 09:58, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Thanks

message: Following the input from FuelWagon, I have re-structured the Critique section, and renamed it 'controversies'.  I have moved the two example paragraphs edited by FuelWagon into what I see as more logical locations within this new structure.
I have commented out, but not deleted, the rest of the subsection previously named 'Specific areas of Controversy' as much of it is hearsay or opinion.  I suggest that parts of it may be salvageable once cleaned up and given appropriate references, and moved into the appropriate place in the new structure. DaveApter 15:19, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Major Re-Structure 15th November 2005