Talk:Landmark Worldwide/Archive 10

message: This whole section is essentially uninformed speculation, which is actually inaccurate and should be removed.DaveApter 14:19, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You say "it is highly unusual for a for-profit, privately owned company to be analyzed in this manner using this methodology".  Thank you for your unsupported opinion.  Now- what methodology?  What analysis? In what manner?  You keep making these grandiose statements, utilizing weasel words. and insuating things without saying exactly what you mean.  Please explain what the above sentence means.  Thanks! Alex Jackl 03:39, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please see all of the heavily sourced citations in this subsection.  That is what I am referring to here.  Smee 03:53, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I have reviewed them and find no manner of analysis or methodology.  Random citations that mention vocabulary  or "loaded language" or some reporter who is not a subject matter expert repeating something she read off the internet- not what I would call a reputable source! do not a cogent argument make.  Please explain how these references actually prove anything.  Thanks! Alex Jackl 04:27, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Loaded language

message: I don't think this section is needed.  For anyone in any religion there are "religious implications" to countless things. For an Orthodox Jew a door knob has religious implications on Saturdays.  For a conservative muslim woman a hug has religious implications. For any number of Christian denominations, listening to the radio has religious implications. It may be notworthy that people from various religions have opinions about Landmark Education, but the section as it is currently written seems to imply that there is a religious status to Landmark makes no more sense than saying that a doornob has a religious status. Triplejumper 21:38, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The religious fervor with which graduates of Landmark Education attempt to proselytise  in itself gives Landmark Education significant religious implications. The section could profit from expansion rather than deletion. -- Pedant17 05:46, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See above. POV.   First, I disagree,. Second, even if I agreed "hard sell" does not equal "religion".  (unless you worship Money which some in our society do!)Alex Jackl 15:37, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree about the "distinction" between "hard sell" and "religious fervor". "Hard sell" occurs in specific situations and often involves sales-droids. Whereas religious fervor sweeps through entire groups of people and can pervade their entire existence. I suggest that Landmark Education has more to do with the "religious fervor" category, and that mentioning (at least) religion as a point of comparison or similarity adds to our understanding of Landmark Education. -- Pedant17 05:31, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Please see my comment above about compliance with the WP:NPOV undue weight policies.  DaveApter 14:39, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that this section is not needed.  Timb66 06:16, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

text:  Few sections count as "needed". We could redistribute the content of the "Religious Implications" section into other existing or potentially new sections. But deleting the text doesn't help anyone. -- Pedant17 05:31, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I must say I agree with Pedant17 here.  That section heading as always bothered me. perhaps we can come up with a more approriate heading or redistribute the info. Mvemkr 16:22, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Religious Implications

message: On the article there are references to outside sources that are bad links, 7, 15, 17, 31, and 42.  They all go to pages that do no contain the cited content. Triplejumper 23:20, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps this was already fixed but 31 and 42 do seem to be valid links.  I agree on the first three: 
* 7 is a l;ink that is no longer good and ther eis also no ocntest on the question, I believe. 
* 15 links to a site no longer available.
* 17 links to a site no longer available. Alex Jackl 06:43, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Bad Links

message: There are a number of citations to news articles that could just as easily to to oringal sources, but instead go to a third party page.  For example references 2, 47, 75, and 76 are listed as articles but the links go to Rickross.com.  This does not seem nescessary when the articles cites are already available at their original sources.  Triplejumper 23:20, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed- this is Wikipedia policy anyway.. this is just a given.  Those links were put in to link farm Rick Ross's sites not because they were the original source.  That is a no-brainer change once the site becomes unprotected. Alex Jackl 13:47, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: When possible link to original content

message: I suggest some editors learn to accept well sourced views and facts. They are not going away. Jeffrire 15:21, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: User AJack. I am being civil and I am reminding editors to accept NPOV policy. There is no sarcasm in my line at all. I am being perfectly straightforward. If you wish editors to lay down and accept the deletion of well sourced facts and views - and just let it slide, then I think you need to re-assess your motivations for being here. If I were to repeatedly delete well sourced facts, I would have to face the fact that I would have an unconstructive aversion to certain facts and views in that case. And in that case I would most likely be unconstructive as an editor. Lets keep unreasonable deletes in check please. Editors seem to be generally fine discussing the finer points of how facts are presented. But the zealous removal of well sourced facts is something we should all guard against as a group. Jeffrire 07:24, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggestions for the article 

message: Hello.  Nice to meet you.  The link is Articles_for_deletion/Landmark_education_jargon.  When the consensus declared that the "jargon" content that had been added by Smee was non-notable and removed from the article and it was obvious that the consensus was strongly against that inclusion Smee(supported by Pedant17 and EstherRice) then went and created a whole new article that housed all the old non-notable material.  This was clearly POV pushing and the article was soundly defeated as you can see from the link.  I agree with you 100% that Landmark is significant enough for its own articles and criticisms should be included.  The LGAT definition is a fuzzy one and it is not a generally accepted term because it has been mostly appropriated by those labeling things they call  LGAT as cults.  As a result you will see less acceptance of the LGAT term here.  We still mention it because people have referred to Landmark's courses as "LGAT"s it at best applies to only some of Landmark's courses and has become somewhat of a pejorative term. 
: What may seem 'obvious consensus" to some may not seem so evident or consensual to others. -- The link to the deletion debate shows that an administrator made a decision to delete -- it does not by any means show that "the article was soundly defeated as you can see from the link". -- Pedant17 07:01, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would posit that most of the Wikipedians who edit the Landmark Education article do struggle to keep the different minority viewpoints from overwhelming the page; however, they disagree strenuously as to which opinions to brand as "minority". In such circumstances, a more tolerant and less deletionist approach seems called-for. -- Pedant17 07:01, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Thanks AJack thats helpful. From what I see from the little detail of the AFD, the jargon page in itself may not be necessary. However, if the information has 7 reputable sources then it has a high significance somewhere and this article seems to be the place. I would suggest that the term "obscurantism" will apply though considering the pseudoscientific nature of the subject. That will also need explaining. From what I understand, Landmark is a minority activity and its promotion is fringe (just those wanting to promote). The majority would be the scientific skepticism view on the psychological techniques and perhaps the sociological views of Landmark. I think thats the best way to consider the matter of balance. Jeffrire 11:23, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Allow me to posit my point of view on this:  Landmark Education is a private company that puts on seminars on a variety of topics. There is no "psuedo-scientific" nature of the subject at all.  Landmark Education doesn't even pretend to put forth a scientific body of knowledge.  At best Landmark Education's courses could be referred to as "applied philosophy".  Even treating it like sociological/psychological phenomena is already relating to it from what many of the editors believe to be a minority view point.   Landmark doesn't claim to be, and indeed directly asserts it is not, therapy.  It is a series of courses that are philosophical in nature.  In an encyclopedia article my thought is that the company should be described, the courses it offers described, and some history given.  Much more than that is probably overkill.  I am very interested in Landmark's pedagogy but I believe that is because I have been involved in Landmark's course design and delivery.  I am not clear that that is notable in an encyclopedia article. I am by the way "pro-Landmark" in the sense that I think they deliver a very good product and I enjoy participating in their programs.  I just think there is "much ado about nothing" in some of these article debates (on my side sometimes as well) and we need to keep stepping back and thinking form the whole of Wikipedia and making sure people adding content actually are knowledgeable on the topic. Alex Jackl 12:48, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Anyone can produce pseudo-science -- even private companies who see their own product as non-scientific. We evidently need to add a section -- or a new article -- on the view of Landmark Education content and attitudes as pseudo-science. -- Given the wide interests and incisive research-skills of Wikipedia's editorship, limiting future topics as "probably overkill" does little to encourage bold editing in the spirit of NPOV. As for proposals to make "sure people adding content actually are knowledgeable on the topic", this smacks of elitist censorship. Wikipedia (unlike Landmark Education) welcomes well-researched input to its content from any netizen -- Pedant17 07:01, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Only elitist in the sense that someone who writes on a topic should be informed on it.  Don't twist my word into being about some kind of censorship- but when an article has been worked on by dozens and dozens of editors and crafted to a place and then someone deletes most of the article and put some hearsay and opinion in its place that is not good for the article.  As an example - one of the articles I monitor and work with is "Education".  Frequently people come in a delete paragraphs and replace them with "Education in the US sucks and doesn't work".  Wile this is a valid opinion- it doesn't belong n the Wikipedia article on Education.  There are places in the article where it talks about the pedagogy used and conflicts regarding that but that is just vandalism.  There are also articles I watch where people don't like something- like the George Bush article where it has been locked at times because people wanted to put their opinion instead of encyclopedic content.  You may not like Landmark Education for some reason- which is none of my business- but that dislike is not a basis to put hearsay and original research into the article.Alex Jackl 12:48, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thank you for your clarification as to "knowledgeable on the topic" meaning "informed". I accept that informedness makes for better contributions. -- Hearsay and opinion, as possible sources of or as possible providers of impetus towards informedness, profit from good references and citations and through them become Wikipedia-worthy and more than mere hearsay/opinion. We do tolerate hearsay to the effect (say) that Landmark Education has little to do with est/Erhard --  based on the flimsy assertions of people too close to the action to evaluate the matter dispassionately. And we may put up with surveys of opinions on Landmark Education covering the "converted" -- those who have "completed the Landmark Forum". But a balanced and NPOV article requires more than such slanted hearsay and opinion and welcomes hearsay and opinion from different sources and/or from different viewpoints -- referenced and cited to at least an equivalent standard. -- Pedant17 04:37, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

text:  I have been driven to participate so heavily in this article primarily to counter what I see as vandalism and editing by people who don't really understand the subject and are pushing some POV. *shrug* This is just my POV. Part of what makes Wikipedia great is that we can put that aside and work together.  If you have any questions about Landmark or its pedagogy please feel free to email me.  Alex Jackl 12:03, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Landmark is known as a LGAT. Thats not in dispute. LGATs are known to use techniques such as meditation, neuro-linguistic programming, biofeedback, self-hypnosis, bizarre relaxation techniques, mind control, body touching, yoga, trance induction, visualization and in some cases, intense confrontational sessions akin to the "attack" therapy methods that emerged in the 1960s and 1970s. They are pseudoscientific. Their theories are pseudoscientific and they are not effective for their claimed effect, and they are potentially harmful in some cases and actually harmful in others. I think that much is obvious. I don't intend to "vandalize" the article with such information. I do intend to explain such techniques according to any reliable sources presented. Jeffrire 13:08, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  As I said above the question that Landmark has been referred to as an LGAT- the issues you brought up above is the very reason why the term has been de-emphasized.  It is the techniques that you refer to that have been exaggerated in their application to Landmark.  There are also a lot of valid techniques and pedagogy that are used that are not "psuedo-science".  Do you understand Landmark's pedagogy and instruction style?  That is the question.  Calling something psuedo-science without an analysis of the specifics is just hearsay and innuendo.  Alex Jackl 16:01, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  One can term something "pseudo-science" for the first time without invoking hearsay -- and recall that in the field of popular culture (where Landmark Education operates) hearsay can prove a valuable and significant factor. As for innuendo, Wikipedia encourages good references, and if these convey innuendo, Wikipedia simply reports and replicates that innuendo, entirely appropriately, as expressing published and cited judgments. Such activity seems inevitable in writing of an alleged "applied philosophy". -- Unfortunately, few serious researchers have carried out "analysis of the specifics" of Landmark Education, so the generic studies of LGATs have particular value in presenting and summarizing Landmark Education in an encyclopedia-article. -- Pedant17 07:01, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  This is probably not the place for it but I fundamentally disagree with your statements above.  Wikipedia is not a  collection of references- however well -sourced- on innuendo and rumor.  That is one of the frustration I have with some of the suggestions yourself and Smee have brought up.  Just because somebody said it or published something does not mean it belongs in an encyclopedia article on that subject.  The degree to which the citation is RELEVANT to the article is absolutely essential.  Also - which citations you pick to include and which to not include do shape the tenor of the article and the degree to which is it NPOV or not.   There is no question that the term LGAT has been used to describe Landmark Education.  However, it is a broad, sweeping term that does not have precise meaning or agremeement in the professional community at all.  Some researchers have carried out specifics and inevitably their results do not match what is "commonly" held about LGATS .  See the main article for that.   The other thing I disagree about is that Landmark is in the "field of popular culture" and therefore hearsay is somehow more relevant. Landmark Education is an educational company whose courses deal with what it calls "transformation".  It is in the field of "educational organizations". Alex Jackl 12:48, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  You appear to object to "references ... on innuendo and rumor". The unreferenced innuendo that "transformation" enhances and profits the customers of Landmark Education would have no place in the Landmark Education article on that basis. We would need to exclude (say) the rumor that "rackets" rob humans of opportunities, too. On the other hand, innuendo and rumor reflecting the observed behavior and outcomes of multiple persons who have encountered and recoiled from the sort of innuendo and rumors which Landmark Education and its boosters put about, when such behaviors and outcomes have a basis in statistics or in repeated patterns, qualify them for discussion in this Wikipedia article. -- Not only do sociologists use the term LGAT to refer to Landmark Education and its ilk -- they practically originated the term to apply to just such phenomena. The LGAT-connection already merits discussion in the article on Landmark Education on that basis. If it has become a "broad, sweeping term that does not have precise meaning" then it behoves us to point out in what specific ways Landmark Education and its ancestor-trainings and /or the "LGAT" term have evolved away from each other, and when. Such analysis has a place in the Landmark Education article. I look forward to your providing details in the Landmark Education article on how '[s]ome researchers have carried out specifics and inevitably their results do not match what is "commonly" held about LGATS'. -- I agree with you in rejecting the absurd notion that Landmark Education 'is in the "field of popular culture"' -- but Landmark Education does operate within the field of popular culture. How could it do otherwise -- targeting as it does the hearts and minds of large numbers of people? The fact that popular culture has not assimilated it does not mean that popular culture cannot comment -- it does, massively and rejectionally, and hearsay (as usual) serves as its tool and agent. This flip-side (but equally valid application) of Landmark Education's"word-of-mouth" advertising-technique deserves a place in our overall examination of the phenomenon we call "Landmark Education". -- You assert that "Landmark Education is an educational company" and that it 'is in the field of "educational organizations".' Such "what's so" claims may actually have a degree of merit, but these identifications by no means close the field of classifications for Landmark Education LLC or for its products. As editors of an NPOV encyclopedia, we need to take a much broader view than that espoused (say) in mere company literature and marketing propaganda. -- Pedant17 04:37, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Landmark Education jargon appears sufficiently notable to have a place in the Landmark Education article, and that material could function equally well in a separate article. Wikipedia already has a List of Islamic terms in Arabic and an article on Scientology terminology and a List of Microsoft codenames. And bear in mind that Landmark Education transcends the mere label of "company". -- Pedant17 07:01, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Landmark "transcends" the mere label of company?  Why?  Don't get me wrong- I think the company is a decent one and I think , in my personal opinion , that is does far more good than harm- but it is just an educational company.  How does it "transcend" that?  I understand some editors seem to have some kind of axe to grind with regard to it but that doesn't make it any more notable...Alex Jackl 12:48, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The company "Landmark Education LLC" appears in a registry of commercial enterprises somewhere in the bowels of the bureaucracy -- fine. Its subsidiaries and/or associated companies worldwide have similar status -- that much remains uncontroversial. But when those "companies" act in non-traditional ways (like relying on "volunteer" labor and selling unproven products) matters become more interesting to observers at large. And when the concepts/teachings/methodology known as "Landmark Education" emerge into public scrutiny, we have moved far from the the idea of a mere "company" -- even a so-called "educational company". -- Some people -- even admirers of Landmark Education -- may actually have a greater interest in the ideas and speculations of Landmark Education  than in the company structure and in the administrative and managerial office-holders. I suggest that such "non-company" stuff has notability, and that we need to take this into account in editing and evaluating this article. -- Pedant17 04:37, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Forking or "spinning off" articles allows for a richer more varied and more nuanced expansion of the content of Wikipedia, untrammelled by the limitations of a paper-based encyclopedia and with all the advantages of hyperlinking. I do not think you could approve the removal of such Wikipedia-worthy material of interet by invoking a spurious "consensus". -- Pedant17 07:01, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some history 

message: 1/the journal is not peer reviewed or indexed-& I get a "Can't find server" error when I try its link. 2/SSRN is a very reputable archive, but it's policy is to include and preserves any paper sent to it.  3/None of the authors are notable by WP standards  4/ At least one of the authors is an employee of the Forum.  DGG 00:25, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks DGG. I'll check up a bit more on the repute of the source. Actually I think on its own its inappropriate. Its basically a pov rather than an account of the situation. It should be placed with other povs for balance. Jeffrire 02:48, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  You must be joking- this is a published paper in an academic journal, properly sourced, and EXACTLY ABOUT THE SUBJECT MaTTER of the article.  Give me a break.  Yes- one of the four authors is a course designer and executive of Landmark Education.  It is not unusual to have papers written by experts in their field.   Alex Jackl 05:10, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please tone it down AJack. I'm presently checking the source and I will urge others to do likewise. I personally have no problem with it being presented in the meantime. Jeffrire 07:27, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes I can't find it either, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Well it leaves a big question mark. Perhaps someone can provide an answer. I'd apply patience. Jeffrire 00:23, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Actually yes, thats a reasonable suggestion. I'll change the heading of this subdiscussion accordingly so people remember to check. I have no problem with it being absent from the article. We can be persistent with it on the talkpage until the question is resolved. Jeffrire 11:07, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  McCarl article needs checking 

message: Hello all. Perhaps starting afresh: Here are some suggestions that may help us work towards some determination of what should be presented in the article and how. Please feel free to make comments under the specific headings Jeffrire 05:44, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Constructive suggestions 

message: Hello all. If anyone has a particular question about a particular well sourced fact, then please state the source here and we can discuss. Just as above with the Danish source. If you find one that does not comply with NPOV policy just state the name of the source here as a section and we can discuss. Thank you. Jeffrire 13:22, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Does it have to be only about the well sourced facts? What about questions regarding poorly sourced or trivial facts? Lsi john 13:29, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Any sensible questions are fine. If you have a question about any of the sources, simply state the source and point out anything you are worried about. Jeffrire 14:59, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok. I asked because it looked like you only wanted questions about the well sourced facts and might not be interested in questions about any facts that might not be well sourced or relevant. Thank you for clarifying. Lsi john 16:10, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Any questions about sourcing as above 

message: Edit wars accomplish nothing beyond getting blocked, page protection and stress. If editors cannot find common ground, please follow the dispute resolution process to that you can be helped in finding it. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:27, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks Jossi. Yes patience has its limits. Thats what the resolution process is for. I have no problem with the article being frozen as is. Jeffrire 16:36, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit wars 

message: This article has suffered from a protracted edit war since April 13th. Both sides in the dispute claim to be upholding the policies and guidelines of wikipedia and accuse the other of flouting them. 15:13, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The above analysis by User:DaveApter belongs not on a talk-page or in a request for comments, but rather in a Wikipedia article  along the lines of Trends and variations in the editing of the Wikipedia article on Landmark Education. It would need some counter-balancing before it would comply with the WP:NPOV policies, though. For instance, we should clarify that "many thousands of edits" can vastly improve an article, especially in building up a body of work which represents mainstream opinions and features impeccable citations. Similarly, we should point out that when "a number of editors" remove whole sections on the basis of what they "felt", disputes and even edit-wars may ensue. We would need to make plain that "wholesale reversion to cancel out the previous 3 weeks editing" may involve bringing back on-line valuable material expressive of majority opinion. We would need to examine carefully the use of words and phrases such as "a number", "much" and "few"; and their corollaries "minority" and "consensus". And above all, we would need to stress that merely dismissing reasoned discussions which have taken place on the talk-page does nothing to address the specific points raised in such discussions, which appear as of the time of writing to have gone unrefuted. -- Pedant17 04:14, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This diff shows it all: . I invite anyone to read through this diff to examine the large amount of information that is deleted. Count how many of those pieces of information are verifiable and reliable according to NPOV policy. I suggest any reliable information should get pasted back in block by block. That way we get to hear some editor's lengthy objections and get them stored on the talkpage, and other editors get have all that reliable information back in the article. Doesn't bother me how much complaining gets done, just as long as reliable information gets presented. If there is any unreliable POV in the article we can get rid of it or source it properly. On with the Wiki process. Jeffrire 16:09, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

text:  Characterizing one's fellow-Wikipedians as "a few minority view point editors" does not appear helpful. Notability and relevance can come into dispute, but we have some guidelines to help us. In particular, I submit that in this field of popular culture the mere existence of a body of well-sourced facts and judgments suggests that one cannot dismiss that body of evidence as a mere "minority" view. Indeed, the tendentious marketing material from the Landmark Education website and the frequent unsubstantiated personal testimonials seem much more minoritarian. -- Someone has already "created" the Landmark Education article, but we can improve it by enriching it with multiple significant alternative viewpoints. -- Pedant17 04:14, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

text: That really all belongs on his user page. Did you have any comments about the article itself? Lsi john 01:15, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: DaveApter's last revert/removal of sourced information of the article had 44 citations in his version.  Last I checked, the last version that I had edited had at least (55) citations.  This shows that sourced information is continuously being removed from the article.  This is not simply a case of violations of WP:NPA through ridiculous assertions when I had worked very, very, very hard in the past to find lots and lots and lots and lots of reputable citations to back up material added to the article, it is also a case of removal of sourced material from the article.  Smee 03:45, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  This is a complete misrepresentation. I do believe that Smee worked very hard- but it was to keep asserting the same things over and over again- always hiding behind Wikipedia RS policies to justify keeping material most of the other editors thought was not notable or not relevant.  That, in itself, is a misuse of Wikipedia's policies- using Wikipedia polices and guidelines to justify bad content is NOT in the spirit of Wikipedia. ON top of that the changes resulted from a methodical attempt at consensus building that succeeded after the page was locked out from tampering and other editors started to emerge that weren't scared away by the edit war. Then a reasonably stable consensus was created and then EstherRice and sometimes Jeffrire would wholesale try to revert to the pre-consensus edit-war version instead of attempting to build consensus. I thin kit is noteworthy that the "independent" editors all tryto restore the same version form  that pre-consensus time.  Lets not spin what is happening and tell the truth about it. Alex Jackl 20:46, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  User:Smee tried to expand the horizons of the Landmark Education article with relevant and interesting material. In what way can you characterize the reult as "bad content"? -- Pedant17 04:14, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

text:  ... and this resulted in suppressing valid and valuable material from the Landmark Education article. -- Pedant17 04:14, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Why are you insisting on using attack tactics and deliberate misdirection to get your way?  You have NOT provided sections in an organized manner until this week (BTW: something Dapter has been trying to do for months and months and your team ignored) until just recently and frankly I have commented it to death as anyone who reads these histories knows full well.  I suppose you are hoping your miscasting will full new readers or editors that have just jumped on. I will make some comments below but I have commented fully and completely on the content and want other editors to get a chance to.  Don't be rude son- no reason to play the game this way.  Let's keep with WP:Civil. Alex Jackl 12:49, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: AJack. Read my comments again. I havn't attacked anyone, and I am not insisting on attacking anyone. I have provided a section for people to fill in as regards reliability and weight etc. Nothing happened thereafter. No editor pasted any parts of deleted text into the discussion page. I had to do it myself. If you want to accuse me of being rude, I suggest you do bring it up on my talkpage. This discussion page is to determine the reliability and accuracy of facts. Thank you. Jeffrire 15:05, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Reliability and accuracy are a good start, AND lets not forget relevance, notability, significance, triviality and NPOV. Being accurate and reliable isn't sufficient for inclusion and doesn't justify cherry-picking a bunch of quotes out of articles to establish what you say is 'obvious when taken together'. Please address all the questions, not just RS and V. Lsi john 15:14, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Hello Smee. I think we are going to have to put up with all sorts of accusations for the long term. If thats the way some editors want to behave against Wikiquette, then thats their behaviour. I don't mind presenting each piece bit by bit. If editors give good comments then thats fine. If they rant, accuse, and drivel then there's nothing I can do about it apart from point them towards NPOV and Wikiquette recommendations. The only work I need to do to maintain sanity in the actual article is say that something complies with NPOV policies. I'm thinking long term. The way I see it is those well sourced deleted NPOV compliant edits got into the article partly because of some editors make unjust complaints and deletions concerning those facts. Its likely that even more similarly solid sources will be found in this process whether some editors like it or not. From what I can see from goings on here and on similar pages, the more proponents complain about a particular well sourced fact, the more relevant its likely to be, and weighting can be adjusted accordingly.  NPOV policies rule. Jeffrire 04:39, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How strange that none of the people opposed to including the reputable citations chose to participate in the above discussion under Constructive suggestions.ERTalk 11:13, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Dave Apter made a detailed set of constructive suggestions for the improvement of the article (see the top of this page and archived pages), and no-one seems to have seriously contested it. I think we should go with those suggestions. I would like to see more credible sources, as well, from more organizations than just individuals giving an account. Spacefarer 21:03, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Time and again people try to step back and determine the overall structure and scope of the Landmark Education article -- you refer to one of the more recent attempts. But such projects inevitably restrict and prescribe/proscribe matters. Wikipedia doesn't respond well to that sort of approach. Wikipedia operates best when amalgamating the contributions of multiple editors; and who can tell where someone else's ideas and insights will take us? Compare organic growth with planned economies. -- Pedant17 04:14, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

text:  If one ignores the counterblasts, it might indeed seem that a consensus existed. If. -- Pedant17 04:14, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: True Esther. We have given rather a lot of concessions. Perhaps I'm not being rigorous enough by not letting obviously solid facts in immediately. I'd better keep that in check. There are other avenues for keeping information suppression out of an article. Jeffrire 11:23, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  This article probably needs to be protected again at some point and go into mediation.  As far as I can tell in this instance, DaveApter merely restored the work of multiple editors which were wholesale reverted by EstherRice.  EstherRice has, in the past, added references to unfounded references to Synanon, which is totally ridiculous. 66.243.153.70 17:40, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A reference to Synanon is not totally ridiculous, as a partisan using an IP to pretend to be an outsider would well know. Both come from the same general tradition; thinking about it I realised that the biggest difference is that Synanon had people captive for long periods, thus was capable of producing more overtly bizarre behaviour; Landmark only keeps its marks in captivity for one, two, or three days; no doubt advanced 'courses' go beyond that. However, it certainly tries very strongly to exert influence outside the courses per se.ERTalk 10:56, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Bear in mind, however, that "restoring the work of multiple editors", decoded, may mean "deletion of the work of multiple other sets of editors".  -- The assertion that anything seems "totally ridiculous" probably indicates that such assertion has a between 1% and 99% chance of seeming ridiculous to some person or other. -- Pedant17 04:14, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Hello Timb66. Sorry but you are being extremely vague. Could you explain to me what you mean by minority source, and give me a specific example? Jeffrire 13:27, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: He said minority 'point of view', not 'source' ;) Peace. Lsi john 17:02, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request_for_comment 

message: What is the relationship between this page and Landmark Education litigation? What is the point of working hard to improve Landmark Education while some editors are busily putting exactly the same negative material on Landmark Education litigation? Should we at least agree to delete material here that also appears on that page? Why is there a need for two (or three!) pages in the first place? Is there any limit to the space that the anti-Landmark brigade want to take to push their views? Timb66 01:47, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Both form part of Wikipedia, and each should reference the other via appropriate links. -- Pedant17 04:14, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

text: "Information wants to be free." Attempts to suppress information militate against freedoms. Do you have some bias against what you perceive as "negative material"? -- Pedant17 04:14, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

text: We can minimize duplication of material through judicious use of linking and cross-linking. -- Pedant17 04:14, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

text: The setting up of pages may result from the growth of existing pages. (Some editors even object that we should eliminate material entirely whenever a Wikipedia article exceeds its optimum size!) -- Pedant17 04:14, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

text: No "anti-Landmark brigade" exists, just as no "Landmark-dupes cabal" exists. Wikipedia editors bring and balance their interests to the Wikipedia project and all act in  good faith.Fortunately, no overall space-limitations trammel the growth of cyberspace at this point. -- Pedant17 04:14, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Relationship to Landmark Education litigation 

message: In 1994 a report of the Senate Committee of the State of Berlin in Germany included Landmark Education in a report on cults with the sub-title "entities espousing a world view and new religions". Landmark Education sued for correction and, on May 14, 1997, the Berlin court (Volksgericht 27A) endorsed a new classification-scheme which now represented Landmark Education as a "Providor of Life Guidance"(Anbieter von Lebenshilfe). 
"Sekten" - Risiken und Nebenwirkungen: Informationen zu ausgewählten neuen religiõsen und weltanschaulichen Bewegungen und Psychoangeboten. Herausgeben von der Senatsverwaltung fũr Schule, Jugend and Sport. Redaktion: Anne Rũhle, Ina Kunst. Stand: Dezember 1997. Downloadable in PDF form from http://www.berlin.de/imperia/md/content/sen-familie/sog_psychogruppen_sekten/risiken_und_nebenwirkungen_1.pdf
Retrieved 2007-02-06.
Quoted text extracts from the Table of Contents in the original German:
7 Ausgewählte Anbieter
7.1 Gruppen mit christlichem Hintergrund ...
7.2 Gruppen mit heidnischem Hintergrund ...
7.3 Gruppen mit hinduistischem Hintergrund ...
7.4 Anbieter von Lebenshilfe 
kommerziell: 
7.4.1 Bruno Grõning-Freundeskreise 
7.4.2 Kontext Seminar GmbH 
7.4.3 Landmark Education (LE) 
7.4.4 Art Reade 
7.4.5 Scientology 
7.4.6 The Natale Institute (TNI) 
nicht kommerziell: 
7.4.7 Verein zur Fõrderung der psychologischen Menschenkenntniss (VPM) 
7.5 Okkultismus/Satanismus 
7.6 Sogenannte Strukturvertriebe
Please discuss here:
*I contend that it is not noteworthy enough for the article especially since the classification was changed. Triplejumper 18:52, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *So far you have failed to address a single objection. And the consensus is overwhelmingly against the material. It can be deleted at any time. Lsi john 03:37, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  To which "overwhelming" "consensus" do you refer? -- Pedant17 04:14, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Germany 

message: In an article "The Best of Est?" published in Time Magazine on March 16, 1998, Charlotte Faltermayer wrote:
Critics say Landmark is an elaborate marketing game that relies heavily on volunteers. Says Tom Johnson, an "exit counselor" often summoned by concerned parents to tend to alumni: "They tire your brain; they make you vulnerable." Says critic Liz Sumerlin: "The participants end up becoming recruiters. That's the whole purpose."  Psychiatrists who speak on Landmark's behalf dispute these claims. But Sumerlin says a 1993 Forum turned her fiance (now her ex) into a robot. She organized an anti-Landmark hot line and publications clearinghouse. Landmark officials made sounds to sue her.
In 1996, Jill P. Capuzzo from The Philadelphia Inquirer, Weekend took the Landmark Forum and reported:
I made some eye-opening discoveries about myself and how I function in the world. [...] One of the most irritating aspects of The Forum is the hard sell to sign up future participants.
Jill P. Capuzzo, The Philadelphia Inquirer, 1996, The Scoop About the Landmark Forum
Please discuss here:
*The first article was overall very neutral and contained both positive and negative commentary and information. Why are we only quoting the critics? Based on my read of the top article, the citation here gives a very unbalanced representation of the article. It looks like a cherry-picked quote in order to help the reader form a negative opinion of Landmark. 
** Wikipedia editors do not only quote critics. I included a quote from Faltermayer's article in my analysis of statistics of participation -- but someone deleted that information. -- Feel free to add non-critical quotations as appropriate  -- especially if they relate (as the quoted passaege does) to the topic of the stated subheading: "Sales and marketing practices". This particular quote looks like a cherry-picked quote intended to express comment on the topic of the moment.That sort of cherry-picking provides essential brevity in the construction of the discussion of specific topics such as "Sales and marketing practices". -- Pedant17 04:14, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Similarly, the second reference is from scooponlandmarkforum, which pretty much says it all. We're getting the scoop!!!! I'd rather have the facts than a scoop. Thanks. Lsi john 19:35, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Anything can go into an article, and things which do not meet wiki standards, can be deleted. Lsi john 13:42, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It meets Wikipedia standards. Jeffrire 15:34, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

text: *So far you have failed to address a single objection. And the consensus is overwhelmingly against the material. It can be deleted at any time. Lsi john 03:37, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  To which "overwhelming" "consensus" do you refer? -- Pedant17 04:14, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sales and marketing practices 

message: Three court cases involving Landmark have included the claim of brainwashing; none resulted in Landmark being ruled as brainwashing anyone.  Each had a slightly different outcome:
# In Ney vs. Landmark Education et al. (1992), Stephanie Ney sued Landmark claiming she suffered a mental breakdown following participation in the Landmark Forum. The court ruled that while her participation may or may not have played a part in her breakdown, this had no relevance as Virginia law did not allow her to claim damages since she suffered no physical harm.  
# In Been vs. Weed and Landmark Education (2002), Jason Weed claimed that the Landmark Advanced Course had caused him to experience a psychotic episode in which he killed a postal service employee.  The court ruled that Landmark did not precipitate his psychosis in the Federal criminal trial of Weed.  There is an ongoing [as of December 2006] wrongful death civil suit against Landmark and others by the family of the deceased. 
# In Landmark Education vs. Lell, Landmark sued Martin Lell for using the word "Brainwashing" in the title of his book on Landmark Education (Das Forum: Protokoll einer Gehirnwäsche: Der Psycho-Konzern Landmark Education [The Forum: Account of a Brainwashing: The Psycho-Outfit Landmark Education], Deutscher Taschenbuch Verlag, Munich, 1997, ). The court ruled the description "brainwashing" a matter of opinion, and let the title of the book stand.
In 1999 Landmark Education asked Dr. Raymond Fowler, a psychologist and past President of the American Psychological Association (APA), to evaluate the effectiveness, safety, and appropriateness of the procedures in the Landmark Forum. Fowler reported that he saw nothing to suggest that the Landmark Forum itself would cause harm to participants, and that the course had none of the characteristics associated with a cult, and that the Landmark Forum did not place individuals at risk of "mind control", "brainwashing", or "thought control".
Dr. Raymond Fowler, past President of the American Psychological Association, analysis of the Landmark Forum, 1995, Landmark Education Corporate Website, Document number "L-014E". 'I saw nothing in the Landmark Forum I attended to suggest that it would be harmful to any participant.  ...  the Landmark Forum is nothing like psychotherapy ... has none of the characteristics typical of a cult ...does not place individuals at risk of any form of "mind control" "brainwashing" or "thought control."'
.
Please discuss here:
*In cases 1 & 2, someone filed and lost. Where is the story there? People file law suits all the time. If there were convictions then it would be notable. Tossing around speculation and innuendo doesn't belong in an encyclopedia article. At worst this is misleading, at best (as above) it is WP:TRIVIA and a collection of insignificant and irrelevant information. Is it about Landmark? yes. Is it reliably sourced? Yes. Does that mean it should be in the article? No. Without a finding against Landmark, it simply isn't significant, notable or really relevant to an article about a company.
** Just as every story has (they say) two sides, so court-cases tend to have two sides. The very fact of taking them to court can (and does) make some cases notable. (Some journalists may even refer to such impending cases as "landmark cases"...) Reporting only cases resulting in findings against Landmark Education would not give an NPOV view of the arena. -- Brainwashing has little relevance to articles about average companies, but the Landmark Education article covers more than just a mere company. -- Pedant17 04:14, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In case 3 it's even more irrelevant in the context of a law suit. Though it might be useful on the basis of countering claims that Landmark is a cult, as Dr Fowler seems to have clearly said LE has none of the characteristics typical of a cult and doesn't place individuals at risk. But unless someone is claiming that LE is a cult, then even this information is irrelevant trivia. I could write a book and say Landmark doesn't design computer networks, but I'm pretty sure nobody would say that should be cited here. Lsi john 19:43, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ** I think that the above is a great example of the imbalanced POV that has been discussed over and over. Three examples of court cases in which alegations of brainwashing did not hold up, followed by an unequivical statement by the head of the American Psychological Association say that Landmark is not in any way, brainwashing, mind control or thought control.  What is the point? I think that brainwashing is a moot point. I think the above was only put in the article to cast Landmark in a negative light.  It is like the tactics of Sen. Joseph McCarthy.  Triplejumper 20:39, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The opinions of Dr Fowler as a private individual (and not in his capacity as anything to do with the American Psychological Association) have little relevance to this article. His testimonial (mere opinions) appear published only on the Landmark Education web-site -- a biased source. His opinions (unsubstantiated by the peer-reviewed research one might expect of a scientist) remain subject to all the limitations of a casual observer or individual participant. Give me a journalist with minimal training in objectivity any day. -- Pedant17 04:14, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Anything can go in at any time. And anything which doesn't meet standards for acceptable content 'can be removed' at any time. The question on wiki is not whether something can go in. The question is whether or not something should go in. This material should not, as it is not significant or particularly relevant (unless you want to change the section title to Lawsuits filed and thrown out of court. Lsi john 13:40, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Your suggested title for a sub-heading may not meet NPOV requirement. -- Pedant17 04:14, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

text: They are verifiable sources that show specific court cases. They are admissible. Jeffrire 02:41, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

text: The Lell case resulted from an individual not only participating in the Landmark Forum with approval and enthusiasm, but from his going to the trouble to write a detailed account of his ordeal, and from his validation by a well-known publishing-house and by a recognized expert in the field who wrote the introduction to his book. The fact that Lell practised self-therapy by writing his book rather than seeking out one of the hordes of therapists clamoring to treat cases of brain-washing lends weight rather than suspicion to his situation. At least Lell's subjective musings appear in substantial and extended book form: They have a little more credibility than the alleged thousands of briefer and less balanced  accounts of satisfaction, and a lot more credibility than the guided subjectivity exhibited by those answering Yankelovich's biased questionnaire. -- Pedant17 04:14, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

text: *So far you have failed to address a single objection. And the consensus is overwhelmingly against the material. It can be deleted at any time. Lsi john 03:37, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  To which "overwhelming" "consensus" do you refer? -- Pedant17 04:14, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Allegations of brainwashing 

message: In 1993, two years after the emergence of Landmark Education, Rev. Dr. Richard L. Dowhower conducted a survey of clergy to assess their opinions of cults, entitled "Clergy and Cults: A Survey".  The 53 respondents came from the Washington, DC area and included 43 Lutheran clergy and seminarians, one Roman Catholic and one Jewish clergyman, and an Evangelical minister.  The highest percentage (28%) of those questioned about "The cults I am most concerned about are", gave the answer of "Scientology, est/Forum, Lifespring".
Clergy and Cults: A Survey, The Rev. Richard L. Dowhower, D. D., Cult Observer, Vol. 11, No. 3 (1994).
In James R. Lewis' 2001 book (published 10 years after the establishment of Landmark Education), Odd Gods: New Religions & the Cult Controversy, Werner Erhard, Erhard Seminars Training and The Forum are discussed
.  Odd Gods describes the spiritual influences of the coursework, including Zen Buddhism, Abilitism, Subud, Dianetics, Scientology and Asian spiritual leaders.
In 2002 theologians Deacon Robert Kronberg, B.Th. and Consultant Kistina Lindebjerg, B.Th. of the Dialog Center International in Denmark discussed the religious aspects of Landmark Education, stating: "Also we see a large number of people joining groups, such as Landmark and Amway, which become controversial because of their sales practices."  
Specifically, Kronberg and Lindebjerg posited that Landmark Education's courses seem to fill a void in the lives of disillusioned young adults, who have not found answers in religion:  "Landmark seems to appeal to young people between 20 and 35 in liberal professions who are disillusioned with or discouraged about their lives. Landmark seems to be a scientific substitute for the need for religious answers to life's fundamental questions."
Please discuss here:
: I think that this is written with an intention to manipulate people opinions. The above says that two theologians discuss the religious aspects of Landmark Education.  It is actually commentary on society and how people have not found answers inside religion.  They do not discuss the religious aspects of Landmark and even if they did it is totally subjective.  I suppose Amish people could discuss the religious aspects of a mustang convertable but that would not mean that there is any religious significance to that car. Triplejumper 20:55, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  If the introductory/commentary material around the quotations strikes you as offending against NPOV, re-write it accordingly. -- Pedant17 04:14, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

text: We are not interested in whats true. Its a fact that these views exist so they can get into the article. Jeffrire 02:35, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

text: The alleged fact that "large numbers" (how large?) "of devout believers of many different faiths" undertake Landmark Education courses does not disprove the idea that Landmark Education has some religious connotations; nor does it disprove the notion that Landmark Education stands "at odds" with traditional religions. Personal testimonials from religious persons have all the deficiencies of personal testimonials from non-religious persons. The article needs to go into more detail in these respects. -- Pedant17 04:14, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

text: *So far you have failed to address a single objection. And the consensus is overwhelmingly against the material. It can be deleted at any time. Lsi john 03:37, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The concensus does not exist. How many times have you, Lsi john, wasted space on this page by repeating the above comment in this poor excuse for a discussion? Apparently nine.ERTalk 12:38, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You must have missed the part where Jeffririe repeatedly fails to address any of the concerns raised, but simply repeats 'the material can be included at any time'. I was simply addressing her comments with a reply. Is that wrong? Lsi john 12:55, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Religious implications

message: OK after presenting you with the information on the discussion page, there have been no attempts to improve rather than delete these valid sources and comments are really getting unproductive > Excuses and denials are really not productive and calling the views minority does not exclude them from the article. 
So in order to prompt people to make suggestions about how to present the information, the critical views above can be reinstated into the article and any adjustments to be made can be done in the article with discussion here. Jeffrire 06:32, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How does removing material make it easier to discuss that material seriously and patiently? -- Pedant17 04:14, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

text: What is happening here is not the deleting critical views- it is keeping a small minority view form over and over again reinstating old materials that the consensus has agreed upn.  ANyone readig this for the first time- please take the time to work through this.Alex Jackl 14:14, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Have we determined which minority and how small yet? -- When will we know whether "the consensus" changes or vanishes? -- Pedant17 01:45, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reinstatement of critical views 

message: The article has been protected in an extremely one-sided (WP:Spam) state. The teachings of the topic per se appear to make its proponents unlikely to be satisfied with any real concensus.ERTalk 19:00, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The page protection is not permenant. It is a temporary solution to stop revert warring and it is intended to encourage discussion and dialogue between all parties. It is not intended as a one-sided anything. The quicker we reach compromise and concensus, the quicker the admins will be willing to unprotect the page. I encourage and request that everyone put everything in the past behind us and work together going forward. Lsi john 00:13, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

text: As the protecting admin, I'd like to make it clear that the protection is not an endorsement of the current version. It is a temporary measure to stop the edit warring, while the parties pursue dispute resolution. Thanks. Trebor 00:17, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Trebor, thank you. For my part, I'm looking forward to everyone coming to the table in good faith and working together to find a compromise that all the editors can live with. Lsi john 01:42, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I think its fine to have the article protected with the results of all the bad behaviour showing. Jeffrire 03:04, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed though Jeffrire is one of the primary examples of that behaviour.  We need third party help in getting irthe POVists from trying to control this page. Alex Jackl 14:26, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  No POVists edit here -- only  good-faith Wikipedians like yourself. -- Pedant17 01:45, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Lsi john. Well sourced information was placed into the article with no deletions . Your highly unconstructive behaviour has already been noted concerning the piecemeal effort to discuss . In my view you seem incapable of working constructively and considering your behaviour, your above proposal is just a plan for more of the same vexatious anti-NPOV activity. Your history speaks for itself.  Jeffrire 03:04, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Jeffrire, I'm sorry you feel that way. Its very obvious that including the material is important to you. I'd like to take your points, one by one, and work toward compromise. I've asked that everyone forget the past and begin anew. I still have hope that you will constructively participate in the discussions. It would be nice if you were to select one point and begin a discussion, but if you'd prefer someone else can select one. Lsi john 03:19, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You can take my points all at the same time because you have zealously removed large amounts of well sourced information from the article all for the same reason. Its the reasoning (or lack of it) thats the important factor here. Your activities are unreasonable. I'm very much accepting of this problematic situation due to the nature of the situation. As we all know millions of people realize that Landmark Education is a cult. Which of course does lead its members to volunteer for all sorts of cult activities such as promotion, censorship, and so on. I'm expecting the same sort of activities to continue here because Landmark Education will continue to be a cult and its followers will continue to act unreasonably, especially regarding the more includable critical views. Dispute resolution is something we just have to accept. Jeffrire 03:27, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have zero first-hand knowledge of Landmark Education. The only second-hand information I have, came from my limited wiki-experience so far. Before I got to wikipedia, the only place I had even seen Landmark Education mentioned was on the Rick Ross website. I have no pre-conceived notions about Landmark. I do not know whether Landmark is, or is not, a cult. Though I think I understand now why we have had such friction in our history. Lsi john 03:40, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Jossi, up to this point it had been an all or nothing situation, with neither side giving much ground on compromise. Justanother re-added an NPOV version of one of the items just before the page was protected. I had hoped we could use that as a model and try a 'compromise' discussion before moving to MedCab. However, if you think that MedCab would be better, I have no objection. Perhaps a neutral third party overseeing the compromise would be more acceptable to other editors. Lsi john 03:19, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Sure Jossi. Third opinion, mediation, arbitration are the way to go. Jeffrire 03:17, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hopefully, you will be able to resolve it with informal mediation. Good luck. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:22, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks Jossi. Never been through the process myself so I'll take my time with any mediation applications. The article can stay as is for weeks if need be. We'll get any well sourced information into the article some way, but I'm not going to let selfish censorship efforts turn simple NPOV editing into a mountain of red tape to navigate. Personally I'm going to enjoy presenting the information in the article. I like editing Wikipedia. Jeffrire 08:04, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protection 

message: So far, looking back over the past few months, it is clear that we are getting nowhere doing it the way we have been doing.
My biggest objection so far, has been the wholesale reverts (back to old preferred versions) being done, which lose changes made by other editors. I have no objections to revising the material in a way that is acceptable to everyone.
Before going the next step to MedCab, I would like to propose the following:
Lets address ONE-AT-A-TIME, the material that Jeffrire and EstherRice wish to include. Up to this point, many editors on both sides have been looking at it as an all-or-nothing situation. My suggestion is for Jeffrire and EsterRice to post ONE part of their version and we discuss it.. and modify it.. HERE.. instead of on the article page.
I request that Jeffrire and EstherRice decide on one point and I request that we all work on that one point and hammer it out until we have a concensus on it, then ask an admin to insert that part into the article and then work on the next part, until we get through the entire list and establish a compromise and concensus.
If this is agreeable to everyone.. then lets proceed.. if not, then MedCab or AfC is our next step. I'd prefer to try and hash this out here amoungst ourselves first.
Thoughts? Lsi john 19:10, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Lsi john. Well sourced information was placed into the article with no deletions . Your highly unconstructive behaviour has already been noted concerning the piecemeal effort to discuss . In my view you seem incapable of working constructively and considering your behaviour, your above proposal is just a plan for more of the same vexatious anti-NPOV activity. Your history speaks for itself.  Jeffrire 03:04, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Jeffrire, I'm sorry you feel that way. Its very obvious that including the material is important to you. I'd like to take your points, one by one, and work toward compromise. I've asked that everyone forget the past and begin anew. I still have hope that you will constructively participate in the discussions. It would be nice if you were to select one point and begin a discussion, but if you'd prefer someone else can select one. Lsi john 03:19, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You can take my points all at the same time because you have zealously removed large amounts of well sourced information from the article all for the same reason. Its the reasoning (or lack of it) thats the important factor here. Your activities are unreasonable. I'm very much accepting of this problematic situation due to the nature of the situation. As we all know millions of people realize that Landmark Education is a cult. Which of course does lead its members to volunteer for all sorts of cult activities such as promotion, censorship, and so on. I'm expecting the same sort of activities to continue here because Landmark Education will continue to be a cult and its followers will continue to act unreasonably, especially regarding the more includable critical views. Dispute resolution is something we just have to accept. Jeffrire 03:27, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have zero first-hand knowledge of Landmark Education. The only second-hand information I have, came from my limited wiki-experience so far. Before I got to wikipedia, the only place I had even seen Landmark Education mentioned was on the Rick Ross website. I have no pre-conceived notions about Landmark. I do not know whether Landmark is, or is not, a cult. Though I think I understand now why we have had such friction in our history. Lsi john 03:40, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Jossi, up to this point it had been an all or nothing situation, with neither side giving much ground on compromise. Justanother re-added an NPOV version of one of the items just before the page was protected. I had hoped we could use that as a model and try a 'compromise' discussion before moving to MedCab. However, if you think that MedCab would be better, I have no objection. Perhaps a neutral third party overseeing the compromise would be more acceptable to other editors. Lsi john 03:19, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Sure Jossi. Third opinion, mediation, arbitration are the way to go. Jeffrire 03:17, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hopefully, you will be able to resolve it with informal mediation. Good luck. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:22, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks Jossi. Never been through the process myself so I'll take my time with any mediation applications. The article can stay as is for weeks if need be. We'll get any well sourced information into the article some way, but I'm not going to let selfish censorship efforts turn simple NPOV editing into a mountain of red tape to navigate. Personally I'm going to enjoy presenting the information in the article. I like editing Wikipedia. Jeffrire 08:04, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposal

message: Hello all. I started the application . Feel free to contribute. Jeffrire 08:36, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Medcab 

message: In the book, Cults, Religion, and Violence, David G. Bromley and J. Gordon Melton note that Landmark Education has been listed as "dangerous" by a government commission in France in 1996, and in Belgium in 1997.
----
*This info is backed up to a secondary sourced citation, and should be added to the article when it gets unprotected.  Smee 10:13, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Secondary source to add to the article somewhere... 

message: I read the article a month or two ago, and it seemed fairly balanced.  Now it all seems slanted to the side of LE.  It is like the whole article has been neutered since I read it last.  I was going to use it to get a recruiter off of my back, but now, it is absolutely useless for that.  There are virtually no criticisms of Landmark in the article, and yet, when go to the Landmark site, I can sense that something isn't right, that there are New Age or other themes floating around.  Don't get me wrong, the site is quite enticing and has all sorts of promises, but that still doesn't negate the red flags I see.--65.190.103.147 01:27, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes 65.190.103.147, you may consider the article to be temporarily out of order. There is currently a dispute resolution process going on in order that we have less of these problems in future. It'll probably take a while. As it is, the disclaimer at the top of the article states that the lock is not an endorsement of the current version. If you need access to more accurate information for your own purposes, there is a history tab that can take you to prior versions that provide a richer variety of sources. Jeffrire 03:31, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Actually the article as it is right now is pretty close.  I have to say that unidentified user smells of a sock puppet. What does it mean "get a recruiter off his back"?  What "red flags"?  Please sign in to Wikipedia as a user and join the discussion. Alex Jackl 04:41, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where is the rest of it? 

message: I couldn't understand why the mediation request didn't seem to be listed, and inadvertantly created a second one. I now see that they only get listed once a mediator has accepted the case. I've removed the extra tag. Sorry for the confusion. DaveApter 07:36, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Apology 

message: Please add  to this page when it is unprotected. Thank you. Also, talk page archiving is quite needed here.
--User:Krator (t c) 11:36, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  When unprotected: Request 

message: Mediation is now open, and I hope we can find a way to resolve these disputes. If anyone wishes to be formally involved, they should go and add their names and an initial statement over on the main page. 
I will also arrange for a bot to archive old threads on this page, as it's making my head swim! Chrislintott 09:28, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mediation and archive