Talk:Landmark Worldwide/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 10

Tagged for NPOV

I've placed an Template:NPOV tag on this article, as well as in a particular section. There is an excess of "promotional" language taken apparently from Landmark Education itself, rather than neutral language from reliable sources about the organization. In general, articles should cite assertions, particularly controversial ones, and such citations should preferably be publications not produced by the subject of the article, or those involved with the subject. Additionally, care must be taken when using POV verbs such as "claims", "maintains", "asserts"-- all of which are attributed nebulously to "Landmark Education". See: Wikipedia:Words_to_avoid#Claim_and_other_synonyms_for_say --Leflyman^Talk 01:36, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I've left the tag at the top of the article, but removed it from the 'cult' section, as I can't see anything particularly objectionable there.

I agree with you about the undesiribility of the verbs such as "claims", "maintains", "asserts". Almost all instances of these have been introduced into the article over time by editors with an anti-Landmark POV, with a presumed intention of casting doubt on the accuracy of the statements. It seems to me valid in the context of documenting the controversy and debate surrounding the organisation to quote Landmark's own stated position as well as external commentators on both sides. All of the reported assertions can be found by following up the various references and citations in the article. DaveApter 15:00, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

• The "Cult" section was a particularly egregious example of non-NPOV language usage. Please revert the tag there. Examples include: "weasel words", such as in the opening sentence, "Occasionally this question is asked or considered by detractors of Landmark Education, but there has been no evidence presented that would affirm such a claim."; slipping in Original Research, ala "...however she makes no claim to have even observed Landmark programs first hand, and also uses the term "cult" (or "dangerous persuader") when discussing organizations such as multi-level-marketing company Amway.)"; including the assertion of "Experts with direct experience of Landmark Educations programs" which makes a value judgement of one source versus another. In sum, these sections are obviously intended to provide a pro-LE view, rather than a neutral one.--Leflyman^Talk 18:21, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for participating in the debate. Firstly, my understanding is that tags such as the NPOV are there to be put in as a last resort once attempts to reach consensus by re-iterative editing have reached deadlock, rather than a first resort to state disagreement with a current state of the article. If you don't like the article in its present form, why not edit it to your satisfaction and see whether these edits stick, or whether it evolves into a form that you can be happy with? If this fails, put in the tag then, and maybe bring in arbitrators if we still can't reach consensus.

Secondly, I can't see what your objection is to the points made in the article:

a) in that first example, the sentence seems to me to be a fair summary of the "facts" of the controversy - viz: (i) some people say Landmark is a cult; (ii) they don't provide any concrete facutal evidence to support this (or even, generally, to clarify what they mean by the accusation). If you (or any of the other editors who are keen to bring in the cult debate to this article) want to dispute this, the best way to do so would be by citing specific verifiable examples of cult-like behaviour by Landmark Education.

b) Once again, I don't see why you have a problem with this section. Editors with a clear anti-Landmark POV introduced the citation from Samways to support the contention that Landmark is a cult. Do you really dispute that it is relevant for a reader of the article to know whether she came to this conclusion with or without directly observing the phenomenon she is casting judgement over? Or that it is relevant for them to have some idea of the breadth of the spectrum of organisations which Samways is happy to describe as being "cults"?

c) and finally, I would disagree that the phrase "Experts with direct experience of Landmark Educations programs" introduces a bias or value judgement; it is a straightforward statement of fact. Examples (cited and referenced elsewhere within the article) include Dr Raymond Fowler, Dr Edmond Lowell (both eminent and highly respected psychiatrists) and Bishop Otis Charles, all of whom have stated publicly on the record that Landmark has none of the characteristics of a cult, and all of whom did so after observing the procedings for themselves, rather from the standpoint of armchair critic. DaveApter 18:46, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

• In my view, this is not a debate, but an explanation of Wikipedia policy. The NPOV tag can be added at any time to an article or particular section which is presented in biased or non-neutral language. (Given that it is a legitimate and explicit issue.) It alerts editors and readers that some Wikipedians have raised concerns with the assertions made in an article -- and provides a greater impetus to bring it into compliance. Unfortunately, I don't intend to edit this article, as it is a battleground for POV-warring (as most controversial topics/subject groups tend to be); further, I am not knowledgeable, nor intend to be, about Landmark Education. However, if I were to edit it, I'd likely excise most of the sections which read as promotional, rather than informational. Thus, I am taking a neutral position and pointing out that the use of language here is not in keeping with Wikipedia's non-negotiable neutrality policy. Please take a look at Wikipedia dispute resolution -- Arbitration is the last resort. Prior to this, when editing is deadlocked, it's suggestible to seek a third opinion, or post a request for comment, and if that doesn't suffice, move onto mediation

As to your specific points:

Use of language such as in your comment, "some people say..." or in specific section, "this question is asked or considered by detractors..." is considered "weasel wording". Contending "they don't provide evidence" is a primae facia Original Research- it is a non-verifiable assertion. Wikipedia editors should not evaluate the evidentiary status of statements made by sources. The only concerns when including a factual, theoretical or opinion claim should be: 1) is it verifiable; 2) is it from a reliable source; and 3) is it presented in neutral language. As is stated at the top of the Verifiability Policy, "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth."

Your other points-- such as providing rebuttals by "experts"-- likewise indicate a non-familiarity with WP standards. A quick Google search, for example, reveals that the oft-cited Dr. Fowler's "expertise" about Landmark is based on his attendance of a two-weekend seminar more than ten years ago ("several years" before a 1995 letter), and a four day review at the request of Landmark in 1999 -- not as is stated, "studying Landmark Education on his own behalf." I would suggest reviewing the three core policies (as highlighted above) of No Original Research, Verifiability, and Neutral Point of View. A good synopsis, particularly applicable to this article is: Guidelines for controversial articles. Finally, I would also suggest gaining experience editing any of the other million+ articles here, otherwise as this article is your nearly-exclusive area of interest, it may appear that you are editing out of fanaticism. Please see the apropos essay, "Don't be a fanatic".

Regards,--Leflyman^Talk 20:20, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Just to clarify: by debate, I meant the discussion on this talk page to reach consensus about what is and is not an acceptable implementation of Wikipedia's policies as expressed in the article (isn't that what this page is for?). I'm not disputing the policy or its negotiablity, just how the article adheres to it or otherwise, which is surely a matter on which individual judgements will vary.

Interesting that you characterise yourself as "neutral", but indicate that you would be inclined to excise "sections which read as promotional, rather than informational", but make no mention of excising sections which are defamatory. After all the guideline on controversial topics you recommend below does say "...it is our job to be fair to all sides of a controversy." Also the NPOV policy states "When asserting a fact about an opinion, it is important also to assert facts about competing opinions, and to do so without implying that any one of the opinions is correct. It's also generally important to give the facts about the reasons behind the views, and to make it clear who holds them. It's often best to cite a prominent representative of the view." DaveApter 10:59, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

• It's your opinion that it there are "defamatory sections" -- I wold suggest that perhaps you are too close to this topic, and may see things a bit more critically than those who are outsiders, looking in.--Leflyman^Talk 17:14, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Similarly, it's your opinion that it there are "promotional sections". (I should have thought it incontrovertible that ther were both). All of these are value judgements. And all depend on the point of view of the person making the value judgement. It is the nature of a point of view that it is not readily discernable to the person who posesses it. Your comments here seem to suggest that you imagine that you do not have one, and are entering the debate from a position of neutrality. Is this what you feel? DaveApter 22:57, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

The fact that I used the construction "some people say..." above in this discussion does not mean that I would use or condone it within an article. As regards the sentence under discussion (which I didn't write, and probably wouldn't have expressed that way myself), the comment that "they don't provide evidence" is actually better than verifiable - it is very readily falsifiable, which could easily be done by producing verifiable, notable sources detailing any such evidence. In fact my opinion is that the sections on cults and brainwashing have no place in a wikipedia article, precisely because the claims cannot be backed up by respected sources which meet wikipedia's criteria. However since some editors insist in introducing these topics, others will attempt to restore some balance. DaveApter 10:59, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

• I think you are still misunderstanding the Wikipedia standard: when asserting any claim-- such as "they don't provide evidence", or like the one you deleted, "None of these claims have been validated by peer-reviewed scientific research"-- a source must be provided for the assertion. You can't cite "evidence" -- as that would be tantamount to Original Research-- but need an actual published quote/secondary source which effectively makes the statement you wish to include. The only exceptions occur when something (like a popularly held belief or opinion) is in such common usage that there is no direct source to be found for a specific claim; in such cases, examples of the usage may be cited-- but that's not the case here. --Leflyman^Talk 17:14, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I think we have more common ground than divergence on this point. DaveApter 22:57, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

On the contrary, this entry does precisely meet these standards: the professional reputation and expertise of Drs Fowler and Lowell are verifiable facts, as are the questions of whether they based their judgements on first hand experience or hearsay, as are the questions of whether they did say what is quoted or not. Similarly, it is verifiable whether Samways is basing her judgement on experience or hearsay. Surely all these are relevant factors for a reader wishing to weigh up the merits of the competing views?

• An assertion of "expertise" would need to likewise be souced. An expert in what? Landmark? As attributed by whom? The use of the term "expert" is in itself a POV-characterisation, which adds nothing to the content. Avoid it altogether by letting the facts speak for themselves. Simply write, for example, "Raymond D. Fowler, Ph.D., a former CEO of the American Psychological Association, stated that..." --Leflyman^Talk 17:14, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks - that's useful and constructive. I have no objection to re-phrasing that in the way you suggest. (btw I'm going to be offline for a few days now) DaveApter 22:57, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your advice. Contrary to your speculation, I am acquainted with the various policies and guielines you mention, and my committment is to having this article be a useful, balanced and informative one which meets them (in fact only last week, I removed several pieces of pro-Landmark editorialising for precisely this reason). The article is doubtless a work in progress, and probably always will be, but it is a vast improvement on its state a year ago when it was an unashamed soapbox for unattributable and unverifiable anti-Landmark gossip and rumour. I am happy to have assessments of my fanaticism or otherwise based on the quality of my edits, regardless of the breadth of my areas of activity. Best wishes DaveApter 10:59, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Post Hoc? Section

In reading through this article, this is the first section I saw that made no sense and is inappropriate for what is supposed to be an encyclopedia article. It's not neutral at all and looks mostly like hearsay ("some critics say" or "supporters say"), etc. It ignores the section above by DYG and their findings and quotes Langone regarding LGATP's which is irrelevant to this article. Since Langone isn't quoted about Landmark, the LGATP information belongs on a page for that subject if someone wants to add one. This section of the article isn't NPOV as well as being poorly written and makes no point worthy of referencing for someone wanting to use this article for reference material. It looks like a recent editor called for sources to be cited on the "some critics" and "supporters say" lines, so if someone can provide those it may be worth adding this section back in.WBLman 01:11, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

History Section

I combined some sections to eliminate redundancy. The History title was at the bottom of the article just floating there with no related information before or after it, so I moved it to the top of the article and combined the Naming and Timeline section under the heading History since both of those sections contain only historical information. I also removed the line "For information about pre Landmark entities see. . . " which was under the previous Timeline section because that information and those links were already just above in the pre-edited format and I left them there in my edit.WBLman 18:51, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Clear violation of NPOV?

First, some disclosure: I have done the Landmark Forum and Seminar Series, and while I did enjoy and benefit from them, I do consider some of their marketing tactics dubious, and I challenge their claim they do not espouse an ideology.

Thanks for being clear about your position. We're agreed that these are statements of your opinions rather than matters of fact? What do you mean by "dubious"? (If you'd said "sometimes hamfisted and inept", I'd agree with that). And what ideology do you think they espouse? DaveApter 09:50, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, these are my opinions. About the word "dubious"--during the Forum, I watched the coach work with people to the point of tears--of course, that's how it works. Now, on about four or five occassions, right when the participant was bawling most, the coach suggested that if they really wanted to make their life better, they had to get their father/mother/partner etc. to do Landmark. They participants were then asked if that was want they wanted (having just been told that it was best for them), and then asked to turn that into a pledge ("The possibility I am creating..."). The coaches did some amazing work with people on thorny emotional issues, but I considered it low (i.e., "dubious") that they also seemed to use emotional fragility to sign up new recruits. This is in addition to the "assignments", where often the task involves getting people involved in Landmark. ("Maybe you can have a breakthrough in enrolment!", a staff member promised me if I agreed to try to bring someone to the next Seminar.)

As for an ideology, their views on the nature of being (life is empty and meaningless, attachment causes suffering) are similar to Zen Buddhism, as I'm sure you're aware. Zen is considered a religion--and what ideas are there in Zen that are more radical than in Landmark? There are no gods in Zen; a lot of it, to use Landmark language, is about "popping".

And while people get hot and bothered over evolution, Landmark's conflicts with religion, I believe, are deeper than the conflicts between science and religion. You cannot, for example, believe that life is empty and meaningless and that the purpose of life is to serve Jesus. When this came up in my Forum, the coach suggested that through Landmark you can "choose" to serve Jesus, but that's missing the point, and no other answer was forthcoming. And while it's stated that the Forum is an "inquiry", and that none of it is "true", and it's just something to "try on", this isn't the way it's presented, nor, I believe, is it the way it's received. (To quote verbatim from our Forum leader: "The truth is, there is no is." So they do present "truths".) Ckerr 13:13, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Well I don't find any conflict with my own spiritual convictions, and plainly plenty of people with strong religions beliefs don't either. DaveApter 16:55, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

What this is about is the positioning of positive and negative comments about Landmark. It appears that the negative comments are usually placed first, with the (probably unintentional) consequence that they appear to be refuted by the subsequent positive claims. Section-by-section, in every relevant case:

Surely that is simply the most logical structure for reporting the spectrum of opinions on the topic? - in accordance with the Wikipedia NPOV policy:

• The policy requires that, where there are or have been conflicting views, these should be presented fairly, but not asserted. ... Readers are left to form their own opinions. ... Debates are described, represented, and characterized, but not engaged in. Background is provided on who believes what and why, and which view is more popular. Detailed articles might also contain the mutual evaluations of each viewpoint, but studiously refrain from stating which is better.

The impression I got from reading the article was that each of the negative comments was refuted by a positive one. It's a common way to structure an argument: if you're advocating B, you first discuss not-B and then refute it. This "problem" is accentuated by other things. For example, in "Is it a cult?", the two anti-Landmark sources are not titled, but the next two (pro-Landmark) are doctors. Certainly my feeling was that some uninformed kooks say that Landmark was a cult, but the qualified people say it isn't. I don't consider this a fair sample of opinion since, as I noted below, most of the pro-Landmark sources are taken from Landmark itself. Ckerr 13:13, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

As indicated in the extract above, the NPOV policy requires that both sides of the argument are presented fairly. Quotes from people that Landmark like enough to put on their website are a legitimate source. Many of the critics have an axe to grind, and very often are not in posession of much factual information about Landmark or its programs. A lot of the critical stuff is of poor quality. If you can find any better quotations or more qualified critics, feel free to add them. DaveApter 16:55, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, I have to disagree with you that Landmark is a legitimate source. It says on the Verifiability page that "Articles should rely on credible, third-party sources" and also that "If an article topic has no reputable, reliable, third-party sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on that topic." Landmark is not a third-party source, and thus I believe it violates the criterion. However, a lot of the anti-Landmark stuff is either disreputable or unreliable--if it's sourced at all--and thus that doesn't warrant inclusion either.

Further, Wikipedia has a specific policy on sources discussing themselves: "Material from self-published sources, and other published sources of dubious reliability, may be used as sources of information about themselves in articles about themselves, so long as: [...] It is not contentious; It is not unduly self-serving." In my opinion, the quotes and references taken from the Landmark website fail both of these (though not the other three conditions). Ckerr 03:33, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Academic studies: first study positive (pro-Landmark), second study negative (anti-Landmark); next three positive. Also, every single one of these studies was commissioned by Landmark, quoted from the Landmark website, or both. This is hardly independent and verifiable.

These are reputable survey companies - people can draw their own conclusions about how likely they are to cook their results to curry favour with the people who commission them. (and who else is going to pay to have a survey done?) DaveApter 16:55, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Is it a cult?: first two comments negative; next three positive

Landmark in France: first sentence negative, rest of paragraph positive; second paragragh largely negative

Landmark in Berlin: first sentence negative, rest of paragraph positive

Clergy and Landmark: all positive (so why put it in? There must have been some dispute in the first place)

I've edited that to restore the context that had been lost. DaveApter 09:55, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. While I consider this an improvement, do you agree that it fits the pattern of criticism-then-refutation? I think the way it is it could be paraphrased "While there are some vague suggestions that Landmark conflicts with religion, experts disagree." While that may be factually true (I don't know, I don't know many clergy!), I think what's more likely is that the pro-Landmark clergy are much easier to find, conveniently listed as they are on the Landmark website. So if it's OK with you, I might remove the citations in this section that point to the Landmark website (that is, leaving Sister Iris Clark). I don't think citing Landmark itself sits nicely with NPOV. Ckerr 13:13, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

As I said above, the fact that a quote comes from the Landmark site doesn't make it illegitimate. DaveApter 16:55, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Is it brainwashing?: first paragraph negative; second paragraph positive; third paragraph somewhat negative; rest of section strongly positive (an eminent psychiatrist? Says who? He's not eminent enough to have a Wikipedia entry!)

I agree - "eminent" is a peacock term in this context; I'll take it out. DaveApter 09:50, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Large Group Awareness Training: effectively negative (assuming that LGAT is a bad thing, which is the implication)

Lawsuits against Landmark: first example ends with Landmark's analysis of the case (!); second ends with an obscure external link; third is effectively negative

Lawsuits brought by Landmark: first case positive (what was the defamation?); second case strongly positive (why choose that testimony to include?); third case negative; fourth case negative; fifth case not clearly positive or negative.

They read to me like a reasonably balanced and factual summary of the issues on each side. As regards the second case (CAN and Cynthis Kisser), I'd guess that the editor who inserted that quote did so because it got to the heart of the matter - CAN had irresponsibly distibuted leaflets describing the Forum as a cult, and when held to account they had to climb down (and also admit that they actually knew almost nothing about the program or the organisation).

It's not, in my opnion, the most interesting testimony. I think the eight lines could be replaced, at no informational loss, with "During the deposition, Kisser stated that she did not consider the Landmark Forum to be a cult." Ckerr 13:13, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

My view is that a direct quote of what she actually said under oath is more informative than a paraphrase. DaveApter 16:55, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Though I disagree, I'm willing to compromise on that, but would you be happy to pare it down to a single denial? Ckerr 03:33, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

In any case, it doesn't look to me as though these examples actually confirm your thesis that there's the pattern you described above. But please go ahead and make any edits that you thnk would improve the article.

My personal view is that excessive weight is already given to reporting marginal and unauthoratitive anti-Landmark opinions. But I guess that when sympathetic readers feel there's an anti bias, and antagonistic ones feel there's a pro bias, maybe that's a sign that it's actually not too far out. DaveApter 09:50, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree we're never going to reach complete consensus (though I did like your recent edits!). Ideally, though, there would be much better referencing of all claims, as at the moment most anti-Landmark claims are vague and totally unsubstantiated, and the pro-Landmark claims are sourced mostly from Landmark itself. None of that is really deserving of being in an encyclopedia article. Ckerr 13:13, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps that's because much of the criticism is vague and unsubstantiated? Not that I find the organisation beyond reproof by the way. For example, I do think that they sometimes let assistants loose on the public at an excessively early point in their training, that sometimes the registration conversations are pushy and insensitive, and that sometimes program leaders harangue participants too much about bringing guests. But I've found the courses themselves to be mostly excellent (but I'm not doing any just at the moment). DaveApter 16:55, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that much of the criticism is vague and unsubstantiated. And I think a lot of it should be removed, if it cannot be properly sourced. Ckerr 03:33, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Registration Pressure: first quote negative; second quote positive.

As you can see, it's not a 100% correlation, but I think it reads with even more bias than this list indicates. Pending vehement objections, I will make some edits to the article in the near future to better achieve what I see as NPOV. Ckerr 10:42, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

OK with me. In concept. Though I am not clear as to how you plan to address it. --Epeefleche 11:22, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

intro to article

I'm not willing to attempt editing a hotly debated article like this but I'd like to urge that some short statement of the controversy be put near the very beginning of the article, e.g. "proponents say the forums make positive changes in people's lives; critics accuse it of being cult-like". IMO the early history (i.e. the early connection to Est) should also be mentioned at the top of the article. This is a very weak article since it says nothing til halfway through about what the controversies mentioned in the introduction actually are. Phr (talk) 09:00, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Changes to Erhard Section

Imagine an article that said "there is no hard evidence that Ramon Martinez has any direct current involvement with the Los Angeles Dodgers, other than that he plays second base for the team." If you can see why that is odd, you should be able to see why "there is no hard evidence that Erhard has any direct current involvement with the operations of Landmark Education, other than his consulting with Landmark" is also odd. I changed the article to simply state what his involmemnt is, without editorializing on whether there is "hard evidence" of "direct current involvement with the operations," which smacks of original resarch.

I also deleted redundant statements. -- Sparkman1 05:19, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

This article is clearly pro-Landmark Education.

My sister just attended a Landmark Forum. I come to this article out of curiosity, and from a neutral point of view, being neither for nor against LE.

I am not surprised the neutrality of this article is under dispute.

The section on controversies is euphemistic, and the language used to discuss lawsuits filed against Landmark Education is clearly written from a biased point of view: The plaintives' claims are treated in a perjorative tone; the plaintives' legal failure is, firstly, treated as a matter of course, and secondly, assumed to be a repudiatation of the veracity of those claims. This second fact is--obviously--a non sequitur.

I am assuming that the intention of the pro-LE contributors to this article was to dissuade readers that LE has any similarities to a cult. Speaking for myself, the bias slant they (and who else could it be?) have given the article brings a negative return on that intention.

There's nothing wrong with advocating Landmark Education. But Wikipedia is NOT NOT NOT the place to do it.

Get. A. Blog.

Meanwhile, this article is screaming out for a complete rewrite. At the moment the article just oozes a pro-Landmark Education point of view and reads like something from the official website, wherever that is.

Also, I added the name of the founder Werner Erhard to the introduction and cited, under the controversies section, the accusations of sexual abuse and tax evasion (from the Wikipedia article on him).

This article is clearly not NPOV

As an article that is supposed to be aiming to be NPOV, this is atrocious! I've read many of the comments here. There are some people who are conscientiously trying very hard to produce an NPOV article, and there are people who don't understand the genre of an encyclopedic article, who don't understand NPOV, who don't understand Wikipedia's policies, who are doing nothing but get in the way of arriving at an NPOV article. With a subject this controversial, both sides should be factually presented, and the reader should be unable to determine from the article's content whether either POV is superior. That is not being done here. Editing is far too agenda-driven in promoting Landmark Education. They've got their own website to do that. This is an encyclopedia! Kat'n'Yarn 07:29, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

This article needs a fresh start!

Unless you want your grandchildren to still be haggling over this, this needs a fresh start! This article has been closer to being NPOV in the past than it is now.

To begin with, all participating editors need to have an overriding commitment to reaching a consensus on a well-written, well-organized, clear and concise encyclopedic article (according to Wikipedia's standards, not your own) where all points of view can agree that they are fairly represented. Some research may be needed to apprise yourself of the background needed to do that.

Since there was a message that the previous talk page was too long, I have moved it to Archive 2.

This entire article needs to be scrapped and begun anew. I suggest first developing an outline of sections and subsections to be covered, then fleshing out the outline. Some sections which have been previously deleted should be considered for re-inclusion. Kat'n'Yarn 17:13, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

To get the ball going, I've reworked the introduction, followed by a reworked "Origin and Evolution" section. There are so many problems with this article it's hard to know where to begin. But, for one thing, it's too long and there's a lot of promotional material and material the average encyclopedia reader isn't interested in that can just be cut. Kat'n'Yarn 18:41, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

And then I consolidated all the corporate sections into one. I've left the list of corporate officers and associations, etc. for now. However, considering that the article needs to be reduced to 2/3 it's present length (52K to 34K), we should consider cutting them. Isn't all that on Landmark's website? Kat'n'Yarn 20:47, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Use caution when using a company website as a source

This is where what's already been written can't be salvaged. Wikipedia's guidelines on Reliable sources states:

"Caution should be used when using company or organization websites as sources. Although the company or organization is a good source of information on itself, it has an obvious bias. The American Association of Widget Manufacturers is interested in promoting widgets, so be careful not to rely on it exclusively if other reliable sources are available, in order to maintain a neutral point of view. Exercise particular care when using such a website as a source if the company or organization is a controversial one."

I think a few allowances can be made, but the present article relies wholesale on Landmark Education's website. "Wikipedia articles should use reliable published sources." See also Neutral point of view. Kat'n'Yarn 03:18, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Persons Associated with Landmark Education

I originally started by attempting to clean up the Management article, however, the more I look through this entire article the more I notice bizarre additions of people all over. As I mentioned in a previous discussion, I researched other major company's articles for comparisons sake and found the following: I researched other major companies to see what their articles said about their management persons/structure and found very little (please see: Tony Robbins, The Learning Company, Target Corporation, and Wal-Mart). At most, I discovered a list of Wal-Mart board members and a link to a very brief biography of the company's CEO. Even Tony Robbins article gave only a minimal description of Mr. Robbins personal life. While the heads of a company are pertinent and important to an informational article about a company—the slew of disjointed employees is not, and calls into question the NPOV of that article. Thus, I've removed a number of unnecessary persons from this article due to the fact that they have little to nothing to do with Landmark Education at present and the fact that they may have been involved at some previous point is neither pertinent nor standard information for other similar articles Blondie0309 18:18, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

• The previous commentator has committed several acts of vandalism to various articles of wikipedia, notably [1], and [2], and [3], which were then later corrected by AntiVandalBot. As to the user's above comments, this is an encyclopedia article, and not a newspaper. Past influential members are historically relevant, especially those who continue to remain active in the organization and/or are friends or relatives of current influential members of the organization.Smeelgova 23:58, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I looked at Blondie's deletions. As much as we need to shorten this article, I agree that persons significant in the history of the organization are appropriate under the "See also" section. Encyclopedia's don't live in the present moment. I don't understand Blondie's statement that listing them is POV, although I'd like to hear about it if there's something I'm not thinking of. Kat'n'Yarn 01:37, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Substantial revisions needed in "Landmark Education Vocabulary" section/article

(also posted on Talk:Landmark Education Vocabulary)

The "Landmark Education Vocabulary" article, and related "Vocabulary" section of this article, do not follow a number of Wikipedia guidlines:

• The "Landmark Education Vocabulary" article should be renamed and moved to "Landmark Education jargon" as "vocabulary" is not an accurate description. Also be sure to modify all links to the page.
• The current article content is not aceptable as uncited original research. Personally, IMO it's a public service to define these terms, but can you post them elsewhere and then link to that site under "See Also: External Links"?
• Reliable published sources should be used as a basis for the article's content, e.g., the metro article, and any other published works which refer to the subject.
• In order to make the article NPOV, fair representation needs to be included on the published work of cult experts (for lack of a better term) regarding "loaded language." Kat'n'Yarn 19:43, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

The term 'Jargon' is also inaccruate. While Jargon is a form of terminology, Wiki says "Jargon can be distinguished from terminology in that it is informal and essentially part of the oral culture of a profession, with only limited expression in the profession's publications." The way Landmark Education makes distinctions with their language is core to their program. Their use of words in a particular manner hasn't developed informally as a lingo, it's a purposeful terminology, and therefore not precisely 'jargon'. The broader term of 'Terminology' of which jargon is a type, would be more accurate. Pato 9:13, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. Terminology is used to describe specialized language in more widespread and traditional fields. Scientists use terminology. Data processing uses terminology. Use within a specialized group is most commonly called "jargon". Can you find any published sources which establish a precedent of referring to Landmark Education's verbage as "terminology"? I don't recall ever hearing that reference, but "jargon" has been used many, many times. Kat'n'Yarn 22:12, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

While I agree that "vocabulary" is not necessarily the best word, it is the word that Landmark uses, and if I were trying to find information on the topic, I would do a search for "Landmark Education vocabulary", because that's what it's called. (For example: the Democratic People's Republic of North Korea is not particularly democratic, but that doesn't mean its article should be renamed.) I think the page should be moved back to "vocabulary", and I think "vocabulary" should be one of the words on the vocabulary page, since vocabulary has a special meaning in Landmark. I also disagree that its lack of sources is a serious problem; anyone who has attended the Forum is in some sense an "expert", so I think this is a case where original research is justifiable, since it is verifiable in a way that most original research isn't. Ckerr 14:01, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Since the article concerns Landmark's unorthodox use of the English language, Landmark's own use of the English language should not be the basis of deciding what language should be used outside the Landmark context. I again note that Wikipedia's guideline is to base articles on published sources, not personal opinion. The purpose of Wikipedia is not to allow everyone to form an article on their own personal "expertise", unless it's published. That is precisely what the policy on original research is designed to eliminate. Wikipedia makes no exceptions in allowing some original research. Kat'n'Yarn 01:31, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the term "jargon" is inaccurate and misleading. In the Harvard Business School Case Study: "Landmark Education Corporation: Selling a Paradigm Shift", Karen Wruck & Mikelle Eastley (1998), the authors use the word "distinction" in discussing the terminology of Landmark Education. Never do they use the words "jargon", "vocabulary", or "terminology". The term "distinction" is also used in "The Promise of Philosophy and the Landmark Forum", Steven R. McCarl, et al. Contemporary Philosophy 23, 51 (2001). While I don't think the word "jargon" is appropriate, some mention might be given of the participant's confusion in understanding some of the terms. User:Sketchjoy 02:30, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I feel an irrestible bold cutting urge coming on

I wanted to allow a few days for comments, so I wouldn't send everyone into shock. Unless there are objections, I'd like to do some bold cutting, reorganizing, combining, summarizing to shorten the length of the article, not particularly change its content. The article is presently 52K, the recommended maximum length is 32K (see Wikipedia:article size. We need to get the job done! Kat'n'Yarn 00:37, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Initial cut to reduce article size posted

I’ve reduced the article to 41 K, mainly by cutting the detailed course descriptions and promotional material. See What Wikipedia is not: “Wikipedia is not a soapbox or a vehicle for propaganda and advertising.” It still needs to lose another 9K of fat. The entire last portion of the article needs to be researched and rewritten, so hopefully the size can also be reduced there. Some notes - -

If I inadvertently cut anything which was reliably sourced and of high priority, please put it back and discuss it.

“Wikipedia is not a repository of links … excessive lists can dwarf articles and detract from the purpose of Wikipedia.” Can we agree to limit both the lists of favorable and unfavorable opinion links to five? I’ve already cut the unfavorable list, but I’d ask the “favorable” editors to edit that list. Preference should be given to websites which link to/archive multiple published articles in their entirety, not those which contain excerpts, a single article, or opinion.

I’ve cut the section on Large Group Awareness Trainings and added it as a related topic link at the bottom. As background information, est and Lifespring were the grand-daddies of LGATs. When spinoffs became numerous, the term was introduced to collectively refer to all similar self-development seminars. It’s analogous to referring to chickens, ducks and geese as “fowl”.

I cut the section on Continuing Education Credits, since they don’t seem to be universally accepted. It sounds “lame” and unspecific to say they’re sometimes accepted. Memberships mean nothing more than one pays their dues. In a full corporate biography, they should be listed. However, it’s not common practice in an encyclopedic article. I cut the paragraph on philosophical aspects, just because it wasn’t sourced and once I’d cut the extraneous information about Erhard lending Flores some money, it was superficial. However, a researched more meaningful paragraph on philosophic contributions to Landmark Education’s programs would be interesting, and could possibly be long enough to warrant a separate article. I’d warn, however, that some of the philosophic contributors might be controversial. It wouldn’t be NPOV to include only the non-controversial ones. I left the “Key ideas” sections in as placeholders, although they currently are awkward.

I consolidated all the program information into a “Programs” section, and added the “Assistants Program”, without which Landmark Education probably would not exist. I consolidated all the “studies” into an “Assessments of Effectiveness” section. I did add a subsection on “Other opinions.” Initially, I was looking into whether the previous Post hoc section should be reinstated. In checking the source cited on the Skeptic’s Dictionary page, I found that Dr. Michael Langone did not say anything about post hoc in the referenced article. He did, however, say something else, which I quoted. The section is now reasonably NPOV, although all the studies need to be researched to see if they are accurately represented.

All the controversies in the current article have been reduced to straw man arguments and then knocked down. That is not, by any stretch of the imagination, NPOV. It’s probably best to take those topics one at a time.

Let me ask a question. Was there a reason for grouping all the lawsuits together? It seems to me it would be more logical and meaningful to include them in the sections they are relevant to, e.g., the Cynthia Kisser lawsuit should be included in the section “Is it a cult?”

I’d like to say that there’s no need to go into every detail of the controversies, which tends to try the reader’s patience. After the main substance has been presented, the article would be improved by agreeing to skip the nitpicking. Kat'n'Yarn 01:29, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I'd say this is mostly an improvement. The article was definitely too long and somewhat unstructured. I'm a bit busy at the moment, but I'll get back before the end of the week. In answer to your question "Was there a reason...", I think the answer is "Not really, it was just the way the sequence of inputs from different editors worked out." I agree that the Kisser section would make more sense in the "cult" heading.

I'd been thinking of archiving this talk page as it was clearly getting over-long, but my understanding is that it's usual to leave some recent material to provide a sense of continuity. But maybe a clean break is called for, and anyway people can look at the archive pages if they want background.

I'm one of those people who, when they see something that needs to be done, does it. Kat'n'Yarn 03:51, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree there's maybe an excess of links, but not to sure about your suggestion to reduce to five, as that seems a bit arbitrary. DaveApter 20:05, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Any number would be arbitrary. Do you have another suggestion? We still need to work out whether "favorable" or "unfavorable" gets higher billing. We could alternate them from month to month. Kat'n'Yarn 03:51, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Balance in current article

Having had another look at the article, what seems to me to be missing now is any sense of what the whole operation is about or why anyone would bother. It now seems to be disproportionately involved with disputes about the validity or otherwise of the operation. There also seems to be an excessively detailed account of the historical issues. DaveApter 20:22, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Personally, if I were writing the article from scratch, I'd prefer more of a general overview of who and what Landmark Education is rather than a list of courses. I don't look at anything as finalized, just on the way. The history is important, but that's not saying it can't be treated differently. Again, information from published sources should be primarily used. As I said above, I hope the controversy sections can be shortened. That wasn't something I could do just by cutting. It'll take some time to do research to treat them properly. I may begin with "Is it a cult?" which, it turns out, is quite easy to make NPOV. Wait and see.  :) I'm trying to get this into a generally improved ballpark, we can go back and do the fine-tuning. Kat'n'Yarn 03:51, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Given that the topic of this article generates quite so much controvesy and emotion, A section outlining possible reasons, sources or ways of understanding the controvesy might help explain the one of the impacts of Landmark. And help settle down some of the editing and edit turf wars going on? I dont have the expertise to even kick it off. Any takers? 203.217.88.50 11:54, 7 September 2006 (UTC) Craigster, 7 August 2006.

I think that would just get us off track, never to return. It's been going on for years on several discussion boards. There is one school of thought that the zealousness of Landmark supporters goes overboard and creates an "equal and opposite reaction." If all editors would just stick to Wikipedia's guidelines, we could get this done. Kat'n'Yarn 19:52, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

PERSONAL OPINION: I want to state so that anyone reading this is clear that this new talk page is almost irrevocable POV assault against this Landmark article and is spun to an unbelievable degree. The sheer scale of changes done in the last six weeks is staggering expecially given all the really hard work that was done by dozens and dozens of people over the last two years to reach a compromise on this very clearly polarizing topic. Even then some of us felt it still was strongly leaning to the negative POV but at least a consensus of sorts had been reached. This latest wave of changes has been a extremely clear attack on the NPOV of the article towards the negative. I haven't had the time to fight this wave of POV attacks so I was shocked, when I returned to the page, by the blatant disregard for consensus that Kat and Smeelgova have displayed.

Alex Jackl 15:53, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Cuts by User:Nsamuel

The "Other Programs", i.e., Assistant's Program and ILP were removed by User:Nsamuel as superfluous to reduce size of article. In all fairness, I don't agree that that information is superfluous or a necessary cut. I already cut the program information to the bone. I think further cuts should be made elsewhere. Kat'n'Yarn 04:51, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

User:Nsamuel also made three other cuts, all four labelled as minor, when only one was. I've reverted the article, keeping the one minor correction, pending discussion. Kat'n'Yarn 05:47, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Running battle on characterization of Rick Ross

I know this has been a running battle, but if other editors are going to refer to Rick Ross as a self-styled expert, it would be fair to refer to Landmark as a self-styled education company. While Rick Ross did choose the profession, he has gained expertise through long experience, and has been widely recognized as an expert.

BTW, this article has gotten 2K longer than it was when I first cut it's length. It needs to get shorter! Kat'n'Yarn 22:31, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

I get your point and would simply note that Landmark Education is not refered to in the article as a "recognized authority" on education. Perhaps a more neutral title can be given. In the past, terms like "recognized authority" have been shuned as they offer a point-of-view. Typically, titles which are a function of education or accredidation have been used as they are basically non-pov. Ross poses a problem in this area because he doesn't have typical education accredidations. Perhaps something like: "exepert witness on cults" is more appropiate in that it is incontrovertable and conveys a level of knowledge in this area. --Tealwarrior 01:29, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

"Self-styled" is also pov. There needs to be something to identify who he is. If you like "expert witness", so be it. Kat'n'Yarn 02:50, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

In it's disambiguation page, Wikipedia currently identifies Rick Ross as a Consultant, and that's a more neutral term, assuming no one sticks "self-styled" on it. I'll change it in the article. Kat'n'Yarn 02:05, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Rick Ross's expertise is not "undisputed". Many feel he has an anti-cult bias. Didn't he lose a lawsuit for kidnapping a new recruit from an alleged cult? --Uncle Ed 14:48, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Article still has problems

While I think the article has been improved, I think it is still missing something, and I believe a few changes would help its self-expression:

• In "Other opinions", there needs to be some mention of whether or not Landmark is an LGAT. It currently reads as a non sequitur.

That's more properly discussed on the talk page, if neceesary. It's analogous to discussing whether an orange is a citrus fruit. I don't know of any reason why everything needs to be controversial. Kat'n'Yarn 01:13, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Well Landmark education is listed not once but twice in the page on LGATs, so it must be one! But the article currently makes no sense unless the reader has prior knowledge. Instead of the list of other alleged LGATs, why not say "LGAT (a term which is often applied to Landmark and similar encounter groups)"? Ckerr 18:10, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't know if you're referring to the LGAT article (which also needs more work) or the Landmark Education article. In the latter, there is an explanation the first time the term is used, "... (LGATs) (a term which collectively refers to est, Lifespring, and similar encounter groups) ..." I also think the term is reasonably self-explanatory. Landmark has been referred to as a LGAT in published source(s). Are there any published sources which refute it? Kat'n'Yarn 03:45, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

The trouble with the LGAT debate is that it's basically vacuous because there's no clear definition of what an LGAT is. In the literal semantic sense, it applies by definition to any training session which takes place in groups of say 50 or more people and which is intended to "raise awareness". (Clearly Landmark courses are on this definition). But so what? The notion that there is any more than this in common between these various groups that have been so-described has never been established as far as I am aware. DaveApter 15:20, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I'd basically agree with your definition, which is the reason I don't understand the debate over whether Landmark is or is not a LGAT. If you want an example of an LGAT program, go look at a Landmark program, or any of the other est/Lifespring spinoffs. However, there are some scholarly articles on LGATs as a collective, which deal with what they have in common. I'm not going to go look them up right now, but I'd suggest a search on Google and Rick Ross. Kat'n'Yarn 17:13, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

• In "Is it a cult", I propose the following (minor) changes of wording:

On the other hand, some commentators argue that Landmark Education's programs are not harmful and that Landmark Education is not a cult or sect by either the strict or the pejorative definition of those terms. [Previous version implied that no critics of Landmark had actually attended it, which is untrue.] For example:

• Dr. Raymond Fowler, a retired CEO of the American Psychological Association, upon studying Landmark Education on his own behalf, said "I saw nothing in The Landmark Forum that I attended to suggest that it would be harmful to any participant." [2]

I'm working on a major revision of the "Is it a cult" section, based on research (which I'm still working on) into published resources. The Fowler letter, per se, is problematic, in that it isn't a published source. I'm looking for references to it in published articles. I don't see any reason to mention whether anyone's opinion is based on having attended a Landmark program, since the relevance of that is Landmark POV. Is Dr. Nedopil's opinion published? Kat'n'Yarn 01:13, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I think it may or may not be relevant. If someone has thoroughly and professionally researched Landmark, then their opinion will be valuable even if they have not done it; however, Landmark supporters argue that most of Landmark's critics are armchair proselytizers who have no idea what a Forum is like. It is hard to argue that someone does not know what the Forum is like if they've actually done it, and for this reason I think it's reasonable that, all else being equal, the opinion of someone with first-hand experience should carry more weight. Ckerr 18:10, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Both sides of that argument have been argued for years. Both sides are POV. If you're going to bring it up, you need to present both sides of the argument. In the interest of keeping the article of a reasonable length, I suggest that there is some nit-picking that doesn't need to be brought up. Opinion is opinion. If a reader wishes, they can further research it and make up their own minds as to which opinions are more valid. It's not our job to try to convince them. Attempting to characterize some opinions as more valid and some as less is POV, especially since there is also controversy as to what constitutes validity. Kat'n'Yarn 03:45, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

If you can come up with attributable opinions of notable sources who say that Landmark is a cult, and also what they actually mean by cult in that context, it will be a great service. There is plenty of vague and anonymous comment about it on various discussion forums etc, but little that is either specific or authoratitive. The so-called cult experts go to great lengths to avoid actually making an attributable statement. For example Cynthia Kisser was happy to publish leaflets describing the Forum as a "destructive cult" but was not prepared to either justify or retract the statement, and it took hours of cross-examination under oath for her to admit that she knew virtually nothing about it and to admit that she did not consider it to be a cult; Margaret Singer was not prepared to issue a clear statement until legal action was taken and then retracted rather than defended it; Rick Ross publishes anonymous defamatory comments on his website and defends them on the grounds of "free speech" and "privacy" rather than being accountable for the content. DaveApter 15:20, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I said this is easy to make NPOV. I'm aiming at beginning by saying it's a matter of continuing concern, cult-awareness groups have always had many inquiries on Landmark, but, essentially (quoting Cynthia Kisser) it's a matter of opinion, it can't be proven either way. There's very little expert opinion either way. CAN never had a public opinion on whether any group was a cult. Cynthia Kisser said, personally (not acting on behalf of CAN), she thought it might be. Rick Ross said it isn't, based on not having a dominant leader. Margaret Singer stated no opinion. Still researching it. (I don't agree with your assessment of Cynthia's Kisser's/Margaret Singer's/Rick Ross' activity and opinion, but I don't think we need to go into it.) I think the main point is that there's always been a lot of concern, but that the controversy remains unresolved. Kat'n'Yarn 17:13, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

As a point of information, many cult awareness groups do not decide which groups are and are not cults, as a matter of policy. Instead, they prefer to educate the public on unsafe practices to look out for in any group. Kat'n'Yarn 17:13, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

• Dr. Norbert Nedopil, a sect expert from the University of Munich, in a 2002 study [3] said that Landmark Education is definitely not a sect, nor sect-like in any way. In that study he reported that: "On the basis of empirical investigation, it can be said that to the largest extent, Landmark Education does not present risks to the health, free will and legal integrity of its participants. Nor, is there any evidence that the Landmark Forum is harmful." Dr. Nedopil stated that he could not discern any form of behavior which would put the Landmark Forum near a so called [psycho] sect. [4] [Removed "for example" and "and", which I felt gave undue authority--and besides, you shouldn't start an independent clause with "and".]

I have added the publication with the findings of Dr. Nedopil, who is a professor for forensic psychatry, to de:Landmark Education#Literatur. The study describes and compares Effects and risks of unconventional psycho and social techniques used by Scientology, Landmark and the treatment of drug addicts. A German, cult critical website lists the complete directory, as well as the 17-page abbreviated version of the study. As it appears, this summary version is available in English in the net. I suppose that the conclusions published by the japanese possibility lovers have been translated from a German webpage published by LME. --KaPe 11:36, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

• In "Landmark in France", does anyone know what has happened since 2002? Has MILS been without a director for 4 years?

who is w/o director?? --KaPe

The article mentions the France 3 television broadcast from 2004. The french magazine LePoint described, that a tv reporter participated with a hidden camera. They summarize, the broadcast would alarm and churn up. -(It did)

On its website, the MILS presents since June 2004 a two page description of Landmark. It mentions (translated): "Landmark Education declaired itself as Organisation for Professional Education in october 1997 (protocol of nullity for the declaration issued in februaray 2000 by the National Inspection Group because of non-observance of the applicable regulation)" and mentions, that LME offer 20 different activities for customers, with fees totaling roundabout 6.000 EUR. As essential characteristic of the methods used, they name as established:

• un vocabulaire spécifique favorisant l’adhésion exclusive à la « technologie » Landmark,
• un recours systématique à la confession publique et à la culpabilisation,
• des violences verbales et psychologiques,
• une forte incitation à recruter rapidement d’autres stagiaires.

(jargon use to favor exclusive adherence to the Landmark "technology"; public confession and incrimination; verbal and psychological violence; heavy incitation to rapidly recruit other participants). The operation in France is still down; no courses are offered. --KaPe 13:13, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

• In "Religious Implications", I strongly suggest that the plethora of links straight to the Landmark website be removed. There is a page containing links to all the individuals mentioned. I propose replacing the list with "A list of some clergy and religious professionals supportive of Landmark can be found here."

That section also needs drastic revision. Much has been left out. I've mentioned that according to Wikipedia guidlines, the Landmark website should be very sparingly used as a source. Kat'n'Yarn 01:13, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I noticed in a previous discussion you asked pro-Landmark people to do that, which they haven't yet...I think you've given them long enough. Ckerr 18:10, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Go to it. Kat'n'Yarn 03:45, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

• Under "Lawsuits initiated by Landmark":

• Cynthia Kisser's deposition is quoted in considerable detail. Do the five questions that follow the first one contribute any new information? I would say no, and I would delete five of the six lines (leaving "Q. Do you, Cynthia Kisser, say that ... the Landmark Forum is a cult? A. No."). If she said no to some questions and yes to others, that would be interesting (and alarming!), but giving the same answer to the same question six times is perhaps unnecessary.

What's been quoted from Cynthia Kisser is taken out of context and misrepresents Ms. Kisser's statements. Kat'n'Yarn 01:13, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

• If Margaret Singer never actually claimed Landmark was a cult, how can she issue a retraction? Perhaps "clarification" or just "statement" would be a better word here.

Neither CAN, Cynthia Kisser (acting as CAN's Executive Director), or Margaret Singer ever said whether Landmark was or was not a cult. Only quoting part of those opinions is misleading and POV. Kat'n'Yarn 01:13, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. This entire section, to me, reads very strongly pro-Landmark POV, as I've said in a few previous discussions. I think it needs a complete rewrite. Ckerr 18:10, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

• In "Registration pressure", it sounds like Jill P. Capuzzo is the only person who has experienced registration pressure--the article clearly states that other participants didn't. I propose inserting the sentence "Landmark has been criticised by some for using excessive persuasion to encourage participants to sign up for additional programs. For example, in 1996... (etc.)". This will then make the opening to the second paragraph ("Other participants have had different impressions") not make it sound like everyone but Jill is fine with the way Landmark does things.

I would propose that the area of bringing guests/registration pressure is the most widespread criticism of Landmark. While there are a few dissenting opinions, there's a question as to whether there even exists anything of a meaningful controvery on this matter. Kat'n'Yarn 01:13, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

No one seems to dispute that there is a strong push for participants to sign up for additional programs; the question is just whether it is offensive or not. Supporters usually explain it by saying that it's how they do business, since they don't do advertising, and see it as a necessary evil (or, in the most extreme case, "they explained what other possibilities are available to us!"). So I think there is genuine controversy over whether or not they're doing anything improper, but perhaps the article should not make it sound like opinion is evenly divided. Ckerr 18:10, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

But how many people say "we love it that way, we wouldn't change a thing, enrollment is not out of proportion"? There's even an internal reformation effort going on focusing on reducing enrollment. Kat'n'Yarn 03:45, 3 September 2006 (UTC) Correction/clarification: reducing the emphasis on enrollment, not reducing the number of enrollments. Kat'n'Yarn 17:13, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

The point is that some people sometimes complain about feeling pressurised, and some people don't have that experience. The fact that there are plenty of repeat customers would suggest that most regard it as at most a minor irritation. Trying to estmate a portion going one way or the other would be original research. DaveApter 15:20, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

It should be based on published articles. However, there also is such a thing as consensus reality. Kat'n'Yarn 17:13, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I intend to make these changes after suitable time for discussion. Happy editing. Ckerr 13:45, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

This article is a mess as it stands now

It may have been longer than ideal a few weeks ago, but it was reasonably informative and reasonably balanced. The recent extensive cuts have been disproportionately of material about the principles and methodology of Landmark's courses, whilst leaving substantially unscathed reports of various critical opinions (and even adding material which puts a positive spin on them).

A more appropriate title for the present incarnation would be "Disputes and arguments about Landmark Education". A rough analysis of the content at present is:

40% Criticisms and Controversies

30% links and related topics (many of them pretty tenuous)

20% Studies

4% Origin and evolution

3% Summary of objectives and claimed results

2% List of course titles (uninformative)

1% Corporate structure

User Kat'n'Yarn made an admirable call for the principles which should underlie the edits to this article (opening paragraph on this page), but it is not at all clear to me that recent changes have improved its balance or its neutrality; nor making it any more of a "well-written, well-organized, clear and concise encyclopedic article".

I'm inclined to think that deleting the article completely and starting from scratch would be the best way to go, but I'll have a try at addressing some of the major shortcomings .

All of us have points of view, and a good start to being able to contribute to a collaborative venture which is consistent with Wikipedia's NPOV policy is to make a clear and straight declaration of where we stand ourselves. My position is that I did the Landmark Forum about four years ago, and have done several other courses since. I found them all challenging, beneficial and good value for money, and my impression is that somewhere between 90% and 98% of the other participants did so too. I'm not doing any Landmark courses at the moment and I've never worked for them. I think the organisation itself has its shortcomings and its peculiarities, as does any enterprise created by human beings, but none of them seem to be to be catastrophic. My committment to this article is the one articulated by Kat'n'Yarn: that it be a "well-written, well-organized, clear and concise encyclopedic article". Though no doubt our opinions on what that would look like are entirely different.

The rest of you who have written on this talk page presumably have strong views on this subject? I invite you to declare what they are, as well as what is your experience and knowledge of Landmark Education. DaveApter 14:17, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

DaveApter's "Call to Share"

Not to be rude, but my personal life and feelings are no one's business. I will say, however, that I'm an experienced researcher, and that is the approach I'd like to bring to this article. It's entirely possible for one to "have" a point of view and to be able to separate themselves from it, which is what this article needs.

Relax! I didn't ask about either your personal life or your feelings. I invited you to declare your opinion and your experience of Landmark Education. I agree that it's possible to separate oneself from one's point of view. However it's not at all easy because, by definition each of us sees the world from our own point of view, so this tends to occur to us as "just the way things are". Declaring our point of view can empower us in being objective. You plainly do have strong views on Landmark and Werner Erhard, or you wouldn't have suddenly appeared here and made over a hundred edits, pretty well exclusively on topics related to them. DaveApter 16:05, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

My opinion and experience of Landmark Education are about my personal life and feeings. You're welcome to do things your way, but, as an experienced factual researcher, I'm just fine at being objective and separating myself from my point of view, no sharing required. It's what I do. I hadn't originally planned on the editing I've been doing, in fact avoiding this article like the plague seemed like a good idea. But then I realized how far off-base it had gotten. As I said, when something needs to be done .... Kat'n'Yarn 05:33, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I have no doubt that you sincerely believe that. DaveApter 17:11, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

That was uncalled for. Let's stick to talking about the article, okay? Kat'n'Yarn 04:14, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

My apologies. I had no intention of causing offence. DaveApter 15:44, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I concur that the article still needs an enormous amount of work. Roll up your sleeves and take on a section. Kat'n'Yarn 17:26, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Balance of the Article

As I indicated above, about 40% of the article is about controversies and lawsuits. This is way out of proportion. More appropriate would be a brief summary of the areas of dispute, who holds the various views and why, and references where more can be found out.

Controversies and complaints are minuscule in proportion to the hundreds of thousands who participate in Landmark programs and are highly satisfied. I would suggest that the entire section be deleted and replaced with a brief summary, and we then discuss on this page to reach a consensus of what to re-introduce.

Some more meaningful information about what is in the courses and the underlying philosophy would be useful. I'm working on that.

For today I've just done a few bits of minor cleaning up:

Summary

I removed 'for profit' as it's both redundant and misleading. I removed '- among those who have taken the courses, outside observers, the press, and experts.' as this is almost devoid of information, and only serves to talk up the extent of the controversey

Structure

The list of corporate officers duplicates entries already given elsewhere in the article.

Assessments

I moved out of the "commisioned by LE" section the Marsall Business School and the ISPI study. If anyone has sources that indicate that LE did commission these, feel free to re-categorise them and add the citations.

Programs

I removed the paragraph about not publishing peer-reviewed work or requiring teaching experience, as these are absenses not facts. It was also POV as it implies that this is other than would be expected, whereas both are the norm for adult self-improvement education. DaveApter 15:41, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

• Landmark Education is, simply put, a for-profit corporation. To state this is simply stating a fact.

As I say, it is both redundant (unless specifically stated otherwise, corporations are assumed to be 'for profit') and misleading. There is a deliberate confusion between the usage of 'for profit' as a technical legal/accounting classification, and its implied everyday usage to indicate intention and practice. The emphasis of it here and in other critical articles gives a misleading impression that (a) the purpose of LE is to make profits, and/or (b) that shareholders do in fact draw profits from the company. As you know, neither of these is the case. DaveApter 16:49, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

The text reads Landmark Education LLC (LE) is an international for-profit corporation any inherent meaning associated with this statement other than the fact that it is an international for-profit corporation, would have to be the reader's personal POV.Smeelgova 21:19, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

• Any organization that is incorporated is a corporation. This includes many not-for-profit organizations. Clarification is needed. Kat'n'Yarn 05:45, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

• I agree RE: your I removed '- among those who have taken the courses, outside observers, the press, and experts.' commentary.
• The list of corporate officers is provided as a summary tabular format, so that the reader may more easily research information about these individuals. Not all of the officers are mentinoned in other locations of the article, and even so, it is appropriate information for the Structure and financials section, which could be expanded as well.

The article is too long and needs to be reduced rather than expanded. It's not normal practice to have long lists of directors in articles about corporations, and most of these individuals have little public prominence. The content of the articles about them is for the most part poor quality anyway, sourced principally from Pressman's book which is a dubious collection of unattributable gossip and rumour. DaveApter 16:49, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

• The continual disregard of Wikipedia's guideline on Reliable sources is becoming very tedious. "Wikipedia articles should use reliable published sources." This is an extremely important tenet to Wikipedia. Your opinion of a reliable published source is irrelevant. Kat'n'Yarn 06:02, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

It is not a question of my opinion about a reliable source, but a question of whether the book qualifies as one. Wikipedia's guidelines state:

A primary source is a document or person providing direct evidence of a certain state of affairs; in other words, a source very close to the situation you are writing about. The term most often refers to a document produced by a participant in an event or an observer of that event. It could be an official report, an original letter, a media account by a journalist who actually observed the event, or an autobiography

Pressman's book is none of the above; neither is it a secondary source since it does not cite any identifiable primary sources. It is an abuse of Wikipedia to present quotes from there as if they were "facts". DaveApter 14:20, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

You're going to be difficult, aren't you? Pressman's book is obviously not a primary source, so let's not waste effort debating that. However, it is obviously a secondary source, which is defined by Wikipedia: "A secondary source summarizes one or more primary or secondary sources." I'd have to go find which pile my copy is in to check it out, but I'm sure it uses primary and/or secondary sources. Wikipedia prefers the use of secondary sources. I think the main point made about published material is that, generally speaking, pubishers exercise editorial oversight and fact-checking. While not infallible, generally speaking, a published work has to have met certain standards. If you have evidence and want to debate specific citations from this book, I'd be open to that. However, there is absolutely no unbiased ground for discounting the entire book. Kat'n'Yarn 20:23, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Please don't accuse other editors of bad faith.

My point about Pressman’s book is that it doesn’t count as a secondary source because he doesn’t cite his own sources. There is no bibliography or set of footnotes or references back to identifiable primary sources to enable researchers to trace and verify the claims. If it’s being quoted as an exemplar of opinion or hearsay, that’s fine, but as a justification for the assertion of alleged facts, it doesn’t meet wikipedia’s criteria for being a reliable source DaveApter 13:58, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I went to a lot of trouble to dig up my copy of Outrageous Betrayal and thumbed through it. While the author didn't use an academic format, many sources are mentioned. Furthermore, I saw much material which I recognize as being available from other published sources, from court documents, by interviewing many people who were intimate with est and Landmark. In other words, while it would take time, the information in the book is verifiable from other sources. This writing style is commonplace in biographies. There are even biographies of George Washington which are similar, and no one challenges whether they qualify as secondary sources. Regarding this and many of your statements and objections, I'd appreciate it if you wouldn't waste our time making inaccurate, unfounded, and frivolous statements and objections. BTW, the Wikipedia guidline is not something to hide behind while you're operating out of bad faith. Kat'n'Yarn 22:19, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Please don't accuse others of bad faith, or characterise serious attempts to further the discussion as "inaccurate, unfounded, and frivolous". You might take your own advice about "hiding behind wikipedia guidelines". Readers can draw their own conclusions about the double standards you employ. You seem to have a remarkably relaxed attitude to the WP:RS policy that "Partisan, religious and extremist websites should be treated with caution" - Many of the references added by yourself and smeelgova are from Rick Ross's websites, which are clearly partisan and extremist by any standards.

The guideline is not "don't accuse others of bad faith." The guidline is "assume good faith", which I did, until it became blatantly obvious that my assumption was false. I've added very few references to this article, don't remember if any of them came from Rick Ross' website. It's your bias that thinks he's extremist. He has an excellent archive of published articles, although it's really irrelevant that they're archived there. The fact that they're published is what's important. It just makes it convenient to web users if they can find them online. Kat'n'Yarn 04:34, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

You're right, I did use the legal documents regarding the Kisser case as references for information about the Kisser case. I was referencing what was there, not where it was. Do you know of anywhere else they're posted online? Kat'n'Yarn 05:00, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

And btw, what are your grounds for removing the Marshall business study and the ispi award as "improperly sourced"? The former is a published document from a front-rank university, and the latter is published by a reputable international association with over 10,000 corporate members from all sectors of industrial life. DaveApter 18:36, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Ain't got proper citations. I was just demonstrating that I'm serious about not allowing double standards of removing the material you don't like for any excuse you can find, while leaving what you do like no matter how substandard it is. I think it's best to leave all of it the way it was until we can make meaningful revisions. Kat'n'Yarn 04:34, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

• It is a given fact that Landmark Education does not require its employees/leaders to have any sort of credentialing/accreditation (accept for participation in all of Landmark's programs).Smeelgova 16:02, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Sure it's a fact, but not a noteworthy one. It's the norm rather than the exception that adult personal improvement organisiations train their presenters internally. Stating it implies a spurious significance. And incidentally you are mistaken if you are under the impression that "participation in all of Landmark's programs" qualifies one as a program leader. The program leader training is extremely rigorous, and leaders have to pass very demanding performance evaluations before being appointed. DaveApter 16:49, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I will agree to disagree with you on this above point, and leave this section out in order to try and trim down the size of the article.Smeelgova 21:19, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

• This is a notable fact, in that Landmark Education is different from traditional education, where teachers have not only preparatory education, but also licensing and independent oversight. There are members of Landmark's faculty who don't even have college degrees. This article needs much more than a few minor cuts. It's extremely inaccurate, unsourced, and POV. It needs to be rewritten. Kat'n'Yarn 06:09, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

If by "traditional education" you mean school teachers and college lecturers, of course that is the case. If you mean privately owned training organisations, it is simply not true: the norm is for the presenters to be trained internally and rarely do they have school or college teaching qualifications, and Landmark is simply in line with normal industry practice in that regard. DaveApter 14:20, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I think most people mean school teachers and college lecturers by "traditional education." I think we concur that there is a difference between traditional education and Landmark and other experiential "educational" organizations. The point is, you can't expect the average enclcopedia reader to know the difference, and, as long as Landmark uses the word "Education" prominently, the article needs to make it clear that Landmark does not define "education" the same way it is traditionally defined. Kat'n'Yarn 20:31, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Landmark Education's Corporate Website as a Source

• Landmark Education's corporate website does not constitute as a neutral source of NPOV information, as it comes directly from the company's POV.
• At present, at least 8 citations from the reference section use the Landmark Education Corporate Website as a source.
• These citations and accompanying sourced material should either be removed from the article, or a notation should be appended to the material alerting the reader that the source is from a Landmark Education Corporate Website.Smeelgova 16:02, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Most of them are reprints of material published elsewhere from notable sources. I agree that it would be preferable to locate the originals where possible. DaveApter 16:55, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I was going to leave the studies section alone for the time being, while we work on the sections which are worse, but, before adding additional studies to this section, all the studies need to be checked to see if they have been published and are available in their own right. Landmark's interpretation of them on its own website is not a reliable source. Kat'n'Yarn 06:35, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't think you understand what NPOV is: NPOV is characterizing positions and who has them. Landmark Education's web site is Landmark Education's point of view. The purpose of an encyclopedia is to state all of the significant points of view. Sm1969 07:55, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

NO, NPOV is having a NEUTRAL point of view. See WP:NPOV. This encyclopedia could not possibly state all significant points of view about Landmark without dedicating an entire server to Landmark. An encyclopedia article is not a discussion group. Kat'n'Yarn 08:15, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Neutral point of view simply means that you A) cite the significant points of view and B) who the supporters are and C) how they substantiate them. Wikipedia recognizes (from the NPOV page) three levels of significance: majority opinion, minority opinion and insignificant (need not be included). You can indeed state all of the significant points of view about the various FACETS of Landmark Education. Landmark Education says X and they use facts F1, F2 and F3 to support it. Opposing opinions say Y, and they use facts F4, F5, F6 to support their position. Encyclopedia writing is fairly boring and unemotional. There is no such thing as a single "neutral point of view" but rather X and F1, F2, and F3 and Y and F4, F5 and F6. We don't try to blend X and Y to come up with *A* "neutral" point of view, but rather cite the opinions and who holds them and how they justify them. There are several areas that fit (or could fit) this model quite well, and I've been working on this article on and off for probably close to two years now. For example:

Area-1: Results (LE cites the studies and customer testimonials; opposing points of view cite no empircal research) Area-2: Lawsuits (LE cites the three in the US against them); opposing parties cites their points of view; we shold also add the court's point of view where it exists Area-3: cult (LE cites the libel cases; opposing parties cite their points of view); here, we typically try to define the term "cult" so that we can test and contest the asserted facts.

The key point is that you don't represent any side as the truth. That's a judgement for the reader.

That actually is not an overview or definition of "Neutral point of view", it deals with how to treat different points of view. The point I'm trying to make is that we don't have to have diarrhea of the mouth about absolutely everything. If you're going to present something controversial, then, yes, you do have to present all points of view about it, fairly. However, there is absolutely no reason we have to argue over absolutely every little detail in the article. That's just argumentative. Would that really make an interesting encyclopedia article? We also have the option of just leaving out some of the debate, as long as we leave all points of view out equally. Kat'n'Yarn 20:41, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Please make your point without resorting to scatalogical metaphors - some people find them offensive. DaveApter 15:31, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

• • I'm going to take the position, which is entirely in accord with Wikipedia's guidelines, that Landmark's website can be used as a source for basic information about who/what Landmark is and what it does, if that information is not available from published sources. However, unpublished material on Landmark's website should not be used in areas of controversy. Kat'n'Yarn 01:09, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

It's convenient to be able to check out the content of various sources online. In many cases items have been published offline (or had been online previously and no longer are), and these are re-printed on Landmark's own site. I can't see why you should be trying to impose a blanket ban on such references. And I can't help noticing you don't suggest applying the same policy even-handedly. Almost all of the negative references in the article point not to original publications, but to reprints on extreme POV sites such as Rick Ross, Apologetics, Rants&Raves etc! DaveApter 15:31, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I want to second this- There is a VERY inconsistent approach to what "published" means. Wikipedia does in NO way say that you have to remove an organization's own links in an article ABOUT the organization. It says "USE CAUTION". If we are applying as stringent a rule as has been suggested we need to basically delete all Rick Ross site material. But that wouldn't make sense either. Published material includes material published on Websites. Therefore material cross-posted to Landmark's web site is valid material- and needs to be looked at crtiically because it is on a POV site, by definition. Ditto with the Rick Ross stuff. Alex Jackl 15:43, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy on the issue

From Wikipedia:Reliable sources :

Company and organization websites

Caution should be used when using company or organization websites as sources. Although the company or organization is a good source of information on itself, it has an obvious bias. The American Association of Widget Manufacturers is interested in promoting widgets, so be careful not to rely on it exclusively if other reliable sources are available, in order to maintain a neutral point of view. Exercise particular care when using such a website as a source if the company or organization is a controversial one.

• I agree RE: above comment: unpublished material on Landmark's website should not be used in areas of controversy., and it seems that the above Wikipedia:Reliable sources Wikipedia Policy is in-line with this line of thinking as well.
• At present, 10 citations from the reference section use the Landmark Education Corporate Website as a source. Smeelgova 20:32, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Are these references NPOV

I was reading this article (a friend of mine wants me to do the Landmark Forum) and I noted that; this artical Outrageous_Betrayal and this artical Steven_Pressman have been completely written by User:Smeelgova. Both Articles look like advertising (and if anyone can tell me how to mark the pages as such I would love to know) Mark1800 07:16, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

• Search is my friend, I figured out how to do it. Mark1800 07:23, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

In accordance with Wikipedia's policy, please do not engage in personal attacks. Both these articles are comparable to other similar Wikipedia articles, and are NPOV. (There's a difference between NPOV and not agreeing with your own personal POV.) They aren't advertisements just because you say they are. I removed your tags. Please discuss specifics if there's something you think isn't neutral. Kat'n'Yarn 08:02, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Didn't mean it to be a personal attack (have changed heading), I just noticed they look like adverts. I have noted on the pages my opinion and request we take this discussion there Mark1800 08:07, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

• I must also state that I resent these personal attacks from user Mark1800 as well. I am most certainly not Steven Pressman. I have taken care to accurately cite multiple sources in sourced, blockquoted referenced citation format when citing sources, in order to make sure I am not adding my own POV to articles, but simply information from reliable sources.Smeelgova 12:56, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

• As to the substance of Mark's comments, I agree that Outrageous Betrayal looked like an advertisement. Mostly that seemed to be due to a quotation at the end of the introduction which sounded like a short bit of promotional copy from the dust jacket. Its selection and placement made it look like Wikipedia was trying to drum up sales for the book. I removed it and the remainder of the article seems relatively neutral, except perhaps for the use of the term "muckraking". -- Beland 22:08, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Bias

I'm losing my patience on this. This article fails badly to present controversy fairly, and, instead of improving, it keeps getting worse. Using characterizations to downplay, dismiss, or discount controversial aspects is not, by any stretch of the imagination, fairly representing them. If you want to do that in your own lives, fine, but that is not allowed on Wikipedia. Kat'n'Yarn 10:54, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

• What would you recomend?
  • I was hoping to see a good faith effort made to rewrite the article in accordance with Wikipedia's guidelines, especially researching and citing published sources, and being much more neutral. However, all that's happened is that about 6K of biased in Landmark's favor and completely unsourced information has been added to the article. I'm doing the research necessary to rewrite the "Is it a cult?" section. Is anyone else doing anything constructive along the lines of doing what needs to be done? I suppose I could issue a warning. I'm entirely within my rights as an editor to just remove everything that's not NPOV and that's not properly sourced. There wouldn't be much left. I have absolutely no intention of spending my life on this. We're going to get the job done one way or another. Kat'n'Yarn 20:59, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
    • I suspect one of the issues you are going to have is just how much space do you devote to each section. You will get accussed of bias even on that.
    • BTW: IMHO. The section labled Courses offered by Landmark is 14 lines of valuable real-estate that is easily available on the Landmark website. That section you could cut to just say 'Here is a list of courses offered by landmark' or just mention the Landmark Forum. I mean you don't see a complete list of every product sold by a company on a normal company wiki entry. Mark1800 22:05, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
      • I actually agree with user Mark1800's above statement on this point. I have shortened the "Courses" section as recommended above, with a link to Landmark Education's Corporate Website. Where possible, if information seems to read like a direct advertisement straight from Landmark's Corporate Website, it may be advisable to simply make a brief notation and refer the user in that direction.Smeelgova 22:15, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
• You could just have this page be a facts and figures page and link it to a controvery page. That would reduce the page length.
  • I thought about something like that, just have a very short summary of the controversial items in the main article, and have a separate article to go into more depth. However, Wikipedia frowns on that as "forking". The main article would be improved, but there would be another article made up entirely of controversy, which wouldn't be good. Kat'n'Yarn 20:59, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
• It appears to me most of the controvery is in

1. History, each person has thier own version of what is important.
2. What it does and how it does it, again each person has thier own version.
3. Does it work or is it a rip-off, again each person's experience is different.

• The bit I'm unclear about is why this raises such strong emotions in people.
  • Take the question over to alt.fan.landmark. This isn't the place for it. Kat'n'Yarn 20:59, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Ugg, I went there, I'm not going back. There is some nasty stuff over there. I think I might go back to Military history, at least we only argue about millions of people dieing, not actively trying to murder each other (virtually speaking). LOLMark1800 22:05, 14 September 2006 (UTC)Mark1800 22:30, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
      • Well, then, you certainly wouldn't want to turn this article talk page into the same thing.  :) Kat'n'Yarn 01:14, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

It’s a fair question and deserved better than a flippant response.

Except for the fact that Wikipedia's guidline recommends that we discuss the article, not express opinions about the subject of the article. We spend an awful lot of time discussing subjects which would be unnecessary if more editors followed Wikipedia's guidelines. Kat'n'Yarn 03:37, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

• On the supporters’ side, they are sometimes passionate because they got valuable results themselves out of doing Landmark courses and they would like others to have them too. In some cases they believe that the world has the potential to work better than it does at the moment, and that what is available in the courses has the potential to really make a difference.

• Some of the detractors no doubt sincerely feel that Landmark is harmful in some way or another, and assume for themselves the role of saving people from what they regard as a danger. DaveApter 13:47, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Bias, Bias, Bias, Bias Bias! Kat'n'Yarn 03:37, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I was actually quite fine with Kat'n'Yarn's response. It injected just the right amount of humour. I'm clearer now having gone to alt.fan.landmark that my point 3. above is a primary driver for most of the arguments. Mark1800 06:31, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Is this Advertising

After clearly annoying people with my edits, I thought before I did anything big, I'd ask

• Does this section Landmark_Education#University_of_Southern_California contain advertising.
  • It has a contact number and a cost.
    • Mark? (Please sign in and sign your posts with four tildes). You're right. It should have a standard bibliographic reference, which it's lacking, but not ordering information. I'll let you fix it; I'm starting to feel like a maid.  :) Something which may explain the controversy about Landmark to you. If you're experienced in military history, you're familiar with partisan military accounts which exaggerate the victories and minimize the defeats. Generally speaking, they can't hold a candle to what Landmark advocates do. It takes a huge battle to try to get to something accurate, balanced, and neutral. Kat'n'Yarn 20:41, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Opps Sorry I thought I did Mark1800 01:05, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
    • This is bizarre! You complain about the direct link being to a re-print on Landmark's corporate site, and yet when a note has been provided about where the original can be obtained, you remove it on the grounds that it’s advertising! DaveApter 13:40, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
      • Dave, Dave Dave! You're combining several editors into one, and whatever you think is bizarre isn't clear, but there's nothing bizarre about this. What is needed is a standard bibliographical reference, not ordering information, not Landmark's interpretation. Standard bibliographical references usually include: authors name(s), title of study, title of larger work if it's published as part of something else, name of publisher, date of publication, page number(s) if you're referring to less than the whole. Please read Wikipedia's policies on Reliable sources and Citing sources. Kat'n'Yarn 02:45, 20 September 2006 (UTC) And whoever included the information on this study in the article should have actually read the study, and taken what was included in the article from the study, not from what Landmark said about it. Kat'n'Yarn 03:11, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
      • Kat'n'Yarn and DaveApter, I changed the reference from how is was to how it is now based on a number of points.
    1. I don't have access to the primary source & could not find it anywhere on the Internet (Landmark also seems to be the only secondary source) so I could not quote chapter & verse. I could only point to a secondary source.
    2. Someone included it here and it looks like it might have been a valid study, so deleting it might not be a good idea
    3. If I gave a link to the Landmark site, at the very least someone would go, "hey this looks like advertising, I better either read what's here with a grain of salt or order the report and find out what it says"
    4. I could not find who commissioned the study, so moving it to "Landmark commisioned studies" may have been wrong
    5. Generally it was an attempt at reducing page legth while providing the reader the ability to find out how to source the original document, without the advertising being from here.
    • • Mark1800 06:50, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
    • In order to stay in the article in the long run, the entry has to have an acceptable citation. I would have fixed it myself, but there isn't even a full reference on Landmark's website. It doesn't have to be available on the web. There was a time when people used libraries.  :) Landmark's website is not a secondary source. Secondary sources are published. Kat'n'Yarn 03:47, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
  • LOL The Forum, The new Battlefield. I was thinking about this. In Military History we often get conflicting reports, popular misconseptions and outright lies. As you can imagine this creates for interesting discussion. My experience is often the best course to ambiguity is to point out the facts, and leave the reader to fill in the gaps. I'll give some examples. In the late 1300's there is a record of a battle. We have the records of the number of knights on side one being being around 400. We also have records from side two saying they killed over 1000 knights. How is this so. We may never know. (trust me some of the theories are interesting) What we do is we record what side one said was there and what side two said they killed. Often in these cases the only source documents are what each side said, so it is often difficult to cross-reference. There is a great quote History is written by the victors. What I'm trying to say is that is the case of this wiki entry, you may have to use Landmark's information as your source document and wait until other evidence turns up. Me personally I'm interested in stamping out advert's Mark1800 01:25, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
    • In the case of Landmark, there is other evidence. There are also people who don't like and ignore it. Kat'n'Yarn 03:45, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

• • • Yep we do that is military history too :-) The trick is to get the facts out and let the reader make up thier mind. The hardest part as an editor is which facts to include and which facts to exclude. Mark1800 06:50, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Should Landmark Education Business Development (LEBD) have it's own wiki page

I noticed in my reading of the site and modification to the above discussed section that several of the studies and some of the information refers to LEBD, not Landmark Education. I'm also left with the impression (no facts found yet) that LEBD runs a course based on the Forum technology, but it is not the same as what Landmark Education (LE) runs. I also note that LEBD is a subsidury company, with it's own directors, etc. Given some of the information on this page is for LEBD and not LE, would it reduce the page length, to pull out the studies and information about LEBD and place them on a seperate page Mark1800 01:56, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Controversies section

I’ve taken you at your word and removed the entire Controversies section, except for the summary at the beginning, which presumably we can agree on(?).

I don't know who you took at their word, but if you're going to remove the entire Controversies section, as if there is no controversy, then you also, in the interest of being NPOV, need to remove all favorable information which is not sourced or not properly sourced. Applying a double standard couldn't be more POV. It might be more helpful if you'd do something contructive, like rewriting a section to be NPOV and properly sourced, rather than just criticizing and editorializing. I'd also remind you again that the article needs to be based on published sources, not on "what you know" and on your opinions. Kat'n'Yarn 03:23, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, I'm sorry if the two pages of discussion here don't count in your book as doing something constructive (or the section above This article is a mess, the substance of which no-one has disputed. You were complaining that the entire controversies section violated the NPOV guidelines. I agree. I've explained why in some detail in this section. I haven't "deleted the entire section as though there were no controversy" - I reduced it to a stub summarising the disputes that exist. Do you agree that that's a fair summary or not? If not, please suggest an alternative formulation. Deleting the complete article as a whole back to a stub, and then building up consensus here about how to re-construct it, is definitely an option worth considering. Please don't give high-handed lectures on partiality without taking a look at the asymmetry with which you apply the policies in your own edits (and maybe getting some independent feedback from someone impartial).

I am committed to having this article be a work of quality, fully in accordance with wikipedia guidelines. You say that's what you want too. Let's work together on that, and let's both try to avoid verbal sparring and point-scoring. How about starting by going through this section and saying what you agree with and what you disagree with, and why? I don't see why we can't reach consensus about what shoud be re-inserted within a few days. DaveApter 08:52, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Please, let us first discuss this section on the talk page before deleting the entire section en masse. The controversies and lawsuits sections were in place without dispute on the Landmark Education article long before you took note to being editing the article, and there are numerous reputable citations within the subsections, both cited and in blockquote citation format. If you have issue with a particular part of the section, then discuss it. But if you have issue with your interpreted POV of the section, please do not simply delete the entire section, but first engage in discussion of said referenced sources on the talk page. Smeelgova 16:13, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

So why don't you engage in the detailed discussion in this section? I don't really know what to add to what I have already said here. I note that you didn't complain when kat'n'yarn made a wholesale deletion of about a third of the article without getting consensus here. That resulted in a ridiculously unbalanced page, as I explained in detail above, and no-one has contested. The section misrepresents opinions as facts, fails to identify or quantify the populations who hold those opinions, and gives undue weight to minority or extreme minority views.

btw, didn't your last revert breach the '3 revert rule'? DaveApter 16:55, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

• As I see it, this section of the article at present has 20 referenced citations, mostly from reputable sources. (Though some were still from Landmark Education's Corporate website, which really doesn't comply with Wikipedia:Reliable sources to the extent that these sources are being used 10 times throughout the article as a whole). I will try to find time soon to go through and analyze each referenced citation. As to the '3 revert rule', no, the last revert did not breach it, for I had restored user Mark1800's edit, not yours. Therefore, this would really have been my second restoration of the material in question. Smeelgova 20:44, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I suggest that we work towards a consensus on this page on what should go back in, how it should be expressed, and what citations are acceptable in support. Here is a start to the discussion:

General

The section as a whole is about varied opinions which are held by different groups of people, rather than about matters of material fact which can satisfactorily be substantiated (matters of fact, if they belong in the article at all, would belong in some other section). The relevant wikipedia guideline from WP:NPOV is:

Assert facts, including facts about opinions — but don't assert opinions themselves….Where we might want to state an opinion,…we "convert" that opinion into fact by attributing it to someone. It's important to note this formulation is substantially different from the "some people believe..." formulation popular in political debates. The reference requires an identifiable and objectively quantifiable population or, better still, a name.

But it's not enough, to express the Wikipedia non-bias policy, just to say that we should state facts and not opinions. When asserting a fact about an opinion, it is important also to assert facts about competing opinions, and to do so without implying that any one of the opinions is correct. It's also generally important to give the facts about the reasons behind the views, and to make it clear who holds them. It's often best to cite a prominent representative of the view.

We should not attempt to represent a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserved as much attention as a majority view, and views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views. To give undue weight to a significant-minority view, or to include a tiny-minority view, might be misleading as to the shape of the dispute. Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation among experts on the subject, or among the concerned parties.

The "populations"are as follows:

a) Satisfied Landmark customers

b) Dissatisfied Landmark customers

c) Non-customers impressed by Landmark

d) Non-customers critical of Landmark

e) Persons presenting themselves as "authorities on Cults and similar groups"

Objectively quantifying these is a challenge, especially groups (c) and (d). Group (e) is a small subset of group (d). The following reservations should be borne in mind with respect to group (e):

1. They are essentially self-appointed, and there is no accreditation process for such practitioners
2. They have a vested interest in stirring up alarm and concern about unconventional groups
3. They have a vested interest in not owning up to errors of fact or interpretation in their pronouncements
4. They have no first-hand observation of Landmark’s programs
5. They base their conclusions substantially on opinions solicited from groups (b) and (d) above – clearly an unscientific procedure and one suffering systematically from selection bias
6. For the above reasons, they are not reliable sources of WP:NPOV data.

The sizes of populations (a) and (b) can be estimated as follows: total number of Landmark customers: 800,000 (LE figures); Proportion rating the course good or excellent in at least one respect :95%. Of the remaining 5% rating the course fair or poor, only a small proportion would be actively hostile, say 1%. This would indicate roughly 760,000 in group (a) and maybe up to 8,000 in group (b). I appreciate that detractors will object to using the DYG survey on the grounds that it was commissioned by LE, and reported by them. On the other hand, it was carried out by a reputable and highly respected researcher. Does anyone know of any scientifically sound studies indicating any alternative estimates, or have other suggestions on arriving at them?

I question your numbers here, having come as you say from Landmark itself. (The fact that DYG is reputable is almost irrelevant--tobacco companies used to hire reputable firms which showed that smoking didn't cause lung cancer.) If you excuse my appeal to original research (I'm not suggesting this should go in the article!), of the people I talked to who did the same Forum as me, about 15-30% had strong criticisms of it--criticisms of the sort which are discussed in the article. Besides, I think you have a false dichotomy here: for example, I would consider myself a "satisfied" customer, yet I don't think the phrase "actively hostile" misrepresents my view of Landmark. Ckerr 15:16, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Dave says a lot of things that aren't relevant unless he knows of published sources which say the same thing. No point in debating irrelevant comments.  :) Kat'n'Yarn 05:48, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Kat'n'yarn's opinons of the relevancy of my comments aside, the identifying of the populations holding various viewpoints, and giving due weight to the reporting of those viewpoints is a requirement of the WP:NPOV policy. DaveApter 11:16, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

It isn't possible to identify numbers, there haven't been any studies done. Are there any areas of criticism/controversy where there is objective evidence that the criticism/controversy is not significantly held? If would be much easier to focus on those than to try to speculate about everything. Considering that the article doesn't even yet have an accurate representation of most of the controversial areas, it may be premature to do the niggling now. Just the fact that these same controversies have a long-standing pattern and won't go away should provide evidence that they're significant enough to be fairly represented. Kat'n'Yarn 06:42, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

It feels to me Kat'N'Yarn like you are not listening to the people you are debating with: #There have been studies done- you just don't like them. I think this is because some of them, particularly DYG, were funded by Landmark. Please suggest an alternative! Remember- get a perspective here- Landmark is a company. Consulting companies are not falling over themselves to do studies on Landmark. It just isn't a big topic!

1. There is a LOT of evidence that the the criticism/contraversy is not widely held. ALL the studies cited of people who have actually taken the course indicate an overall level of satisfaction. This doesn't match your world view apparently because you choose to deride that and instead go on your opinion about it. I am not suggesting in ANY way that your criticisms are invalid or should not be referenced in the article- just that they are exaggerated and held by a minority. Currently the page is clearly - based on the above points- unbalanced and POV in favor of the negative view of LE. This is supposed to be an article about LE and its work NOT a debate page. What works about Wikipedia is NOT using it for that.
2. You say: "Just the fact that these same controversies have a long-standing pattern and won't go away should provide evidence that they're significant enough to be fairly represented. " You are right but to have them be fairly represented would mean cutitng about half the material out and NPOVing half of the remainder. If you compare the LE page to other Wikipedia pages it far overly exaggerates the negative opinions held by a vocal minority.

As a result I did revert the Key Ideas section. This is an ENCYCLOPEDIA article about an educational organization and the work that it does - deleting the core ideas that represent a major part of its pedagogy is innapropriate unless you can demonstrate that these are NOT the key ideas.

Alex Jackl 13:33, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Can anybody suggest any established objective basis for estimating the sizes of populations (c) and (d)? Although they clearly do exist, and group (d) is often stridently vocal, especially on unmoderated or hostile internet forums, is there any evidence that their numbers are significant relative to the number of satisfied customers?

Cult (or cult-like)?

Although this accusation is thrown about loosely in some circles, are there any reliable sources who state the opinion clearly and unambiguously that Landmark is a Cult, or define with any precision what they mean by cult in this context? If not, I suggest that this section be left out entirely.

On objective grounds, the suggestion is absurd. We rightly condemn cults because they restrict their members' options in life, cut them off from friends and family, stunt their self-expression, prescribe specific lifestyles, and sequester their assets.

Landmark, on the other hand, expands their customers options, encourages communication with friends and family and encourages the repair of estranged relationships, empowers their Self-expression, is compatible with any conceivable lifestyle-choice, and seeks no financial transaction beyond the very modest tuition fees for whatever course is taken (typically less than $5 per hour, and in some third-world countries, less than $1 per hour).

Brainwashing?

Are there any reliable sources who state the opinion clearly and unambiguously that Landmark uses brainwashing, or define with any precision what they mean by the term? If not, I suggest that this section be left out entirely.

Court cases

Do we need all these? If so, how could they be summarised to get across whatever point is being made more concisely?

Berlin report

This section doesn’t seem to make any coherent point. Do we need it at all?

Religious implications

Apart from cutting out the multiplicity of references, as suggested above, this seems to be a succinct statement of the spectrum of opinions.

What further suggestions / comments? DaveApter 14:13, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

DaveApter's Deletions

• Please do not remove whole sections of the article before establishing a consensus on the talk page. The sections you removed without consensus had been present in the article for a long period of time, and are sufficiently sourced in the blockquoted, citation format for referencing.Smeelgova 17:24, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Kat'n'yarn suggested that this section was POV and I agree (though perhaps for opposite reasons). Why not address the discussion above rather than getting immersed in an edit war? (apologies that I had let my login time-out before doing the previous reversion btw). DaveApter 18:18, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Apology accepted, didn't know it was you, sorry as well. I agree that we should try to avoid an edit war, but rather than blanking/deleting whole sections of the article that are sourced with referenced citations, most in blockquoted format, why don't we instead debate that particular content here on the talk page, and edit portions as needed as we hopefully reach consensus?Smeelgova 18:29, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
  • I feel that the whole section had become so muddled that taking it out and building up from nothing was much more likely to be fruitful than trying to tackle it piecemeal, and other commentators on this page seemed to be of the same mind. One other possible approach (which has been suggested) would be to delete the entire article back to a stub and start from there. I am minded to delete this section again, but will not make any edits for at least 12 hours to allow things to settle for a while. In the meantime, I invite you to engage with the debate in the section above. regards DaveApter 18:59, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Do that again and I'll remove everything from the entire article that Wikipedia guidelines say should be removed. Regards, Kat'n'Yarn 03:54, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Landmark Education in France

I've removed the section "France 3 documentary" due to inaccuracies. NOTE: Landmark Education was the subject of a sensational and inaccurate broadcast on France TV3. The broadcast and promotion of the broadcast was identified as inappropriate and against the French journalistic standards. Based on this information, the station removed this entry from their website and pulled the program which was originally scheduled for re-broadcast.Blondie0309 14:56, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Please back up your claims with cited sources. Yours, Smeelgova 01:07, 6 October 2006 (UTC).

You have one link that does not lead where it claims to and your other links go to an unreliable, self-published online source. Please review these policies before adding materialBlondie0309 18:43, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

• Please do not remove blockquoted, referenced sources in citation format. Information is factually accurate and relevant. Yours, Smeelgova 18:59, 6 October 2006 (UTC).

• Why do we have a "broken link" here. What's the issue with removing it? Mark1800 09:38, 7 October 2006 (UTC)