![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
I agree completely that this cannot be a Landmark Advertisement. However this is also not a forum for the airing of "opposing views" and a debate. This is an encyclopedia article. There is little noteworthy on the matter of religious implications - even in the section no one has serious religious concerns about Landmark and lots of different religious types speak positively about it. That aspect of it is vanilla- there is no meat to it. The only people that think the Landmark Forum has serious religious implications in itself are the same people that think theaters have religious implications or biology. Alex Jackl ( talk) 03:10, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
-- Pax Arcane 04:58, 26 February 2008 (UTC)===Edit request disabled===
There is currently no section called "Religious Implications", so the request cannot be fulfilled. Sandstein ( talk) 21:00, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
The section shouldn't be there and neither should "Office Closures". It is not sources and is rediculous to have in an article about a company that has many offices that sometimes open and close offices. Spacefarer ( talk) 13:19, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
As you know, I have put comments on the talk page in past, thanks. I don't know why you are responding in what you have written, but it is unimportant. The closures section is not sourced, nor is it on other company pages. I am removing it. Please comment here before doing something else. Spacefarer ( talk) 03:16, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
The sources given do not represent closures and one is not in English. My understanding is that this branch of Wikipedia is in English. Please say why you think this section should be here and let people discuss it before it is put back. Do other company pages include closures of offices? Spacefarer ( talk) 03:27, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
This section should not be in the article. Users Stan Enand Pax Arcane continue to put it back into the article without addressing the very legitimate issues that are raised below.
In my opinion it was put into the article by a former editor who was known for an extreme POV (Smeelgova/Smee) for the purposes of implying that Landmark Education is a Religion. It is full of problems
For example one paragraph is using an unattributable quote by an obscure blogger:
When you go to the references provided, you can’t find anything about who this Paul Derengowski is or where he said what he said. That is like “I over heard a guy who was sitting at a picnic bench at the Dairy Queen say it” kind of reference.
Also what is written in the following two paragraphs is not reflected in the citations provided.
In the citation provided (63 and 64 are the same) In the first paragraph, the “religious aspects” of Landmark education are not discussed in the reference provided. Landmark education in the article is mentioned in reference to sales practices. The second paragraph is a non sequitur. Everything, from money, to sex, to football has been written about as a replacement for religion. Triplejumper ( talk) 03:31, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
This article suffers relentlessly from individuals with strong personal viewpoints attempting to drag in material to skew it towards their own point of view (and also suppressing material which does not do so).
Wikipedia is not a soapbox, nor is it a forum for expression of opinion. The NPOV policy lays down that facts about opinion are acceptable, but only where authoritative individuals or clearly defined populations holding those opinions can be identified, and even then, they should only be represented giving due weight to the size of those populations.
Much of what is in the article currently is clearly opinion rather than fact. For example:
The entire section is a report of opinion, and not particularly representative or authoratitive opinion. This has been expressed above clarly by Triplejumper and by myself and our points have not been effectively answered, but some editors persist in re-inserting this section.
It is not clear that a PhD thesis would qualify as a Reliable Source. Especially not one which derives its data from a statistically insignificant sample of 20 individuals ( and admits that they may not be representative of any larger body of Forum participants). The quotations of the opinions of these anonymous individuals should form no part of what is supposed to be a factual account. A google search on Denison doesn't find anyone of expertise or notability in the field.
This contains the remark: "Many are intimidated by the militaristic session." - clearly an expression of opinion, but whose? - and on what evidence?
The footnote(46) cited to support it reads:
Landmark is readily criticized for militaristic attempts to access new members; many have described the group as focused on intimidation and crisis. Indeed, landmark appeals to those who need desperate help. many people believe that they brian wash thier pacients.(sic) For example:
(and the following paragraph is a non-sequitur which does nothing to substantiate these claims - referring instead to the length of time that Landmark had operated in Germany, and the lack of emphasis on Werner Erhard's involvement). Incidentally, neither of the links given in this reference lead to data supporting the quote.
This item seems to me to be a minor issue which might merit mention in a 500 page book on the subject, is of no significance to justify its inclusion in an article this size. Organisations of this scale do open and close branch offices from time to time - so what? The operations in France and Sweden were both minute and no doubt marginally viable. Both suffered defamatory attacks from sensationalistic journalists. DaveApter ( talk) 17:23, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
The references are still bad refs. They are opinion at best. The section should not be in article. Spacefarer ( talk) 04:35, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
BTW, Per de.wiki.org Landmark also ceased operations in Germany in 2008. However, didn't find a reliable source for it yet and won't include it. -- Stan talk 00:43, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
At 2156 hours on 2007-12-15 a Wikipedian changed the text:
"Published figures -- several of which the owner of the http://www.landmarkeducation.com site website subsequently rendered unavailable at some time between [[2007-03-04]] and [[2007-04-07]] per http://www.landmarkeducation.com/robots.txt -- show the following growth patterns [...]"
to read:
"Published figures show the following growth patterns [...]" -- explaining in the edit-summary: " rm as per WP:NOR"
The comment contrasting the the previous availability of archives of the Landmark Education web-site with the subsequent non-availability of the same data does not constitute "original research", but a statement of fact supported by the reference http://www.landmarkeducation.com/robots.txt, which has, as explained on the Internet Archive FAQ: http://www.archive.org/about/exclude.php, which states:
"place a robots.txt file at the top level of your site (e.g. www.yourdomain.com/robots.txt) [...]
The robots.txt file will do two things:
1. It will remove all documents from your domain from the Wayback Machine. 2. It will tell us not to crawl your site in the future.
To exclude the Internet Archive’s crawler (and remove documents from the Wayback Machine) while allowing all other robots to crawl your site, your robots.txt file should say:
User-agent: ia_archiver Disallow: /
The removal of historical information from availability via the Internet Archive needs noting in order to fulfill the Wikipedia requirements of verifiability: interested parties have the right to realize in advance that although the editors of Wikipedia have carefully documented a verifiable published reference, the owners of the www.landmarkeducation.com site have chosen to make that reference unverifiable -- a noteworthy fact in itself, perhaps.
I accordingly propose that we restore the deleted text and expand it to explain and highlight the circumstances more fully, thus:
"Published figures -- several of which the owner of the http://www.landmarkeducation.com site website subsequently rendered unavailable at some time between [[2007-03-04]] and [[2007-04-07]] by utilising the file http://www.landmarkeducation.com/robots.txt in accordance with the provisions of the [[Internet Archive]] service FAQ as detailed at http://www.archive.org/about/exclude.php -- show the following growth patterns [...]"
-- Pedant17 ( talk) 02:19, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
At 1341 hours on 2007-12-16 a Wikipedian removed the text:
=== Sales and marketing practices === In an article [http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1101980316-138763,00.html "The Best of Est?"] published in [[Time Magazine]] on [[June 24]], [[2001]], Charlotte Faltermayer wrote: <blockquote> Critics say Landmark is an elaborate marketing game that relies heavily on volunteers. Says Tom Johnson, an "exit counselor" often summoned by concerned parents to tend to alumni: "They tire your brain; they make you vulnerable." Says critic Liz Sumerlin: "The participants end up becoming recruiters. That's the whole purpose." Psychiatrists who speak on Landmark's behalf dispute these claims. But Sumerlin says a 1993 Forum turned her fiance (now her ex) into a robot. She organized an anti-Landmark hot line and publications clearinghouse. Landmark officials made sounds to sue her. </blockquote> In [[1996]], [[Jill P. Capuzzo]] from ''[[The Philadelphia Inquirer]], Weekend'' took the Landmark Forum and reported: <blockquote> I made some eye-opening discoveries about myself and how I function in the world. [...] One of the most irritating aspects of ''The Forum'' is the hard sell to sign up future participants.<ref> Jill P. Capuzzo, ''[[The Philadelphia Inquirer]]'', [[1996]], [http://www.scooponlandmarkforum.com/Articles/philadelphia_enquirer_1.html Come On! There's A New Life Waiting Over The Weekend] </ref> </blockquote>
-- without providing any explanation.
Though discussion (as yet unconcluded) has taken place on the Talk-page concerning Scandinavian reaction to Landmark Education and concerning Landmark Edducation and religion, no reason has emerged for the deletion of a section of balanced and referenced discussion on Landmark Education's marketing. I propose we re-insert the section pending further discussion.
-- Pedant17 ( talk) 01:35, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
At 1538 hours on 2007-12-16 a Wikipedian removed operational statistics related to Landmark Education operations for the years 2001, 2002 and 2003 from the article, noting in the edit summary "... removed unsourced data... ".
The relevant figures:
|<font size=-2>2001</font> |<font size=-2>600,000</font> |<font size=-2>60</font> |<font size=-2>21</font> |<font size=-2>Landmark Education<ref> [http://web.archive.org/web/20021005063934/www.landmarkeducation.com/display_content.jsp?top=21&mid=80&bottom=124&siteObjectID=593 Landmark Education's web-site as of [[28 November]] 2002], retrieved [[2007-03-04]]</ref></font> |---------- bgcolor=#DDEEFF |<font size=-2>2002</font> |<font size=-2>600,000</font> |<font size=-2>60</font> |<font size=-2>24</font> |<font size=-2>Landmark Education<ref> [http://web.archive.org/web/20030625104924/www.landmarkeducation.com/display_content.jsp?top=21&mid=80&bottom=124&siteObjectID=593 Landmark Education's web-site as of [[29 July]] 2003], retrieved [[2007-03-04]]</ref></font> |---------- bgcolor=#DDEEFF |<font size=-2>2003</font> |<font size=-2>600,000</font> |<font size=-2>58</font> |<font size=-2>26</font> |<font size=-2>Landmark Education<ref> [http://web.archive.org/web/20031212204155/www.landmarkeducation.com/display_content.jsp?top=21&mid=80&bottom=124&siteObjectID=593 Landmark Education's web-site as of [[10 June]] 2004], retrieved [[2007-03-04]]</ref></font>
clearly have sources (Landmark Education's published historic web-site versions), and we should restore them accordingly to give a more complete picture of the pattern of Landmark Education's corporate activities. We could add in all fairness that access to said sources has become more difficult since the owner of the http://www.landmarkeducation.com website rendered access via the Internet Archive unavailable -- see http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.landmarkeducation.com -- at some time between 2007-03-04 and 2007-04-07 by utilizing the file http://www.landmarkeducation.com/robots.txt in accordance with the provisions of the Internet Archive service FAQ as detailed at http://www.archive.org/about/exclude.php
-- Pedant17 ( talk) 01:51, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
At 1310 hours on 2008-12-22 a Wikipedian removed a subsection in the article which gave details of closures of Landmark Education offices in France and in Sweden, commenting in the Edit-summary: "not about legal; if have closures how about openings". If fellow-editors feel that information appears under an inappropriate rubric, they may change the headings rather than delete valuable information. If fellow-editors feel that office openings should appear in the article to balance information about branches closing, they should by all means provide properly-documented third-party accounts and sources on such openings. Such editing would grow the Web and demonstrate cooperative Wiki-collegiality. -- In the meantime let's restore the interesting information on the cessation of overt Landmark Education activities in France and in Sweden as instructive and interesting examples of the fate of the org in the face of probing media and/or suspicious governmental agencies. -- Pedant17 ( talk) 01:23, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
Is there any proof of this? Should this be worded better? I could see an argument could be made that they target individual progress, but it's done through group presentation not one on one. The current wording is unclear and if unedited, should be removed. Suggestions? Micahmedia ( talk) 00:34, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
If you have a close connection to some of the people, places or things you have written about in the article
Landmark Education, you may have a
conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's
neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a conflict of interest, or where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred from the tone of the edit and the proximity of the editor to the subject, are strongly discouraged. If you have a conflict of interest, you should avoid or exercise great caution when:
For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have conflict of interest, please see Wikipedia:Business' FAQ. For more details about what constitutes a conflict of interest, please see Wikipedia:Conflict of Interest. Thank you.
{{
editprotected}}
I request that the following paragraph be removed from the lead of the article by an administrator:
The Landmark Forums are a form of Large Group Awareness Training. Critics such as Michael Langone state clearly that Large Group Awareness Training groups are not cults, however they often use thought reform and mind control in addition to other more obviously beneficial techniques such as meditation, relaxation, and yoga. This use of thought reform and mind control is what attracts comparisons to cults.[10][11]
The issues with this paragraph are the whole basis of the most recent editorial dispute. As it is being discussed on the talk page, I am requesting that it be removed from the lead of the article for the duration of the time the article is locked. Triplejumper ( talk) 21:18, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
I agree completely that this cannot be a Landmark Advertisement. However this is also not a forum for the airing of "opposing views" and a debate. This is an encyclopedia article. There is little noteworthy on the matter of religious implications - even in the section no one has serious religious concerns about Landmark and lots of different religious types speak positively about it. That aspect of it is vanilla- there is no meat to it. The only people that think the Landmark Forum has serious religious implications in itself are the same people that think theaters have religious implications or biology. Alex Jackl ( talk) 03:10, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
-- Pax Arcane 04:58, 26 February 2008 (UTC)===Edit request disabled===
There is currently no section called "Religious Implications", so the request cannot be fulfilled. Sandstein ( talk) 21:00, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
The section shouldn't be there and neither should "Office Closures". It is not sources and is rediculous to have in an article about a company that has many offices that sometimes open and close offices. Spacefarer ( talk) 13:19, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
As you know, I have put comments on the talk page in past, thanks. I don't know why you are responding in what you have written, but it is unimportant. The closures section is not sourced, nor is it on other company pages. I am removing it. Please comment here before doing something else. Spacefarer ( talk) 03:16, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
The sources given do not represent closures and one is not in English. My understanding is that this branch of Wikipedia is in English. Please say why you think this section should be here and let people discuss it before it is put back. Do other company pages include closures of offices? Spacefarer ( talk) 03:27, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
This section should not be in the article. Users Stan Enand Pax Arcane continue to put it back into the article without addressing the very legitimate issues that are raised below.
In my opinion it was put into the article by a former editor who was known for an extreme POV (Smeelgova/Smee) for the purposes of implying that Landmark Education is a Religion. It is full of problems
For example one paragraph is using an unattributable quote by an obscure blogger:
When you go to the references provided, you can’t find anything about who this Paul Derengowski is or where he said what he said. That is like “I over heard a guy who was sitting at a picnic bench at the Dairy Queen say it” kind of reference.
Also what is written in the following two paragraphs is not reflected in the citations provided.
In the citation provided (63 and 64 are the same) In the first paragraph, the “religious aspects” of Landmark education are not discussed in the reference provided. Landmark education in the article is mentioned in reference to sales practices. The second paragraph is a non sequitur. Everything, from money, to sex, to football has been written about as a replacement for religion. Triplejumper ( talk) 03:31, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
This article suffers relentlessly from individuals with strong personal viewpoints attempting to drag in material to skew it towards their own point of view (and also suppressing material which does not do so).
Wikipedia is not a soapbox, nor is it a forum for expression of opinion. The NPOV policy lays down that facts about opinion are acceptable, but only where authoritative individuals or clearly defined populations holding those opinions can be identified, and even then, they should only be represented giving due weight to the size of those populations.
Much of what is in the article currently is clearly opinion rather than fact. For example:
The entire section is a report of opinion, and not particularly representative or authoratitive opinion. This has been expressed above clarly by Triplejumper and by myself and our points have not been effectively answered, but some editors persist in re-inserting this section.
It is not clear that a PhD thesis would qualify as a Reliable Source. Especially not one which derives its data from a statistically insignificant sample of 20 individuals ( and admits that they may not be representative of any larger body of Forum participants). The quotations of the opinions of these anonymous individuals should form no part of what is supposed to be a factual account. A google search on Denison doesn't find anyone of expertise or notability in the field.
This contains the remark: "Many are intimidated by the militaristic session." - clearly an expression of opinion, but whose? - and on what evidence?
The footnote(46) cited to support it reads:
Landmark is readily criticized for militaristic attempts to access new members; many have described the group as focused on intimidation and crisis. Indeed, landmark appeals to those who need desperate help. many people believe that they brian wash thier pacients.(sic) For example:
(and the following paragraph is a non-sequitur which does nothing to substantiate these claims - referring instead to the length of time that Landmark had operated in Germany, and the lack of emphasis on Werner Erhard's involvement). Incidentally, neither of the links given in this reference lead to data supporting the quote.
This item seems to me to be a minor issue which might merit mention in a 500 page book on the subject, is of no significance to justify its inclusion in an article this size. Organisations of this scale do open and close branch offices from time to time - so what? The operations in France and Sweden were both minute and no doubt marginally viable. Both suffered defamatory attacks from sensationalistic journalists. DaveApter ( talk) 17:23, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
The references are still bad refs. They are opinion at best. The section should not be in article. Spacefarer ( talk) 04:35, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
BTW, Per de.wiki.org Landmark also ceased operations in Germany in 2008. However, didn't find a reliable source for it yet and won't include it. -- Stan talk 00:43, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
At 2156 hours on 2007-12-15 a Wikipedian changed the text:
"Published figures -- several of which the owner of the http://www.landmarkeducation.com site website subsequently rendered unavailable at some time between [[2007-03-04]] and [[2007-04-07]] per http://www.landmarkeducation.com/robots.txt -- show the following growth patterns [...]"
to read:
"Published figures show the following growth patterns [...]" -- explaining in the edit-summary: " rm as per WP:NOR"
The comment contrasting the the previous availability of archives of the Landmark Education web-site with the subsequent non-availability of the same data does not constitute "original research", but a statement of fact supported by the reference http://www.landmarkeducation.com/robots.txt, which has, as explained on the Internet Archive FAQ: http://www.archive.org/about/exclude.php, which states:
"place a robots.txt file at the top level of your site (e.g. www.yourdomain.com/robots.txt) [...]
The robots.txt file will do two things:
1. It will remove all documents from your domain from the Wayback Machine. 2. It will tell us not to crawl your site in the future.
To exclude the Internet Archive’s crawler (and remove documents from the Wayback Machine) while allowing all other robots to crawl your site, your robots.txt file should say:
User-agent: ia_archiver Disallow: /
The removal of historical information from availability via the Internet Archive needs noting in order to fulfill the Wikipedia requirements of verifiability: interested parties have the right to realize in advance that although the editors of Wikipedia have carefully documented a verifiable published reference, the owners of the www.landmarkeducation.com site have chosen to make that reference unverifiable -- a noteworthy fact in itself, perhaps.
I accordingly propose that we restore the deleted text and expand it to explain and highlight the circumstances more fully, thus:
"Published figures -- several of which the owner of the http://www.landmarkeducation.com site website subsequently rendered unavailable at some time between [[2007-03-04]] and [[2007-04-07]] by utilising the file http://www.landmarkeducation.com/robots.txt in accordance with the provisions of the [[Internet Archive]] service FAQ as detailed at http://www.archive.org/about/exclude.php -- show the following growth patterns [...]"
-- Pedant17 ( talk) 02:19, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
At 1341 hours on 2007-12-16 a Wikipedian removed the text:
=== Sales and marketing practices === In an article [http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1101980316-138763,00.html "The Best of Est?"] published in [[Time Magazine]] on [[June 24]], [[2001]], Charlotte Faltermayer wrote: <blockquote> Critics say Landmark is an elaborate marketing game that relies heavily on volunteers. Says Tom Johnson, an "exit counselor" often summoned by concerned parents to tend to alumni: "They tire your brain; they make you vulnerable." Says critic Liz Sumerlin: "The participants end up becoming recruiters. That's the whole purpose." Psychiatrists who speak on Landmark's behalf dispute these claims. But Sumerlin says a 1993 Forum turned her fiance (now her ex) into a robot. She organized an anti-Landmark hot line and publications clearinghouse. Landmark officials made sounds to sue her. </blockquote> In [[1996]], [[Jill P. Capuzzo]] from ''[[The Philadelphia Inquirer]], Weekend'' took the Landmark Forum and reported: <blockquote> I made some eye-opening discoveries about myself and how I function in the world. [...] One of the most irritating aspects of ''The Forum'' is the hard sell to sign up future participants.<ref> Jill P. Capuzzo, ''[[The Philadelphia Inquirer]]'', [[1996]], [http://www.scooponlandmarkforum.com/Articles/philadelphia_enquirer_1.html Come On! There's A New Life Waiting Over The Weekend] </ref> </blockquote>
-- without providing any explanation.
Though discussion (as yet unconcluded) has taken place on the Talk-page concerning Scandinavian reaction to Landmark Education and concerning Landmark Edducation and religion, no reason has emerged for the deletion of a section of balanced and referenced discussion on Landmark Education's marketing. I propose we re-insert the section pending further discussion.
-- Pedant17 ( talk) 01:35, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
At 1538 hours on 2007-12-16 a Wikipedian removed operational statistics related to Landmark Education operations for the years 2001, 2002 and 2003 from the article, noting in the edit summary "... removed unsourced data... ".
The relevant figures:
|<font size=-2>2001</font> |<font size=-2>600,000</font> |<font size=-2>60</font> |<font size=-2>21</font> |<font size=-2>Landmark Education<ref> [http://web.archive.org/web/20021005063934/www.landmarkeducation.com/display_content.jsp?top=21&mid=80&bottom=124&siteObjectID=593 Landmark Education's web-site as of [[28 November]] 2002], retrieved [[2007-03-04]]</ref></font> |---------- bgcolor=#DDEEFF |<font size=-2>2002</font> |<font size=-2>600,000</font> |<font size=-2>60</font> |<font size=-2>24</font> |<font size=-2>Landmark Education<ref> [http://web.archive.org/web/20030625104924/www.landmarkeducation.com/display_content.jsp?top=21&mid=80&bottom=124&siteObjectID=593 Landmark Education's web-site as of [[29 July]] 2003], retrieved [[2007-03-04]]</ref></font> |---------- bgcolor=#DDEEFF |<font size=-2>2003</font> |<font size=-2>600,000</font> |<font size=-2>58</font> |<font size=-2>26</font> |<font size=-2>Landmark Education<ref> [http://web.archive.org/web/20031212204155/www.landmarkeducation.com/display_content.jsp?top=21&mid=80&bottom=124&siteObjectID=593 Landmark Education's web-site as of [[10 June]] 2004], retrieved [[2007-03-04]]</ref></font>
clearly have sources (Landmark Education's published historic web-site versions), and we should restore them accordingly to give a more complete picture of the pattern of Landmark Education's corporate activities. We could add in all fairness that access to said sources has become more difficult since the owner of the http://www.landmarkeducation.com website rendered access via the Internet Archive unavailable -- see http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.landmarkeducation.com -- at some time between 2007-03-04 and 2007-04-07 by utilizing the file http://www.landmarkeducation.com/robots.txt in accordance with the provisions of the Internet Archive service FAQ as detailed at http://www.archive.org/about/exclude.php
-- Pedant17 ( talk) 01:51, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
At 1310 hours on 2008-12-22 a Wikipedian removed a subsection in the article which gave details of closures of Landmark Education offices in France and in Sweden, commenting in the Edit-summary: "not about legal; if have closures how about openings". If fellow-editors feel that information appears under an inappropriate rubric, they may change the headings rather than delete valuable information. If fellow-editors feel that office openings should appear in the article to balance information about branches closing, they should by all means provide properly-documented third-party accounts and sources on such openings. Such editing would grow the Web and demonstrate cooperative Wiki-collegiality. -- In the meantime let's restore the interesting information on the cessation of overt Landmark Education activities in France and in Sweden as instructive and interesting examples of the fate of the org in the face of probing media and/or suspicious governmental agencies. -- Pedant17 ( talk) 01:23, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
Is there any proof of this? Should this be worded better? I could see an argument could be made that they target individual progress, but it's done through group presentation not one on one. The current wording is unclear and if unedited, should be removed. Suggestions? Micahmedia ( talk) 00:34, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
If you have a close connection to some of the people, places or things you have written about in the article
Landmark Education, you may have a
conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's
neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a conflict of interest, or where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred from the tone of the edit and the proximity of the editor to the subject, are strongly discouraged. If you have a conflict of interest, you should avoid or exercise great caution when:
For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have conflict of interest, please see Wikipedia:Business' FAQ. For more details about what constitutes a conflict of interest, please see Wikipedia:Conflict of Interest. Thank you.
{{
editprotected}}
I request that the following paragraph be removed from the lead of the article by an administrator:
The Landmark Forums are a form of Large Group Awareness Training. Critics such as Michael Langone state clearly that Large Group Awareness Training groups are not cults, however they often use thought reform and mind control in addition to other more obviously beneficial techniques such as meditation, relaxation, and yoga. This use of thought reform and mind control is what attracts comparisons to cults.[10][11]
The issues with this paragraph are the whole basis of the most recent editorial dispute. As it is being discussed on the talk page, I am requesting that it be removed from the lead of the article for the duration of the time the article is locked. Triplejumper ( talk) 21:18, 28 March 2008 (UTC)