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. |
For the record I am NOT an employee or a shareholder or an owner of this company. I have participated in their programs and I have volunteered there. All that means is that I actually know of which I speak as opposed to people who are just making stuff up. I never claimed to not be for Landmark's work or "approve " of it. NPOV isn't about that- everyone has biases - the key is to be straight up. If you look at my page I am VERY clear about that. Who needs to look to themselves about the NPOV policy is people who CLAIM to be neutral but are obviously trying to spin the POV that LE is a cult or cultish or whatever. I stand by my edits and demand that the COI tag be removed by an admin Jennavecia wha you say there is "clearly a COI" you clearly don't understand the policy. I happen to be an expert in this particular topic and encyclopedia article's are often written by experts. The COI policy is designed to keep people form aggrandizing themselves or gaining from writing things in the encyclopedia that are not true. Alex Jackl ( talk) 15:36, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
SIMILARLY:
Jennavecia says: "#An over-reliance on the website of the company. AJackl notes above that a site is partisan and has, therefore, been removed. That's all well and good, but there's going to be a trimming of the article to remove claims backed by the company's website, which is obviously partisan as well."
Ummm hello- it is a primary source of information about the topic. The topic is a company- its website is the company's public face. This obviously inaccurate comment makes me think you are not neutral in this. Where else would you suggest getting some of this information? Please forgive my tone but this is not neutral analysis. I ask you , if you are earnestly neutral- and not faking it- please relook at this and see that you have been fooled by a small fanatic minority of people who- for some reason- are committed to spamming this article. You can see this fight against the spammers has been going on for a long time. and it has over and over again ended with the vast majority of editors finally getting the small minority to back down and have a semblance of a balanced article in place.
It isn't bad now - it has been stable but some of the same old voices (like Cirt- who changes his identities like other people use tissue paper to protect the guilty- chekcout his former aliases and their history of being blocked in this matter. By the way- Cirt had done very good work in some other areas but he has some really strong bias here) Alex Jackl ( talk) 16:05, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
Umm... okay you found two references which needed to be corrected- so correct them. This is not a good reason to lock up the page. Alex Jackl ( talk) 15:36, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
Pendant17 said:
Okay, I came in knowing nothing about this company. All I know is what is written in the article and the sources. I also have no previous association with either Jehochman or Cirt... or anyone else working on the article. Now, I stopped reading at the point that it started attacking other editors. When that's been struck out or removed, let me know. Speaking on the points made up to that point, considering two admins support the inclusion of the COI template, I'm not going to remove it until I've looked over the edit history to determine its appropriateness. As far as the over-reliance on the website, I get that it's an article about the company, but we shouldn't be relying on the company's website for so much. Not only because reliable third-party sources are preferred, but specifically speaking on this website, it's not proving to be reliable. So the fewer links to this website, the better. An example would be the pointless reference to the website that included a rewritten quote from the Time article. That should have been accurately written, instead of synthesized, and cited to Time. I think I was fairly clear on that in my overview. Oh, and also, the userbox on your user page shows you as nothing less than a volunteer for the company, and from what I've read, in some states and I think it was France, your position is considered that of an employee. Again, it's not to say you can't edit the article, but it needs to be known. لenna vecia 17:13, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
I look forward to working with you to get all this sorted out and am confident that the nature of things will be come clearer as you engage in the brutal job of walking through the history. I have been away from this for some time and just happened across the site again after a long absence but I will be watching the page now and respond to questions. Thanks ! Alex Jackl ( talk) 06:37, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
So, here's where I'm going to drop questions as I come upon them.
The use of the David Logan reference is inappropriate in the history section given that the quotation describes purported benefits attributed to the Vanto group's involvement in a single company and is as a result, off-topic. Moreover, it is a questionable reference since the author, David Logan, has coauthored several articles and books with the CEO of the Vanto group (Zaffron) and both are members of the Barbados Group which has strong links to Landmark Education. It could therefore be said that David Logan has a financial interest in Landmark Education and its subsidiaries and is therefore POV. The case study has a disclaimer "Marshall School of Business cases are prepared to serve as the basis for classroom discussion rather than to illustrate either effective or ineffective handling of an administrative situation". As a result of this, the use of the quotation is inappropriate and misleading since it certainly appears in WP to indicate effectiveness of Vanto. The case study also provides no evidence for the claim about improvements, merely stating figures with a footnote "The specific before and after metrics are proprietary". This further calls the acceptability of the inclusion of the reference into question. In summary, the author has a conflict of interest, it is an unreliable reference, the reference has been used inappropriately in WP, and the reference has been used in a manner in conflict with the University's disclaimer. ProlixDog ( talk) 04:21, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
Landmark has had tons of articles written about it and is clearly a controversial group. The the lede doesn't mention this seems very POV. Hobit ( talk) 19:36, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
1. The article states that the first use of the name "Landmark Education" was in 1987 with the incorporation of Landmark Education International, Inc. However, the company in question was actually incorporated as Werner Erhard & Associates International, Inc. and was not renamed to Landmark until 1991. See this document: http://www.xs4all.nl/~anco/mental/randr/rename.txt
2. The Vanto Group is not a subsidiary of Landmark Education LLC. Rather, Landmark Education LLC and the Vanto Group are both owned by the same parent company, Landmark Education Enterprizes, Inc.
I did remove the unsourced and inflammatory remarks that were put into the head of the article. I DO NOT want an edit war here in any way - I merely think we should work this out on the talk page. Alex Jackl ( talk) 15:32, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
"Frequently described as a cult" is hearsay, and unsourced. The legal defintion of "hearsay" is "hearsay - Second-hand evidence, generally consisting of a witness's testimony that he/she heard someone else say something. - Utah state court. Because of the nature of this statement, and its controversy, Landmark Education has defended itself numerous times against this statement ( and won substantial sums of money ), yet it persists, despite multiple statments to the contrary. It can clearly be established by law, that the statement is false. You can argue that black is white indefinatly, but without defining what black is, and providing reliable sources, ( NONE, and I really mean NONE of the sources cited here can even hope to qualify as experts ), but you only persist in furthuring the controversy. Wikipeida's article on Wikipedia, is by its very nature, in violation of a great many number of policies.
"Over a period of years, many investigative reports on television have been set up by the ACN as follows: an individual is deprogrammed; the local ACN representative approaches the news or reporter with a pre-packaged story about the alleged "mind control," financial manipulation and sexual misdoings within the "cult. offering the deprogrammer and his .client. in support of the claims. Having been prejudiced by the exaggerated accounts offered by the ACN, the reporter then approaches the group in a "have you stopped beating your wife!. spirit. The results are distortion and hate-mongering.
-1988 Lowell D. Streiker Ph.D. [1]Citing cult-bashers and deprogrammers as experts on the harm caused by so-called cults is like quoting leaders of the American Nazi Party as experts when they claim that the American economy is harmed by what they view as the Jewish control of banking. Not only is the uncritical acceptance of ACN dogma unfair, but it is devastating to our most cherished constitutional rights and antagonistic to the pursuit of spiritual truths by citizens of a pluralistic society."
-- Artoftransformation ( talk) 08:12, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
{{
cite book}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameters: |origmonth=
, |accessmonth=
, |origdate=
, |coauthors=
, |month=
, |chapterurl=
, and |accessyear=
(
help). I would simply suggest that just because words like "Democratic" and "Republican" appear in dictionaries, that doesn't necessarily mean that we endorse without question the existence and policies of the "Democratic People's Republic of Korea". Analogously, we can note and analyze the use by Landmark Education of such terms as "value" and "being". That reminds me that we should should add a section or an article on Heidegger and Landmark Education. Someone seems to have removed the linkage between the two that formerly appeared in this article -- just as someone has removed any mention of the word "cult" in the lead of this article... --
Pedant17 (
talk)
02:33, 12 November 2008 (UTC)I'm puzzled by the absence of any mention of criticism of LE in the lead. The lead should give a good summary of what follows in the rest of the article -- see WP:LEAD. Nomoskedasticity ( talk) 08:09, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
The lead section, lead, or introduction of a Wikipedia article is the section before the table of contents and first heading. The lead serves both as an introduction to the article below and as a short, independent summary of the important aspects of the article's topic. The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article. It should establish context, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including any notable controversies that may exist. I agree with this Wikipedia style guideline, we should follow that. Cirt ( talk) 03:23, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
I have been gone from these pages for some time and am saddened that this continues to go on. I have seen no evidence of conflict of interest and so am going to remove the COI tag from the top of the page. I will review the rest of the page now as well... Alex Jackl ( talk) 19:08, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
I am also going to remove the neutrality dispute tag- this has been going on for so long and except for a small minority of vocal attackers the site is pretty stable and FRANKLY watered down to protect itself from the negative POV attacks.. Let's discuss this here on the talk page. Alex Jackl ( talk) 19:11, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
Removed the CAIC reference: the site is partisan and would appear to fail the Reliable Source and Undue Weight criteria. I quote the site itself: " I have a disclaimer posted on this site which clearly states my position regarding the organizations listed. Most of the articles regarding Landmark/Forum/EST are anecdotal - subjective experiences of others .... I reiterate what is said on our opening page: Just because a group is mentioned on this site does not mean we regard it as a destructive cult. Both Cults and Isms are listed to provide information ... If the writers of the articles refer to Landmark as a cult, we take no responsibility for this. It is the opinion of the writers"
This is not a reliable source. If this passes the test then I promise you there are HUNDREDS of counter sources for Landmark not being a cult. It is ridiculous. Alex Jackl ( talk) 19:18, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
I strongly disagree with these edits so I support reverting them. AJackl, as a proclaimed Landmark Education employeee you have a declared conflict of interest regarding edits to this page. Rather than saying the page is watered down, I'd say it has been sanitised. ProlixDog ( talk) 23:27, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
Furthermore, there are NO sources for their being a non-existence of claims of Landmark being a cult. You can't un-ring a bell. You may dispute the veracity of the claims, perhaps, but you can't get around the fact that Landmark Education is referred to as controversial in the mainstream media. See e.g. http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/04/02/2205464.htm ProlixDog ( talk) 23:56, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
Okay, so here are the issues I've found.
( 93.96.26.63 ( talk) 12:24, 18 November 2008 (UTC)) Comment from a Landmark Graduate: As of 18 November 2008 Landmark's website listed 297 Landmark Forum weekends scheduled between that date and 17 February 2009. At this rate - and ignoring the fact that no courses take place over Christmas and New Year - Landmark would run nearly 1,200 Landmark Forums per year. Given that each Landmark Forum involves between 75 and 150 participants, in my view the maths of this supports Landmark's claim over that of Time. ( 93.96.26.63 ( talk) 12:24, 18 November 2008 (UTC))
A lot of this article needs to be reworked. The NPOV tag should not be removed, as the NPOV of the article is disputed. Also, AJackl, there is clearly a COI here and merely claiming there isn't doesn't make it go away. As an employee or volunteer of the company, you inherently have a COI. Note that it doesn't prevent you from editing the article, merely others need to know so that they may ensure your edits are within policy and consensus.
That all said, considering the issues, I'm going to go through the history of the article to determine where the long-standing issues stem from and determine the best course of action to remedy the problems with this article. لenna vecia 03:10, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
How about an attempt to agree on what the overall structure of a good article on this subject would be?
I'd suggest the following as a starting point:
Anyone want to add or subtract anything from this outline?
Once we've reached consensus on that, we could draw up a list of suitable references and see how these areas could be fleshed out into a useful article. DaveApter ( talk) 17:48, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
"What we are engaged in creating is the opportunity for people to participate in the transformation of peoples' lives and of life itself. This context of transformation is a context of freedom and opportunity, of empowerment and human joy, of contribution and of participation. Participation in this transformation is, for me, the fullest expression of being." -Werner Erhard on the Assisting program.
On March 3, 2008 at 0433 hours a Wikipedian removed the section of the article entitled "Legal disputes", commenting in the edit-summary: "moved to related topics". The deleted section consisted of the text: "For details of litigation involving Landmark Education, see Landmark Education litigation. For details on non-litigation legal events, see Landmark Education and the law." This dispassionately presented pair of pointers to content previously originating within the article at least nodded towards compliance with the Wikipedia:Content forking guideline, which states: "However, the moved material must be replaced with an NPOV summary of that material. If it is not, then the "spinning out" is really a clear act of POV forking: a new article has been created so that the main article can favor some viewpoints over others." -- In this case, moving the links and removing any attempt at summary has subsequently made the main article less neutral -- it currently lacks any mention of the words "law" or "legal" or "dispute" or even "controversy", and only some of these words appear in the marginally-visible "Werner Erhard" template. Moreover, a subsequent removal of the link to Landmark Education and the law has compounded the lack of neutrality, effectively flouting the call for good linking to closely related material. Valuable information once considered by multiple editors as a an integral and important part of the article has effectively disappeared without discussion on the Talk-page. An entire section which existed in different forms for many months -- under the title "Legal disputes since October 17, 2006: see http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Landmark_Education&diff=82044180&oldid=82044031 and prior to that under the title "Lawsuits" -- became marginalized or completely unlinked -- Let's restore the removed section with a better NPOV summary: something like: "== Legal disputes == The legal status of Landmark Education, its products and behaviors, have long drawn the attention of lawyers and of commentators. For details of litigation involving Landmark Education, see Landmark Education litigation. For details on non-litigation legal events, see Landmark Education and the law." -- Pedant17 ( talk) 03:38, 28 November 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. |
For the record I am NOT an employee or a shareholder or an owner of this company. I have participated in their programs and I have volunteered there. All that means is that I actually know of which I speak as opposed to people who are just making stuff up. I never claimed to not be for Landmark's work or "approve " of it. NPOV isn't about that- everyone has biases - the key is to be straight up. If you look at my page I am VERY clear about that. Who needs to look to themselves about the NPOV policy is people who CLAIM to be neutral but are obviously trying to spin the POV that LE is a cult or cultish or whatever. I stand by my edits and demand that the COI tag be removed by an admin Jennavecia wha you say there is "clearly a COI" you clearly don't understand the policy. I happen to be an expert in this particular topic and encyclopedia article's are often written by experts. The COI policy is designed to keep people form aggrandizing themselves or gaining from writing things in the encyclopedia that are not true. Alex Jackl ( talk) 15:36, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
SIMILARLY:
Jennavecia says: "#An over-reliance on the website of the company. AJackl notes above that a site is partisan and has, therefore, been removed. That's all well and good, but there's going to be a trimming of the article to remove claims backed by the company's website, which is obviously partisan as well."
Ummm hello- it is a primary source of information about the topic. The topic is a company- its website is the company's public face. This obviously inaccurate comment makes me think you are not neutral in this. Where else would you suggest getting some of this information? Please forgive my tone but this is not neutral analysis. I ask you , if you are earnestly neutral- and not faking it- please relook at this and see that you have been fooled by a small fanatic minority of people who- for some reason- are committed to spamming this article. You can see this fight against the spammers has been going on for a long time. and it has over and over again ended with the vast majority of editors finally getting the small minority to back down and have a semblance of a balanced article in place.
It isn't bad now - it has been stable but some of the same old voices (like Cirt- who changes his identities like other people use tissue paper to protect the guilty- chekcout his former aliases and their history of being blocked in this matter. By the way- Cirt had done very good work in some other areas but he has some really strong bias here) Alex Jackl ( talk) 16:05, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
Umm... okay you found two references which needed to be corrected- so correct them. This is not a good reason to lock up the page. Alex Jackl ( talk) 15:36, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
Pendant17 said:
Okay, I came in knowing nothing about this company. All I know is what is written in the article and the sources. I also have no previous association with either Jehochman or Cirt... or anyone else working on the article. Now, I stopped reading at the point that it started attacking other editors. When that's been struck out or removed, let me know. Speaking on the points made up to that point, considering two admins support the inclusion of the COI template, I'm not going to remove it until I've looked over the edit history to determine its appropriateness. As far as the over-reliance on the website, I get that it's an article about the company, but we shouldn't be relying on the company's website for so much. Not only because reliable third-party sources are preferred, but specifically speaking on this website, it's not proving to be reliable. So the fewer links to this website, the better. An example would be the pointless reference to the website that included a rewritten quote from the Time article. That should have been accurately written, instead of synthesized, and cited to Time. I think I was fairly clear on that in my overview. Oh, and also, the userbox on your user page shows you as nothing less than a volunteer for the company, and from what I've read, in some states and I think it was France, your position is considered that of an employee. Again, it's not to say you can't edit the article, but it needs to be known. لenna vecia 17:13, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
I look forward to working with you to get all this sorted out and am confident that the nature of things will be come clearer as you engage in the brutal job of walking through the history. I have been away from this for some time and just happened across the site again after a long absence but I will be watching the page now and respond to questions. Thanks ! Alex Jackl ( talk) 06:37, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
So, here's where I'm going to drop questions as I come upon them.
The use of the David Logan reference is inappropriate in the history section given that the quotation describes purported benefits attributed to the Vanto group's involvement in a single company and is as a result, off-topic. Moreover, it is a questionable reference since the author, David Logan, has coauthored several articles and books with the CEO of the Vanto group (Zaffron) and both are members of the Barbados Group which has strong links to Landmark Education. It could therefore be said that David Logan has a financial interest in Landmark Education and its subsidiaries and is therefore POV. The case study has a disclaimer "Marshall School of Business cases are prepared to serve as the basis for classroom discussion rather than to illustrate either effective or ineffective handling of an administrative situation". As a result of this, the use of the quotation is inappropriate and misleading since it certainly appears in WP to indicate effectiveness of Vanto. The case study also provides no evidence for the claim about improvements, merely stating figures with a footnote "The specific before and after metrics are proprietary". This further calls the acceptability of the inclusion of the reference into question. In summary, the author has a conflict of interest, it is an unreliable reference, the reference has been used inappropriately in WP, and the reference has been used in a manner in conflict with the University's disclaimer. ProlixDog ( talk) 04:21, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
Landmark has had tons of articles written about it and is clearly a controversial group. The the lede doesn't mention this seems very POV. Hobit ( talk) 19:36, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
1. The article states that the first use of the name "Landmark Education" was in 1987 with the incorporation of Landmark Education International, Inc. However, the company in question was actually incorporated as Werner Erhard & Associates International, Inc. and was not renamed to Landmark until 1991. See this document: http://www.xs4all.nl/~anco/mental/randr/rename.txt
2. The Vanto Group is not a subsidiary of Landmark Education LLC. Rather, Landmark Education LLC and the Vanto Group are both owned by the same parent company, Landmark Education Enterprizes, Inc.
I did remove the unsourced and inflammatory remarks that were put into the head of the article. I DO NOT want an edit war here in any way - I merely think we should work this out on the talk page. Alex Jackl ( talk) 15:32, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
"Frequently described as a cult" is hearsay, and unsourced. The legal defintion of "hearsay" is "hearsay - Second-hand evidence, generally consisting of a witness's testimony that he/she heard someone else say something. - Utah state court. Because of the nature of this statement, and its controversy, Landmark Education has defended itself numerous times against this statement ( and won substantial sums of money ), yet it persists, despite multiple statments to the contrary. It can clearly be established by law, that the statement is false. You can argue that black is white indefinatly, but without defining what black is, and providing reliable sources, ( NONE, and I really mean NONE of the sources cited here can even hope to qualify as experts ), but you only persist in furthuring the controversy. Wikipeida's article on Wikipedia, is by its very nature, in violation of a great many number of policies.
"Over a period of years, many investigative reports on television have been set up by the ACN as follows: an individual is deprogrammed; the local ACN representative approaches the news or reporter with a pre-packaged story about the alleged "mind control," financial manipulation and sexual misdoings within the "cult. offering the deprogrammer and his .client. in support of the claims. Having been prejudiced by the exaggerated accounts offered by the ACN, the reporter then approaches the group in a "have you stopped beating your wife!. spirit. The results are distortion and hate-mongering.
-1988 Lowell D. Streiker Ph.D. [1]Citing cult-bashers and deprogrammers as experts on the harm caused by so-called cults is like quoting leaders of the American Nazi Party as experts when they claim that the American economy is harmed by what they view as the Jewish control of banking. Not only is the uncritical acceptance of ACN dogma unfair, but it is devastating to our most cherished constitutional rights and antagonistic to the pursuit of spiritual truths by citizens of a pluralistic society."
-- Artoftransformation ( talk) 08:12, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
{{
cite book}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameters: |origmonth=
, |accessmonth=
, |origdate=
, |coauthors=
, |month=
, |chapterurl=
, and |accessyear=
(
help). I would simply suggest that just because words like "Democratic" and "Republican" appear in dictionaries, that doesn't necessarily mean that we endorse without question the existence and policies of the "Democratic People's Republic of Korea". Analogously, we can note and analyze the use by Landmark Education of such terms as "value" and "being". That reminds me that we should should add a section or an article on Heidegger and Landmark Education. Someone seems to have removed the linkage between the two that formerly appeared in this article -- just as someone has removed any mention of the word "cult" in the lead of this article... --
Pedant17 (
talk)
02:33, 12 November 2008 (UTC)I'm puzzled by the absence of any mention of criticism of LE in the lead. The lead should give a good summary of what follows in the rest of the article -- see WP:LEAD. Nomoskedasticity ( talk) 08:09, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
The lead section, lead, or introduction of a Wikipedia article is the section before the table of contents and first heading. The lead serves both as an introduction to the article below and as a short, independent summary of the important aspects of the article's topic. The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article. It should establish context, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including any notable controversies that may exist. I agree with this Wikipedia style guideline, we should follow that. Cirt ( talk) 03:23, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
I have been gone from these pages for some time and am saddened that this continues to go on. I have seen no evidence of conflict of interest and so am going to remove the COI tag from the top of the page. I will review the rest of the page now as well... Alex Jackl ( talk) 19:08, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
I am also going to remove the neutrality dispute tag- this has been going on for so long and except for a small minority of vocal attackers the site is pretty stable and FRANKLY watered down to protect itself from the negative POV attacks.. Let's discuss this here on the talk page. Alex Jackl ( talk) 19:11, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
Removed the CAIC reference: the site is partisan and would appear to fail the Reliable Source and Undue Weight criteria. I quote the site itself: " I have a disclaimer posted on this site which clearly states my position regarding the organizations listed. Most of the articles regarding Landmark/Forum/EST are anecdotal - subjective experiences of others .... I reiterate what is said on our opening page: Just because a group is mentioned on this site does not mean we regard it as a destructive cult. Both Cults and Isms are listed to provide information ... If the writers of the articles refer to Landmark as a cult, we take no responsibility for this. It is the opinion of the writers"
This is not a reliable source. If this passes the test then I promise you there are HUNDREDS of counter sources for Landmark not being a cult. It is ridiculous. Alex Jackl ( talk) 19:18, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
I strongly disagree with these edits so I support reverting them. AJackl, as a proclaimed Landmark Education employeee you have a declared conflict of interest regarding edits to this page. Rather than saying the page is watered down, I'd say it has been sanitised. ProlixDog ( talk) 23:27, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
Furthermore, there are NO sources for their being a non-existence of claims of Landmark being a cult. You can't un-ring a bell. You may dispute the veracity of the claims, perhaps, but you can't get around the fact that Landmark Education is referred to as controversial in the mainstream media. See e.g. http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/04/02/2205464.htm ProlixDog ( talk) 23:56, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
Okay, so here are the issues I've found.
( 93.96.26.63 ( talk) 12:24, 18 November 2008 (UTC)) Comment from a Landmark Graduate: As of 18 November 2008 Landmark's website listed 297 Landmark Forum weekends scheduled between that date and 17 February 2009. At this rate - and ignoring the fact that no courses take place over Christmas and New Year - Landmark would run nearly 1,200 Landmark Forums per year. Given that each Landmark Forum involves between 75 and 150 participants, in my view the maths of this supports Landmark's claim over that of Time. ( 93.96.26.63 ( talk) 12:24, 18 November 2008 (UTC))
A lot of this article needs to be reworked. The NPOV tag should not be removed, as the NPOV of the article is disputed. Also, AJackl, there is clearly a COI here and merely claiming there isn't doesn't make it go away. As an employee or volunteer of the company, you inherently have a COI. Note that it doesn't prevent you from editing the article, merely others need to know so that they may ensure your edits are within policy and consensus.
That all said, considering the issues, I'm going to go through the history of the article to determine where the long-standing issues stem from and determine the best course of action to remedy the problems with this article. لenna vecia 03:10, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
How about an attempt to agree on what the overall structure of a good article on this subject would be?
I'd suggest the following as a starting point:
Anyone want to add or subtract anything from this outline?
Once we've reached consensus on that, we could draw up a list of suitable references and see how these areas could be fleshed out into a useful article. DaveApter ( talk) 17:48, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
"What we are engaged in creating is the opportunity for people to participate in the transformation of peoples' lives and of life itself. This context of transformation is a context of freedom and opportunity, of empowerment and human joy, of contribution and of participation. Participation in this transformation is, for me, the fullest expression of being." -Werner Erhard on the Assisting program.
On March 3, 2008 at 0433 hours a Wikipedian removed the section of the article entitled "Legal disputes", commenting in the edit-summary: "moved to related topics". The deleted section consisted of the text: "For details of litigation involving Landmark Education, see Landmark Education litigation. For details on non-litigation legal events, see Landmark Education and the law." This dispassionately presented pair of pointers to content previously originating within the article at least nodded towards compliance with the Wikipedia:Content forking guideline, which states: "However, the moved material must be replaced with an NPOV summary of that material. If it is not, then the "spinning out" is really a clear act of POV forking: a new article has been created so that the main article can favor some viewpoints over others." -- In this case, moving the links and removing any attempt at summary has subsequently made the main article less neutral -- it currently lacks any mention of the words "law" or "legal" or "dispute" or even "controversy", and only some of these words appear in the marginally-visible "Werner Erhard" template. Moreover, a subsequent removal of the link to Landmark Education and the law has compounded the lack of neutrality, effectively flouting the call for good linking to closely related material. Valuable information once considered by multiple editors as a an integral and important part of the article has effectively disappeared without discussion on the Talk-page. An entire section which existed in different forms for many months -- under the title "Legal disputes since October 17, 2006: see http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Landmark_Education&diff=82044180&oldid=82044031 and prior to that under the title "Lawsuits" -- became marginalized or completely unlinked -- Let's restore the removed section with a better NPOV summary: something like: "== Legal disputes == The legal status of Landmark Education, its products and behaviors, have long drawn the attention of lawyers and of commentators. For details of litigation involving Landmark Education, see Landmark Education litigation. For details on non-litigation legal events, see Landmark Education and the law." -- Pedant17 ( talk) 03:38, 28 November 2008 (UTC)