Wikipedia Mediation Cabal | |
---|---|
Article | Landmark Education |
Status | closed |
Request date | Unknown |
Requesting party | Unknown |
Parties involved | see below |
Mediator(s) | Chrislintott ( talk · contribs) |
Comment | Closing case |
[[Category:Wikipedia Medcab closed cases| Landmark Education]][[Category:Wikipedia medcab maintenance| Landmark Education]]
Hello Medcab
We need some help with mediating the Landmark Education article. Some editors have been removing well sourced edits from the article on the basis that consensus trumps NPOV policies [2] [3] [4], or that minority views cannot be presented on Wikipedia [5] I will assume good faith and for the time being state that they are just being unbelievably misguided. However, after suggestions to discuss weight, relevance, and reliablity, proponents made no attempt to make suggestions [6], and after the information was moved to the talkpage, the main proponent push was towards dismissing the information rather than offering suggestions for presentation [7].
Editors who wish to have the information presented into the article are doing so on the basis that the edits are well sourced, and are therefore admissible. Such editors are open to appropriate adjustments being made to those edits in context. Jeffrire 08:34, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Comment to Mediators: The above framing of the issues is how one side of the issues being dealt with would articulate. Some of the above is even factually inaccurate (I believe). For instance, I would be surprised if Jeffrire Can show one entry on the talk page where an editor expressed that "consensus trumps NPOV". That is merely weasel-wording on Jeffrire's part- misstating other editor's positions in order to invoke sympathy in newcomers to the conversations. Alex Jackl 21:23, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Reading case now, will post initial comments soon. I hope we can quickly reach a consensus on this. It would help if someone could add a list of involved parties in the meantime. Chrislintott 22:05, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Please do not edit comments posted on this page, even if they are your own. It'll help me immensely if we have a full record of discussions. What I need at the minute is a clear statement of everyone's position, and I expect that you will all disagree. Posting rebutals and responses, while I know it's tempting, just makes things more confusing, although you're welcome to do so if you feel you must. I'll shortly make a list of the issues involved and then we'll deal with them seperately. Hopefully this will allow some progress instead of just continuing the arguments here. If anyone has any concerns about this, you're welcome to contact me on my talk page or by email. Chrislintott 15:29, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Chrislintott has asked me to apologise for him that he hasn't been able to take a more active role in mediating this dispute. He's been unexpectedly busy in real life but will get back to you as soon as he is able. I see that good progress is being made in discussing the relevant issues. If you need outside assistance and Chris is still away, don't hesitate to get in touch on my talkpage... WjB scribe 16:57, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
Just a quick comment for now - Jeffrire has framed the summary in manner which begs the question under dispute. It is not that he is a standard bearer for upholding the NPOV policy and others wish to ignore it. The issue is rather that other editors differ from his judgement that the material is in compliance with the NPOV policy. Also that the sources are in some cases far from reliable, that the sources sometimes do not support the assertion made in the article, and that what is being put forward is opinion rather than fact without a notable individual or identifiable population being shown to hold that opinion. DaveApter 14:02, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
And just to clarify - I welcome this mediation, I agree to participate in it and to be bound by its conclusions. DaveApter 12:11, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
With all due respect to Jefrire, the above is not an accurate portrayal of the situation. I do agree that lengthy repeated discussions, regarding the material in question, have failed to yield productive results and it may be time for mediation.
While some editors may disagree on specific points, by and large the majority of editors are open to compromise on the wording, provided the end result contains relevant material that is worded in an NPOV manner.
One important point in particular:
Thank you for your time and attention.
I look forward to accurate citations which properly reflect the material being cited in an NPOV manner.
Lsi john 14:24, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
than statements of belief. The mediation process tends to bypass beliefs and concentrate on achieving agreement by negotiation and discussion. Interspersed comments can actively avoid personalization of arguments: because they have a context one need not even mention another editor's name/handle; and we do not face the distorting effects of having to summarize another Wikipedian's viewpoint elsewhere, out of context, in an environment where cross-checking as to accuracy becomes more difficult. -- Pedant17 02:17, 26 May 2007 (UTC) parties. Wikipedians standardly use indentation to separate out interspersed additions: see for example the talk-page guideline and its reference to threaded discussion. -- Pedant17 02:17, 26 May 2007 (UTC) good faith in regard to that mediation. Far from interspersed comments indicating a lack of listening, such responses can suggest close listening and a specific willingness to discuss individual points, immediately, and in the context of the discussion as it develops.-- Pedant17 02:17, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
While I don't edit a lot, at the request of Jeffrire, I took the time to add comments, and they have not been addressed. I am concerned that the artilce stay balanced and NPOV with reputable sources, not just individual opinions. Spacefarer 16:25, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
I have edited on and off on this page, and, over the period of about 1.5 years, the article has gone in circles, with A) wholesale deletions of sourced material and B) overrepresentation of insignificant minority positions (which should not be included by NPOV guidelines) and C) overrepresentation of significant minority opinions (which should be given due representation, but not overweighted). Numerous articles have been created surrounding Landmark Education on non-notable people and subjects to create a basis for portraying Landmark Education in a negative light, and such articles have also been administratively deleted for violating policies on notability and attacks. The LE page has gone on and off protection, yet the problems with certain editors persist. We are a long way from a neutral, accurate and informative article, and have been circling (at best) that objective for about 1.5 years. Sm1969 18:47, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
First off , the framing of this mediation request is ludicrous and a PERFECT example of the kind of spin and POV work that has been done on this article. Few editors would say that the above is the issue. None of us have argued that "COncensus trumps NPOV" AT ALL. We have argued consistently that the mass reverts being done by these users to a single old version of the article is a POV attack against the article and contains POV-pushing, non-notable, and non-relevant, information. The framing of this mediation request is the kind of use of weasel words I find most objectionable about what has been going on in this page. Alex Jackl 21:16, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
I have edited on this page for some time. In the interest of not repeating material I concur with users DaveApter, Sm1969, SpaceFarer, and Lsi john above. I have been frustrated over time with the lack of compromise, have been exhausted by dealing with bulk reverts of contentious, POV, insignificant minority-view (IMO) material (however cited and sourced it is). DaveApter tried to create a discussion frame which was mostly ignored and then it worked because the page was protected and the editors that actually wanted to work on content started showing up once the edit warring disappeared and for a few weeks/months we worked together and got the page to a reasonable state. Then EstherRice and Jeffrire picked up where Smee left off and the assault began again. I would love to work out the issues but I don't have much faith and am tired of mass reverts happening with no (or little to be more accurate and fair) discussion of the content or response to factual concerns except "this is highly sourced material". I hope this process makes a difference but I am sure glad the page is protected. Alex Jackl 21:12, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
A notice as per
WP:TPG -- [
Lsi john removed his comments, as follows: At least
Alex Jackl's comments were related to the article.
Lsi john 00:12, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
I started editing this page and contributing to the discussion in early April 2007, soon after I started editing Wikipedia. As I have disclosed on the talk page, I did the Landmark Forum in 1994 and have done a few other courses since then, the most recent being about 3 years ago. I noticed that the Wiki page was in bad shape, with many fragmented and disconnected facts. I soon realized that the page was controversial. I have been struck by the strong opposition that has been displayed by some editors, to the point of one stating that Landmark is a cult (Jeffire) and another stating that "participating in Landmark Education activities does provide a bad indicator for objectivity" (Pedant17). I realize that my comments are directed at editors. That was deliberate -- the reason this article has not stabilized is becasue of disagreements between editors, so it seems obvious that we should discuss those disagreements. As I have said on the talk page, I do not question the good faith of other editors. I accept that we all want to improve Wikipedia. But I do question the neutrality of some editors who have made it clear they have strong opinions.
Concerning the article, I don't advocate removing all criticism of Landmark. Indeed, I think it is notable that some people find the "hard sell" approach to be irritating. However, I also think it is notable that studies have shown that the majority of participants find the courses extremely rewarding and I think the article needs to reflect all points of view with appropriate balance. I hope that this mediation process can lead to some resolution. Timb66 00:29, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Note to mediator: the page on Landmark Education litigation contains much of the material that is under discussion here. Timb66 00:35, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Hello and thanks for reading. I am simply going to state that some editors would be misguided in thinking that the information presented (and deleted on many occasions) was insignificant or unreliable. The information is certainly critical and derives from articles that to my knowledge are reliable and often show a variety of views on the subject. I'm open to all relevant views being presented in the article according to NPOV policies and would like to work with the mediators and all involved in order to present all relevant views. It would also be useful to set up a habit of dialogue that allows editors to discuss the issues at hand (sourced views on cult status, views on manipulation and the general notoriety of Landmark Education) without some editors always taking offense or making undue accusations of negative POV pushing. I believe these issues do need to be stated in discussion and though they may be objectionable, it should be possible to discuss them without any antagonism or threats of legal action, whether contrived or real. Jeffrire 08:42, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
I have two comments. One, the issue with the content in questions is minority POV pushing, not weather it is sourced. In looking further at Jeffrire, Esther Rice, Smee, Penant 17 the over whelming majority of their edits are on articles that involve LGAT, Cult, lists of organizations accused of being such, individuals aledged to be involved as such, lists of individuals and researches who have fought against such organizations. Many of these articles have been created by the same people. I think that this plainly reflects an intense POV. Second, is that on the talk page of the Landmark article, Jeffrire thoughtfully posted all of the material that he felt should be included in the article and invited comments. Most of the editors who have posted on this cabal page took up that invitation and raised significant questions about the reliability of the references and how they were used to support the assertions made in the text. I do not see where anyone has responded to address the significant problems and questions most editors had with the text. Triplejumper 15:12, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
I have stated already, I am no longer involved with editing this article. I had grown sick of all of the rudeness and threats on the talk page. I simply wanted to come to the Mediation to check if individuals were focusing on content, or on contributors - for focus on the latter will not lead to anything productive, but only to personal attacks on individual editors. I see that this is what is going on here, from the majority of comments made, and that is quite unfortunate. It is unfortunate that a majority of individuals here do not wish to have a polite dialogue about the content of the article itself, and the inherent issues involved. Smee 15:51, 23 May 2007 (UTC).
The term "NPOV" is of no use, since opposing sides (of course) think they have the "neutral" point of view, whereas the opposition is either wild-eyed Landmark propagandists or wild-eyed Landmark haters. Isn't it ironic that this bitter, often personal debate is so contrary to what would be recommended by Landmark?
That said, the Landmark page is better than it used to be. I would strongly urge no further elimination of critical material, but nor do I think there should be more emphasis on it. I reject the argument that the article gives unnecessary weight to a minority view, since it isn't objectively known how "minority" this view is. Speaking from personal experience, when I did the Forum last year, about half the people I spoke to felt that Landmark's marking tactics were improper, and questions on Landmark's theological implications were raised with the Forum Leader. In my view these aren't non-issues, but nor do I think there is reason to call Landmark a "cult".
Finally, I think the controversiality of this article is itself notable. Passions are running so strong the article will only be balanced when everyone is dissatisfied with it. Ckerr 04:25, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
~ ~ ~
Having thought about it more, I have come to believe strongly that many of this article's issues could be solved by moving the "Controversies" section into a separate article, the way "Litigation" has. In my experience, the majority of disagreements have been over whether a certain fact was important enough to include in the main article. This problem would no longer arise in a separate article, since there would be no concern about "undue weight". I think the criticisms of Landmark are interesting and important, but they are numerous and complicated enough to make it impossible to cover them fairly in main article. Let's keep the main article focused on what Landmark is and what it does, and leave full treatment of its merits and problems for a separate article. Ckerr 09:49, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
May it please the Cabal: talk of "majorities", "minorities", "significant minorities" and consensus seems inappropriate in the absence of proven figures. Talk of NPOV oft becomes confused with the concept of accuracy (and truth as each editor sees it) at the expense of balance and of a diversity of opinions. Questions as the the reliabilty of sources frequently get derailed into discussions on the overall tone of sources, or on trivial points of dispute unrelated to the immediate point. Claims of non-notability abound, with appeals to WP:Notability regardless of the fact that that guideline applies to Wikipedia articles rather than to sub-topics within articles. Complaints emerge of an article too long, countered by questioning of the forking of some material to avoid just this issue. Wild generalizations on fellow-editors' attitudes and viewpoints and work get made on the Talk-pages. Overall one gets the impression that wikilawyering techniques result in a exclusionist attitude towards any material prejudicially deemed "negative" to the perceived interests of Landmark Education LLC, a for-profit org with a "philosophical" set of offbeat attitudes and techniques which it ostensibly wishes to see spread into popular culture. Even self-damning material originating from the Landmark Education website has fallen victim to exclusionist procedures. -- Pedant17 02:18, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Sorry that I have had neither the chance or inclination to log in recently; a combination of being busy and other factors.
These comments are not yet complete; I have not finished reading this page, since it has become rather like the discussion page for the article. ER Talk 14:14, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
I came back to this article and was chagrined to see that it was locked in mediation. I can imagine any number of reasons that there may be a very small contingent of editors with strong anti-whatever points-of-view, but it still surprises me. I have educated myself in many ways, ranging from a Ph.D. at Caltech to the Martial Arts to yoga to various methodologies and programs designed to enhance my mastery over the quality and nature of my life. Landmark Education was clearly one of the more effective of the latter programs for me (and I have done at least 25), yet in no way is it strange, cultish, or a sect. They are an educational business, with normal corporate offices, and normal classrooms with chalkboards and well-trained instructors. What is this vehement anti-"growth program" view that is so motivating to those who are attacking Landmark and like programs? I don't know the editors who are working so hard at diminishing the reputation of Landmark Education, so it is difficult to assess what is motivating them. However it has very little to do with anything in the reality I have seen. Frankly, it reminds me of the fervor that people who take on some viewpoint, like creationism, which is based on some personal agenda (like the propagation of a specific moral system).
Leave it simple. Landmark Education is an organization with programs designed to enhance the quality of it's students lives, and to give them more mastery over what tends to hold humans back, in general. It is a matter of opinion how "good" the programs are, but not a matter of opinion how many places the program is given, how many people take and continue to take programs every year, and the reports participants make of the positive results of taking the programs.
There is one point I think really might be worth amplifying, that impresses me, whenever I return to a Landmark course. Cults and Sects typically work to seperate their participants from the rest of society, and gain more control over them by having them isolated or disconnected. "Tell your family goodbye" and the like. Landmark works exactly the opposite. It is commonly encouraged in a Landmark course to reach out and connect with family members, especially ones that you may have disconnected with long ago. It works to increase family ties, community ties, and ties other people in general. The only possible criticism is that this is so that they can get more customers. Ridiculous. I have never seen a more sincere group of educators - in my view - that are actually committed to their students having more satisfying and fulfilling lives. Caltechdoc 00:48, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
OK, so I've read what you all had to say. As far as I see it, there are three seperate issues here. Firstly, whether Landmark can be described as a cult, sect or neither of these terms. Secondly, there are disputes over which criticisms of Landmark should be incorporated into the article. Thirdly, even where there is agreement that such criticism should be incorporated in the article, there is dispute as to how prominent it should be, and how much space it should take up.
We'll deal with each of these, but I'm going to defer the third dispute for now. This should be easier to deal with once we have some more concrete to stand on. Let's start with my first point.
As an outside editor, it seems to me that the fact that such a lively debate is possible over whether Landmark is a cult, or a sect, or both, or neither is clear enough evidence that a definitive answer is not possible. It is also inherently non-citable, as no source is likely to be definitive. What is citable is occasions on which the organisation has or has not been described as a cult, a sect or whatever else. As a starting point for debate, I propose 1. That we need a few sentences on whether Landmark has been described as either a cult or a sect, when such descriptions have been applied and the importance of such a classification. 2. That outside of this small section, neither the word 'cult' or 'sect' are used.
Perhaps several of you should suggest a possible form of words, and then we can try and draw them together. One personal request - it would help me if you could just add comments one after the other so I can see how the debate evolves.
It is certainly the case that some people have expressed an opinion that Landmark is a cult and others disagree. Whether there are any sources that meet this aspect of the WP:NPOV policy is open to question:
The reference requires an identifiable and objectively quantifiable population or, better still, a name (with the clear implication that the named individual should be a recognized authority)
I discussed the support (or lack thereof) for the suggestion that Landmark is a cult in the 'Where's the beef?' section on the talk page. As far as I can see there is no recognised authority who has unambiguously declared Landmark to be a cult (without subsequently retracting it), and also defined what they mean by that troublesome and ill-defined term. The arguable exception is the French report, so long as this is given an appropriate context (The French national obsession with "sectes"; the lack of definition, accountablility, or appeal process; the large number of clearly innocuous groups that were also listed; and the general scepticism expressed towards that now-disbanded department).
As regards the controversial issues to be discussed, I already suggested several months ago:
and on reflection, I'd add:
The issue of LE being a "cult" has received much attention. When publications (print matter) have used that term in the United States, they have been consistently sued by Landmark Education, and the entities making the statement have retracted (Margaret Singer, Self Magazine, et al.) Only on the Internet in the United States have entities (e.g., Rick Ross) been able to avoid liability by having an anonymous third-party make the assertion that LE is a "cult." Such retractions have also been issued in the Netherlands. No one has been a well-defined statement in an accountable medium that Landmark Education is a "cult." The situation is different in Europe, notably France, but even there there is no clear (testable!) definition of a "cult" that used.
The other controversial issues brought up by DaveApter are on-point and have been discussed back and forth for at least 1.5 years: A) whether LE produces worthwhile results B) whether LE is a scam C) why do people volunteer
A major issue is how much attention, relative to the length of the article as a whole, these controversies should receive. Sm1969 16:21, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
I, too, think Dave is on-point. While I am not against including citable sources in articles, I find the majority of these 'reliable sources' to be nothing more than smoke and mirrors. The cult-claimers cannot find any substantive citations which back up the claims, so they fill the articles with reports of 'innuendo', 'charges', 'allegations' and 'accusations'. The majority of these allegations are ultimately shown to be false, are thrown out, or are later retracted. And, justification for inclusion is based simply on the fact that the 'allegations' were, in fact, published or reported on, without regard to the actual merit of the allegations. They claim that by including sufficient evidence of 'charges', that it 'proves' the status of cult. (See Jeffrire's comments on the discussion page). And so we end up with biased articles that are full of 'charges' without 'findings'.
My general objection to this is:
I approve of the mediator's suggestion that criticism be limited to a section on criticism and not interwoven into the fabric of the entire article.
I would also suggest, that in cases where the claim was later retracted, the retraction come before (or be part of) the citation, as first-impressions are hard to remove. e.g. Margret Singer was later forced to retract a suggestion that LE was a cult. (or however that would be properly worded).
While I recognize that this mediation is about the Landmark Education article, the entire series of articles will be affected by the decisions here. Lsi john 17:46, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
I agree with the above comments in this section (and I am assuming that all editors honour the request of the mediator that comments on this page are not interspersed, to maintain chronological order). Timb66 21:17, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Debate on the Talk-page and actions on the article-page do not confine themselves to "criticisms" of Landmark Education, but extend to facts, their relevance and their worthiness of inclusion. Since a wide range of passionately-held opinions about Landmark Education exists, any fact, comment or criticism may arouse ire and opposition. -- Pedant17 07:37, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
I see no reference here yet to the Berlin Senate report, which not only classified Landmark Education as a Sekte (cult) in two separate editions, but survived a court case in which Landmark Education failed to have itself removed from the "cult" list. See "Sekten" - Risiken und Nebenwirkungen: Informationen zu ausgewaehlten neuen religiõsen und weltanschaulichen Bewegungen und Psychoangeboten. Herausgeben von der Senatsverwaltung fuer Schule, Jugend and Sport. Redaktion: Anne Ruehle, Ina Kunst. Stand: Dezember 1997. Downloadable from http://www.berlin.de/sen/familie/sog_sekten_psychogruppen/index.html - retrieved 2006-12-13. -- But quite apart from this omission, the topic of Landmark Education, intertwining as it it does with popular culture, may not always fit with guidelines as to citable schools of opinion. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/examples#Popular_culture_and_fiction suggests: "Articles related to popular culture ... must be backed up by reliable sources like all other articles. However, due to the subject matter, many may not be discussed in the same academic contexts as science, law, philosophy and so on; ... Personal websites, wikis, and posts on bulletin boards, Usenet and blogs should still not be used as secondary sources. When a substantial body of material is available the best material available is acceptable, especially when comments on its reliability are included." -- Pedant17 07:37, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Given the number of various views on Landmark Education the company and on Landmark Education the "body of ideas" and on Landmark Education as exhibiyed in the behavior of its "graduates"; and given that Landmark education has allegedly changed over time (such that some statements may apply to (say) 1991 but not necessarily to 2008), I would suspect that we might potentially end up writing more than a few sentences on cultdom. -- Pedant17 07:37, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
One might make a distinction between facts (a French Parliamentary Commission included Landmark Education in a list) and opinions (the French allegedly obsess over sectes (cults); some groups appear "clearly" innocuous (which need not preclude classification as a cult); a "general scepticism" exists (where? how general?). -- Pedant17 07:37, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Any listing of specific "controversies" runs the risk of marginalizing or excluding other issues. I would certainly add to any such list consideration of philosophical soundness and consistency, historical development of features and practices (much disputed), and the sociological and psychological impacts of the recruiting and marketing processes. Compare zombies. -- Pedant17 07:37, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
I agree with the statement that "The majority of these allegations [questioning the practices and teachings of Landmark Education] are ultimately shown to be false, are thrown out, or are later retracted." -- However, the majority of that majority get thrown out on questionable grounds. I invite those who have tracked such alleged allegations to submit itemized listings of allegations retracted or definitively demonstrated false. -- Much emotion-laden language ("smoke and mirrors", "innuendo", "spurious allegations") goes into combatting carefully and impeccably researched material which may not imply conclusions attractive to everyone. Nevertheless, such material, especially when widely-held, has a place (and often a prominent place) in the NPOV-presentation of a Wikipedia article. -- Pedant17 07:37, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Expression of approval of an alleged suggestion by our esteemed mediator to the effect that we limit criticism "to a section on criticism" and not interweave criticism "into the fabric of the entire article" appears to have no basis in fact -- as I understand the matter, our esteemed mediator merely suggested localizing the "cult/sect/not" discussion. Any coralling of "critical" or perceived "negative" material into a special "criticism ghetto" would distort the balance and flow of the article, and could even lead to accusations of disporportionality measured in bytes rather than by merit. -- Pedant17 07:37, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
The proposed formulation: Margret Singer was later forced to retract a suggestion that LE was a cult could better appear as: The legal (rather than the logical) influence of Landmark Education compelled Margaret Singer to note that she had never characterized Landmark Education as a cult. -- Pedant17 07:37, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Much disputation has derived from segregating discussion of "controversies" to a separate section in the article, rather than distributing the various points of view into other thematic sections. As a result, marketing-material from and supportive of Landmark Education has at times distorted the proportionality of the article. -- Pedant17 07:37, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Mediation has very little to do with decisions. The claim that "the entire series [what series?] of articles [which articles?] will be affected by the decisions here" appears to have no validity, but may require explanation/discussion. -- Pedant17 07:37, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
This my suggested first pass. It's a bit longer than I had hoped to make it.
DaveApter 09:00, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
AJackl: This may be overly short but I can live with DaveApter's above section. I will be looking for anything to add. I am committed that we come up with a fair, reasonably sized expression of this small aspect of Landmark. Alex Jackl 05:28, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
It'll be interesting to see what you have to present on top of DaveApter's version, AJack. Jeffrire 10:26, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Timb66: I suggest a rewording to make it more neutral. Comments welcome:
Timb66 23:37, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Lsi john The neutrality idea is good, though both versions are probably a bit too wordy (and probably a bit of OR).
It seems that both Dave and Tim are attempting to combine several citations into one paragraph. Before we do that, we might want to find out of there is an agreement to combine that way. If not, then we'll need to attack each citation separately. Lsi john 23:46, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Triplejumper I agree with the gist of what DaveApter and Timb66, but somthing that I think needs to be pointed out is that any insinuation that Landmark Education or the Landmark Forum are cults are at least decade old and have been retracted. Separate from that I think that a section on this controversey must also include reference to the following statments made by qualified experts:
Dave Apter Just to say that I agree that Timb66's revision of my wording is an improvement and more neutral in tone.
I also agree with Triplejumper's suggestions for the contrary opinions being added, although it would be preferable for the ref to Nedopil to point to the original paper rather than Landmark's re-print of it (or to both if there is not an online copy of it available). DaveApter 14:02, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Timb66: I am concerned that those editors in favour of including more material critical of Landmark seem to have stopped participating in the discussion. I realise they may be busy and unable to do much at the moment, but can they please at least indicate a timeframe? For this mediation to be useful, it needs to have the support of all parties. Timb66 00:09, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Spacefarer Even with the comments below, I think if the article is going to reference the term cult, it should be phrased in a controversy section and noted as something like 'allegations of being a cult'. Top experts have observed and participated in Landmark Educaiton's courses and have said it is not a cult as stated above. People tend to get closer to their family, in general, and there is no figure head, for example; people pay a set amount of money for courses and programs. When someone has tried to have Landmark Education classified as a cult, it has been revoked, as noted above. In fact, a recent Harris pole ( http://www.harrisinteractive.com/news/newsletters/clientnews/2007_LandmarkEducation.pdf) says that "nine of ten agreed that Landmark's programs were responsibly and professionally conducted, produced practical and powerful results, and made a profound difference in their lives." Spacefarer 19:28, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
What advantages do editors see in a "controversy section" ? Will it enhance the NPOV presentation of various views? Will it tend to exacerbate disputes? -- Pedant17 05:01, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
If "[t]op experts have observed and participated in Landmark Educaiton's courses and have said it is not a cult", it seems incumbent upon us to examine the credentials and statements of these "top experts" (which "top experts"? top experts in what? psychological politics? legal machinations?] and to compare and contrast their views with those of other commentators -- even second-tier experts and the hoi polloi... -- Pedant17 05:01, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
The claim has resurfaced that "[w]hen someone has tried to have Landmark Education classified as a cult, it has been revoked". -- Who "revoked" the classification of Landmark Education as a Sekte (cult) by the Berlin Senate report? (see http://www.berlin.de/imperia/md/content/sen-familie/sog_psychogruppen_sekten/risiken_und_nebenwirkungen_1.pdf - retrieved 2007-06-02 -- and when? -- In what sense does Landmark Education's legal failure to suppress the on-line cult-oriented activities of the Rick A. Ross Institute of New Jersey in 2004 - 2005 (as documented and referenced in http://www.rickross.com/reference/landmark/landmark193.html ) amount to revoking cult status for Landmark Education? -- Where has the Austrian Government revoked its classification of Landmark Education as a Sekte (cult) (see http://www.ilsehruby.at/Sektenbroschuere.html , retrieved 2007-06-02) ? -- Pedant17 05:01, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
The recent Harris poll ( http://www.harrisinteractive.com/news/newsletters/clientnews/2007_LandmarkEducation.pdf ) cited in connection with allegedly disproving the "cult" status of Landmark Education involved an "independent survey ... conducted on behalf of Landmark Education" and polled only participants in Landmark Education courses on the subject of program effectiveness. The survey appears to have no relevance to the cult-or-otherwise status of Landmark Education. -- Pedant17 05:01, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
Why would comprehensive lists of perceived cults necessarily include material relating to an obscure and weird group of solipsists from North America? Highlighting Landmark Education's lack of worthiness for detailed discussion in the french and Belgian Parliamentary lists merely throws into better focus the specific discussion of Landmark Education in government lists elsewhere: specifically the Austrian ( http://www.ilsehruby.at/Sektenbroschuere.html ) and Berlin ("Sekten" - Risiken und Nebenwirkungen: Informationen zu ausgewaehlten neuen religiõsen und weltanschaulichen Bewegungen und Psychoangeboten. Herausgeben von der Senatsverwaltung fuer Schule, Jugend and Sport. Redaktion: Anne Ruehle, Ina Kunst. Stand: Dezember 1997. Downloadable from http://www.berlin.de/sen/familie/sog_sekten_psychogruppen/index.html - retrieved 2006-12-13) material, each of which concentrates on a more refined selection of cults than the French or Belgian reports. -- Pedant17 07:37, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
The suggestion that the "cult/sect/non-cult" issue comprises merely a "small aspect" of Landmark Education resonates very well with me. But my personal opinion couts for nothing: the many, many people around the world who have encountered the strange Landmark Education system and who have confusedly grasped at the word "cult" in an attempt to characterize it deserve a substantial discussion of the issue in this universal encyclopedia. -- Pedant17 07:37, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
The suggested phrase Landmark Education has sometimes been described as a "cult" needs attribution and de-vaguifying. I might suggest: "A Google search on +"Landmark Education" +"cult" on 2007-06-01 suggests that about 17300 web-pages (including web-pages devoted to singing the praises of Landmark Education) associate Landmark Education with cultishness. -- Similar weasel-word construction calls for editing in: The cult description is sometimes justified. And instead of the awkward there have not been any instances of this opinion being given by any recognised authority on the subject we could say "Recognised authorities in the field of minor antisocial movements which have characterized Landmark Education as a "cult" include the Berlin Senate ("Sekten" - Risiken und Nebenwirkungen: Informationen zu ausgewaehlten neuen religiõsen und weltanschaulichen Bewegungen und Psychoangeboten. Herausgeben von der Senatsverwaltung fuer Schule, Jugend and Sport. Redaktion: Anne Ruehle, Ina Kunst. Stand: Dezember 1997. Downloadable from http://www.berlin.de/sen/familie/sog_sekten_psychogruppen/index.html - retrieved 2006-12-13) and the Austrian Federal Ministry for Social Security and the Generations (Bundesministerium für soziale Sicherheit und Generationen) ("Sekten - Wissen schützt" [Cults: knowledge can protect] - in German. Online at http://www.ilsehruby.at/Sektenbroschuere.html - retrieved 2006-11-22). -- Furthermore, the repeated use of the word "sect" to translate German Sekte and French secte (as if such languages lack the concept of the English cult) needs sorting out. -- Pedant17 07:37, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
The view that a section on the "cult/non-cult" so-called "controversy" necessarily "must" include material emanating from the Landmark Education website provides an interesting take on independent viewpoints. Fowler's lightweight personal opinion I have discussed above. The ever-precise Nedopil has written at greater length in his report of 23 March 1995 (quoted in the Berlin Senate report, pages 71 ff): Der Seminarstil erschien rigide, direktiv, leiterzentriert, z. T. fast autoritär... Problematischer erscheint mir hingegen, daß gelegentlich Widerstände, die von einzelnen Teilnehmern gegen eine Hinterfragung oder gegen eine Offenlegung eines konkreten Problems artikuliert wurden, nicht ausreichend berücksichtigt wurden. Dies ist auch dann problematisch, wenn sich die Seminarleiterin als "Coach" bezeichnete, dessen Aufgabe es sei, Widerstände zu überwinden. Die Möglichkeit, daß sich hinter dem Widerstand ein bislang nicht bewältigtes Trauma verbirgt, welches zu einer Dekompensation führen könnte, kann bei einem solchen Vorgehen nicht ausgeschlossen werden... Als problematisch muß jedoch angesehen werden, daß die Werbung für weitere Kurse und auch die Ermunterung zur Anwerbung weiterer Teilnehmer in Zeiten ausgeprägter Emotionalisierungen erfolgte, in denen ein rationales Abwägen der Vor- und Nachteile sicher erschwert war.
[Translation ( User:AJackl may wish to improve this): The style of the seminar appeared rigid, directive, leader-centred, and partly almost authoritarian.. On the other hand it seemed to me more problematic that from time to time the resistance -- which [some] individual participants expressed in opposition to the follow-up questioning or to the uncovering of a specific problem -- did not receive sufficient attention. This remaqins problematic even when the seminar-leader portrays herself as a "coach" with the alleged task of overcomoing resistance. One cannot exclude the possibility that a so-far unassimiltaed trauma hides behind such resistance -- a trauma that could lead to a decompensation... However one must regard it a problematic that the advertising for further courses and also the encouragement to recruit further participants takes place at times of distinct emotionalizing, in which a rational weighing up of advantages and disadvantages certainly becomes more difficult.]
Landmark Education may not satisfy Nedopil's technical definition of a cult, but his picture of Landmark Education does not seem as entirely rosy as the selected extracts and summary of the article on the Landmark Education website by Küfner, Nedopil and Schöck might suggest. -- Pedant17 07:37, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
The statement attributed to Prof Dr Nedopil to the effect that "he could not discern any form of behavior which would put the Landmark Forum near a so called [psycho] sect" does not appear to relate to any statement in the cited web-page http://www.landmarkeducation.de/display_content.jsp?top=3758&mid=3776&siteObjectID=16004 , which purports to present extracts from a Bavarian Government sponsored investigation by Heinrich Küfner, Norbert Nedopil and Heinz Schöck into techniques of psychological influence-technique within "Scientology/Landmark" in a context relating to the treatment of drug addicts. We will need to find a better source for this claim before immortalizing it in our Wikipedia article. -- Pedant17 07:37, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
The word "cult" does not always convey negative connotations, and characterizing Landmark Education as a cult may not necessarily associate it with "all the negative connotations of that term". Such obsession with negativity would not reflect well on our encyclopedia. -- Pedant17 07:37, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
No editors favor "including more material critical of Landmark [Education]" exist. All editors wish to develop an NPOV-compliant article. Labelling and categorizing fellow-editors by associating them with "material critical of Landmark [Education]" does not encourage participation in mediation processes by others. -- Pedant17 07:37, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
What a surprise, the target of this edit was a group being sued by Landmark to stop them from calling it a cult. ER Talk 12:57, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
In the spirit of User:DaveApter's suggestions for a mooted "cult" section:
-- Pedant17 07:37, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Dr. Singer, who was a good friend to Rick Ross before she died in 2003, reportedly told close friends that Landmark’s lawsuit had put a financial strain on her family, and that she believed she could settle her litigation without sacrificing her beliefs by simply agreeing to re-affirm that she did not believe Landmark was a “cult” -- given that she had never believed that it was, or had ever made such a statement in the first place." (my highlight)
It appears the onus has fallen on me to respond to Timb66's call for opposing editors, since Pedant17's contributious do not appear to be serious. A few points:
With some changes, I think a paragraph like Timb66's would suffice, so long as it links to a separate article on the controversies. Ckerr 08:55, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
My involvement, here, comes via the LGAT article, and its subsequent links. I have no first or second hand knowledge of Landmark Education, and therefore cannot judge which sources are accurate (legitimate) and which sources are rhetoric (anti-cult propaganda).
For the sake of the mediator, and those who might be unfamilar with LGAT, allow me to digress for a moment (or 6):
I invite you to skim this and read only the Numbered lines if you prefer.
As a graduate of a series of Personal Growth courses, I have come to the following conclusions:
1. Personal Growth is about Personal Responsibility. i.e. Accepting that we are responsible for the consequences of our decisions (and actions or inactions). Note: This has nothing to do with 'blame' or 'credit', but is about 'contribution', 'participation' and 'results'.
2. A number of people who take these courses find it very difficult to accept the material as it is presented.
3. Some of the companies may be using some methods in their trainings that some people find questionable.
4. I see absolutely no connection between any of these trainings and 'cults'.
5. I don't know (or understand) the reasons behind the leadership of the witch-hunting, but I do understand the reasons for much of the membership in the anti-cult briggade.
Regarding Margret Singer: she retracted 'cult' becasue she had no 'legitimate' basis for making the claim. There are pleanty of resources willing to back her up in a legal battle, had the claim had been legitimate and supportable.
(LGAT is simply a poorly-defined term used to identify the training methods (classes/structure) that are used to provide the PR training).
Sorry for the length, and hopefully this helps provide a little insight into the background of this debate.
Lsi john 12:42, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
That which you don't understand, criticize. And, that which you seek to destroy, you must first make controversial. Lsi john 15:25, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Fellow-editors have questioned the seriousness of the proposed "not-a-cult" section, but not the slanted and negative proposed texts of a proposed "cult" section. The parody-element didn't "work", then :-( . But the facts and references and conclusions of the proposed "not-a-cult" section remain valid. -- Pedant17 05:01, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
If Margaret Singer never made a statement clearly labelling Landmark Education as a cult, neither that fact nor a poorly-referenced reported statement to "close friends" (stating that she did not believe Landmark Education a cult) either proves or disproves Landmark Education's identification as a cult. That would construct a positive out out two unrelated negatives... Herewith a better-sourced account of the matter and of Singer's attitudes:
The familiar catch-cry labelling Landmark Education a " business" (as opposed to a cult or as opposed to anything else) misses the point. Landmark Education LLC has a registration as a company and has a corporate structure -- granted. But it also has a body of opinion, a history of practice and a followership of "graduates"; and interest in these phenomena and in their interaction with society lie at the core of evaluating whether or not the frequently-heard "cult" label has some grounds or validity. -- I could make a case for characterizing Landmark Education as a sexual meat-market and/or as a philosophical scam. However good the cases for such designations, we need not use them to deflect attention from the immediate matter of interest as suggested by our esteemed mediator right at this moment: culthood. -- Pedant17 05:01, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
Business vs. cult seems the right place to raise the question of conflict of interest (COI). If Landmark, as its protagonists maintain, is simply a business offering technologies, the removal of critical material by editors with a particular interest in Landmark constitutes a COI policy violation. We seem to have a bit of double-think in action here. On the one hand the protagonists want to avoid or weasel-word around the cult aspect by claiming it's a simple business. At the same time, there is a tacit recognition by the protagonists (which can't be stated openly) that it's more than a simple business and perhaps has some connection with religion or religion-like phenomena, since this apparently buys exemption from COI on wikipedia. ER Talk 13:07, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
Given much of the editing effort devoted to the Landmark Education article over the past few years, I estimate that interest among editors demonstrates the potential of one or several sub-articles on such notable controversies. Properly sourced and NPOV-compliant articles may appear as "junk articles" to some people, but that opinion would not preclude their existence. -- Such articles would best eschew the word "controversy" in their titles lest anyone instinctively construe them as "attacks". -- Pedant17 05:01, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
I fail to see the relevance of accounts of personal experiences or of the simplified world-view of "Personal Growth" courses to the discussion on the alleged cultishness of Landmark Education -- they appear to demonstrate merely that hijacked trite phrases like "personal responsibility" and "at choice" and cute psychobabble can serve to characterize fellow-editors' alleged motives ("anti-cult brigade") and distract us from the topic of cults. -- Pedant17 05:01, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
Failure to detect "any 'single leader(s)' who get worshiped" does not automagically exclude Landmark Education (or any LGAT) from charges of potential culthood. Landmark Education remains obsessed with the idea of "leadership" (see http://www.landmarkeducation.com , site search on "leadership") long after the so-called "Source" of its teachings has faded into the background. And the occasional appearence of "leadership" criteria on some cult-identification checklists does not make the matter a literal pre-requisite for characterizing an organization as "cultic". -- Pedant17 05:01, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
Rechtliche Auseinandersetzung
Im Nachgang zum Bericht der Senatsverwaltung für Jugend und Familie aus dem Jahre 1994, in dem Landmark Education ebenfalls kurz beschrieben wurde, kam es zu prozessualen Auseinandersetzungen. Einen Antrag auf Erlaß einer einstweiligen Anordnung nahm die LE GmbH zurück, im Hauptsacheverfahren fiel die Entscheidung im Jahre 1997: Obwohl mit der Klage das Ziel verfolgt worden war, dem Land Berlin zu untersagen, die Firmen Landmark Education GmbH, "die Landmark Education Corporation, das ?est-Training" sowie das "Landmark Forum" in der Neuauflage der Broschüre "Informationen über neue religiöse und weltanschauliche Bewegungen und sogenannte Psychogruppen" und / oder vergleichbaren Informationsschriften zu erwähnen", erklärte Landmark die Klage im Hauptsacheverfahren für erledigt, nachdem die Senatsverwaltung für Schule, Jugend und Sport nur erklärt hatte, "daß für den Fall einer Neuauflage der Broschüre und einer Aufnahme der Klägerin darin die Klägerin unter einer gesonderten Rubrik "Anbieter von Lebenshilfe" mit entsprechender Einleitung eingeordnet werden, und daß ferner die zu Fußnote 8 gehörige Information gestrichen wird." (Protokoll der öffentlichen Sitzung des VG Berlin vom 14.04.97 - VG 27 A 149.95, S. 17) Diese Erklärung der Senatsverwaltung beruhte auf der bereits vorher beabsichtigten und mit dem vorliegenden Bericht umgesetzten Neustrukturierung und neueren Erkenntnissen.
Legal dispute
Following the 1994 Report of the Senate Administration for Young People and the Family, which also briefly described Landmark Eduaction, court proceedings ensued. Landmark Education GmbH withdrew an application for the finalization of a former decree, and the decision in the main case came in 1997, thus: although the plaintiff had had the goal of forbidding the Bundesland Berlin from mentioning the organisations Landmark Education GmbH and Landmark Education Corporation, as well as the "est Training" and the "Landmark Forum" in the new edition of the brochure "Informationen über neue religiöse und weltanschauliche Bewegungen und sogenannte Psychogruppen" (Information concerning new religious and world-view movements and so-called Psycho-groups) and/or in comparable publications; Landmark Education nevertheless stated that it regarded its petition in the main case as satisfied after the Senate Administration for School, Youth Affairs and Sport had stated 'that in the case of a new edition of the brochure and of inclusion of the plaintiff therein, the plaintiff would appear under a separate heading entitled "Providers of Life-Assistance" with a corresponding introduction, and that further the information within footnote 8 would be excluded.' (Record of the public session of the Berlin Verwaltungsgericht (VG) of 1997-04-14 - VG 27 A 149.95, page 17) This statement on the part of the Senate Administration referenced the already (beforehand) intended re-arranged restructuring of the current report and newly obtained information.
Failure to detect "any 'collective mind programming'" does not automagically exclude Landmark Education (or any LGAT) from charges of potential culthood. Any organization will potentially affect the behavior and outlook of its members or associates, but encountering groups of the results of Landmark Education's training: hyped-up would-be junior Forum Leaders in recruitment-mode -- might give pause to those denying mind-programming. -- Pedant17 05:01, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia remains a work-in-progress. Expecting adefinitive "meaningful conclusion" does not constitute a design-goal -- or a requirement in cited sources. -- And note that Landmark Education itself disparages "meaning". -- Pedant17 05:01, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
In response to the query: Should we include frivilous and spurrious allegations which were subsequently dropped, retracted or thrown out? -- yes; provided the so-called allegations continue to persist in the noosphere and or constituted a major element at some stage. (Wikipedia has and should have material on phrenology). And if anyone has "thrown out" "spurious allegations" on spurious grounds, we have no reason per se to continue to suppress such material. -- Pedant17 05:01, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia has no claims to conduct journalism -"responsible" or otherwise -- in its main wiki-space. On the contrary, it aims to provide encyclopedic coverage of topics -- even (for example) obscure and dying psycho-cults. -- Pedant17 05:01, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
As our esteemed mediator has suggested, "a definitive answer" as to Landmark Education's culthood or otherwise appears impossible. In such circumstances, bellyaching over the legitimacy of the claims of culthood appears irrelevant. On the contrary, we have the immediate task of assessing "the importance of such a classification". I suspect that calls for examination of relevance and impact rather than of "legitimacy". -- Pedant17 05:01, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia might counter this bon mot with "That which you don't understand, research". (And after researching, present the sourced findings, whether they involve criticism, facts, opinions, or any other relvant material. Vague suggestions of blanket retractions or of one-sided "proofs" will not suffice. Happily, collaboration from across the spectrum of editors will further enlighten all of us.) -- Pedant17 05:01, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
As I pointed out above and on the talk page, there is already a separate article listing criticisms of Landmark ( Landmark Education litigation) which contains, among other things, the quotes by Singer. Timb66 05:48, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
"I'm afraid to tell you what I think", means she wouldn't say what she thought because she was afraid to say. We are not allowed to guess what she was thinking and we are not allowed to 'read between the lines'. What we know is that had already she firmly and clearly stated 'to her friends' that she could satisfy the lawsuit in good conscience by re-affirming that she didn't call Landmark a cult, because she had never called them a cult and did not believe they were a cult.
She was afraid to say something, and we do not know exactly what it was. But we do know what it was NOT. It was NOT that that LE is a cult.
Lsi john 09:50, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
We do not know that Margaret Singer had "firmly and clearly stated 'to her friends' that she could satisfy the lawsuit in good conscience by re-affirming that she didn't call Landmark a cult, because she had never called them a cult and did not believe they were a cult" -- we lack a good specific source for this very vaguely-expressed assertion. The only clue given so far here comprises a reference to "your very own RickRoss website" allegedly stating: 'Dr. Singer, who was a good friend to Rick Ross before she died in 2003, reportedly told close friends that Landmark’s lawsuit had put a financial strain on her family, and that she believed she could settle her litigation without sacrificing her beliefs by simply agreeing to re-affirm that she did not believe Landmark was a “cult” -- given that she had never believed that it was, or had ever made such a statement in the first place'
Assuming the quotation from some unspecified "RickRoss" website appears accurately here (and we have no means of checking that without an URL, say); AND assuming that the mysterious "RickRoss" web-page has accurately conveyed its own sources, we still have to deal with the vague phraseology "reportedly told close friends".
Even assuming that the whole chain of citation works, we still cannot conclude on this basis that Margaret Singer whole-heartedly pronounced Landmark Education as "not a cult". At best, we could suspect on this basis that she said that she did not believe in the identification of Landmark Education with the identification "cult". -- The better-sourced direct quotations from Dr Singer on the matter from Scioscia [3] do not imply any definitive pronouncement on Landmark Education's non-cultishness.
What did her actual statement to the court say? Any good references? -- I've seen a page on the Landmark Education website (not an unbiased source) which at http://www.landmarkeducation.com/uploaded_files/694/msing.pdf makes no link to the court case but says: "Margaret Thaler Singer ... stated on May 7, 1997 as follows: 'I do not believe that either Landmark or The Landmark Forum is a cult or sect, or meets the criteria of a cult or sect.'" -- Once again, we find a lack of "belief" -- carefully worded as befits an academic and a legal victim. We find no positive affirmation that Landmark Education "is not a cult". -- Pedant17 01:26, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
OK, then we won't say she said they are not a cult. Which I never suggested we say in the first place.
And we won't say that she hinted that she might not be able to say what she couldnt say if she wanted to say something that she might have thought but was afraid to think about saying.
Meaning, we won't say anything about cult, as it relates to Singer, or meaning we cite what she said "She did not believe they were a cult." .. which isn't notable, because she probably did not believe they were an ice cream vendor either. The article is about what LE is, not what someone might not have said they aren't.
Lsi john 02:34, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Hello all. I've been standing back to read what you've all said and I can see more or less where the problems are. I think we should start to seek points of agreement. There are some undeniable aspects to the research:
In general the information on the cultlike nature of Landmark Education uses a Wikipedia style notion of cults (ie, if we link the term cults to the Wikipedia article on cults, the reader will be able to see the context of cults in general and will most likely not jump to the narrowest view. Or we could be more precise and state the context of the source - e.g. the reason for why the source has listed or commented on a list of what they consider to be cults or related groups. What we need to present there is a simple statement of their purpose, concern, or reasoning.
If there is a relevant issue then its presented. If Singer, for instance mentions LE in a book, then takes it out, then that can be mentioned in the article, especially if LE is trying to sue her. As there are quite a few sources stating things about LE in relation to cults - LGAT, then its clearly a major issue. However, I don't think its necessary to spread it all over the article. It can be made compact enough to go into a simple section and deal with all the related controversy in that section. So I suggest we start working on these points:
I expect there will be a certain level of disagreement on either of these points for better or worse, so I'll take a patient approach. I don't think we need to rush any of this. Jeffrire 04:43, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
I think we have a suggestion in response to the mediator's suggestion. Tim66's re-worded version of DaveApter's paragraphs on that. We have had three or four people line up with that... What do people think? Alex Jackl 06:22, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
The mediator suggested two tasks for us, the first of which was:
Can we take it that we have accomplished this one? There seems to have been general approval of Timb99's suggesion for the wording of this. Ckerr and Pedant17 have expressed reservations, but have not made any specific suggestions for altered wording - does this mean we can run with what we have?
If so, perhaps we can move on to the other area the mediator identified:
If so perhaps the suggestions I made above would serve as a starting point?
Does anyone want to extend this list, or will it do? Once we've agreed on the list, perhaps we can put forward suggestions for a short paragraph on each?
It seems clear from the discussion so far that the "cult" issue is essentially semantic. Rather than debating endlessly on whether Landmark does or does not qualify for that ambiguous and loaded term, it would be more useful to indicate what specific features it has (or not) that are associated with that description. Maybe this will be accomplished in dealing with these other areas? DaveApter 09:48, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Triplejumper 16:09, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
Coming back to this mediation cabal, it seems that the comments about the controversial cult label may be about the amount of the article that is dedicated to the issue. There also are many different meanings to the term 'cult' in many cultures and in this debate. I would argue that the issue is not notable about Landmark Education, although some would say it is because of references, although old or opinion or retracted later. The justifications of including the cult-term remind me of times that there seemed to be clear reasons and justifications for some point and actions were taken accordingly, but the point was not so when you look deeper or at the whole picture (the sun revolving around the Earth or weapons of mass-destruction in Iraq, for example). (It also seems to me that there is an agenda of some editors I would call anti-cult, and if they view Landmark Education as such, the agenda would come into play.) Spacefarer 20:20, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
The following comment was added to the top of this page I moved it here so so make things easier to read. I was unsure about whether it could be deleted or not given it is hard to tell if it is related to this cabal or not. If someone else thinks it should be deleted please do so Triplejumper 23:29, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
I believe we have a suggestion for wording being considered. I have made some minor adjustments.
I also believe one of the reports (the French one?) removed LE from its list the following year. I also believe the state department has formally challenged the translation of secte into cult.
Caution: The reader should be aware that the French and Belgian languages use secte, not cult, and that, other than the word secte itself, there is no direct translation of secte into English. The word secte does not have the same pejorative connotation as the word cult in English. Extreme care should be exercised when interchanging the two words.
Lsi john 12:52, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
Let's have a reference for the vague belief that the authors/commissioners of some undefined report removed Landmark Education from such report. -- Pedant17 04:05, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
Let's have a reference for the vague belief that some "state department" (which department? which state?) "formally challenged the translation" of secte as "cult". In the process, let's have an explanation of the role and rights of government and administration in regulating linguistic use across multi-national cross-cultural boundaries. -- Pedant17 04:05, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
The proposed formulation 'Landmark Education has sometimes been described as a "cult"' uses weasel-wording ("sometimes"), effectively failing to quantify an implied occasional description. The same sentence also uses a weasel passive construction ("has ... been described") with the effect of not ascribing this claim to anyone in particular. We can readily make this claim at least structurally NPOV by converting to the active voice and providing reputable examples, thus: "The French secret police (ref), the Austrian government (ref) and cult-watching groups both religious (ref) and secular (ref) have examined (ref) and documented (ref) Landmark Education in terms of its apparent cult-like activities and teachings." -- Pedant17 04:05, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
The proposed formulation: "Such accusations usually appear in milieu such as internet chat rooms and and anti-cult websites" appears factually inaccurate in its use of the word "usually". Without going into statistics on the numbers of mentions in Internet chat-rooms, can one dismiss non-Internet chat-rooms, water-cooler gossip, sermons, cafe-chats, fireside musings and Usenet posts so glibly? And do we have acceptable criteria for identifying "anti-cult websites" -- as opposed to other web-sites, blogs, letters and emails that just may touch on the perceived evils of Landmark Education? Speculation on the source of "such accusations" (loaded word!) needs validation or elimination, or at least balance. If we keep the morpheme "milieu", it may need a proper plural. -- Pedant17 04:05, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
The proposed formulation "However, there have not been any allegations of LE being a cult being made by any recognised authority on the subject, that were not subsequently retracted" has severe problems. The passive constructions continue in a tangle. Let's get rid of them for a start before addressing the substance. Try: "No recognised authority on the subject has alleged that Landmark Education is a cult without subsequently retracting that allegation." -- This re-revised formulation still includes the verb "to be", which careful researchers will avoid but which Landmark education itself likes to use -- perhaps to support its binarist views on such matters. Let that pass, just for the moment, and let's turn to the semantics. The use of the phrase "recognised authority" begs the questions as to who recognises authorities, and in what areas such authorities (should) have competence. Upon examination, the sentence as a whole reduces to meaningless/undefined marketing-speak. But worse ensues. The implication that allegations get refuted does not hold water. We discussed this above. A few newspapers and magazines have issued retractions in the face of Landmark Education's legal posturings. But retractions from the likes of the French government, the Austrian government, the Berlin Senate and cult-watchers in general appear lacking. -- The claim still abounds in negative language: "no ... without ... retracting". As such it becomes very difficult to prove or disprove: the absence of evidence does not prove a positive. But if we want to use such a claim, we may need to point out, in all neutrality, that various authorities have not (yet) retracted their their claims of culthood. -- Pedant17 04:05, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
The inconvenience of French authorities writing in French and of Belgian authorities writing in French and in Flemish provides a red-herring. We need sensitive translations expressing an awareness of semantic fields and quoting their non-English originals, not Anglo-centric implications that ignorant foreigners should speak English. -- Pedant17 04:05, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
The negative suggestion that Landmark Education fails to get mention or discussion in listed government reports outside listings speaks to the nature of the reporting and to the relative insignificance of Landmark Education in those jurisdictions. Insofar as it has any validity (see below), it stands in contrast to the German and Austrian reports, which focus more on smaller numbers of specific cults and report on them in considerable detail -- facts which could bear mention in a more balanced treatment of governmental reports. -- Pedant17 04:05, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
The claim that Landmark Education receives no specific mention in the main body of the Belgian Parliamentary report appears at variance with the discussion of Landmark Education's origins on page 110 of that document and mention in connection with trans-border recruitment on page 111 of the same document: http://www.dekamer.be/FLWB/pdf/49/0313/49K0313008.pdf
The claim that Landmark Education in the French Parliamentary report of 1996 receives mention only in an appendix appears at variance with its appearance in listings in the body of the report under the heading of Les adeptes des sectes. The report ( http://www.assemblee-nationale.fr/rap-enq/r2468.asp ) lacks any appendices. -- Pedant17 04:05, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
The mention of "about 200 widely assorted groups" in both the French and Belgian Parliamentary reports overeggs the random scope aspect: the Belgian report lists 189 groups (see Cults and governments, while the French report appears to cover at least 176 (see Groups referred to as cults in government reports). -- Pedant17 04:05, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
In the unattributed block-quoted "Caution" section, mention and discussion of the "Belgian language" seems unclear. The French-language version of the Belgian Parliamentary report refers to sectes, whereas the Flemish-language version speaks of sekten -- see http://www.dekamer.be/FLWB/pdf/49/0313/49K0313008.pdf Perceptive readers will realize that few foreign-language semantic fields translate exactly and precisely into English-language equivalents. But the context and content of the government reports in question suggests "cult" as the most exact English-language equivalent of their subject-matter. -- Pedant17 04:05, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
Given the amount of discussion on the current mediation project-page, the lack of integration of discussed topics into the proposed text appears disappointing. The overall tone of the proposed text, devoting much attention as it does to unattributed refutations of the "cult" concept, might make it a better candidate for incorporation into the "not-a-cult" text than for use in the proposed examination of who has called Landmark Education a cult and why. -- Pedant17 04:05, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
I feel very sorry for the mediator who has to wade through 170 KB of this fodder. Here is my version of Timb66's text:
Changes welcome. As you can see, I shifted the emphasis away from the "cult" allegation (which at least some of us agree is pointless and semantic) towards the actual objections against Landmark, based on DaveApter's list. I also strongly believe, as I've said before, that in the interests of keeping the article balanced and a reasonable length, there should be just a paragraph on the criticisms, with a link to a separate article for interested readers to pursue in depth. Finally, I think Landmark Education litigation is not the place to discuss all criticisms of Landmark. Ckerr 08:05, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
I too feel sympathy for anyone trying to follow the argument in this discussion. Indented comments inserted in the appropriate places would (of course) have helped a lot to constrain wordiness and to structure the debates in the tradition of Wikipedia talk-pages. -- Pedant17 06:16, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
By all means let us discuss a potential text on issues/criticisms, but let's not confuse that text with the proposed text on cult-labeling. Semantic arguments can cover whether one should label Landmark Education as a sect (sect of what?) or as a cult. But historically attested facts will demonstrate whether or not someone listed or referred to Landmark Education as a cult, and when, and in what context. -- Pedant17 06:16, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
The formulation that "Landmark Education has received criticism" suffers from weasel-passive-like construction in that it discourages us from saying who has generated such criticism and when and how often. -- Pedant17 06:16, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
The in itself tendentious assertion that criticism of Landmark Education relates "primarily" to "marketing technique" needs a citation or some other proof. Other criticisms also figure prominently, if not more so . -- Pedant17 06:16, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
The passive formulation "participants are strongly encouraged" fails to make clear who or what does the encouragement. -- Pedant17 06:16, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
The reference to "Landmark" tout court disparages other respectable entities which use the name "Landmark". We can use the fuller moniker "Landmark Education", if not for legal reasons or to comply with Landmark Education LLC marketing and branding, then at least to drive home the disparity between Landmark Education and more conventional and respected views on education. -- Pedant17 06:16, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
To imply that Landmark Education has earned its "cult" tag solely or primarily through its recruitment practices distorts and over-simplifies the arguments about Landmark Education's culthood. -- Pedant17 06:16, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
To speak of "[every] mainstream publication" retracting distorts and disguises the degree to which published suggestions of Landmark Education's culthood have spread largely unchecked or unretracted. -- Pedant17 06:16, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
The link to Landmark Education litigation could embrace a wider spectrum of opinion by becoming a link to the (currently synonymous) better-named Landmark Education and the law. -- Pedant17 06:16, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
The concept of "too closely connected" (to est/Erhard) needs extrapolation/explanation, optionally in the Landmark Education article and certainly in any Issues relating to Landmark Education article. Some commentators worry about the content of Erhardistic teachings too. -- Pedant17 06:16, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
Hello all. So far I see no realistic suggestions on how to proceed with presenting critical information on LE. Lots of well sourced and neutrally stated critical edits were removed (for no good reason) and as far as I see no reasonable alternative suggestions have been forthcoming. My own suggestion stands: Basically just have those sourced statements in NPOV neutral and simple form (pretty much as they were) without any unsourced commentary added either way. Here is the basic info: [16]. If there are any dead hyperlinks they can be removed. But basically the information is very neutrally presented. I see no problem with the Singer controversy being added, together with her statements after LE's litigious activities. If there is anything stating a retraction of LE being a cult, then it can be added. If there is no statement to that effect, then it fails burden of proof.
Alternatively, we can agree that we have not reached any consensus and move to another level of dispute resolution. Feel free to comment. Jeffrire 05:09, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
=== *Suggestions from Jeffrie* === (I have migrated Jeffrire's link to this discussion as text)
In Austria in 1996, the Federal Ministry of the Environment, Youth and the Family published a list of 200 groups it labelled cults (in German: Sekten) [4]
In the International Religious Freedom Report 2005, the government of Austria included Landmark Education among the "sects":
The vast majority of groups termed "sects" by the Government are small organizations with fewer than 100 members. Among the larger groups is the Church of Scientology, with between 5,000 and 6,000 members, and the Unification Church, with approximately 700 adherents throughout the country. Other groups found in the country include Divine Light Mission, Eckankar, Hare Krishna, the Holosophic community, the Osho movement, Sahaja Yoga, Sai Baba, Sri Chinmoy, Transcendental Meditation, Landmark Education, the Center for Experimental Society Formation, Fiat Lux, Universal Life, and The Family. [5]
The International Religious Freedom Report 2006, however, did not list Landmark Education among the examples of cults, although the wording makes it plain that the list is not intended to be comprehensive.
In a 2002 article: "Psychogroups and Cults in Denmark", the researchers assert that some people have thought of Landmark Education as associated with "cultic groups" due to the "high level of one-sided sales pressure that many people report." [6]
On June 6, 2004 Landmark Education ceased operating in Sweden. As in France, the causes of the closure included a diminishing public interest in participating, evinced in connection with very critical articles in the press and on television. [7]
The airing of two documentaries on national Swedish television by the broadcasting corporation TV4 on October 28, 2003 and on March 15, 2004 called " Lycka till salu" (Happiness for sale) in the program series " Kalla Fakta" contributed to the termination of the organization there. [8] citation needed
A Parliamentary Inquiry of the Belgian Chamber of People's Representatives into cults and their dangers listed and discussed Landmark Education in an official report of 28 April 1997. [9]
In 1994 a report of the Senate Committee of the State of Berlin in Germany included Landmark Education in a report on cults with the sub-title "entities espousing a world view and new religions". Landmark Education sued for correction and, on May 14, 1997, the Berlin court (Volksgericht 27A) endorsed a new classification-scheme which now represented Landmark Education as a "Providor of Life Guidance"(Anbieter von Lebenshilfe). [10]
Three court cases involving Landmark have included the claim of brainwashing; none resulted in Landmark being ruled as brainwashing anyone. Each had a slightly different outcome:
In 1999 Landmark Education asked Dr. Raymond Fowler, a psychologist and past President of the American Psychological Association (APA), to evaluate the effectiveness, safety, and appropriateness of the procedures in the Landmark Forum. Fowler reported that he saw nothing to suggest that the Landmark Forum itself would cause harm to participants, and that the course had none of the characteristics associated with a cult, and that the Landmark Forum did not place individuals at risk of "mind control", "brainwashing", or "thought control". [11]
Some articles have reported that the Landmark Education's coursework uses " loaded language" and " jargon": A former Erhard Seminars Training disciple made the comparison to "loaded language", in an article in NOW Toronto. [12]
In an article in New York Magazine, Vanessa Grigoriadis states that "the Forum drives its points home with loaded language, relentless repetition, and a carefully constructed environment." [13]
The Times referred to Landmark Education's use of language as "eccentric jargon". [14]
Some references to Landmark Education's courses compare them to religious subject matter:
Paul Derengowski, formerly of the Christian cult-watch group Watchman.org, states that Landmark "has theological implications". [15]
The Apologetics Index (an online Christian ministry providing research resources on what it considers cults, sects, other religious movements, doctrines, and practices) maintains a page on Landmark Education. [16]
An opposing view appears in the article "A Very Nineties Weekend" in the international Roman-Catholic weekly The Tablet stating that several Catholic priests have endorsed Landmark, and that the Trappist monk Basil Pennington has praised the Forum for bringing about a "full human enlivenment". [17]
Other examples of commentary from clergy appear on the Landmark Education Website.
In 1993, two years after the emergence of Landmark Education, Rev. Dr. Richard L. Dowhower conducted a survey of clergy to assess their opinions of cults, entitled "Clergy and Cults: A Survey". The 53 respondents came from the Washington, DC area and included 43 Lutheran clergy and seminarians, one Roman Catholic and one Jewish clergyman, and an Evangelical minister. The highest percentage (28%) of those questioned about "The cults I am most concerned about are", gave the answer of "Scientology, est/Forum, Lifespring". [18]
In James R. Lewis' 2001 book (published 10 years after the establishment of Landmark Education), Odd Gods: New Religions & the Cult Controversy, Werner Erhard, Erhard Seminars Training and The Forum are discussed [19]. Odd Gods describes the spiritual influences of the coursework, including Zen Buddhism, Abilitism, Subud, Dianetics, Scientology and Asian spiritual leaders [19].
In 2002 theologians Deacon Robert Kronberg, B.Th. and Consultant Kistina Lindebjerg, B.Th. of the Dialog Center International in Denmark discussed the religious aspects of Landmark Education, stating: "Also we see a large number of people joining groups, such as Landmark and Amway, which become controversial because of their sales practices." [6]
Specifically, Kronberg and Lindebjerg posited that Landmark Education's courses seem to fill a void in the lives of disillusioned young adults, who have not found answers in religion: "Landmark seems to appeal to young people between 20 and 35 in liberal professions who are disillusioned with or discouraged about their lives. Landmark seems to be a scientific substitute for the need for religious answers to life's fundamental questions." [6]
I'm pleased to see at least patchy support for my suggested text. Now, I'm not saying my text is perfect, but I think it's clear that we're never going to have unanimous agreement: for example, my text has been criticised from both sides. Personally, I think it's too pro-Landmark, but I wrote it with the aim of getting agreement, not to push my views.
I think the information in Jeffire's large block of text is essential, and I believe it deserves its own article. I agree with Jeffire that this material should be presented directly, without editorial interpretation. That said, there isn't anything wrong with having a paragraph which summarizes the main points of that separate article.
By the way, remember that having a separate article on "Landmark Education litigation" didn't solve everything, but it did help. I think the same would be true here.
I final thought: I am sick of this debate, and I hope you all are too, since there are so many better things we could be doing. So anyone who wants to start an edit war over "many" vs. "most", as suggested above, should be committed to an asylum for the obsessed. Ckerr 11:51, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
I've criticized the proposal to limit past, present and possible future controversial material (the "Issues" stub potentially linking to a Landmark Education issues article) to a static set of defined topics. Instead, I propose we need do no more than diligently apply the standard Wikipedia policies: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No original research. Mere opinions about balance and disputes or personal views on accuracy then vanish and we retain the reliable published material. -- Pedant17 01:02, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Revised in the light of comments on this section:
-- Pedant17 01:22, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
The spin doctor is in! :-) Come on. The thing that scares me most about this last section is that it is written in such a serious tone and surrounded by such spin that an unwary reader might miss the fact that you just said: "Well- just because LE has a bunch of different types of people endorsing it and saying it is not a cult - from experts, to people who have done it, to priests, to doctors, to psychologists, to studies- doesn't mean it is true. Yeah! That's it! They haven't PROVEN that they are NOT a cult!!! "
Wow. Okay. Neither has my local grocer. He has also not proven it. I suppose I should wear my tin foil hat to keep him from brain washing me. Come on! I hate to be so sarcastic but this is such doggerel! I expect better from you Pedant 17!
How about this- read the current article.! No one has ever successfully called LE a cult in the United States (because there are strong legal protections in the US against slander and libel), everyone that we have had referenced on the site has retracted, or has "clarified" that "they did not mean to call it a cult" or they pointe dout that they hadn't "actually" called LE a cult. Every time someone puts up someone declaring outright that it isn't a cult the "pro culties" find some reason to disregard the truth.
Look- it isn't a cult. There is no evidence for it no matter how many times you say "yes there is, yes there is". Now- LE may have had some questionable practices. It may have some organizational inefficiencies. It may not always do things the way I think they should! Well- it is a human organization. IBM has a bunch of questionable practices too. OK.
I am sorry if I seem flip but it is wearying to deal with the kind of spin above. If people just look behind the rhetoric they will see a series of facts which pretty clearly tell a story of NO CULT. And LE does somehow generate a VERY VOCAL but small minority of people pissed off at it like the above commenters. I am not sure why. Some of it has to do with some sales practices that pissed people off and LE is turning around and eliminating form its practices. Some of it is just people not understanding and hating that which they do not understand.*shrug* Oh well. I have been staying away for a while. I will go quite again. Alex Jackl 04:00, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
An apparently fearful reaction to a serious proposal for a proposed balancing/balanced block of WP:NPOV text reads: "The thing that scares me most about this last section is that it is written in such a serious tone and surrounded by such spin...". I make no apology for using a serious tone in writing for an encyclopedia. I suggest that we identify any surrounding spin so that we can unravel it and if necessary replace it. Vague allegations of spin do not help.
I suspect we agree that endorsements do not prove anything: "just because LE has a bunch of different types of people endorsing it and saying it is not a cult ... doesn't mean it is true". Hence the focus in my proposed text on analyzing the patterns and the logical inadequacies of those who pronounce Landmark Education "not a cult". Unquestioning acceptance of their views would contradict some other widely-expressed views, some of which would appear in any (separate) section addressing the perceived cultishness of Landmark Education.
We also agree, I feel confident, that proving a negative (such as the proposition that Landmark Education does not class as a cult) faces very severe logical difficulties. Given that, it seems entirely appropriate to point out the illogic and to highlight the alternative strategies (such as emotionalism, dogged assertion, deflection, spin) that some defenders of the Landmark Education experience deploy from time to time, despite the inherent weakness of their position. The persistence of such efforts calls for comment in itself.
I accept it as quite plausible and likely that a local grocer has not proven that (say) his/her grocery does not qualify as a cult. If such grocery faced widespread allegations of culthood and itself devoted considerable resources to affirming the negative, then in that case I might accept the analogy. In the meantime, the grocer seems like a red herring in respect of our discussion on cult-denying.
I note the implication that I have written doggerel. Believing that in general doggerel does not provide suitable material for Wikipedia, I suggest that we identify and polish up any portions of my suggested text that appear as doggerel.
The appeal to "read the current article" favors a version of Wikipedians' work on Landmark Education that happens to represent a frozen non-endorsed state. The archives of both the main article-space and the discussion on it reveal a more complex picture which we would do well to take into account as well.
I note the claim that "No one has ever successfully called LE a cult in the United States (because there are strong legal protections in the US against slander and libel)". Limiting the area of discussion to the United States of America would distort the world-wide view that Wikipedia aims for. Jurisdictions with less rigid preconceptions about preventing freedom of speech provide for alternative -- and valuable -- views on Landmark Education and its potential culthood. But even in the United States people do refer to Landmark Education as cultic, cultoid, or even (gasp!) "a cult". The current state of legal restrictions/threats may affect major publishers, but a persistent vein of popular culture happily associates Landmark Education and aspects of culthood -- even in the heartland-homeland of Landmark Education's activities. Wikipedia's citation-rules discourage us from cherry-picking in that corpus. But it would seem unwise and tendentious to act as if that public opinion did not exist. -- Once again, discussion along the lines "nobody successfully calls Landmark Education a cult" attempts to assert an unprovable negative.
The statement also appears that 'everyone that we have had referenced on the site has retracted, or has "clarified" that "they did not mean to call it a cult" or they pointe dout that they hadn't "actually" called LE a cult'. Such a claim patently disregards the references to European government agencies and to media in France and in the Netherlands, raised previously on this very mediation-page. One cannot act as if French television had never broadcast Voyage au pays des nouveaux gourous, or as if the Berlin Senate had dropped Landmark Education from its documentation on cults. To deny the existence of cult-labelling distorts the facts -- even the facts that Wikipedia has unashamedly and appropriately published (with painstaking referencing) in the past. -- Apart from all that, attempts at refuting cult-labelers belong not in the section under discussion (the analysis of the cult-denial school) but under the rubric of some other heading. We could set up a separate section or a separate Wikipedia-article on Meta-accusations about those whose discuss Landmark Education. The topic would not want for material.
I note too the claim 'Every time someone puts up someone declaring outright that it isn't a cult the "pro culties" find some reason to disregard the truth.' This assertion appears to posit a "truth" and seems to shore it up with "declaring outright that [Landmark Education] isn't a cult". Such appeals to "authoritative" non-neutrality carry little weight in the Wikipedia environment. One can certainly quote such views, but we have the task of assessing too the reasons that the alleged "pro-culties" provide, evaluating their citations and incorporating their point of view rather than assuming some absolute "truth". (I do see hope in the mention of "reason", though.)
The assertion that "it isn't a cult" remains just that: an assertion, -- however strong, however often repeated. But even if some overwhelming majority of peer-reviewed sociologists/theologians/psychtherapists were to make the case for Landmark Education's non-culthood, the evidence of alternative views flickering away in the unenlightened backwaters of the 1990s would deserve mention and discussion in Wikipedia as part of any balanced coverage of the LGAT/Scientological/human-potential-movement phenomenon.
I trust I have written enough already -- today and earlier -- to make it clear that evidence does exist in the matter of Landmark Education's potential culthood. I therefore dismiss the claim that '[t]here is no evidence for it no matter how many times you say "yes there is, yes there is".' But that discussion belongs in a different section -- on culthood -- not clogging up the current discussion on those who deny culthood. Such outbursts provide raw material, but contribute little to rational discussion.
The apparent attempt to deflect discussion about defense of Landmark Education into the generic topic of "questionable practices" needs no attention here. Questionable practices belong in yet another sub-section of "Landmark Education controversies" if they do not relate to alleged cultic activity.
"If people just look behind the rhetoric they will see a series of facts which pretty clearly tell a story of NO CULT." Let's see those facts then -- stripped of the spin emanating from enthusiastic "graduates" and a compliant corporate web-site. Show us the "facts" from good and reliable Wikipedia-worthy sources and let them stand alongside the carping underswell of the Austrian government and the French labor-inspectorate and the repeated accusations of "cult" against est and all the rest of the published objects to Landmarkism.
No discussion of the so-called "public conversation" about Landmark Education should miss out on accusing detractors of forming a "small minority". We've heard the tag before, but we have yet to see any plausible evidence of the "minority" status, let alone how "small". Wikipedia needs evidence. -- Not that deriding opponents as a minority has any place in the development of a neutral point-of-view, in any case.
We have also come to expect standardized vague speculation as to the motives of those who call the corporate rhetoric of Landmark Education into question. But we don't need to pad out Wikipedia with such stuff: we simply assume good faith on the part of all editors. If Landmark Education does indeed "somehow generate a VERY VOCAL but small minority of people pissed off at it ... I am not sure why" then let us do some research and then publish and then cite our findings. Vague dismissive assertions of the type "[s]ome of it is just people not understanding and hating that which they do not understand.*shrug* Oh well." -- these would get tagged as speculative original research and thrown out of the main Wikipedia-space in short order. Here they do not further the mediation process -- a process invoked to aid us in citation.
-- Pedant17 03:36, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
Within the task of identifying sources which have labelled Landmark Education as a "cult" or a "sect", we have yet to add sources that -- perhaps wisely -- skip around the precise legal minefield of specific forms of words and suggest that Landmark Education shows "cultic" tendencies or displays "cult-like" behavior. This subsection of the discussion may need to come to terms with sources like (for example) Samways, Schwertfeger and infoSekta.
The Australian psychologist Louise Samways has linked Landmark Education with undesirable practices in Dangerous Persuaders: An exposé of gurus, personal development courses and cults, and how they operate (Penguin, 1994) ISBN 0-14-023553-1. Formerly cited in the Landmark Education article but innapropriately removed as an out-or-print non-expert, Samways continues to provide a non-US English-language viewpoint and places Landmark Education in a context of cultdom as seen through her therapeutic practice in Mebourne.
Bärbel Schwertfeger, a German psychologist/journalist, wrote a foreword to Martin Lell's memoir of his experiences in a "Landmark Forum". As Frau Schwertfeger has researched and written on "trainings" (note especially her article: "Landmark und seine Ableger" [Landmark and those who reject it] in her book: Schwertfeger, Bärbel (1998) Griff nach der Psyche - Was umstrittene Persönlichkeitstrainer in Unternehmen anrichten [Grab for the Psyche: what controversial personal-development trainers set up in organizations]. Campus: Frankfurt am Main. ISBN 978-3593359106), her comments on and interest in Landmark Education provide interesting expertise. See furthermore her book Der Therapieführer. Die wichtigsten Formen und Methoden. [The therapy-guide: the most important forms and methods] (Heyne, 1989 und 1995 and 2002, ISBN 978-3453091337), and her article: "Probleme, Konfliktpotentiale, staatliche Reaktionen im Zusammenhang mit 'vereinnahmenden Gruppen' sogenannten Sekten und Psychogruppen" [Problems, the potential for conflict, and state responses in connection with "monopolistic groups" of so-called cults and psycho-groups]. In: InfoSekta (Ed):"Sekten" Psychogruppen und vereinnahmende Bewegungen: wie der einzelne sich schützen kann, was der Staat tun kann ["Cults", psycho-groups and monopolistic movements: how individuals can protect themselves, and what the state can do]. Zürich: NZN-Buchverlag/Theologischer Verlag Zürich, 2000, ISBN 978-3290200107.
infoSekta, a Swiss consumer-rights group, has had the experience of a legal tussle with Landmark Education, but survived to tell the tale:
In the matter of content we can happily assert that the substantive points of infoSekta's work stand. As previously, we can claim that Landmark shows cultic traits, so long as we emphasize at the same time that we wish to avoid a facile labeling as a cult (Sekte). (Such a labeling we would wish to avoid on principle and in any case.) As before, we can continue to express doubts as to the professionalism and the seriousness of Landmark's course-offerings (the legal agreement expressly states this). And finally, when asked about the matter, we can advise against attending [Landmark] courses.
In the original German:
Inhaltlich können wir zufrieden [... ]festhalten, dass die wesentlichen Punkte der Arbeit von infoSekta standgehalten haben. Wir dürfen nach wie vor behaupten, dass Landmark sektenhafte Züge aufweist, wenn wir gleichzeitig betonen, dass wir eine blosse Etikettierung als Sekte vermeiden möchten. (Letzteres möchten wir aus Prinzip und in jedem Falle vermeiden.) Wir dürfen im weiteren nach wie vor Zweifel an der Professionalität und Seriosität des Kursangebotes von Landmark äussern (dies ist im Vergleich ausdrücklich erwähnt). Und schliesslich dürfen wir, wenn wir danach gefragt werden, auch vom Kursbesuch abraten.
See: Dieter Sträuli: "Landmark vs. infoSekta: Geschichte eines Prozesses", in infoSekta-Tätigkeitsbericht 1997 ["Landmark vs infoSekta: Account of a Trial" in the infoSekta Annual Report, 1997], pages 16-20. Online at http://www.infosekta.ch/is5/gruppen/lm_straeuli1998.html, retrieved 2007-09-24.
infoSekta's [ summary] of the status of Landmark Education cuts both ways:
Landmark Education AG places great emphasis on the claim that it is neither a cult (Sekte) nor a mind-cult (Psychokult). Since infoSekta in its work always takes great care not to rely on simplistic labels ("cult"/"not-a-cult") but to come to a balanced judgment, we maintain: Theologically, in the case of Landmark Education (LM) one cannot indeed speak of a cult (Sekte). LM does not constitute a splinter-group from a main church, nor do religious matters play a role in LM. Also, the structural characteristics of a cult (as derived from sociological abd psychological criteria) which infoSekta has used do not predominate and appear only partially in the case of LM.
However, there fact remains that time and again those who have participated in the Forum or people who have become aware of LM through acquaintances do contact infoSekta's advice-bureau, for example because they suspect or observe cult-like tendencies in LM. A black/white labeling system ("LM is a cult" or alternatively, "LM is not a cult") does not help these affected parties. In order to do justice to the interests of its clients, infoSekta has addressed the matter of LM, its practices and history, in more depth. One outcome amongst others of this research is a lengthy essay by our colleague Susanne Schaaf, lic. phil. The other components of the documentation present further reports, include further accounts of personal experiences, and document LM's own view of itself. With this selection available, readers should find it easier to form their own opinions.
[In the original German:]
Die Landmark Education AG legt großen Wert auf die Feststellung, daß sie weder eine Sekte noch ein Psychokult sei. Da infoSekta in ihrer Arbeit stets bemüht ist, keine bloßen Etiketten zu verteilen ("Sekte"/"Nicht-Sekte"), sondern differenziert zu beurteilen, halten wir fest: Bei Landmark Education (LM) kann aus theologischer Sicht tatsächlich nicht von einer Sekte gesprochen werden. Weder stellt LM eine Abspaltung von einer Hauptkirche dar, noch spielen bei LM religiöse Inhalte eine Rolle. Auch die von infoSekta aufgestellten (aus soziologischen und psychologischen Kategorien hergeleiteten) strukturellen Merkmale von Sekten[...]) sind bei LM nicht in der Mehrzahl und nur ansatzweise vorhanden.
Tatsache ist jedoch, daß immer wieder AbsolventInnen des Forums oder Personen, welche von Bekannten auf LM aufmerksam gemacht wurden, von sich aus die Beratungsstelle infoSekta kontaktieren, z.B. weil sie bei LM sektenartige Tendenzen vermuten oder wahrnehmen. Diesen Betroffenen ist mit einer Schwarz-Weiß-Etikettierung ("LM ist eine Sekte" bzw. "LM ist keine Sekte") nicht geholfen. Um den Interessen der Anfragenden gerecht zu werden, hat sich infoSekta eingehender mit LM, ihrer Praxis und Geschichte auseinandergesetzt. Resultat dieser Auseinandersetzung ist u.a. ein längerer Aufsatz unserer Mitarbeiterin lic. phil. Susanne Schaaf [...] Die übrigen Teile der Dokumentation belegen weitere Auffassungen, enthalten Erfahrungsberichte und dokumentieren die Selbstdarstellung von LM. Mit dieser Auswahl soll der Leserin/ dem Leser die eigene Meinungsbildung erleichtert werden.
These samples represent a small fraction of the bodies of work associating Landmark education with culthood. Their nuanced views may find a place in a balanced NPOV treatment of Landmark Education and its alleged culthood. (To the best of my knowledge Landmark Education has not as yet succeeded in obliging these authors or their organizations to recant or apologize for such implications.)
-- Pedant17 04:00, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia Mediation Cabal | |
---|---|
Article | Landmark Education |
Status | closed |
Request date | Unknown |
Requesting party | Unknown |
Parties involved | see below |
Mediator(s) | Chrislintott ( talk · contribs) |
Comment | Closing case |
[[Category:Wikipedia Medcab closed cases| Landmark Education]][[Category:Wikipedia medcab maintenance| Landmark Education]]
Hello Medcab
We need some help with mediating the Landmark Education article. Some editors have been removing well sourced edits from the article on the basis that consensus trumps NPOV policies [2] [3] [4], or that minority views cannot be presented on Wikipedia [5] I will assume good faith and for the time being state that they are just being unbelievably misguided. However, after suggestions to discuss weight, relevance, and reliablity, proponents made no attempt to make suggestions [6], and after the information was moved to the talkpage, the main proponent push was towards dismissing the information rather than offering suggestions for presentation [7].
Editors who wish to have the information presented into the article are doing so on the basis that the edits are well sourced, and are therefore admissible. Such editors are open to appropriate adjustments being made to those edits in context. Jeffrire 08:34, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Comment to Mediators: The above framing of the issues is how one side of the issues being dealt with would articulate. Some of the above is even factually inaccurate (I believe). For instance, I would be surprised if Jeffrire Can show one entry on the talk page where an editor expressed that "consensus trumps NPOV". That is merely weasel-wording on Jeffrire's part- misstating other editor's positions in order to invoke sympathy in newcomers to the conversations. Alex Jackl 21:23, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Reading case now, will post initial comments soon. I hope we can quickly reach a consensus on this. It would help if someone could add a list of involved parties in the meantime. Chrislintott 22:05, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Please do not edit comments posted on this page, even if they are your own. It'll help me immensely if we have a full record of discussions. What I need at the minute is a clear statement of everyone's position, and I expect that you will all disagree. Posting rebutals and responses, while I know it's tempting, just makes things more confusing, although you're welcome to do so if you feel you must. I'll shortly make a list of the issues involved and then we'll deal with them seperately. Hopefully this will allow some progress instead of just continuing the arguments here. If anyone has any concerns about this, you're welcome to contact me on my talk page or by email. Chrislintott 15:29, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Chrislintott has asked me to apologise for him that he hasn't been able to take a more active role in mediating this dispute. He's been unexpectedly busy in real life but will get back to you as soon as he is able. I see that good progress is being made in discussing the relevant issues. If you need outside assistance and Chris is still away, don't hesitate to get in touch on my talkpage... WjB scribe 16:57, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
Just a quick comment for now - Jeffrire has framed the summary in manner which begs the question under dispute. It is not that he is a standard bearer for upholding the NPOV policy and others wish to ignore it. The issue is rather that other editors differ from his judgement that the material is in compliance with the NPOV policy. Also that the sources are in some cases far from reliable, that the sources sometimes do not support the assertion made in the article, and that what is being put forward is opinion rather than fact without a notable individual or identifiable population being shown to hold that opinion. DaveApter 14:02, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
And just to clarify - I welcome this mediation, I agree to participate in it and to be bound by its conclusions. DaveApter 12:11, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
With all due respect to Jefrire, the above is not an accurate portrayal of the situation. I do agree that lengthy repeated discussions, regarding the material in question, have failed to yield productive results and it may be time for mediation.
While some editors may disagree on specific points, by and large the majority of editors are open to compromise on the wording, provided the end result contains relevant material that is worded in an NPOV manner.
One important point in particular:
Thank you for your time and attention.
I look forward to accurate citations which properly reflect the material being cited in an NPOV manner.
Lsi john 14:24, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
than statements of belief. The mediation process tends to bypass beliefs and concentrate on achieving agreement by negotiation and discussion. Interspersed comments can actively avoid personalization of arguments: because they have a context one need not even mention another editor's name/handle; and we do not face the distorting effects of having to summarize another Wikipedian's viewpoint elsewhere, out of context, in an environment where cross-checking as to accuracy becomes more difficult. -- Pedant17 02:17, 26 May 2007 (UTC) parties. Wikipedians standardly use indentation to separate out interspersed additions: see for example the talk-page guideline and its reference to threaded discussion. -- Pedant17 02:17, 26 May 2007 (UTC) good faith in regard to that mediation. Far from interspersed comments indicating a lack of listening, such responses can suggest close listening and a specific willingness to discuss individual points, immediately, and in the context of the discussion as it develops.-- Pedant17 02:17, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
While I don't edit a lot, at the request of Jeffrire, I took the time to add comments, and they have not been addressed. I am concerned that the artilce stay balanced and NPOV with reputable sources, not just individual opinions. Spacefarer 16:25, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
I have edited on and off on this page, and, over the period of about 1.5 years, the article has gone in circles, with A) wholesale deletions of sourced material and B) overrepresentation of insignificant minority positions (which should not be included by NPOV guidelines) and C) overrepresentation of significant minority opinions (which should be given due representation, but not overweighted). Numerous articles have been created surrounding Landmark Education on non-notable people and subjects to create a basis for portraying Landmark Education in a negative light, and such articles have also been administratively deleted for violating policies on notability and attacks. The LE page has gone on and off protection, yet the problems with certain editors persist. We are a long way from a neutral, accurate and informative article, and have been circling (at best) that objective for about 1.5 years. Sm1969 18:47, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
First off , the framing of this mediation request is ludicrous and a PERFECT example of the kind of spin and POV work that has been done on this article. Few editors would say that the above is the issue. None of us have argued that "COncensus trumps NPOV" AT ALL. We have argued consistently that the mass reverts being done by these users to a single old version of the article is a POV attack against the article and contains POV-pushing, non-notable, and non-relevant, information. The framing of this mediation request is the kind of use of weasel words I find most objectionable about what has been going on in this page. Alex Jackl 21:16, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
I have edited on this page for some time. In the interest of not repeating material I concur with users DaveApter, Sm1969, SpaceFarer, and Lsi john above. I have been frustrated over time with the lack of compromise, have been exhausted by dealing with bulk reverts of contentious, POV, insignificant minority-view (IMO) material (however cited and sourced it is). DaveApter tried to create a discussion frame which was mostly ignored and then it worked because the page was protected and the editors that actually wanted to work on content started showing up once the edit warring disappeared and for a few weeks/months we worked together and got the page to a reasonable state. Then EstherRice and Jeffrire picked up where Smee left off and the assault began again. I would love to work out the issues but I don't have much faith and am tired of mass reverts happening with no (or little to be more accurate and fair) discussion of the content or response to factual concerns except "this is highly sourced material". I hope this process makes a difference but I am sure glad the page is protected. Alex Jackl 21:12, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
A notice as per
WP:TPG -- [
Lsi john removed his comments, as follows: At least
Alex Jackl's comments were related to the article.
Lsi john 00:12, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
I started editing this page and contributing to the discussion in early April 2007, soon after I started editing Wikipedia. As I have disclosed on the talk page, I did the Landmark Forum in 1994 and have done a few other courses since then, the most recent being about 3 years ago. I noticed that the Wiki page was in bad shape, with many fragmented and disconnected facts. I soon realized that the page was controversial. I have been struck by the strong opposition that has been displayed by some editors, to the point of one stating that Landmark is a cult (Jeffire) and another stating that "participating in Landmark Education activities does provide a bad indicator for objectivity" (Pedant17). I realize that my comments are directed at editors. That was deliberate -- the reason this article has not stabilized is becasue of disagreements between editors, so it seems obvious that we should discuss those disagreements. As I have said on the talk page, I do not question the good faith of other editors. I accept that we all want to improve Wikipedia. But I do question the neutrality of some editors who have made it clear they have strong opinions.
Concerning the article, I don't advocate removing all criticism of Landmark. Indeed, I think it is notable that some people find the "hard sell" approach to be irritating. However, I also think it is notable that studies have shown that the majority of participants find the courses extremely rewarding and I think the article needs to reflect all points of view with appropriate balance. I hope that this mediation process can lead to some resolution. Timb66 00:29, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Note to mediator: the page on Landmark Education litigation contains much of the material that is under discussion here. Timb66 00:35, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Hello and thanks for reading. I am simply going to state that some editors would be misguided in thinking that the information presented (and deleted on many occasions) was insignificant or unreliable. The information is certainly critical and derives from articles that to my knowledge are reliable and often show a variety of views on the subject. I'm open to all relevant views being presented in the article according to NPOV policies and would like to work with the mediators and all involved in order to present all relevant views. It would also be useful to set up a habit of dialogue that allows editors to discuss the issues at hand (sourced views on cult status, views on manipulation and the general notoriety of Landmark Education) without some editors always taking offense or making undue accusations of negative POV pushing. I believe these issues do need to be stated in discussion and though they may be objectionable, it should be possible to discuss them without any antagonism or threats of legal action, whether contrived or real. Jeffrire 08:42, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
I have two comments. One, the issue with the content in questions is minority POV pushing, not weather it is sourced. In looking further at Jeffrire, Esther Rice, Smee, Penant 17 the over whelming majority of their edits are on articles that involve LGAT, Cult, lists of organizations accused of being such, individuals aledged to be involved as such, lists of individuals and researches who have fought against such organizations. Many of these articles have been created by the same people. I think that this plainly reflects an intense POV. Second, is that on the talk page of the Landmark article, Jeffrire thoughtfully posted all of the material that he felt should be included in the article and invited comments. Most of the editors who have posted on this cabal page took up that invitation and raised significant questions about the reliability of the references and how they were used to support the assertions made in the text. I do not see where anyone has responded to address the significant problems and questions most editors had with the text. Triplejumper 15:12, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
I have stated already, I am no longer involved with editing this article. I had grown sick of all of the rudeness and threats on the talk page. I simply wanted to come to the Mediation to check if individuals were focusing on content, or on contributors - for focus on the latter will not lead to anything productive, but only to personal attacks on individual editors. I see that this is what is going on here, from the majority of comments made, and that is quite unfortunate. It is unfortunate that a majority of individuals here do not wish to have a polite dialogue about the content of the article itself, and the inherent issues involved. Smee 15:51, 23 May 2007 (UTC).
The term "NPOV" is of no use, since opposing sides (of course) think they have the "neutral" point of view, whereas the opposition is either wild-eyed Landmark propagandists or wild-eyed Landmark haters. Isn't it ironic that this bitter, often personal debate is so contrary to what would be recommended by Landmark?
That said, the Landmark page is better than it used to be. I would strongly urge no further elimination of critical material, but nor do I think there should be more emphasis on it. I reject the argument that the article gives unnecessary weight to a minority view, since it isn't objectively known how "minority" this view is. Speaking from personal experience, when I did the Forum last year, about half the people I spoke to felt that Landmark's marking tactics were improper, and questions on Landmark's theological implications were raised with the Forum Leader. In my view these aren't non-issues, but nor do I think there is reason to call Landmark a "cult".
Finally, I think the controversiality of this article is itself notable. Passions are running so strong the article will only be balanced when everyone is dissatisfied with it. Ckerr 04:25, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
~ ~ ~
Having thought about it more, I have come to believe strongly that many of this article's issues could be solved by moving the "Controversies" section into a separate article, the way "Litigation" has. In my experience, the majority of disagreements have been over whether a certain fact was important enough to include in the main article. This problem would no longer arise in a separate article, since there would be no concern about "undue weight". I think the criticisms of Landmark are interesting and important, but they are numerous and complicated enough to make it impossible to cover them fairly in main article. Let's keep the main article focused on what Landmark is and what it does, and leave full treatment of its merits and problems for a separate article. Ckerr 09:49, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
May it please the Cabal: talk of "majorities", "minorities", "significant minorities" and consensus seems inappropriate in the absence of proven figures. Talk of NPOV oft becomes confused with the concept of accuracy (and truth as each editor sees it) at the expense of balance and of a diversity of opinions. Questions as the the reliabilty of sources frequently get derailed into discussions on the overall tone of sources, or on trivial points of dispute unrelated to the immediate point. Claims of non-notability abound, with appeals to WP:Notability regardless of the fact that that guideline applies to Wikipedia articles rather than to sub-topics within articles. Complaints emerge of an article too long, countered by questioning of the forking of some material to avoid just this issue. Wild generalizations on fellow-editors' attitudes and viewpoints and work get made on the Talk-pages. Overall one gets the impression that wikilawyering techniques result in a exclusionist attitude towards any material prejudicially deemed "negative" to the perceived interests of Landmark Education LLC, a for-profit org with a "philosophical" set of offbeat attitudes and techniques which it ostensibly wishes to see spread into popular culture. Even self-damning material originating from the Landmark Education website has fallen victim to exclusionist procedures. -- Pedant17 02:18, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Sorry that I have had neither the chance or inclination to log in recently; a combination of being busy and other factors.
These comments are not yet complete; I have not finished reading this page, since it has become rather like the discussion page for the article. ER Talk 14:14, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
I came back to this article and was chagrined to see that it was locked in mediation. I can imagine any number of reasons that there may be a very small contingent of editors with strong anti-whatever points-of-view, but it still surprises me. I have educated myself in many ways, ranging from a Ph.D. at Caltech to the Martial Arts to yoga to various methodologies and programs designed to enhance my mastery over the quality and nature of my life. Landmark Education was clearly one of the more effective of the latter programs for me (and I have done at least 25), yet in no way is it strange, cultish, or a sect. They are an educational business, with normal corporate offices, and normal classrooms with chalkboards and well-trained instructors. What is this vehement anti-"growth program" view that is so motivating to those who are attacking Landmark and like programs? I don't know the editors who are working so hard at diminishing the reputation of Landmark Education, so it is difficult to assess what is motivating them. However it has very little to do with anything in the reality I have seen. Frankly, it reminds me of the fervor that people who take on some viewpoint, like creationism, which is based on some personal agenda (like the propagation of a specific moral system).
Leave it simple. Landmark Education is an organization with programs designed to enhance the quality of it's students lives, and to give them more mastery over what tends to hold humans back, in general. It is a matter of opinion how "good" the programs are, but not a matter of opinion how many places the program is given, how many people take and continue to take programs every year, and the reports participants make of the positive results of taking the programs.
There is one point I think really might be worth amplifying, that impresses me, whenever I return to a Landmark course. Cults and Sects typically work to seperate their participants from the rest of society, and gain more control over them by having them isolated or disconnected. "Tell your family goodbye" and the like. Landmark works exactly the opposite. It is commonly encouraged in a Landmark course to reach out and connect with family members, especially ones that you may have disconnected with long ago. It works to increase family ties, community ties, and ties other people in general. The only possible criticism is that this is so that they can get more customers. Ridiculous. I have never seen a more sincere group of educators - in my view - that are actually committed to their students having more satisfying and fulfilling lives. Caltechdoc 00:48, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
OK, so I've read what you all had to say. As far as I see it, there are three seperate issues here. Firstly, whether Landmark can be described as a cult, sect or neither of these terms. Secondly, there are disputes over which criticisms of Landmark should be incorporated into the article. Thirdly, even where there is agreement that such criticism should be incorporated in the article, there is dispute as to how prominent it should be, and how much space it should take up.
We'll deal with each of these, but I'm going to defer the third dispute for now. This should be easier to deal with once we have some more concrete to stand on. Let's start with my first point.
As an outside editor, it seems to me that the fact that such a lively debate is possible over whether Landmark is a cult, or a sect, or both, or neither is clear enough evidence that a definitive answer is not possible. It is also inherently non-citable, as no source is likely to be definitive. What is citable is occasions on which the organisation has or has not been described as a cult, a sect or whatever else. As a starting point for debate, I propose 1. That we need a few sentences on whether Landmark has been described as either a cult or a sect, when such descriptions have been applied and the importance of such a classification. 2. That outside of this small section, neither the word 'cult' or 'sect' are used.
Perhaps several of you should suggest a possible form of words, and then we can try and draw them together. One personal request - it would help me if you could just add comments one after the other so I can see how the debate evolves.
It is certainly the case that some people have expressed an opinion that Landmark is a cult and others disagree. Whether there are any sources that meet this aspect of the WP:NPOV policy is open to question:
The reference requires an identifiable and objectively quantifiable population or, better still, a name (with the clear implication that the named individual should be a recognized authority)
I discussed the support (or lack thereof) for the suggestion that Landmark is a cult in the 'Where's the beef?' section on the talk page. As far as I can see there is no recognised authority who has unambiguously declared Landmark to be a cult (without subsequently retracting it), and also defined what they mean by that troublesome and ill-defined term. The arguable exception is the French report, so long as this is given an appropriate context (The French national obsession with "sectes"; the lack of definition, accountablility, or appeal process; the large number of clearly innocuous groups that were also listed; and the general scepticism expressed towards that now-disbanded department).
As regards the controversial issues to be discussed, I already suggested several months ago:
and on reflection, I'd add:
The issue of LE being a "cult" has received much attention. When publications (print matter) have used that term in the United States, they have been consistently sued by Landmark Education, and the entities making the statement have retracted (Margaret Singer, Self Magazine, et al.) Only on the Internet in the United States have entities (e.g., Rick Ross) been able to avoid liability by having an anonymous third-party make the assertion that LE is a "cult." Such retractions have also been issued in the Netherlands. No one has been a well-defined statement in an accountable medium that Landmark Education is a "cult." The situation is different in Europe, notably France, but even there there is no clear (testable!) definition of a "cult" that used.
The other controversial issues brought up by DaveApter are on-point and have been discussed back and forth for at least 1.5 years: A) whether LE produces worthwhile results B) whether LE is a scam C) why do people volunteer
A major issue is how much attention, relative to the length of the article as a whole, these controversies should receive. Sm1969 16:21, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
I, too, think Dave is on-point. While I am not against including citable sources in articles, I find the majority of these 'reliable sources' to be nothing more than smoke and mirrors. The cult-claimers cannot find any substantive citations which back up the claims, so they fill the articles with reports of 'innuendo', 'charges', 'allegations' and 'accusations'. The majority of these allegations are ultimately shown to be false, are thrown out, or are later retracted. And, justification for inclusion is based simply on the fact that the 'allegations' were, in fact, published or reported on, without regard to the actual merit of the allegations. They claim that by including sufficient evidence of 'charges', that it 'proves' the status of cult. (See Jeffrire's comments on the discussion page). And so we end up with biased articles that are full of 'charges' without 'findings'.
My general objection to this is:
I approve of the mediator's suggestion that criticism be limited to a section on criticism and not interwoven into the fabric of the entire article.
I would also suggest, that in cases where the claim was later retracted, the retraction come before (or be part of) the citation, as first-impressions are hard to remove. e.g. Margret Singer was later forced to retract a suggestion that LE was a cult. (or however that would be properly worded).
While I recognize that this mediation is about the Landmark Education article, the entire series of articles will be affected by the decisions here. Lsi john 17:46, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
I agree with the above comments in this section (and I am assuming that all editors honour the request of the mediator that comments on this page are not interspersed, to maintain chronological order). Timb66 21:17, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Debate on the Talk-page and actions on the article-page do not confine themselves to "criticisms" of Landmark Education, but extend to facts, their relevance and their worthiness of inclusion. Since a wide range of passionately-held opinions about Landmark Education exists, any fact, comment or criticism may arouse ire and opposition. -- Pedant17 07:37, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
I see no reference here yet to the Berlin Senate report, which not only classified Landmark Education as a Sekte (cult) in two separate editions, but survived a court case in which Landmark Education failed to have itself removed from the "cult" list. See "Sekten" - Risiken und Nebenwirkungen: Informationen zu ausgewaehlten neuen religiõsen und weltanschaulichen Bewegungen und Psychoangeboten. Herausgeben von der Senatsverwaltung fuer Schule, Jugend and Sport. Redaktion: Anne Ruehle, Ina Kunst. Stand: Dezember 1997. Downloadable from http://www.berlin.de/sen/familie/sog_sekten_psychogruppen/index.html - retrieved 2006-12-13. -- But quite apart from this omission, the topic of Landmark Education, intertwining as it it does with popular culture, may not always fit with guidelines as to citable schools of opinion. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/examples#Popular_culture_and_fiction suggests: "Articles related to popular culture ... must be backed up by reliable sources like all other articles. However, due to the subject matter, many may not be discussed in the same academic contexts as science, law, philosophy and so on; ... Personal websites, wikis, and posts on bulletin boards, Usenet and blogs should still not be used as secondary sources. When a substantial body of material is available the best material available is acceptable, especially when comments on its reliability are included." -- Pedant17 07:37, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Given the number of various views on Landmark Education the company and on Landmark Education the "body of ideas" and on Landmark Education as exhibiyed in the behavior of its "graduates"; and given that Landmark education has allegedly changed over time (such that some statements may apply to (say) 1991 but not necessarily to 2008), I would suspect that we might potentially end up writing more than a few sentences on cultdom. -- Pedant17 07:37, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
One might make a distinction between facts (a French Parliamentary Commission included Landmark Education in a list) and opinions (the French allegedly obsess over sectes (cults); some groups appear "clearly" innocuous (which need not preclude classification as a cult); a "general scepticism" exists (where? how general?). -- Pedant17 07:37, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Any listing of specific "controversies" runs the risk of marginalizing or excluding other issues. I would certainly add to any such list consideration of philosophical soundness and consistency, historical development of features and practices (much disputed), and the sociological and psychological impacts of the recruiting and marketing processes. Compare zombies. -- Pedant17 07:37, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
I agree with the statement that "The majority of these allegations [questioning the practices and teachings of Landmark Education] are ultimately shown to be false, are thrown out, or are later retracted." -- However, the majority of that majority get thrown out on questionable grounds. I invite those who have tracked such alleged allegations to submit itemized listings of allegations retracted or definitively demonstrated false. -- Much emotion-laden language ("smoke and mirrors", "innuendo", "spurious allegations") goes into combatting carefully and impeccably researched material which may not imply conclusions attractive to everyone. Nevertheless, such material, especially when widely-held, has a place (and often a prominent place) in the NPOV-presentation of a Wikipedia article. -- Pedant17 07:37, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Expression of approval of an alleged suggestion by our esteemed mediator to the effect that we limit criticism "to a section on criticism" and not interweave criticism "into the fabric of the entire article" appears to have no basis in fact -- as I understand the matter, our esteemed mediator merely suggested localizing the "cult/sect/not" discussion. Any coralling of "critical" or perceived "negative" material into a special "criticism ghetto" would distort the balance and flow of the article, and could even lead to accusations of disporportionality measured in bytes rather than by merit. -- Pedant17 07:37, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
The proposed formulation: Margret Singer was later forced to retract a suggestion that LE was a cult could better appear as: The legal (rather than the logical) influence of Landmark Education compelled Margaret Singer to note that she had never characterized Landmark Education as a cult. -- Pedant17 07:37, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Much disputation has derived from segregating discussion of "controversies" to a separate section in the article, rather than distributing the various points of view into other thematic sections. As a result, marketing-material from and supportive of Landmark Education has at times distorted the proportionality of the article. -- Pedant17 07:37, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Mediation has very little to do with decisions. The claim that "the entire series [what series?] of articles [which articles?] will be affected by the decisions here" appears to have no validity, but may require explanation/discussion. -- Pedant17 07:37, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
This my suggested first pass. It's a bit longer than I had hoped to make it.
DaveApter 09:00, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
AJackl: This may be overly short but I can live with DaveApter's above section. I will be looking for anything to add. I am committed that we come up with a fair, reasonably sized expression of this small aspect of Landmark. Alex Jackl 05:28, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
It'll be interesting to see what you have to present on top of DaveApter's version, AJack. Jeffrire 10:26, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Timb66: I suggest a rewording to make it more neutral. Comments welcome:
Timb66 23:37, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Lsi john The neutrality idea is good, though both versions are probably a bit too wordy (and probably a bit of OR).
It seems that both Dave and Tim are attempting to combine several citations into one paragraph. Before we do that, we might want to find out of there is an agreement to combine that way. If not, then we'll need to attack each citation separately. Lsi john 23:46, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Triplejumper I agree with the gist of what DaveApter and Timb66, but somthing that I think needs to be pointed out is that any insinuation that Landmark Education or the Landmark Forum are cults are at least decade old and have been retracted. Separate from that I think that a section on this controversey must also include reference to the following statments made by qualified experts:
Dave Apter Just to say that I agree that Timb66's revision of my wording is an improvement and more neutral in tone.
I also agree with Triplejumper's suggestions for the contrary opinions being added, although it would be preferable for the ref to Nedopil to point to the original paper rather than Landmark's re-print of it (or to both if there is not an online copy of it available). DaveApter 14:02, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Timb66: I am concerned that those editors in favour of including more material critical of Landmark seem to have stopped participating in the discussion. I realise they may be busy and unable to do much at the moment, but can they please at least indicate a timeframe? For this mediation to be useful, it needs to have the support of all parties. Timb66 00:09, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Spacefarer Even with the comments below, I think if the article is going to reference the term cult, it should be phrased in a controversy section and noted as something like 'allegations of being a cult'. Top experts have observed and participated in Landmark Educaiton's courses and have said it is not a cult as stated above. People tend to get closer to their family, in general, and there is no figure head, for example; people pay a set amount of money for courses and programs. When someone has tried to have Landmark Education classified as a cult, it has been revoked, as noted above. In fact, a recent Harris pole ( http://www.harrisinteractive.com/news/newsletters/clientnews/2007_LandmarkEducation.pdf) says that "nine of ten agreed that Landmark's programs were responsibly and professionally conducted, produced practical and powerful results, and made a profound difference in their lives." Spacefarer 19:28, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
What advantages do editors see in a "controversy section" ? Will it enhance the NPOV presentation of various views? Will it tend to exacerbate disputes? -- Pedant17 05:01, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
If "[t]op experts have observed and participated in Landmark Educaiton's courses and have said it is not a cult", it seems incumbent upon us to examine the credentials and statements of these "top experts" (which "top experts"? top experts in what? psychological politics? legal machinations?] and to compare and contrast their views with those of other commentators -- even second-tier experts and the hoi polloi... -- Pedant17 05:01, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
The claim has resurfaced that "[w]hen someone has tried to have Landmark Education classified as a cult, it has been revoked". -- Who "revoked" the classification of Landmark Education as a Sekte (cult) by the Berlin Senate report? (see http://www.berlin.de/imperia/md/content/sen-familie/sog_psychogruppen_sekten/risiken_und_nebenwirkungen_1.pdf - retrieved 2007-06-02 -- and when? -- In what sense does Landmark Education's legal failure to suppress the on-line cult-oriented activities of the Rick A. Ross Institute of New Jersey in 2004 - 2005 (as documented and referenced in http://www.rickross.com/reference/landmark/landmark193.html ) amount to revoking cult status for Landmark Education? -- Where has the Austrian Government revoked its classification of Landmark Education as a Sekte (cult) (see http://www.ilsehruby.at/Sektenbroschuere.html , retrieved 2007-06-02) ? -- Pedant17 05:01, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
The recent Harris poll ( http://www.harrisinteractive.com/news/newsletters/clientnews/2007_LandmarkEducation.pdf ) cited in connection with allegedly disproving the "cult" status of Landmark Education involved an "independent survey ... conducted on behalf of Landmark Education" and polled only participants in Landmark Education courses on the subject of program effectiveness. The survey appears to have no relevance to the cult-or-otherwise status of Landmark Education. -- Pedant17 05:01, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
Why would comprehensive lists of perceived cults necessarily include material relating to an obscure and weird group of solipsists from North America? Highlighting Landmark Education's lack of worthiness for detailed discussion in the french and Belgian Parliamentary lists merely throws into better focus the specific discussion of Landmark Education in government lists elsewhere: specifically the Austrian ( http://www.ilsehruby.at/Sektenbroschuere.html ) and Berlin ("Sekten" - Risiken und Nebenwirkungen: Informationen zu ausgewaehlten neuen religiõsen und weltanschaulichen Bewegungen und Psychoangeboten. Herausgeben von der Senatsverwaltung fuer Schule, Jugend and Sport. Redaktion: Anne Ruehle, Ina Kunst. Stand: Dezember 1997. Downloadable from http://www.berlin.de/sen/familie/sog_sekten_psychogruppen/index.html - retrieved 2006-12-13) material, each of which concentrates on a more refined selection of cults than the French or Belgian reports. -- Pedant17 07:37, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
The suggestion that the "cult/sect/non-cult" issue comprises merely a "small aspect" of Landmark Education resonates very well with me. But my personal opinion couts for nothing: the many, many people around the world who have encountered the strange Landmark Education system and who have confusedly grasped at the word "cult" in an attempt to characterize it deserve a substantial discussion of the issue in this universal encyclopedia. -- Pedant17 07:37, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
The suggested phrase Landmark Education has sometimes been described as a "cult" needs attribution and de-vaguifying. I might suggest: "A Google search on +"Landmark Education" +"cult" on 2007-06-01 suggests that about 17300 web-pages (including web-pages devoted to singing the praises of Landmark Education) associate Landmark Education with cultishness. -- Similar weasel-word construction calls for editing in: The cult description is sometimes justified. And instead of the awkward there have not been any instances of this opinion being given by any recognised authority on the subject we could say "Recognised authorities in the field of minor antisocial movements which have characterized Landmark Education as a "cult" include the Berlin Senate ("Sekten" - Risiken und Nebenwirkungen: Informationen zu ausgewaehlten neuen religiõsen und weltanschaulichen Bewegungen und Psychoangeboten. Herausgeben von der Senatsverwaltung fuer Schule, Jugend and Sport. Redaktion: Anne Ruehle, Ina Kunst. Stand: Dezember 1997. Downloadable from http://www.berlin.de/sen/familie/sog_sekten_psychogruppen/index.html - retrieved 2006-12-13) and the Austrian Federal Ministry for Social Security and the Generations (Bundesministerium für soziale Sicherheit und Generationen) ("Sekten - Wissen schützt" [Cults: knowledge can protect] - in German. Online at http://www.ilsehruby.at/Sektenbroschuere.html - retrieved 2006-11-22). -- Furthermore, the repeated use of the word "sect" to translate German Sekte and French secte (as if such languages lack the concept of the English cult) needs sorting out. -- Pedant17 07:37, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
The view that a section on the "cult/non-cult" so-called "controversy" necessarily "must" include material emanating from the Landmark Education website provides an interesting take on independent viewpoints. Fowler's lightweight personal opinion I have discussed above. The ever-precise Nedopil has written at greater length in his report of 23 March 1995 (quoted in the Berlin Senate report, pages 71 ff): Der Seminarstil erschien rigide, direktiv, leiterzentriert, z. T. fast autoritär... Problematischer erscheint mir hingegen, daß gelegentlich Widerstände, die von einzelnen Teilnehmern gegen eine Hinterfragung oder gegen eine Offenlegung eines konkreten Problems artikuliert wurden, nicht ausreichend berücksichtigt wurden. Dies ist auch dann problematisch, wenn sich die Seminarleiterin als "Coach" bezeichnete, dessen Aufgabe es sei, Widerstände zu überwinden. Die Möglichkeit, daß sich hinter dem Widerstand ein bislang nicht bewältigtes Trauma verbirgt, welches zu einer Dekompensation führen könnte, kann bei einem solchen Vorgehen nicht ausgeschlossen werden... Als problematisch muß jedoch angesehen werden, daß die Werbung für weitere Kurse und auch die Ermunterung zur Anwerbung weiterer Teilnehmer in Zeiten ausgeprägter Emotionalisierungen erfolgte, in denen ein rationales Abwägen der Vor- und Nachteile sicher erschwert war.
[Translation ( User:AJackl may wish to improve this): The style of the seminar appeared rigid, directive, leader-centred, and partly almost authoritarian.. On the other hand it seemed to me more problematic that from time to time the resistance -- which [some] individual participants expressed in opposition to the follow-up questioning or to the uncovering of a specific problem -- did not receive sufficient attention. This remaqins problematic even when the seminar-leader portrays herself as a "coach" with the alleged task of overcomoing resistance. One cannot exclude the possibility that a so-far unassimiltaed trauma hides behind such resistance -- a trauma that could lead to a decompensation... However one must regard it a problematic that the advertising for further courses and also the encouragement to recruit further participants takes place at times of distinct emotionalizing, in which a rational weighing up of advantages and disadvantages certainly becomes more difficult.]
Landmark Education may not satisfy Nedopil's technical definition of a cult, but his picture of Landmark Education does not seem as entirely rosy as the selected extracts and summary of the article on the Landmark Education website by Küfner, Nedopil and Schöck might suggest. -- Pedant17 07:37, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
The statement attributed to Prof Dr Nedopil to the effect that "he could not discern any form of behavior which would put the Landmark Forum near a so called [psycho] sect" does not appear to relate to any statement in the cited web-page http://www.landmarkeducation.de/display_content.jsp?top=3758&mid=3776&siteObjectID=16004 , which purports to present extracts from a Bavarian Government sponsored investigation by Heinrich Küfner, Norbert Nedopil and Heinz Schöck into techniques of psychological influence-technique within "Scientology/Landmark" in a context relating to the treatment of drug addicts. We will need to find a better source for this claim before immortalizing it in our Wikipedia article. -- Pedant17 07:37, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
The word "cult" does not always convey negative connotations, and characterizing Landmark Education as a cult may not necessarily associate it with "all the negative connotations of that term". Such obsession with negativity would not reflect well on our encyclopedia. -- Pedant17 07:37, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
No editors favor "including more material critical of Landmark [Education]" exist. All editors wish to develop an NPOV-compliant article. Labelling and categorizing fellow-editors by associating them with "material critical of Landmark [Education]" does not encourage participation in mediation processes by others. -- Pedant17 07:37, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
What a surprise, the target of this edit was a group being sued by Landmark to stop them from calling it a cult. ER Talk 12:57, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
In the spirit of User:DaveApter's suggestions for a mooted "cult" section:
-- Pedant17 07:37, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Dr. Singer, who was a good friend to Rick Ross before she died in 2003, reportedly told close friends that Landmark’s lawsuit had put a financial strain on her family, and that she believed she could settle her litigation without sacrificing her beliefs by simply agreeing to re-affirm that she did not believe Landmark was a “cult” -- given that she had never believed that it was, or had ever made such a statement in the first place." (my highlight)
It appears the onus has fallen on me to respond to Timb66's call for opposing editors, since Pedant17's contributious do not appear to be serious. A few points:
With some changes, I think a paragraph like Timb66's would suffice, so long as it links to a separate article on the controversies. Ckerr 08:55, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
My involvement, here, comes via the LGAT article, and its subsequent links. I have no first or second hand knowledge of Landmark Education, and therefore cannot judge which sources are accurate (legitimate) and which sources are rhetoric (anti-cult propaganda).
For the sake of the mediator, and those who might be unfamilar with LGAT, allow me to digress for a moment (or 6):
I invite you to skim this and read only the Numbered lines if you prefer.
As a graduate of a series of Personal Growth courses, I have come to the following conclusions:
1. Personal Growth is about Personal Responsibility. i.e. Accepting that we are responsible for the consequences of our decisions (and actions or inactions). Note: This has nothing to do with 'blame' or 'credit', but is about 'contribution', 'participation' and 'results'.
2. A number of people who take these courses find it very difficult to accept the material as it is presented.
3. Some of the companies may be using some methods in their trainings that some people find questionable.
4. I see absolutely no connection between any of these trainings and 'cults'.
5. I don't know (or understand) the reasons behind the leadership of the witch-hunting, but I do understand the reasons for much of the membership in the anti-cult briggade.
Regarding Margret Singer: she retracted 'cult' becasue she had no 'legitimate' basis for making the claim. There are pleanty of resources willing to back her up in a legal battle, had the claim had been legitimate and supportable.
(LGAT is simply a poorly-defined term used to identify the training methods (classes/structure) that are used to provide the PR training).
Sorry for the length, and hopefully this helps provide a little insight into the background of this debate.
Lsi john 12:42, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
That which you don't understand, criticize. And, that which you seek to destroy, you must first make controversial. Lsi john 15:25, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Fellow-editors have questioned the seriousness of the proposed "not-a-cult" section, but not the slanted and negative proposed texts of a proposed "cult" section. The parody-element didn't "work", then :-( . But the facts and references and conclusions of the proposed "not-a-cult" section remain valid. -- Pedant17 05:01, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
If Margaret Singer never made a statement clearly labelling Landmark Education as a cult, neither that fact nor a poorly-referenced reported statement to "close friends" (stating that she did not believe Landmark Education a cult) either proves or disproves Landmark Education's identification as a cult. That would construct a positive out out two unrelated negatives... Herewith a better-sourced account of the matter and of Singer's attitudes:
The familiar catch-cry labelling Landmark Education a " business" (as opposed to a cult or as opposed to anything else) misses the point. Landmark Education LLC has a registration as a company and has a corporate structure -- granted. But it also has a body of opinion, a history of practice and a followership of "graduates"; and interest in these phenomena and in their interaction with society lie at the core of evaluating whether or not the frequently-heard "cult" label has some grounds or validity. -- I could make a case for characterizing Landmark Education as a sexual meat-market and/or as a philosophical scam. However good the cases for such designations, we need not use them to deflect attention from the immediate matter of interest as suggested by our esteemed mediator right at this moment: culthood. -- Pedant17 05:01, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
Business vs. cult seems the right place to raise the question of conflict of interest (COI). If Landmark, as its protagonists maintain, is simply a business offering technologies, the removal of critical material by editors with a particular interest in Landmark constitutes a COI policy violation. We seem to have a bit of double-think in action here. On the one hand the protagonists want to avoid or weasel-word around the cult aspect by claiming it's a simple business. At the same time, there is a tacit recognition by the protagonists (which can't be stated openly) that it's more than a simple business and perhaps has some connection with religion or religion-like phenomena, since this apparently buys exemption from COI on wikipedia. ER Talk 13:07, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
Given much of the editing effort devoted to the Landmark Education article over the past few years, I estimate that interest among editors demonstrates the potential of one or several sub-articles on such notable controversies. Properly sourced and NPOV-compliant articles may appear as "junk articles" to some people, but that opinion would not preclude their existence. -- Such articles would best eschew the word "controversy" in their titles lest anyone instinctively construe them as "attacks". -- Pedant17 05:01, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
I fail to see the relevance of accounts of personal experiences or of the simplified world-view of "Personal Growth" courses to the discussion on the alleged cultishness of Landmark Education -- they appear to demonstrate merely that hijacked trite phrases like "personal responsibility" and "at choice" and cute psychobabble can serve to characterize fellow-editors' alleged motives ("anti-cult brigade") and distract us from the topic of cults. -- Pedant17 05:01, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
Failure to detect "any 'single leader(s)' who get worshiped" does not automagically exclude Landmark Education (or any LGAT) from charges of potential culthood. Landmark Education remains obsessed with the idea of "leadership" (see http://www.landmarkeducation.com , site search on "leadership") long after the so-called "Source" of its teachings has faded into the background. And the occasional appearence of "leadership" criteria on some cult-identification checklists does not make the matter a literal pre-requisite for characterizing an organization as "cultic". -- Pedant17 05:01, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
Rechtliche Auseinandersetzung
Im Nachgang zum Bericht der Senatsverwaltung für Jugend und Familie aus dem Jahre 1994, in dem Landmark Education ebenfalls kurz beschrieben wurde, kam es zu prozessualen Auseinandersetzungen. Einen Antrag auf Erlaß einer einstweiligen Anordnung nahm die LE GmbH zurück, im Hauptsacheverfahren fiel die Entscheidung im Jahre 1997: Obwohl mit der Klage das Ziel verfolgt worden war, dem Land Berlin zu untersagen, die Firmen Landmark Education GmbH, "die Landmark Education Corporation, das ?est-Training" sowie das "Landmark Forum" in der Neuauflage der Broschüre "Informationen über neue religiöse und weltanschauliche Bewegungen und sogenannte Psychogruppen" und / oder vergleichbaren Informationsschriften zu erwähnen", erklärte Landmark die Klage im Hauptsacheverfahren für erledigt, nachdem die Senatsverwaltung für Schule, Jugend und Sport nur erklärt hatte, "daß für den Fall einer Neuauflage der Broschüre und einer Aufnahme der Klägerin darin die Klägerin unter einer gesonderten Rubrik "Anbieter von Lebenshilfe" mit entsprechender Einleitung eingeordnet werden, und daß ferner die zu Fußnote 8 gehörige Information gestrichen wird." (Protokoll der öffentlichen Sitzung des VG Berlin vom 14.04.97 - VG 27 A 149.95, S. 17) Diese Erklärung der Senatsverwaltung beruhte auf der bereits vorher beabsichtigten und mit dem vorliegenden Bericht umgesetzten Neustrukturierung und neueren Erkenntnissen.
Legal dispute
Following the 1994 Report of the Senate Administration for Young People and the Family, which also briefly described Landmark Eduaction, court proceedings ensued. Landmark Education GmbH withdrew an application for the finalization of a former decree, and the decision in the main case came in 1997, thus: although the plaintiff had had the goal of forbidding the Bundesland Berlin from mentioning the organisations Landmark Education GmbH and Landmark Education Corporation, as well as the "est Training" and the "Landmark Forum" in the new edition of the brochure "Informationen über neue religiöse und weltanschauliche Bewegungen und sogenannte Psychogruppen" (Information concerning new religious and world-view movements and so-called Psycho-groups) and/or in comparable publications; Landmark Education nevertheless stated that it regarded its petition in the main case as satisfied after the Senate Administration for School, Youth Affairs and Sport had stated 'that in the case of a new edition of the brochure and of inclusion of the plaintiff therein, the plaintiff would appear under a separate heading entitled "Providers of Life-Assistance" with a corresponding introduction, and that further the information within footnote 8 would be excluded.' (Record of the public session of the Berlin Verwaltungsgericht (VG) of 1997-04-14 - VG 27 A 149.95, page 17) This statement on the part of the Senate Administration referenced the already (beforehand) intended re-arranged restructuring of the current report and newly obtained information.
Failure to detect "any 'collective mind programming'" does not automagically exclude Landmark Education (or any LGAT) from charges of potential culthood. Any organization will potentially affect the behavior and outlook of its members or associates, but encountering groups of the results of Landmark Education's training: hyped-up would-be junior Forum Leaders in recruitment-mode -- might give pause to those denying mind-programming. -- Pedant17 05:01, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia remains a work-in-progress. Expecting adefinitive "meaningful conclusion" does not constitute a design-goal -- or a requirement in cited sources. -- And note that Landmark Education itself disparages "meaning". -- Pedant17 05:01, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
In response to the query: Should we include frivilous and spurrious allegations which were subsequently dropped, retracted or thrown out? -- yes; provided the so-called allegations continue to persist in the noosphere and or constituted a major element at some stage. (Wikipedia has and should have material on phrenology). And if anyone has "thrown out" "spurious allegations" on spurious grounds, we have no reason per se to continue to suppress such material. -- Pedant17 05:01, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia has no claims to conduct journalism -"responsible" or otherwise -- in its main wiki-space. On the contrary, it aims to provide encyclopedic coverage of topics -- even (for example) obscure and dying psycho-cults. -- Pedant17 05:01, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
As our esteemed mediator has suggested, "a definitive answer" as to Landmark Education's culthood or otherwise appears impossible. In such circumstances, bellyaching over the legitimacy of the claims of culthood appears irrelevant. On the contrary, we have the immediate task of assessing "the importance of such a classification". I suspect that calls for examination of relevance and impact rather than of "legitimacy". -- Pedant17 05:01, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia might counter this bon mot with "That which you don't understand, research". (And after researching, present the sourced findings, whether they involve criticism, facts, opinions, or any other relvant material. Vague suggestions of blanket retractions or of one-sided "proofs" will not suffice. Happily, collaboration from across the spectrum of editors will further enlighten all of us.) -- Pedant17 05:01, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
As I pointed out above and on the talk page, there is already a separate article listing criticisms of Landmark ( Landmark Education litigation) which contains, among other things, the quotes by Singer. Timb66 05:48, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
"I'm afraid to tell you what I think", means she wouldn't say what she thought because she was afraid to say. We are not allowed to guess what she was thinking and we are not allowed to 'read between the lines'. What we know is that had already she firmly and clearly stated 'to her friends' that she could satisfy the lawsuit in good conscience by re-affirming that she didn't call Landmark a cult, because she had never called them a cult and did not believe they were a cult.
She was afraid to say something, and we do not know exactly what it was. But we do know what it was NOT. It was NOT that that LE is a cult.
Lsi john 09:50, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
We do not know that Margaret Singer had "firmly and clearly stated 'to her friends' that she could satisfy the lawsuit in good conscience by re-affirming that she didn't call Landmark a cult, because she had never called them a cult and did not believe they were a cult" -- we lack a good specific source for this very vaguely-expressed assertion. The only clue given so far here comprises a reference to "your very own RickRoss website" allegedly stating: 'Dr. Singer, who was a good friend to Rick Ross before she died in 2003, reportedly told close friends that Landmark’s lawsuit had put a financial strain on her family, and that she believed she could settle her litigation without sacrificing her beliefs by simply agreeing to re-affirm that she did not believe Landmark was a “cult” -- given that she had never believed that it was, or had ever made such a statement in the first place'
Assuming the quotation from some unspecified "RickRoss" website appears accurately here (and we have no means of checking that without an URL, say); AND assuming that the mysterious "RickRoss" web-page has accurately conveyed its own sources, we still have to deal with the vague phraseology "reportedly told close friends".
Even assuming that the whole chain of citation works, we still cannot conclude on this basis that Margaret Singer whole-heartedly pronounced Landmark Education as "not a cult". At best, we could suspect on this basis that she said that she did not believe in the identification of Landmark Education with the identification "cult". -- The better-sourced direct quotations from Dr Singer on the matter from Scioscia [3] do not imply any definitive pronouncement on Landmark Education's non-cultishness.
What did her actual statement to the court say? Any good references? -- I've seen a page on the Landmark Education website (not an unbiased source) which at http://www.landmarkeducation.com/uploaded_files/694/msing.pdf makes no link to the court case but says: "Margaret Thaler Singer ... stated on May 7, 1997 as follows: 'I do not believe that either Landmark or The Landmark Forum is a cult or sect, or meets the criteria of a cult or sect.'" -- Once again, we find a lack of "belief" -- carefully worded as befits an academic and a legal victim. We find no positive affirmation that Landmark Education "is not a cult". -- Pedant17 01:26, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
OK, then we won't say she said they are not a cult. Which I never suggested we say in the first place.
And we won't say that she hinted that she might not be able to say what she couldnt say if she wanted to say something that she might have thought but was afraid to think about saying.
Meaning, we won't say anything about cult, as it relates to Singer, or meaning we cite what she said "She did not believe they were a cult." .. which isn't notable, because she probably did not believe they were an ice cream vendor either. The article is about what LE is, not what someone might not have said they aren't.
Lsi john 02:34, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Hello all. I've been standing back to read what you've all said and I can see more or less where the problems are. I think we should start to seek points of agreement. There are some undeniable aspects to the research:
In general the information on the cultlike nature of Landmark Education uses a Wikipedia style notion of cults (ie, if we link the term cults to the Wikipedia article on cults, the reader will be able to see the context of cults in general and will most likely not jump to the narrowest view. Or we could be more precise and state the context of the source - e.g. the reason for why the source has listed or commented on a list of what they consider to be cults or related groups. What we need to present there is a simple statement of their purpose, concern, or reasoning.
If there is a relevant issue then its presented. If Singer, for instance mentions LE in a book, then takes it out, then that can be mentioned in the article, especially if LE is trying to sue her. As there are quite a few sources stating things about LE in relation to cults - LGAT, then its clearly a major issue. However, I don't think its necessary to spread it all over the article. It can be made compact enough to go into a simple section and deal with all the related controversy in that section. So I suggest we start working on these points:
I expect there will be a certain level of disagreement on either of these points for better or worse, so I'll take a patient approach. I don't think we need to rush any of this. Jeffrire 04:43, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
I think we have a suggestion in response to the mediator's suggestion. Tim66's re-worded version of DaveApter's paragraphs on that. We have had three or four people line up with that... What do people think? Alex Jackl 06:22, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
The mediator suggested two tasks for us, the first of which was:
Can we take it that we have accomplished this one? There seems to have been general approval of Timb99's suggesion for the wording of this. Ckerr and Pedant17 have expressed reservations, but have not made any specific suggestions for altered wording - does this mean we can run with what we have?
If so, perhaps we can move on to the other area the mediator identified:
If so perhaps the suggestions I made above would serve as a starting point?
Does anyone want to extend this list, or will it do? Once we've agreed on the list, perhaps we can put forward suggestions for a short paragraph on each?
It seems clear from the discussion so far that the "cult" issue is essentially semantic. Rather than debating endlessly on whether Landmark does or does not qualify for that ambiguous and loaded term, it would be more useful to indicate what specific features it has (or not) that are associated with that description. Maybe this will be accomplished in dealing with these other areas? DaveApter 09:48, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Triplejumper 16:09, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
Coming back to this mediation cabal, it seems that the comments about the controversial cult label may be about the amount of the article that is dedicated to the issue. There also are many different meanings to the term 'cult' in many cultures and in this debate. I would argue that the issue is not notable about Landmark Education, although some would say it is because of references, although old or opinion or retracted later. The justifications of including the cult-term remind me of times that there seemed to be clear reasons and justifications for some point and actions were taken accordingly, but the point was not so when you look deeper or at the whole picture (the sun revolving around the Earth or weapons of mass-destruction in Iraq, for example). (It also seems to me that there is an agenda of some editors I would call anti-cult, and if they view Landmark Education as such, the agenda would come into play.) Spacefarer 20:20, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
The following comment was added to the top of this page I moved it here so so make things easier to read. I was unsure about whether it could be deleted or not given it is hard to tell if it is related to this cabal or not. If someone else thinks it should be deleted please do so Triplejumper 23:29, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
I believe we have a suggestion for wording being considered. I have made some minor adjustments.
I also believe one of the reports (the French one?) removed LE from its list the following year. I also believe the state department has formally challenged the translation of secte into cult.
Caution: The reader should be aware that the French and Belgian languages use secte, not cult, and that, other than the word secte itself, there is no direct translation of secte into English. The word secte does not have the same pejorative connotation as the word cult in English. Extreme care should be exercised when interchanging the two words.
Lsi john 12:52, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
Let's have a reference for the vague belief that the authors/commissioners of some undefined report removed Landmark Education from such report. -- Pedant17 04:05, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
Let's have a reference for the vague belief that some "state department" (which department? which state?) "formally challenged the translation" of secte as "cult". In the process, let's have an explanation of the role and rights of government and administration in regulating linguistic use across multi-national cross-cultural boundaries. -- Pedant17 04:05, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
The proposed formulation 'Landmark Education has sometimes been described as a "cult"' uses weasel-wording ("sometimes"), effectively failing to quantify an implied occasional description. The same sentence also uses a weasel passive construction ("has ... been described") with the effect of not ascribing this claim to anyone in particular. We can readily make this claim at least structurally NPOV by converting to the active voice and providing reputable examples, thus: "The French secret police (ref), the Austrian government (ref) and cult-watching groups both religious (ref) and secular (ref) have examined (ref) and documented (ref) Landmark Education in terms of its apparent cult-like activities and teachings." -- Pedant17 04:05, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
The proposed formulation: "Such accusations usually appear in milieu such as internet chat rooms and and anti-cult websites" appears factually inaccurate in its use of the word "usually". Without going into statistics on the numbers of mentions in Internet chat-rooms, can one dismiss non-Internet chat-rooms, water-cooler gossip, sermons, cafe-chats, fireside musings and Usenet posts so glibly? And do we have acceptable criteria for identifying "anti-cult websites" -- as opposed to other web-sites, blogs, letters and emails that just may touch on the perceived evils of Landmark Education? Speculation on the source of "such accusations" (loaded word!) needs validation or elimination, or at least balance. If we keep the morpheme "milieu", it may need a proper plural. -- Pedant17 04:05, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
The proposed formulation "However, there have not been any allegations of LE being a cult being made by any recognised authority on the subject, that were not subsequently retracted" has severe problems. The passive constructions continue in a tangle. Let's get rid of them for a start before addressing the substance. Try: "No recognised authority on the subject has alleged that Landmark Education is a cult without subsequently retracting that allegation." -- This re-revised formulation still includes the verb "to be", which careful researchers will avoid but which Landmark education itself likes to use -- perhaps to support its binarist views on such matters. Let that pass, just for the moment, and let's turn to the semantics. The use of the phrase "recognised authority" begs the questions as to who recognises authorities, and in what areas such authorities (should) have competence. Upon examination, the sentence as a whole reduces to meaningless/undefined marketing-speak. But worse ensues. The implication that allegations get refuted does not hold water. We discussed this above. A few newspapers and magazines have issued retractions in the face of Landmark Education's legal posturings. But retractions from the likes of the French government, the Austrian government, the Berlin Senate and cult-watchers in general appear lacking. -- The claim still abounds in negative language: "no ... without ... retracting". As such it becomes very difficult to prove or disprove: the absence of evidence does not prove a positive. But if we want to use such a claim, we may need to point out, in all neutrality, that various authorities have not (yet) retracted their their claims of culthood. -- Pedant17 04:05, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
The inconvenience of French authorities writing in French and of Belgian authorities writing in French and in Flemish provides a red-herring. We need sensitive translations expressing an awareness of semantic fields and quoting their non-English originals, not Anglo-centric implications that ignorant foreigners should speak English. -- Pedant17 04:05, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
The negative suggestion that Landmark Education fails to get mention or discussion in listed government reports outside listings speaks to the nature of the reporting and to the relative insignificance of Landmark Education in those jurisdictions. Insofar as it has any validity (see below), it stands in contrast to the German and Austrian reports, which focus more on smaller numbers of specific cults and report on them in considerable detail -- facts which could bear mention in a more balanced treatment of governmental reports. -- Pedant17 04:05, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
The claim that Landmark Education receives no specific mention in the main body of the Belgian Parliamentary report appears at variance with the discussion of Landmark Education's origins on page 110 of that document and mention in connection with trans-border recruitment on page 111 of the same document: http://www.dekamer.be/FLWB/pdf/49/0313/49K0313008.pdf
The claim that Landmark Education in the French Parliamentary report of 1996 receives mention only in an appendix appears at variance with its appearance in listings in the body of the report under the heading of Les adeptes des sectes. The report ( http://www.assemblee-nationale.fr/rap-enq/r2468.asp ) lacks any appendices. -- Pedant17 04:05, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
The mention of "about 200 widely assorted groups" in both the French and Belgian Parliamentary reports overeggs the random scope aspect: the Belgian report lists 189 groups (see Cults and governments, while the French report appears to cover at least 176 (see Groups referred to as cults in government reports). -- Pedant17 04:05, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
In the unattributed block-quoted "Caution" section, mention and discussion of the "Belgian language" seems unclear. The French-language version of the Belgian Parliamentary report refers to sectes, whereas the Flemish-language version speaks of sekten -- see http://www.dekamer.be/FLWB/pdf/49/0313/49K0313008.pdf Perceptive readers will realize that few foreign-language semantic fields translate exactly and precisely into English-language equivalents. But the context and content of the government reports in question suggests "cult" as the most exact English-language equivalent of their subject-matter. -- Pedant17 04:05, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
Given the amount of discussion on the current mediation project-page, the lack of integration of discussed topics into the proposed text appears disappointing. The overall tone of the proposed text, devoting much attention as it does to unattributed refutations of the "cult" concept, might make it a better candidate for incorporation into the "not-a-cult" text than for use in the proposed examination of who has called Landmark Education a cult and why. -- Pedant17 04:05, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
I feel very sorry for the mediator who has to wade through 170 KB of this fodder. Here is my version of Timb66's text:
Changes welcome. As you can see, I shifted the emphasis away from the "cult" allegation (which at least some of us agree is pointless and semantic) towards the actual objections against Landmark, based on DaveApter's list. I also strongly believe, as I've said before, that in the interests of keeping the article balanced and a reasonable length, there should be just a paragraph on the criticisms, with a link to a separate article for interested readers to pursue in depth. Finally, I think Landmark Education litigation is not the place to discuss all criticisms of Landmark. Ckerr 08:05, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
I too feel sympathy for anyone trying to follow the argument in this discussion. Indented comments inserted in the appropriate places would (of course) have helped a lot to constrain wordiness and to structure the debates in the tradition of Wikipedia talk-pages. -- Pedant17 06:16, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
By all means let us discuss a potential text on issues/criticisms, but let's not confuse that text with the proposed text on cult-labeling. Semantic arguments can cover whether one should label Landmark Education as a sect (sect of what?) or as a cult. But historically attested facts will demonstrate whether or not someone listed or referred to Landmark Education as a cult, and when, and in what context. -- Pedant17 06:16, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
The formulation that "Landmark Education has received criticism" suffers from weasel-passive-like construction in that it discourages us from saying who has generated such criticism and when and how often. -- Pedant17 06:16, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
The in itself tendentious assertion that criticism of Landmark Education relates "primarily" to "marketing technique" needs a citation or some other proof. Other criticisms also figure prominently, if not more so . -- Pedant17 06:16, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
The passive formulation "participants are strongly encouraged" fails to make clear who or what does the encouragement. -- Pedant17 06:16, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
The reference to "Landmark" tout court disparages other respectable entities which use the name "Landmark". We can use the fuller moniker "Landmark Education", if not for legal reasons or to comply with Landmark Education LLC marketing and branding, then at least to drive home the disparity between Landmark Education and more conventional and respected views on education. -- Pedant17 06:16, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
To imply that Landmark Education has earned its "cult" tag solely or primarily through its recruitment practices distorts and over-simplifies the arguments about Landmark Education's culthood. -- Pedant17 06:16, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
To speak of "[every] mainstream publication" retracting distorts and disguises the degree to which published suggestions of Landmark Education's culthood have spread largely unchecked or unretracted. -- Pedant17 06:16, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
The link to Landmark Education litigation could embrace a wider spectrum of opinion by becoming a link to the (currently synonymous) better-named Landmark Education and the law. -- Pedant17 06:16, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
The concept of "too closely connected" (to est/Erhard) needs extrapolation/explanation, optionally in the Landmark Education article and certainly in any Issues relating to Landmark Education article. Some commentators worry about the content of Erhardistic teachings too. -- Pedant17 06:16, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
Hello all. So far I see no realistic suggestions on how to proceed with presenting critical information on LE. Lots of well sourced and neutrally stated critical edits were removed (for no good reason) and as far as I see no reasonable alternative suggestions have been forthcoming. My own suggestion stands: Basically just have those sourced statements in NPOV neutral and simple form (pretty much as they were) without any unsourced commentary added either way. Here is the basic info: [16]. If there are any dead hyperlinks they can be removed. But basically the information is very neutrally presented. I see no problem with the Singer controversy being added, together with her statements after LE's litigious activities. If there is anything stating a retraction of LE being a cult, then it can be added. If there is no statement to that effect, then it fails burden of proof.
Alternatively, we can agree that we have not reached any consensus and move to another level of dispute resolution. Feel free to comment. Jeffrire 05:09, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
=== *Suggestions from Jeffrie* === (I have migrated Jeffrire's link to this discussion as text)
In Austria in 1996, the Federal Ministry of the Environment, Youth and the Family published a list of 200 groups it labelled cults (in German: Sekten) [4]
In the International Religious Freedom Report 2005, the government of Austria included Landmark Education among the "sects":
The vast majority of groups termed "sects" by the Government are small organizations with fewer than 100 members. Among the larger groups is the Church of Scientology, with between 5,000 and 6,000 members, and the Unification Church, with approximately 700 adherents throughout the country. Other groups found in the country include Divine Light Mission, Eckankar, Hare Krishna, the Holosophic community, the Osho movement, Sahaja Yoga, Sai Baba, Sri Chinmoy, Transcendental Meditation, Landmark Education, the Center for Experimental Society Formation, Fiat Lux, Universal Life, and The Family. [5]
The International Religious Freedom Report 2006, however, did not list Landmark Education among the examples of cults, although the wording makes it plain that the list is not intended to be comprehensive.
In a 2002 article: "Psychogroups and Cults in Denmark", the researchers assert that some people have thought of Landmark Education as associated with "cultic groups" due to the "high level of one-sided sales pressure that many people report." [6]
On June 6, 2004 Landmark Education ceased operating in Sweden. As in France, the causes of the closure included a diminishing public interest in participating, evinced in connection with very critical articles in the press and on television. [7]
The airing of two documentaries on national Swedish television by the broadcasting corporation TV4 on October 28, 2003 and on March 15, 2004 called " Lycka till salu" (Happiness for sale) in the program series " Kalla Fakta" contributed to the termination of the organization there. [8] citation needed
A Parliamentary Inquiry of the Belgian Chamber of People's Representatives into cults and their dangers listed and discussed Landmark Education in an official report of 28 April 1997. [9]
In 1994 a report of the Senate Committee of the State of Berlin in Germany included Landmark Education in a report on cults with the sub-title "entities espousing a world view and new religions". Landmark Education sued for correction and, on May 14, 1997, the Berlin court (Volksgericht 27A) endorsed a new classification-scheme which now represented Landmark Education as a "Providor of Life Guidance"(Anbieter von Lebenshilfe). [10]
Three court cases involving Landmark have included the claim of brainwashing; none resulted in Landmark being ruled as brainwashing anyone. Each had a slightly different outcome:
In 1999 Landmark Education asked Dr. Raymond Fowler, a psychologist and past President of the American Psychological Association (APA), to evaluate the effectiveness, safety, and appropriateness of the procedures in the Landmark Forum. Fowler reported that he saw nothing to suggest that the Landmark Forum itself would cause harm to participants, and that the course had none of the characteristics associated with a cult, and that the Landmark Forum did not place individuals at risk of "mind control", "brainwashing", or "thought control". [11]
Some articles have reported that the Landmark Education's coursework uses " loaded language" and " jargon": A former Erhard Seminars Training disciple made the comparison to "loaded language", in an article in NOW Toronto. [12]
In an article in New York Magazine, Vanessa Grigoriadis states that "the Forum drives its points home with loaded language, relentless repetition, and a carefully constructed environment." [13]
The Times referred to Landmark Education's use of language as "eccentric jargon". [14]
Some references to Landmark Education's courses compare them to religious subject matter:
Paul Derengowski, formerly of the Christian cult-watch group Watchman.org, states that Landmark "has theological implications". [15]
The Apologetics Index (an online Christian ministry providing research resources on what it considers cults, sects, other religious movements, doctrines, and practices) maintains a page on Landmark Education. [16]
An opposing view appears in the article "A Very Nineties Weekend" in the international Roman-Catholic weekly The Tablet stating that several Catholic priests have endorsed Landmark, and that the Trappist monk Basil Pennington has praised the Forum for bringing about a "full human enlivenment". [17]
Other examples of commentary from clergy appear on the Landmark Education Website.
In 1993, two years after the emergence of Landmark Education, Rev. Dr. Richard L. Dowhower conducted a survey of clergy to assess their opinions of cults, entitled "Clergy and Cults: A Survey". The 53 respondents came from the Washington, DC area and included 43 Lutheran clergy and seminarians, one Roman Catholic and one Jewish clergyman, and an Evangelical minister. The highest percentage (28%) of those questioned about "The cults I am most concerned about are", gave the answer of "Scientology, est/Forum, Lifespring". [18]
In James R. Lewis' 2001 book (published 10 years after the establishment of Landmark Education), Odd Gods: New Religions & the Cult Controversy, Werner Erhard, Erhard Seminars Training and The Forum are discussed [19]. Odd Gods describes the spiritual influences of the coursework, including Zen Buddhism, Abilitism, Subud, Dianetics, Scientology and Asian spiritual leaders [19].
In 2002 theologians Deacon Robert Kronberg, B.Th. and Consultant Kistina Lindebjerg, B.Th. of the Dialog Center International in Denmark discussed the religious aspects of Landmark Education, stating: "Also we see a large number of people joining groups, such as Landmark and Amway, which become controversial because of their sales practices." [6]
Specifically, Kronberg and Lindebjerg posited that Landmark Education's courses seem to fill a void in the lives of disillusioned young adults, who have not found answers in religion: "Landmark seems to appeal to young people between 20 and 35 in liberal professions who are disillusioned with or discouraged about their lives. Landmark seems to be a scientific substitute for the need for religious answers to life's fundamental questions." [6]
I'm pleased to see at least patchy support for my suggested text. Now, I'm not saying my text is perfect, but I think it's clear that we're never going to have unanimous agreement: for example, my text has been criticised from both sides. Personally, I think it's too pro-Landmark, but I wrote it with the aim of getting agreement, not to push my views.
I think the information in Jeffire's large block of text is essential, and I believe it deserves its own article. I agree with Jeffire that this material should be presented directly, without editorial interpretation. That said, there isn't anything wrong with having a paragraph which summarizes the main points of that separate article.
By the way, remember that having a separate article on "Landmark Education litigation" didn't solve everything, but it did help. I think the same would be true here.
I final thought: I am sick of this debate, and I hope you all are too, since there are so many better things we could be doing. So anyone who wants to start an edit war over "many" vs. "most", as suggested above, should be committed to an asylum for the obsessed. Ckerr 11:51, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
I've criticized the proposal to limit past, present and possible future controversial material (the "Issues" stub potentially linking to a Landmark Education issues article) to a static set of defined topics. Instead, I propose we need do no more than diligently apply the standard Wikipedia policies: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No original research. Mere opinions about balance and disputes or personal views on accuracy then vanish and we retain the reliable published material. -- Pedant17 01:02, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Revised in the light of comments on this section:
-- Pedant17 01:22, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
The spin doctor is in! :-) Come on. The thing that scares me most about this last section is that it is written in such a serious tone and surrounded by such spin that an unwary reader might miss the fact that you just said: "Well- just because LE has a bunch of different types of people endorsing it and saying it is not a cult - from experts, to people who have done it, to priests, to doctors, to psychologists, to studies- doesn't mean it is true. Yeah! That's it! They haven't PROVEN that they are NOT a cult!!! "
Wow. Okay. Neither has my local grocer. He has also not proven it. I suppose I should wear my tin foil hat to keep him from brain washing me. Come on! I hate to be so sarcastic but this is such doggerel! I expect better from you Pedant 17!
How about this- read the current article.! No one has ever successfully called LE a cult in the United States (because there are strong legal protections in the US against slander and libel), everyone that we have had referenced on the site has retracted, or has "clarified" that "they did not mean to call it a cult" or they pointe dout that they hadn't "actually" called LE a cult. Every time someone puts up someone declaring outright that it isn't a cult the "pro culties" find some reason to disregard the truth.
Look- it isn't a cult. There is no evidence for it no matter how many times you say "yes there is, yes there is". Now- LE may have had some questionable practices. It may have some organizational inefficiencies. It may not always do things the way I think they should! Well- it is a human organization. IBM has a bunch of questionable practices too. OK.
I am sorry if I seem flip but it is wearying to deal with the kind of spin above. If people just look behind the rhetoric they will see a series of facts which pretty clearly tell a story of NO CULT. And LE does somehow generate a VERY VOCAL but small minority of people pissed off at it like the above commenters. I am not sure why. Some of it has to do with some sales practices that pissed people off and LE is turning around and eliminating form its practices. Some of it is just people not understanding and hating that which they do not understand.*shrug* Oh well. I have been staying away for a while. I will go quite again. Alex Jackl 04:00, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
An apparently fearful reaction to a serious proposal for a proposed balancing/balanced block of WP:NPOV text reads: "The thing that scares me most about this last section is that it is written in such a serious tone and surrounded by such spin...". I make no apology for using a serious tone in writing for an encyclopedia. I suggest that we identify any surrounding spin so that we can unravel it and if necessary replace it. Vague allegations of spin do not help.
I suspect we agree that endorsements do not prove anything: "just because LE has a bunch of different types of people endorsing it and saying it is not a cult ... doesn't mean it is true". Hence the focus in my proposed text on analyzing the patterns and the logical inadequacies of those who pronounce Landmark Education "not a cult". Unquestioning acceptance of their views would contradict some other widely-expressed views, some of which would appear in any (separate) section addressing the perceived cultishness of Landmark Education.
We also agree, I feel confident, that proving a negative (such as the proposition that Landmark Education does not class as a cult) faces very severe logical difficulties. Given that, it seems entirely appropriate to point out the illogic and to highlight the alternative strategies (such as emotionalism, dogged assertion, deflection, spin) that some defenders of the Landmark Education experience deploy from time to time, despite the inherent weakness of their position. The persistence of such efforts calls for comment in itself.
I accept it as quite plausible and likely that a local grocer has not proven that (say) his/her grocery does not qualify as a cult. If such grocery faced widespread allegations of culthood and itself devoted considerable resources to affirming the negative, then in that case I might accept the analogy. In the meantime, the grocer seems like a red herring in respect of our discussion on cult-denying.
I note the implication that I have written doggerel. Believing that in general doggerel does not provide suitable material for Wikipedia, I suggest that we identify and polish up any portions of my suggested text that appear as doggerel.
The appeal to "read the current article" favors a version of Wikipedians' work on Landmark Education that happens to represent a frozen non-endorsed state. The archives of both the main article-space and the discussion on it reveal a more complex picture which we would do well to take into account as well.
I note the claim that "No one has ever successfully called LE a cult in the United States (because there are strong legal protections in the US against slander and libel)". Limiting the area of discussion to the United States of America would distort the world-wide view that Wikipedia aims for. Jurisdictions with less rigid preconceptions about preventing freedom of speech provide for alternative -- and valuable -- views on Landmark Education and its potential culthood. But even in the United States people do refer to Landmark Education as cultic, cultoid, or even (gasp!) "a cult". The current state of legal restrictions/threats may affect major publishers, but a persistent vein of popular culture happily associates Landmark Education and aspects of culthood -- even in the heartland-homeland of Landmark Education's activities. Wikipedia's citation-rules discourage us from cherry-picking in that corpus. But it would seem unwise and tendentious to act as if that public opinion did not exist. -- Once again, discussion along the lines "nobody successfully calls Landmark Education a cult" attempts to assert an unprovable negative.
The statement also appears that 'everyone that we have had referenced on the site has retracted, or has "clarified" that "they did not mean to call it a cult" or they pointe dout that they hadn't "actually" called LE a cult'. Such a claim patently disregards the references to European government agencies and to media in France and in the Netherlands, raised previously on this very mediation-page. One cannot act as if French television had never broadcast Voyage au pays des nouveaux gourous, or as if the Berlin Senate had dropped Landmark Education from its documentation on cults. To deny the existence of cult-labelling distorts the facts -- even the facts that Wikipedia has unashamedly and appropriately published (with painstaking referencing) in the past. -- Apart from all that, attempts at refuting cult-labelers belong not in the section under discussion (the analysis of the cult-denial school) but under the rubric of some other heading. We could set up a separate section or a separate Wikipedia-article on Meta-accusations about those whose discuss Landmark Education. The topic would not want for material.
I note too the claim 'Every time someone puts up someone declaring outright that it isn't a cult the "pro culties" find some reason to disregard the truth.' This assertion appears to posit a "truth" and seems to shore it up with "declaring outright that [Landmark Education] isn't a cult". Such appeals to "authoritative" non-neutrality carry little weight in the Wikipedia environment. One can certainly quote such views, but we have the task of assessing too the reasons that the alleged "pro-culties" provide, evaluating their citations and incorporating their point of view rather than assuming some absolute "truth". (I do see hope in the mention of "reason", though.)
The assertion that "it isn't a cult" remains just that: an assertion, -- however strong, however often repeated. But even if some overwhelming majority of peer-reviewed sociologists/theologians/psychtherapists were to make the case for Landmark Education's non-culthood, the evidence of alternative views flickering away in the unenlightened backwaters of the 1990s would deserve mention and discussion in Wikipedia as part of any balanced coverage of the LGAT/Scientological/human-potential-movement phenomenon.
I trust I have written enough already -- today and earlier -- to make it clear that evidence does exist in the matter of Landmark Education's potential culthood. I therefore dismiss the claim that '[t]here is no evidence for it no matter how many times you say "yes there is, yes there is".' But that discussion belongs in a different section -- on culthood -- not clogging up the current discussion on those who deny culthood. Such outbursts provide raw material, but contribute little to rational discussion.
The apparent attempt to deflect discussion about defense of Landmark Education into the generic topic of "questionable practices" needs no attention here. Questionable practices belong in yet another sub-section of "Landmark Education controversies" if they do not relate to alleged cultic activity.
"If people just look behind the rhetoric they will see a series of facts which pretty clearly tell a story of NO CULT." Let's see those facts then -- stripped of the spin emanating from enthusiastic "graduates" and a compliant corporate web-site. Show us the "facts" from good and reliable Wikipedia-worthy sources and let them stand alongside the carping underswell of the Austrian government and the French labor-inspectorate and the repeated accusations of "cult" against est and all the rest of the published objects to Landmarkism.
No discussion of the so-called "public conversation" about Landmark Education should miss out on accusing detractors of forming a "small minority". We've heard the tag before, but we have yet to see any plausible evidence of the "minority" status, let alone how "small". Wikipedia needs evidence. -- Not that deriding opponents as a minority has any place in the development of a neutral point-of-view, in any case.
We have also come to expect standardized vague speculation as to the motives of those who call the corporate rhetoric of Landmark Education into question. But we don't need to pad out Wikipedia with such stuff: we simply assume good faith on the part of all editors. If Landmark Education does indeed "somehow generate a VERY VOCAL but small minority of people pissed off at it ... I am not sure why" then let us do some research and then publish and then cite our findings. Vague dismissive assertions of the type "[s]ome of it is just people not understanding and hating that which they do not understand.*shrug* Oh well." -- these would get tagged as speculative original research and thrown out of the main Wikipedia-space in short order. Here they do not further the mediation process -- a process invoked to aid us in citation.
-- Pedant17 03:36, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
Within the task of identifying sources which have labelled Landmark Education as a "cult" or a "sect", we have yet to add sources that -- perhaps wisely -- skip around the precise legal minefield of specific forms of words and suggest that Landmark Education shows "cultic" tendencies or displays "cult-like" behavior. This subsection of the discussion may need to come to terms with sources like (for example) Samways, Schwertfeger and infoSekta.
The Australian psychologist Louise Samways has linked Landmark Education with undesirable practices in Dangerous Persuaders: An exposé of gurus, personal development courses and cults, and how they operate (Penguin, 1994) ISBN 0-14-023553-1. Formerly cited in the Landmark Education article but innapropriately removed as an out-or-print non-expert, Samways continues to provide a non-US English-language viewpoint and places Landmark Education in a context of cultdom as seen through her therapeutic practice in Mebourne.
Bärbel Schwertfeger, a German psychologist/journalist, wrote a foreword to Martin Lell's memoir of his experiences in a "Landmark Forum". As Frau Schwertfeger has researched and written on "trainings" (note especially her article: "Landmark und seine Ableger" [Landmark and those who reject it] in her book: Schwertfeger, Bärbel (1998) Griff nach der Psyche - Was umstrittene Persönlichkeitstrainer in Unternehmen anrichten [Grab for the Psyche: what controversial personal-development trainers set up in organizations]. Campus: Frankfurt am Main. ISBN 978-3593359106), her comments on and interest in Landmark Education provide interesting expertise. See furthermore her book Der Therapieführer. Die wichtigsten Formen und Methoden. [The therapy-guide: the most important forms and methods] (Heyne, 1989 und 1995 and 2002, ISBN 978-3453091337), and her article: "Probleme, Konfliktpotentiale, staatliche Reaktionen im Zusammenhang mit 'vereinnahmenden Gruppen' sogenannten Sekten und Psychogruppen" [Problems, the potential for conflict, and state responses in connection with "monopolistic groups" of so-called cults and psycho-groups]. In: InfoSekta (Ed):"Sekten" Psychogruppen und vereinnahmende Bewegungen: wie der einzelne sich schützen kann, was der Staat tun kann ["Cults", psycho-groups and monopolistic movements: how individuals can protect themselves, and what the state can do]. Zürich: NZN-Buchverlag/Theologischer Verlag Zürich, 2000, ISBN 978-3290200107.
infoSekta, a Swiss consumer-rights group, has had the experience of a legal tussle with Landmark Education, but survived to tell the tale:
In the matter of content we can happily assert that the substantive points of infoSekta's work stand. As previously, we can claim that Landmark shows cultic traits, so long as we emphasize at the same time that we wish to avoid a facile labeling as a cult (Sekte). (Such a labeling we would wish to avoid on principle and in any case.) As before, we can continue to express doubts as to the professionalism and the seriousness of Landmark's course-offerings (the legal agreement expressly states this). And finally, when asked about the matter, we can advise against attending [Landmark] courses.
In the original German:
Inhaltlich können wir zufrieden [... ]festhalten, dass die wesentlichen Punkte der Arbeit von infoSekta standgehalten haben. Wir dürfen nach wie vor behaupten, dass Landmark sektenhafte Züge aufweist, wenn wir gleichzeitig betonen, dass wir eine blosse Etikettierung als Sekte vermeiden möchten. (Letzteres möchten wir aus Prinzip und in jedem Falle vermeiden.) Wir dürfen im weiteren nach wie vor Zweifel an der Professionalität und Seriosität des Kursangebotes von Landmark äussern (dies ist im Vergleich ausdrücklich erwähnt). Und schliesslich dürfen wir, wenn wir danach gefragt werden, auch vom Kursbesuch abraten.
See: Dieter Sträuli: "Landmark vs. infoSekta: Geschichte eines Prozesses", in infoSekta-Tätigkeitsbericht 1997 ["Landmark vs infoSekta: Account of a Trial" in the infoSekta Annual Report, 1997], pages 16-20. Online at http://www.infosekta.ch/is5/gruppen/lm_straeuli1998.html, retrieved 2007-09-24.
infoSekta's [ summary] of the status of Landmark Education cuts both ways:
Landmark Education AG places great emphasis on the claim that it is neither a cult (Sekte) nor a mind-cult (Psychokult). Since infoSekta in its work always takes great care not to rely on simplistic labels ("cult"/"not-a-cult") but to come to a balanced judgment, we maintain: Theologically, in the case of Landmark Education (LM) one cannot indeed speak of a cult (Sekte). LM does not constitute a splinter-group from a main church, nor do religious matters play a role in LM. Also, the structural characteristics of a cult (as derived from sociological abd psychological criteria) which infoSekta has used do not predominate and appear only partially in the case of LM.
However, there fact remains that time and again those who have participated in the Forum or people who have become aware of LM through acquaintances do contact infoSekta's advice-bureau, for example because they suspect or observe cult-like tendencies in LM. A black/white labeling system ("LM is a cult" or alternatively, "LM is not a cult") does not help these affected parties. In order to do justice to the interests of its clients, infoSekta has addressed the matter of LM, its practices and history, in more depth. One outcome amongst others of this research is a lengthy essay by our colleague Susanne Schaaf, lic. phil. The other components of the documentation present further reports, include further accounts of personal experiences, and document LM's own view of itself. With this selection available, readers should find it easier to form their own opinions.
[In the original German:]
Die Landmark Education AG legt großen Wert auf die Feststellung, daß sie weder eine Sekte noch ein Psychokult sei. Da infoSekta in ihrer Arbeit stets bemüht ist, keine bloßen Etiketten zu verteilen ("Sekte"/"Nicht-Sekte"), sondern differenziert zu beurteilen, halten wir fest: Bei Landmark Education (LM) kann aus theologischer Sicht tatsächlich nicht von einer Sekte gesprochen werden. Weder stellt LM eine Abspaltung von einer Hauptkirche dar, noch spielen bei LM religiöse Inhalte eine Rolle. Auch die von infoSekta aufgestellten (aus soziologischen und psychologischen Kategorien hergeleiteten) strukturellen Merkmale von Sekten[...]) sind bei LM nicht in der Mehrzahl und nur ansatzweise vorhanden.
Tatsache ist jedoch, daß immer wieder AbsolventInnen des Forums oder Personen, welche von Bekannten auf LM aufmerksam gemacht wurden, von sich aus die Beratungsstelle infoSekta kontaktieren, z.B. weil sie bei LM sektenartige Tendenzen vermuten oder wahrnehmen. Diesen Betroffenen ist mit einer Schwarz-Weiß-Etikettierung ("LM ist eine Sekte" bzw. "LM ist keine Sekte") nicht geholfen. Um den Interessen der Anfragenden gerecht zu werden, hat sich infoSekta eingehender mit LM, ihrer Praxis und Geschichte auseinandergesetzt. Resultat dieser Auseinandersetzung ist u.a. ein längerer Aufsatz unserer Mitarbeiterin lic. phil. Susanne Schaaf [...] Die übrigen Teile der Dokumentation belegen weitere Auffassungen, enthalten Erfahrungsberichte und dokumentieren die Selbstdarstellung von LM. Mit dieser Auswahl soll der Leserin/ dem Leser die eigene Meinungsbildung erleichtert werden.
These samples represent a small fraction of the bodies of work associating Landmark education with culthood. Their nuanced views may find a place in a balanced NPOV treatment of Landmark Education and its alleged culthood. (To the best of my knowledge Landmark Education has not as yet succeeded in obliging these authors or their organizations to recant or apologize for such implications.)
-- Pedant17 04:00, 11 October 2007 (UTC)