Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitextInline

Revision as of 16:52, 17 May 2007 editLsi john (talk | contribs)6,364 edits →Landmark: thanks!← Previous edit		Latest revision as of 12:33, 30 November 2024 edit undoLowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,290,785 editsm Archiving 1 discussion(s) to Talk:Landmark Worldwide/Archive 32) (bot
Line 1:		Line 1:
			{{Connected contributor
			|User1=AJackl | U1-EH = yes | U1-declared=yes | U1-otherlinks=
			|User2=DaveApter | U2-EH = yes | U2-declared=yes | U2-otherlinks= Comment from Drmies in 2014 "...Dave, you obviously have a COI,...":
			|User3=Ndeavour | U3-EH = no | U3-declared=yes | U3-otherlinks=
			}}
			{{Talk header}}
	{{controversial}}		{{controversial}}
			{{Not a forum|personal discussions about the subject}}
	{{Talkheader}}
	{{Calm talk}}		{{Calm}}
			{{WikiProject banner shell|class=C|
			{{WikiProject California|importance=Low|sfba=Yes|sfba-importance=Low}}
			{{WikiProject Companies|importance=Low}}
			{{WikiProject Education|importance=Low}}
			{{WikiProject Psychology|importance=Mid}}
			{{WikiProject Religion|importance=Mid|NRM=yes|NRMImp=High}}
			}}
			{{afd-merged-from|Voyage au pays des nouveaux gourous|Voyage au pays des nouveaux gourous|23 September 2014}}
			{{To do|collapsed=yes}}
			{{User:MiszaBot/config
	'''Please start new discussion topics at the ''bottom'' of the talk page per ]. Thanks!'''
			|maxarchivesize = 250K
			|counter = 32
	{{archive box|
			|minthreadsleft = 5
	*]
			|minthreadstoarchive = 1
	*]
			|algo = old(30d)
	*]
			|archive = Talk:Landmark Worldwide/Archive %(counter)d
	*]
	*]
	*]
	*]
	}}		}}
	== Summary of Current State of Play ==		== RfC - regarding the neutrality of this article ==
			<!-- ] 15:01, 11 November 2024 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1731337267}}
	Once again this discussion has grown extensively, and once again there has been disappointingly little progress towards consensus.
			Has the ] of this article been improved or compromised, by changes made since the lifting of Discretionary Sanctions in February 2022?
			Current:]
			Feb 2022:
			Diff ] (]) 14:02, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
			Dave, I recognize that you've dedicated two decades to removing negative information from Landmark-related articles on Misplaced Pages. While I respect your level of commitment, I respectfully suggest that redirecting our energies to other pursuits may be more beneficial for all parties going forward. More than {{Time ago|20050212122600|magnitude=seconds|ago=}} ({{Time ago|20050212122600|magnitude=hours|ago=}}, {{Time ago|20050212122600|magnitude=days|ago=}}) have passed since you first started ] and you are ''still'' unhappy with what you've achieved. If you are looking for a way to help Misplaced Pages, check out the ]. Thank you. ] (]) 01:27, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
	I have archived the page, and kept the 'Summary' section, which I still hope will provide a basis for an improved article.
			:On the RFC question, I think that some of the changes are fine, and others might benefit from some review, but I doubt that it's perfect. For example, the lead says this group is called a cult because it pressures current customers to recruit future customers. If that's the standard for a cult, then ] is a cult. If enthusiasm is enough to earn that label, then ] is a cult. (As ] , Tupperware dealers give standing ovations for plastic dishes.) There's more to being a cult than recruiting, and I don't feel like that is explained well in the body of the article.
	I have also copied over the currently active discussion from the last few days to preserve continuity. ] 14:19, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
			:But overall, I would not say that the article is worse now than it was then. ] (]) 04:29, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
			::I agree that the reason it is considered a cult by some can be worded better. The reason is that it meets certain criteria. ] (]) 04:56, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
	Once again this talk page has got over-long, so I have archived it. Looking through the archived pages, it’s pretty clear that the discussion has gone round in circles with the same points being made over and over again, and more time being spent on re-iterating editors’ own viewpoints than seriously working towards a consensus on the structure of the article.
			:::What are the criteria you are referring to and what are the reliable sources that state that?] (]) 19:47, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
			:::Yeah, I'd like to hear some specifics about those 'criteria' as well. ] (]) 20:10, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
	At present the article is a total mess, as a result of the POV-pushing and edit-warring over the last seven months. It is also much longer than it should be.
			::What? No answer as usual? ] (]) 16:03, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
			:::Please read ]. And I could, in theory, explain some things to you but I am not so sure you'd be really all that interested, and it wouldn't be a very productive use of our limited time on this planet. ] (]) 17:00, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
	My request is that we work together to establish a consensus on this page regarding a desirable structure for the article, and then find acceptable references to build the page in that form.
			::::Interesting comment, considering the amount of your 'limited time' you blow on this. ] (]) 18:46, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
			:::::Agreed. ] (]) 18:59, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
	I propose that an acceptable encyclopedia article on Landmark Education would provide readers with informative content regarding:
			*This isn't a neutral RFC. For the past several years I've contributed to discussions about the many problems with this article, and DaveApter has, superficially at least, accepted these comments. To now imply that the old version was better basically ignores those past discussions. It's honestly a bit difficult to assume good faith for this kind of behavior. To restate what I said last year, the article is significantly improved from where it was in past years. Obviously, as with every article, there is still plenty of room for improvement, but this improvement would be much better discussed based on specific and actionable proposals. ] (]) 20:27, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
			::Yeah the goal of the RFC appears to be to punish Avatar317 and others who worked hard to improve this article. Can we just close bad-faith RfCs or what is the procedure? ] (]) 20:51, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
	:1) '''Broadly what it is about:''' what it offers and how it delivers it; why people do the courses, and what they get from them.
			::It's a bit of a stretch to interpret my reply to you as "superficially accept your comments" (ie, implying that I accepted the state of the article at that time). What I actually said was:
	:2) '''A summary of the ‘controversies’ surrounding the operation:''' what are the conflicting opinions on the various areas of debate, who hold these opinions, and what is the supporting evidence.
			::"''::'''I also agree with Grayfell that a total re-write of the piece may well be the way to go. The article is a mess''', largely as a result of its history as an uneasy compromise from the battle between two factions with widely varied viewpoints on the subject. It is also handicapped by the fact that most of the "sources" are lifestyle and opinion pieces rather than factual reporting. Also many of them are written from a sensationalist and biased perspective, and rarely give clear indications of the primary sources on which they are based. ] (]) 09:51, 30 November 2023 (UTC)''"
			::Furthermore, the article has changed considerably since last November, diff: , amongst other things giving greatly expanded comment on the already ] dicussion of "cult accusations". ] (]) 09:38, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
	Does anyone disagree with this as a satisfactory ‘big-picture’ overview of what the article should deal with? (Please start the discussion in a new section below to preserve the flow of this overview paragraph – thanks).
			::::That is not the first or only time we have interacted on this talk page. I was referring to ] where you at least halfheartedly acknowledged that the article had a problem with promotional language and filler. As asked, the RFC says nothing about about if the cult section was undue, and presenting that claim as an accepted fact in this discussion is misleading. If that is the main issue, you should've framed the RFC to be about that. As I said, this RFC is not neutral. ] (]) 19:34, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
			:::::I never said it was the first or the only time we discussed this; I thought that was what you were referring to, since I did mention agreement (that a re-write might be a good idea). I see nothing in the link you gave here that implied that I was happy with the state of the article at that time, even if I did agree with a few of the points you made. I even made one minor edit at your suggestion, and that was instantly reverted by Polygnotus. ] (]) 16:54, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
	My suggestions for how these areas could be dealt with are:
			::::::It doesn't matter if you were happy with the article, because the RFC is not about your level of happiness. The article was unacceptably bad before for reasons that you have at least partially agreed with. ] (]) 19:35, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
			:::In this day and age, anyone can say anything and if it is repeated loudly enough, people believe it. The only way to counteract that is to provide evidence - and even THAT needs to be qualified. When writing for an encyclopedia, then at the very least every claim of "cult" that's been added should reference who made it, what qualifies them as an expert, what they mean by the term as used, exactly what evidence they provide and just what makes their opinion worth being referenced. With that kind of research, the reader can make informed decisions without the excessive sway of an author's point of view. ] (]) 15:46, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
	===What is it about? ===
			::::What you are proposing would introduce ] issues, among other things. ] (]) 19:34, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
			:::::Thanks for pointing to that link - but after reading through it, I mut ask: why do you think what I suggested falls into the pool of "original research?" My understanding of research includes sources such as textbooks, academic papers and the like as primary sources, versus magazine articles that range from using the world cult in the title but denying it in the article to essentially "some people say" where there's no mention of who or why their opinions are notable. Which, as I read it, makes it appear that those citing them are actually inserting "original research" into the article. ] (]) 16:06, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
	This section of the article should address the following questions:
			::::::Misplaced Pages is a ] and as such, we strongly favor ] sources. Further, textbooks etc. can be either primary or secondary sources depending on how they are used, and being a magazine article doesn't make a source inherently any less reliable. Additionally, if enough reliable sources repeat something loudly enough than Misplaced Pages will also repeat that, because Misplaced Pages summarizes sources. If we're asking editors to deep-dive into sources to evaluate the 'evidence', or so we can imply that a source is not a qualified expert, or so we can attempt to divine ''precisely'' what they mean by 'cult', we are introducing our own research into the article. There is a very important distinction between attributing sources and casting doubt on those sources based on our personal understanding of the topic. ] (]) 19:26, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
			:::::::@Grayfell, I apologize for failing to express myself clearly; you actually expressed the point I was attempting to make. But I still have to ask, if a source fails to cite a primary source for the assertion that "some people say" things like "Landmark is a cult," how do they qualify as satisfactory secondary sources? What am I missing? ] (]) 23:07, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
	* What issues do Landmark courses deal with?
			::::::::Sources are considered reliable if they have a positive reputation for accuracy and fact-checking. Pragmatically speaking, this is usually achieved via editorial oversight, a history of retractions and corrections, and similar. Being cited by their peers can also demonstrate this reputation.
	* What is the methodology?
			::::::::Sources are ''not'', however, required to cite their own sources for any particular claim they make (nor would ''those'' sources be required to cite their own sources, etc.). ] (]) 20:58, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
	* What results do participants report?
			:::::::::Everything you say there is correct Grayfell, but with regard to Ndeavour's first comment to which you responded, what they propose is not ], but very much the opposite, and broadly considered best practice by the community. Specifically, when they say {{tq|"When writing for an encyclopedia, then at the very least every claim of 'cult' that's been added should reference who made it, what qualifies them as an expert, what they mean by the term as used, exactly what evidence they provide and just what makes their opinion worth being referenced."}}, that is is not original research but rather ]. Now as you point out, we are not in a position to interrogate every secondary source as to their primary sources (or their methodology in general), and other than sources that are deprecated through RSN or other means because they have shown a consistently unacceptable level of reliability in terms of editorial control or some other red flag, we don't "look behind the curtain" into a source's reasons for making most claims.{{pb}} But certainly where the information is highly controversial or otherwise ], if we ''do'' have that information that Ndeavour was referencing (primary sources relied upon by the RS, what they mean by the term, the evidence they relied on) we should provide it, to some extent. And there are times where we might deem a label inappropriate (that is not to have passed a ] test for inclusion), unless we have that extra context and/or unless multiple high quality RS use it. And needless to say, the other thing Ndeavour mentions there (attributing who the expert is an why their opinion on the issue has weight)--that is just common best practice and backed by multiple policies. So yes, there is a line that can be crossed in questioning sources where we dip into OR territory, but what Ndeavour is suggesting is not really that--or at least, not ''per se'' that.{{pb}}Now what does that say for the "cult" label? Eh, that's complicated, and I'm not going to lodge an opinion on this page at this time. But I will say that, having seen this subject come up no less than five times over the last couple of months, and connected to as many different groups (at ANI, AE, and on talk pages for individual articles--guess the issue is just having a moment right now), I can tell you that my sense is that the community wants claims of a group being a cult to be both robustly sourced before the label even comes in, and then the opinion directly attributed to the parties making the claim, and with inline attribution, mostly. Take that impressionistic read for what you will. '']]'' 22:51, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
	* How does it differ from conventional academic philosophy?
			::::::::::As I said, there is a very important distinction between attributing sources and casting doubt on those sources based on our personal understanding of the topic. Whether or not this proposal crosses that line is ultimately subjective, at least not without a much more specific proposal. My goal was to explain a bit about how Misplaced Pages works to a relatively new user, and to explain one major potential pitfall.
			::::::::::If you want to discuss whether or not "{{tq|Landmark has sometimes been described a ]}}" belongs in the lead as a summary of ], you should probably do that somewhere other than a response to a response to an RFC about a much, much broader issue. As I said, this isn't a neutral RFC. ] (]) 21:45, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
	(again - please discuss below).
			::::::::::::{{tq|"there is a very important distinction between attributing sources and casting doubt on those sources based on our personal understanding of the topic."}}
			:::::::::::Yes, that's true, which is why virtually the entirety of my post was about making that distinction and indicating where the divide lays. But I'll be honest with you, I don't see how, in interpreting Ndeavour's initial comments, you arrived at the conclusion that they were advocating for casting doubt on sources. It looked like they were arguing simply for normal attribution and inline discussion of the source's credentials to me. Which, again, is simply best practice in cases of potentially controversial statements, and not OR.
	=== Why the controversies, and what are they about? ===
			::::::::::::{{tq|"My goal was to explain a bit about how Misplaced Pages works to a relatively new user, and to explain one major potential pitfall."}}
			:::::::::::Fair enough. But I do get the feeling that they understand the difference between the advised and proscribed practices, and I think you two ended up talking past eachother.
	This section as it stands is way over-large and violates the ] policy by giving undue weight to minority views, and by reporting opinions as though they were facts.
			::::::::::::{{tq|"If you want to discuss whether or not 'Landmark has sometimes been described a ]' belongs in the lead as a summary of ], you should probably do that somewhere other than a response to a response to an RFC about a much, much broader issue. As I said, this isn't a neutral RFC."}}
			:::::::::::No, as I pretty expressly noted in my comment, I don't wish to weigh in on that topic and my observations were entirely meant to clear up some confusion that seemed to be occurring between the two of you. As to the RfC prompt, it looks perfectly neutral to me, but it does have another major issue: it's far too vague and broad. Which is why I recommended below that the OP consider closing it and making another with a much narrower inquiry or proposal, a little over 24 hours ago. I do think this discussion was bound to lead to unproductive discussion because of how it was framed (albeit in good faith), and it's good the OP is withdrawing it for something more pointed, but meanwhile I think Ndeavour's recommendation to which you initially raised concerns is more or less a good one, and consistent with core policy. '']]'' 23:33, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
	: The size of the "controversies" section reflects the degree of controversy surrounding almost everything to do with Landmark Education. Attempting to corral the disputes into one section limits the unfolding of the neutral point of view in the article as a whole. -- ] 05:46, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
	:I don't see a "neutral point of view" here. Stating that "the degree of controversy surrounding almost everything to do with Landmark Education" does not indicate a neutral point of view. ] 16:42, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
	:: If you regard a "neutral point of view" as consisting of denial of the existence of controversies, then using a phrase like "the degree of controversy surrounding almost everything to do with Landmark Education" sounds like Wiki-heresy. But if you recognize that acknowledging different points of view and presenting them in a balanced way forms a core component of Misplaced Pages's strategy for achieving NPOV, then any problem clears up in the process of editing itself. To quote the official Misplaced Pages Policy at ]: the fabled "neutral" point of view" consists of "representing views fairly, proportionately and without bias" -- ] 06:36, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
	A “controversy” by its nature is a matter of conflicting opinions.
	: Or simply differing opinions or simply different assemblages of data. -- ] 05:46, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
	What are the disputed matters? I’d say they are:
	* Does it really produce worthwhile results?
	* Is it sometimes harmful?
	* Is it a rip-off, or a money making scam?
	: Plus: how Landmark Education came into existence, what its content consists/consisted of, how one can characterize the org, whether one can credit its statements, etc. -- ] 05:46, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
	The concerns over the Assisting Programs would be quite properly discussed under the latter two headings.
	The fact that some commentators have applied adjectives such as “cult” and “brainwashing” is not in itself informative, unless we know what they mean by the words, and what evidence they draw on to justify the description.
	: It would help to report nouns such as "cult" and "brainwashing", rather than adjectives. I would welcome a full discussion of how each commentator may use such words: and assemble such evidence: possibly in a series of associated articles. In the absence of such detailed evidence, we can continue basically reporting that commentators have used such designations, relying on standard usage of language to precisify/obscure each case. -- ] 05:46, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
	It seems to me that the majority of those expressing critical opinions on Landmark Education actually know very little about it, and quite disproportionate weight is given to uninformed speculation and hearsay. ] 11:29, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
	: It may seem that way to you, but the presumption of good faith inherent in Misplaced Pages-editing prevents you from making unprovable claims in this arena. -- ] 05:46, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
	:: Sorry - I thought the advice to "assume good faith" referred to fellow wikipedians with whom we were debating, not to everyone on the planet! And actually I didn't think I was accusing anyone of "bad faith" anyway - my impression is that the overwhelming majority of critics make it quite clear that they have never observed or participated in any of Landmark's programs or courses.] 11:52, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
	::: The assumption of good faith applies indeed to Wikipedians, and thus applies as we edit here. You accused no-one of bad faith: I simply pointed out that fellow-Wikipedians should respect the work of editors representing the majority (broadly-speaking, skeptical) view here. -- ] 05:31, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
			:: I suggest that people commenting here read through the Arbcom case that created the discretionary sanctions - https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?oldid=643800885#Motion_.28Landmark_Worldwide_discretionary_sanctions.29 ] (]) 17:07, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
	] 18:56, 22 March 2007 (UTC): I am a relatively new editor and am fascinated by the controversy generated by the Landmark Education article. As a research scientist interested in using Misplaced Pages as a resource, it is a bit disconcerting that so much controversy shows up around some topics. It takes only a moment of analysis to see that one particular editor, "Smee", has an axe to grind, and dedicates a fair amount of his/her day to grinding it. The questions about Landmark Education are valid - but the data is obscured by this particular editor. I have myself taken a number of "growth programs" and done a degree of research into them. The Landmark programs are clearly among the best by several measures - size of operations, number of participants, and numerous reports by participants of positive results, as well a variety of scholarly research papers completed (I have read several, from USC and from Harvard).
			:::Interesting pattern. Accounts lay dormant, often for months, and suddenly there is a flurry of activity where they all show up to support eachother. Not suspicious at all. ] (]) 21:40, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
	: Please provide references for the "variety of scholarly research papers completed ... from USC and from Harvard". -- ] 05:46, 1 April 2007 (UTC)		::::And who's talking here? The word pot, kettle and black come to mind... ] (]) 16:02, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
			:::::I recently created the ] account. It is pretty interesting to see all the linkspammers. ] (]) 16:11, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
			::::Who knows, PG--you could be right. But regardless, this is not the place to discuss it, and it's somewhat ABF and ]-leaning to just make the implication. If you have proof, or even very substantial suspicions, that someone active on this article is violating policy, then take the matter to ANI, AE, or SPI, as appropriate. Some degree of comparing notes may even be acceptable in user talk, if it's for purposes of sock-busting. But here, that kind of commentary accomplishes very little other than to ] if you are correct and unnecessarily poison the dialogue if you are wrong. '']]'' 22:59, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
	'''Re: The Harvard and Reebok Heads:'''''
			*{{u|DaveApter}}, I believe this RfC was created in good faith, so I'm not attacking it on the same terms others have raised here, but I do think it is sub-optimal regardless. Ideally RfCs should have as narrow a scope as possible and address very discrete issues which, if a consensus is reached, could lead to an immediate solution. In most cases, this means making a very specific proposal that respondents can !vote up or down or a very straight-forward question about a specific editorial dispute. It's not strictly speaking a necessity that your prompt contain one of those two things, but the very, very broad question you have asked (essentially "Have all the changes made to this article in the last three years mad it more neutral/accurate?" is not well-calculated to lead to any immediate concrete improvements. It's more likely, actually, that it will just inflame opinions further and make the parties more polarized and entrenched. Perhaps you can withdraw it and consider a couple of more concrete questions about specific changes that respondents could provide feedback on, and then hold one RfC at a time on each? '']]'' 23:11, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
	'' There is a current "local-only" '''video clips web page that interviews briefly the Harvard Researcher''' and others who share their experience of Landmark, also a video intro and bits of the course. It cannot be accessed through the main Landmark website, but it is at www.landmarkeducation.com/'''wdcintro''' and select '''what participants say''' and '''see it in action''' for the video clips. They are apparently trying out the video intro locally to get the kinks out until it becomes accessible through their website. One of the "cubes" to click on is Prof. Emeritus Michael Jensen of Harvard business school who conducted a formal study on it, and Paul Fireman, ex CEO of Reebok. I hope I've put this comment in the right place--my first time. ] 19:27, 13 April 2007 (UTC)observer
			*:{{ping|Snow Rise}} Thank you for all the helpful and constructive comments. I am not experienced with RfCs, having only raised them a couple of times and that was more than a decade ago. I have closed the RfC (If I have understood the instructions correctly). I will probably raise another shortly as I feel there are still numerous issues here; but I think this discussion did home in on perhaps the most egregious one. ] (]) 19:18, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
	:: Interesting notes. I still await the referencing of the "variety of scholarly research papers completed ... from USC and from Harvard". -- ] 06:36, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
	Landmark is clearly not a cult, does not use brainwashing, and is a fine program that focuses on making a difference in people's lives. My sense is that the rate of negative outcomes is low, likely commensurate with the rate in any academic program (Caltech for example has a noticible rate of psychological trauma among its students - does this make Caltech a dangerous cult, or a danger to society? Caltech is clearly one of the finest scientific institutions on the planet.)
	My sense is that if "Smee" is not allowed to alter the Landmark Education site for some period, the controversy would settle and we would converge on a balanced and useful article.
	That statement is not worth very much if you can't sign; it's also rather impolite to suggest that a user who has worked so hard on a page suddenly stop participating.]<sup><font color="violet">]</font></sup> 16:58, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
	=== Intro Paragraph ===
	Lets- I quote from ]:
	<blockquote>When writing a lead section about ideas and concepts (such as "truth"), it can be helpful to introduce the topic as follows:
	1. Context - describing the category or field in which the idea belongs.
	2. Characterization - what the term refers to as used in the given context.
	3. Explanation - deeper meaning and background.
	4. Compare and contrast - how it relates to other topics, if appropriate.
	5. Criticism - include criticism if there has been significant, notable criticism.</blockquote>
	It also states that for larger articles (30,000 words plus) the length should be a maximum of 3 to 4 paragraphs. The first part of the current intor describes what we are talking about, the second describes some history and its predecessors, the third explains what it does and how that fits with some of its other sibling/subsidiary entities, and the fourth addresses criticisms.
	There is a large contingent of us (see above discussions) that think the intro is already overly leaning towards talking about the far past too much and think MOST of the criticism stuff is pretty non-notable and minority POV driven. The fact is this intro was gotten to voer weeks and weeks of patient effort by editors to keep it balanced. I think we should move very carefully to not disturb that. WIkipedia does say be bold but I suspect others will be bold back and that leads to edit wars. Lets take the consensus route.] 04:36, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
	*You make some intriguing points. I would like to hear what ] has to say about all this... Thanks. ] 04:42, 18 March 2007 (UTC).
	: The minority viewpoint that criticism of Landmark Education comes from a minority does receive a lot of air-play... -- ] 05:46, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
	:: I understand your opinion but this is a weasel-worded statement. Say what you mean: Do you mean to imply it is not a minority viewpoint? Please don't spin and hide behind sarcasm and stick to improving the article! Thank you!
	::: I merely point out a minority (but vocal) viewpoint: that criticism of Landmark Education comes from a minority. That implies that the article should evolve to represent majority views better. -- Which of my words do you regard as weaselly spin? -- ] 05:31, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
	== NPOV rationale for minor changes to the Labor stuff ==
	There are two things:
	1. There is a POV statement that the courts have "sometimes sided" with Landmark. That is a misleading statement - in NO case have the courts gone against Landmark with regard to the cult stuff. It is one of the reasons many editors consider this to be non-notable. Therefore I think this whole section needs to be radically reduced but as a stop gap at least acknowledging that the courts have never ruled AGAINST Landmark will hold that space.
	2. The DOL has not ruled on anything. You can check court records and the DOL website. It is an investigator, an employee, that made whatever conclusions they made and then took no further action and no legal proceedings resulted. This is just a fix of an obvious misdirection in the text (intentional or otherwise).
	These are I think the minorest changes to make this slightly less skewed. Please let me know if there is any question about this. Thanks! ] 01:56, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
	*Or invariably remove the legal wording stuff from those sections and keep it as a simple reference to the article ] ... ] 02:03, 19 March 2007 (UTC).
	**This is factually inaccurate and ]. We cannot be certain that we have all of the cases here. Thanks. ] 02:05, 19 March 2007 (UTC).
	*** What do you mean "factually inaccurate"? What evidence do you have for that? You have done a LOT of research ] on Landmark's litigation - if you can't find it, you don't want to bring it up. This is classic unethical debating tactics. "Well you can't prove it is not , so let's imply that it is". No - how about let's not mention it at all! That is more in keeping with an encyclopedia. You are breaking ] all the time - none of this stuff is notable but you are weaving a story together by emphasizing small non-notable pieces and making them seem more than they are. This labor thing is a PERFECT example- two investigations in 16 years -both of which ended up in no action (With regard to volunteers which is what this is about- there was some minor clean up Landmark had to do regarding tracking two employee's hours and stuff like that). Can you say so non-notable as to put one to sleep - give me a break!
	The ] has made NO NADA NIENTE rulings against Landmark Education - there has been no court cases, legal action, or evidence of wrong doing. You have NO proof. It is all in your imagination. The two action reports make some recommendations and than are labeled as "NO Further Action". Case closed. This is such a waste of our precious time even to talk about this. I suggesting we remove the Labor dispute section entirely or at least reduce it to a paragraph befitting its notability. I think Smee and I have made our positions clear on this. Other editors? ] 02:28, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
	*I request that you please '''STOP''' your violations of ]. Thanks. Comment on '''content''' ''not'' on '''contributors'''. Thanks. ] 03:49, 19 March 2007 (UTC).
	* I request that you stop trying to turn any strongly worded challenge of your stance into a personal attack. I request you stop misusing policies as an accusatory weapon against people in debates. I DO apologize if I offended you - CERTAINLY not my intent. However I do have strong objections and strong concerns about some of the content we are talking about- which I am not even sure YOU put in. I have not changed it since the last reversion and I have not accused you of any wrong-doing- which by the way you do with some regularity which, by the way, IS a breach of ]. This is not about you- this about the content and having an article that Misplaced Pages would be proud of. We aren't there yet with this article, and we have a ways to go. That is why I have asked for other editors to chime in and I will step back a little bit. I request you do the same. We have managed compromise in a civil fashion before I am confident we can do it again. ] 05:06, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
	*Keep your comments to '''content''', ''not'' '''contributors''', and you'll do just fine. Thanks. ] 05:24, 19 March 2007 (UTC).
	== Too many citations to unreliable Corporate Web site ==
	*Landmark Education's Web site is designed to be a publicity advertisement for their coursework, pure and simple. As per the tag, as many citations as possible to Landmark Education's for-profit Corporate Web site should be removed and replace with more reputable and reliable secondary sourced citations, ''especially'' in the case where Landmark is excerpting portions of data and not giving the whole picture about academic studies and the like. Thanks. ] 19:12, 19 March 2007 (UTC).
	: Wow! This is really over the top. Ummm.. this is an article about a corporation. The primary source of information IS the corporate website. It should be checked and should be treated knowing it is the corporation talking about itself, but you are not clear on the policies. Checkout any three corporate web pages and you will find NUMEROUS references to the corporate website. Frankly, it doesn't even count as self-publishing. ] 06:15, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
	::Compare usage of exact same template in similar article ]. ] 06:17, 20 March 2007 (UTC).
	::I do not watch the Scientology site and am not that interested in 20th century religions. How about we check out all the other business es using corporate sites. 1. It is not publicity advertisement only- it is a working site. One can look up courses, access services, even register. 2. It doesn't matter it is the official site of the corporation. It acts as the web presence for that corporate entity. If you decide to put it on Scientology, go ahead. I don't know what the people tracking that site will say or have said or even it should be there - it might. I just don't know. What I do know is that template clearly doesn't belong here. What I also find annoying is sneaking little changes in like the charter "claims" vs. "states" which was gone over and consensus was reached. *shrug* I am going to try to move on again but I was pulled in by the inappropriate template. ] 06:35, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
	:::''It is not publicity advertisement only- it is a working site.'' This is simply untrue. The purpose of the site is to convince more people to take the coursework, thus more money for the for-profit, privately owned corporation, thus it is blatant advertising, which is not allowed on Misplaced Pages, especially when citing research and alleged statistics. Thanks. ] 06:40, 20 March 2007 (UTC).
	:::: I got your unsupported opinion about that. I don't have a problem with your thinking that, just don't pass it off as fact. Compare the Landmark Website to some comparative web sites and you will see that it is more operational than most, and has lots of information for clients of the organization. Shocking given that it is the OFFICIAL web site of the organization. And- good god- a for-profit company has marketing material on its website! I have NEVER seen that before! Now THAT is notable. Puh-leese! (just for the record and humor-impaired that was sarcasm, intended to underline how much the Landmark website is mis-characterized here. ) ] 06:57, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
	*Opinion vs. Fact, good. What is the main purpose of the Web site, and in fact of the company? To create as much profit for the owners, whoever they are, as possible. Thus the Web site would be designed to do this. Thus it is not a reputable and certainly not a neutral source for anything. Thanks. ] 07:00, 20 March 2007 (UTC).
	*I don't understand the logic of profit = "not reputable" website. Look at the Misplaced Pages page for IBM, for example. The page has links to IBM's wbesites and is a company which makes a profit, with many, many, many links to the products which it offers. Based upon that logic, are you saying profit = "not reputable" for IBM's website?] 19:27, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
	** The drive for profit can obscure other considerations, such as ethics and humanity. It doesn't always happen, but it remains a possibility. -- ] 06:36, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
	: This is like a train wreck- I keep having to watch even though I know I shouldn't. Just so were clear according to your logic EVERY website except those put up by non-profit agencies are NOT REPUTABLE and not a NEUTRAL SOURCE? I just wanted you to be clear about the logical hole you are hurtling towards. Now- by the way - I DO AGREE about the "neutral source" bit. LE's website is not neutral about LE. Nor does it pretend to be. If there were some controversial issue you wouldn't want to rely solely on LE's stance on the matter (though that would be relevant and of interest as per Misplaced Pages policy) anymore than you would want to trust a source like one of Rick Ross' web of websites on the matter given his legal and obvious POV against Landmark. Both are not neutral though Landmark is a better source say about what its values are, for instance.
	: An example of a place where this shows up is the reference to the charter in the beginning of the article. You keep insisting on changing the verb associated to the charter to "claims". As in, the charter "claims". You clearly don't understand what a corporate chater is. A chart is a declaration- like the Declaration of INdependance. It states as a declaration what it stands for. Landmark doesn't "claim " that - it is a statement- a declaration. Yet you insist on keep changing it back to "claims". Why? I can't help but think you are trying to wage a PR war to make LE look a particular way. I am not accusing- I am merely stating what seems obvious and asking the question: What's the problem here? ] 07:14, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
	::If you continue to violate the policy of ] - comment on '''content''', ''not'' '''contributors''', we are not going to get anywhere here. Thanks. ] 07:17, 20 March 2007 (UTC).
	:: Any charter can claim or state anything. That doesn't necessarily make something valid outside that scope. To state that a charter "claims" or "states' or "professes" provides a more accurate and encyclopedic account of such matters. -- ] 05:46, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
	:::Personally I agree that fewer corporate links would be preferable - but I also think that the article ought to have more descriptive content on what the courses are about and how they work (see below). ] 14:27, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
	*Please discuss changes on talk page instead of mass reverting my work. In addition to editing I added much material w/ sourced citations. Thanks. ] 18:00, 20 March 2007 (UTC).
	:::I am more than happy to discuss matters here, and have been making an honest effort to get a constructive discussion going with a view to reaching a consensus on an article structure that will be acceptable to editors with widely differing viewpoints. It seems to me that you simply take rhetorical standpoints or simply ignore arguments which do not fit your POV, rather than engaging in the discussion. You are also very ready to accuse other editors of personal attacks. The edits you added and which have been reverted, have almost all been discussed on this page ''ad nauseam''.
	::: For example, you reverted AJackl's correction of the neutral (and accurate) "states" with the spun weasel word "claims" (against ]) without even bothering to answer the point he made in the paragraph above. ] 18:44, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
	*No, I have restored this change by AJackl, as requested. Please keep your comments to '''content''', ''not'' '''contributors''', thanks. I am refraining from commenting on what I would perceive as your obvious bias, which I would imagine you could see would appear to others on the other side. I have not done this, please do keep your comments to content. Thanks. ] 18:48, 20 March 2007 (UTC).
	==Specific suggestions for improving the article==
	The article is far too long, much of the material is repetitive, and extensive coverage is devoted to minority opinions, and issues of only very marginal significance are expounded at great length. There is frequent obfuscation between matters of opinion and matters of fact.
	<small>—The preceding ] comment was added by ] (] • ]){{#if:{{{2|}}}|&#32;{{{2}}}|}}.</small><!-- Template:Unsigned -->(nb this was not an unsigned comment, it was the start of an extended section signed by me at the end '''- and the same goes for all the spurious 'unsigned' flags which were inserted by ] in the next dozen or so paragraphs -''' ] 08:58, 22 March 2007 (UTC))
	: If you find the article too long, fork. If you suspect minority opinions, state your evidence for their minority status. If you detect opinions, label them as such. No need for complaints on the talk-page. -- ] 05:46, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
	*The frequent changes to this article have also repeatedly violated the "Neutral Point of View" policy of Misplaced Pages. Clearly, an agenda is being forwarded in the process. Misplaced Pages is not an editorial page. ] 15:38, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
	After reviewing several other entries about various corporations, I believe this article could benefit from a standard format, and removing a lot of the "deadwood". The format that appears regularly, and appears to work well, is something like this:
	*introduction, basically what the company does.
	*how they do what they do, their particular market segment or products, etc
	*more detail, sometimes a history, or new products
	*evaluation of the company from outside sources, controversies, court cases or judgments.
	Some examples you can see of this format in good use are ], [[
	IBM]], ], ], and ].
	: Landmark Education has a corporate aspect, as discussed. It also has aspects involving belief and practice and influence: in these respects the article structure might more closely and usefully resemble articles on religions. -- ] 05:46, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
	:: Actually there is no proscribed practice and is not a belief system. So what is your point? ] 15:37, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
	::: Practices do not need proscription (or prescription); beliefs do not always come in neat and self-consistent systems. -- ] 05:31, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
	The principal of undue weight to controversies has been severely violated in this article. When printed out, fully a third of the pages deal with investigations that ended with nothing found and no charges, lawsuits that were withdrawn, and then a range of controversies. I suggest this range of topics be reduced to maybe 5%, 10% tops, as this would represent more than the actual amount of this company's customers and interactions that could possibly be controversial.
	: Actual stuff: perhaps, but Landmark Education has a history and Wikipedians have striven to reflect that history in all relevant detail. -- ] 05:46, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
	::IBM has a history as well but that isn't portrayed this way. This is an encyclopedia not a historical treatise on company histories. The key in what you said is "all relevant detail". Misplaced Pages is not a link farm nor is it a repository of all data on a subject.
	::: Most things have histories. If Misplaced Pages skimps on the history of IBM, say, or Zoroastrianism, this merely suggests that editors' interests may tend towards the current in some fields -- so far. Facts on history -- even company history -- have a place in Misplaced Pages, "in all relevant detail". -- ] 05:31, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
	::::Addressing "in all relevant detail" is going to be subjective. We need to directly address undue weight given to the affor metioned items. This is significant because an editor ]with a very clear POV had been previously editing on this article up to 20 hours a day. If you look back over the various archived talk pages or edit history, you can see the enormous impact of this person POV on the article. ] 19:22, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
	::::: Addressing "in all relevant detail" has long raised issues of subjectivity. If you happen to detect undue weight, I suggest providing balancing material of similar merit to Smee's impeccable contributions. -- ] 03:38, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
	For any that feel that more space is needed to illustrate an egregious wrong, I suggest employing the Wiki principal of letting the facts speak for themselves. An excellent example of this is the "Criticism" section of Best Buys entry , which by it's sheer conciseness hits you right between the eyes.
	: While such an approach might well cover any individual egregious wrong, it might not cater so well for systemic patterns of criticism. -- ] 05:46, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
	:: I believe it will.] 15:37, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
	::: Patterns require bodies of data to establish and prove them, though. -- ] 05:31, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
	:::: We are getting into Wikilawyering here. We have to look at specific examples and see how notable they are and whether they would be mentioned for other companies and under what circumstances they would be mentioned. ] 05:27, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
	::::: Notability forms only part of the issue here. And we should not merely confine the "Landmark Education" article to the model of commercial companies: it has become of interest less as a company than as a morass of pop-culture memes. -- ] 06:36, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
	] 04:44, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
	:I took some time to look back over the history of the article, the version in early May 2006 appeared to be generally balanced in viewpoint and encylopedic in tone and had been stable for many months. At that point there seemed to be a concerted campaign to introduce extensive coverage of negative propaganda and to remove significant informative sections and the whole thing has suffered from an extended edit war over the last 9 months. Perhaps the version of that time would make a better starting point than the present one?] 23:26, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
	:: I am not sure. This article took so much damage from the edit warring and the POV editing form minority-view editors that it is tempting to take such an extreme route but as I look around there seems- for the first time in a long, long time a dialog about content and not just POV warring. It is GREAT! I have to admit I am concerned about maintaining this atmosphere if a sock-puppet of the editor in question or perhaps one of his allies comes back and tries to hijack the article again. But, welcome to Misplaced Pages, right? I am excited by what appears to be an influx of reasonable editors. I think a lot of willing editors to this article where cared away by the edit warring. I really hope my defense of the article did not contribute to any of that! All that rambling aside I believe we should- even though he and I don't always agree- follow ]'s path of discussing each section of the article in its own lights and then removing or changing as appropriate and we can be informed by past and more balanced versions of the article. Does this make sense to the other editors, or is their a consensus that we should restore an older version? I don't care so long as the balance and NPOV of the article remains intact I wholly will go with the consensus. ] 13:43, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
	===Methodology===
	More information than the single paragraph would be useful.<small>—The preceding ] comment was added by ] (] • ]){{#if:{{{2|}}}|&#32;{{{2}}}|}}.</small><!-- Template:Unsigned -->(It was not unsigned - see above ] 08:58, 22 March 2007 (UTC))
	*Provided this information comes from sources other than Landmark's own publicity advertising department, yes. ] 18:35, 20 March 2007 (UTC).
	*Where else would you get the specific methodolgy other than from the company that provides it? ] 15:14, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
	* This section should be developed further. It is relevant to the subject of the article ] 21:45, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
	===Courses===
	The exhaustive list of course titles is not particularly informative. More helpful would be to have summarised headings for the various categories of courses offered, followed by a brief descriptive paragraph.<small>—The preceding ] comment was added by ] (] • ]){{#if:{{{2|}}}|&#32;{{{2}}}|}}.</small><!-- Template:Unsigned -->(It was not unsigned - see above ] 08:58, 22 March 2007 (UTC))
	*I support this. ] 18:31, 20 March 2007 (UTC).
	I agree, the full list is not very informative. ] 00:53, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
	Since there seems to be consensus, I have gone ahead and edited ]. There was a request for a citation for the courses and I inserted the Landmark corporate web site. I assume this ok, I cannot think of anything more reliable for a list of the products offered by a company than to cite its own website. However, I am mindful that including an excessive number of links could verge on advertising. Comments? Also, I replaced ''sells'' by ''offers'', which seems more appropriate for a course. ] 21:53, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
	: I can think of few things more unreliable than an ever-changing corporate web-site (http://www.landmarkeducation.com/) which has implemented a policy of preventing standard archiving of its own content - see http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.landmarkeducation.com and http://www.landmarkeducation.com/robots.txt , which as of ] reads:
	<blockquote>
	User-agent: *
	Disallow: /assests/
	Disallow: /export_files/
	Disallow: /einsof_common/
	Disallow: /images/
	Disallow: /import_files/
	Disallow: /admin_common/
	Disallow: /uploaded_files/
	Disallow: /admin_custom/
	Disallow: /null/
	User-agent: ia_archiver
	Disallow: /
	</blockquote>
	: I suggest we reinstate the list of Landmark Education's course offerings, label it ], and thus allow readers to see the flavor of the "technology" while allowing editors to comment on individual courses and their histories. In this case, links to a for-profit provider which sells courses seem entirely appropriate -- ] 06:36, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
	===Labor Practices===
	I would agree that the surprising fact that significant numbers of individuals give their time to work in a for-profit corporation is worthy of some discussion, but the present treatment is an attempt to propagate and exaggerate marginal and uninformed opinions on the issue.<small>—The preceding ] comment was added by ] (] • ]){{#if:{{{2|}}}|&#32;{{{2}}}|}}.</small><!-- Template:Unsigned -->(It was not unsigned - see above ] 08:58, 22 March 2007 (UTC))
	:1. There is no need to devote pages of discussion to the DoL investigations. It is neither unusual or noteworthy that a corporation of this size should have 2 or 3 investigations over a 16 year period, and the fact that they concluded that no action was to be taken makes the matter even less significant. At least one of the investigations was in response to a delibarately mischievous complaint by a detractor of the company who had never participated in any of their courses, much less ever been a volunteer worker.
	:: ... by the best and most effective kind of whistle-blower, then? -- ] 05:46, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
	::::Sorry, I don't understand - how is a self-declared opponent of Landmark with no experience of volunteering who acts as an ''agent provocateur'' be "the best and most effective kind of whistle-blower"? ] 12:32, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
	::::: Independent un-biased and fresh insights often come from the outside. Fixation on participation and experience may narrow viewpoints. -- ] 05:31, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
	:2. The only people who assist are those who choose to do so, and this represents a small proportion of the total number of LE’s customers (around 1% in any given year).
	:3. Those who assist overwhelmingly report satisfaction with the experience, both in terms of the benefits of the training they receive and can apply to other areas of life, and in terms of the satisfaction of contributing to the course participants.
	:: I'd like to see substantiation for this claim. -- ] 05:46, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
	::::It's easy to find dozens of personal accounts, eg this one at :<blockquote>''Personally, I get a lot out of assisting at Landmark courses. It's great to see people gaining whole new areas of fulfillment in their lives where they had been totally resigned that things couldn't be different.... I am very interested in doing things that make a positive difference in the world. When I first did the Landmark Forum, I wondered how much I could trust the motivation of the company and staff. Through being around these people I came to realize that their commitment is impeccable. Landmark is a group of people who have invented a company where they can fully express themselves by contributing to others.'''</blockquote> ] 12:32, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
	::::: Personal accounts do not of themselves provide substantiation of the existence of any benefits. Personal accounts merely mire us in a morass of hearsay -- un-useful as reliable sources. -- ] 05:31, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
	::::::Surely this is incoherent? A personal account is the opposite of “hearsay” – hearsay means the reporting of something that the writer has heard, but not experienced for themselves . And what evidence could there be for someone finding the experience rewarding and fulfulling, other than a statement to that effect by them? ] 16:13, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
	::::::: I can see how making a distinction between a "personal account" and "hearsay" could lead to an impression of incoherence. But once a personal account moves out of the personal gossip arena into the noosphere, it becomes merely another piece of hearsay to everyone else -- billions of others. I see personal accounts as inherently unreliable manifestations of observer bias. Statistical collections of such reported experiences may -- if handled with great care -- form the basis of some conclusions as to the experience, but only as to the experience. Other compilations of personal accounts have no value. And to extrapolate from personal accounts of satisfaction to other areas (such as labor practices) does not help the discussion. -- ] 06:36, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
	:4. Nobody is profiting from the work of the volunteers (apart of course from the customers who get very cheap courses): the company’s shareholders are all employess of the company who pay themselves no dividends and receive only their modest salaries for the work done.
	::The alleged lack of a profit makes exploitation morally acceptable? -- ] 05:46, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
	::::Where do you get the idea that anyone is being "exploited"? Lots of people do things freely for the benefit of others, and the world would be a sorry place if they didn't. Do you say that people doing voluntary work for - say - the Boy Scouts are being "exploited"? The relevance of this comment is that it '''is'' unusual for the vehicle of the work to be a (technically) 'for-profit' rather than a 'non-profit'.
	::::: The investigations of the Labor Inspectorate in France, followed by the closing of Landmark Education operations there, might for example, suggests substance behind the anecdotes of people who feel exploited. Do Boy Scout volunteers come under ever-increasing pressure to volunteer more and more? -- ] 05:31, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
	::::::This is totally confusing. Please say what you are refering to when you say: "Ever increasing pressureto volunteer more and more". ] 19:22, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
	::::(btw, please try to avoid inserting your comments between my text and my signature, as this makes the conversation harder to follow. Thanks) ] 12:32, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
	::::: Indentation can help in such situations. -- ] 05:31, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
	*All of these claims above are unsubstantiated. It ''is''' highly unusual for a small for-profit, privately owned company to undergo this many investigations from the United States Federal Department of Labor. And we truly have no idea how many shares are owned by which individuals, and therefore cannot know exactly how much these shareholders are profiting off of these unpaid laborers. ] 18:32, 20 March 2007 (UTC).
	**I don't understand what you mean by unsubstantiated - all those assertions are simply factual: we do know the number of shareholders because it is an employee-owned company, so it will be equal to the number of employees. This is in any case irrelevant because they do not "profit" from the work of the assistants, because any surplus is used to make the courses more widely available. And what data do you have for the assessment that it is "highly unusual" for a company with 50 offices to have 3 DoL investigations over a 16 year period? I have no basis for comparison, but it strikes me as a very small number and a totally unremarkable fact. ] 08:58, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
	* A company that has offices on over 20 countries can hardly be called small. I agree with Dave Apter that the department of labor investigation is misleading. 2 or 3 investigations with no judgment pased over a 16 year period is not noteworthy. ] 19:46, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
	**It ''is'' unusual because most companies that bring in this level of revenue are not subjected to this level of scrutiny by the Department of Labor - at least 3 investigations in the United States, and 2 in France - that is highly unusual. ] 03:52, 21 March 2007 (UTC).
	***It just doesn't seem significant when there are no judgments. I will defer to the consensus. ] 21:52, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
	**** Judgements provide a messy last resort. Much legal machination goes into resolving issues before they reach a formal court. Should Misplaced Pages acknowledge such goings on? If not, why not? -- ] 05:31, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
	****I agree with ]] 23:32, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
	:: Ditto. There seems to be overwhelming consensus that this is non-notable and should never even made it into the article. This is a single-editor issue who had some particular axe to grind. It should be eliminated. ] 13:34, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
	:: Do the alleged deficiencies of the DoL issues apply equally to the parallel situations in France? -- ] 05:46, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
	==== Request to Have Labor Dispute Removed ====
	I am proposing that the entire labor dispute section be removed as non-notable spin representing a minority view. There seems to be agreement by all the editors but the one editor with the aforementioned minority view. Other editors? ] 19:56, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
	* I second this proposal on the for the reasons I mentioned above.] 20:45, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
	* I also agree that this section should be removed as not notable.] 21:14, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
	* I await evidence that the section on labor represents a minority view. -- ] 05:46, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
	* I recommend this section be deleted. ] 21:05, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
	:{{tl|editprotected}} I have unprotected the page. ] · <small>]</small> 02:34, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
	* I concur that this section should be removed - it appears to be a minority view. ] 23:43, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
	* I continue to await evidence that the section on labor (reproduced below (for the purposes of facilitating discussion) in the form before excision) represents "a minority view" -- ] 05:31, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
	**I think it is common sense. 2 investigations over the course 16 years with no judgments passed doesn't merit multiple paragraphs in this article. ] 19:22, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
	*** "Common sense" does not addres the requirement for evidence. Which two investigations would you prefer to omit? How can one detect patterns without thorough evidence? -- ] 03:38, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
	* I want to point out here that Misplaced Pages is kept up by volunteers - free labor! What are we all doing here? Should someone investigate? ] 14:25, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
	** The Supreme Court of Malta seems like the most interested judicial party, though the Argentinian Court of Appeal has obvious connections with any cyberspace case. -- ] 02:12, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
	<nowiki>
	== Labor investigations ==
	=== United States of America ===
	Summaries of two investigations by the ] into Landmark Education's labor practices appear below.
	The first investigation, which took place in ] in ], noted violations in respect of a lack of records kept on hours worked by employees. The "Compliance Action report" section of the case checked "No" for "Further Action on This Case". An analysis in the "Narrative report" examines arguments as to whether to classify the employees as "volunteers". The final "disposition" of the case and recommendations of the wage and hour investigator remain unknown, the authorities having redacted these details{{Fact|date=March 2007}} from the public version of the narrative report.<ref name="coloradoviolations">
	, ], ]-], ] Compliance Action Report.
	</ref>
	The second investigation, which originated in ] in ], found violations of minimum-wage regulations (due to volunteer assistants not receiving any wages for hours worked), overtime violations (due to the same issue), and again a record-keeping violation. The "disposition" of the Texas case resulted in a transfer of the case to the District Director of the corporate office. Again, the authorities redacted the final recommendation of the wage-and-hour investigator from the public version of the report.
	See below for more details.
	==== Colorado investigation (1994-1996) ====
	A ] investigation into Landmark Education's labor practices took place in ], between January ] to ]. The initial complaint arose out of an intent to classify volunteers as employees, subject to the Fair Labor Standards act.<ref name="coloradoviolations" />.
	In the official Compliance Action Report the wage and hourly investigator noted:
	<blockquote>
	The strongest supporting argument for the volunteer position appears, as borne out by the interviews almost exclusively, that none of the assistants have been promised or expect compensation but work solely for their personal purpose works in activities carried on by Subject for both their pleasure or profit.<ref name="coloradoviolations" />
	</blockquote>
	The investigator continued to state that:
	<blockquote>
	On the other hand, the strongest supporting argument for finding that the assistants are employees was ironically cited by outside counsel in ''Marshall v. Baptist Hospital'' which found that, if the assistants can be considered trainees, they displace regular employees that they would otherwise have to hire. Subject weakly counters that this, in fact, is not the case since the assistants are under direction by staff. Perhaps more importantly, the assistant activities is a common industry practice. In so stating, it should be noted that Subject is a for profit, and not a non-profit, enterprise.<ref name="coloradoviolations" />
	</blockquote>
	The investigator's conclusion noted that "No records are kept of any hours worked by any employees."
	A ] article in '']'' entitled: reported on labor investigations into Landmark Education's volunteers. At that time, the Department of Labor designated Landmark Education's volunteers as employees subject to the ].{{Fact|date=February 2007}} According to the ''Metroactive'' article the Department of Labor later "dropped the issue" after Landmark Education cited its "volunteers' choice in the matter".<ref>
	, ''Metroactive Features'', July 9-15, 1998<br>
	<blockquote>
	A case study by Harvard Business School reports that nationwide, 7,500 volunteers lend their time and services to Landmark. The corporation only pays 451 people, and only a tenth of them are Forum leaders.
	But here at the Forum, we are told, anything is possible. So devotees keep enrolling in courses, keep volunteering to prove their "commitment."
	I wonder what kind of racket the Department of Labor was running when it investigated Landmark and determined its volunteers were employees subject to the provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Who's heard of volunteers for a for-profit? In the end the Department of Labor dropped the issue, leaving Landmark trumpeting about its volunteers' choice in the matter.
	</blockquote>
	</ref>.
	==== Texas investigation (2003-2006) ====
	The United States Federal Department of Labor investigated Landmark Education's labor practices in ], from ], ] to ], ]. In the investigation, the Department of Labor found a "minimum wage violation" with regard to "Volunteer (assistants)" and noted that "Volunteers (Assistants) are not paid any wages for hours worked while performing the major duties of the firm".<ref name="texasviolations">
	, ], ], ], ] to ], ].</ref>
	The Department commented:
	<blockquote>
	The assistants displace regular employees that would have to be hired. The employer could not operate with the 2-3 full-time employees per site...
	Interviews reveal that the employees are taking payments, registering clients, billing, training, recruiting, setting up locations, cleaning, and other duties that would have to be performed by staff if the assistants did not perform them.<ref name="texasviolations" />
	</blockquote>
	(Landmark Education regards such assistants as volunteers, not as employees: "The firm denies that the assistants/volunteers are employees."<ref name="texasviolations" />
	)
	In both the Colorado and the Texas cases, as the sources cited above reveal, the Department of Labor ruled "No violations" with regard to certain sections of the law but not with regard to others. As the sources cited above also reveal, in the Colorado case the Department cited Landmark Education for not keeping records for any hours worked by employees. In the Texas investigation, the Department cited violations:
	*''"Minimum wage violation found. Volunteers (Assistants) are not paid any wages for hours worked while performing the major duties of the firm."''<ref name="texasviolations" />
	*''"An overtime violation resulting from the firm not paying the additional half time to non-exempt salaried employees."''<ref name="texasviolations" />
	*''"A record keeping violation resulted from the firm not keeping a record of hours worked for non-exempt salaried employees, and for assistants that are actually employees."''<ref name="texasviolations" />
	=== France ===
	In ], the French Department of Labor investigated Landmark Education's labor practices.<ref>
	'']'', ], ], ], '']''.<br>
	<blockquote>
	Volunteers working in the headquarters of a commercial company, is it legal? Officers from General Information, in this confidential note about Landmark, were worried about undeclared associates in violation of the Labor Code. The document dates from 1994, so the situation is not new.
	</blockquote>
	</ref>
	The matter received mention in a ], ] broadcast of the ] ("]") on ] ]'s show '']''; which highlighted (amongst other issues) the matter of volunteer labor.
	In June ], the French labor agency (''L’Inspection du Travail'') investigated labor practices regarding "volunteer workers". Shortly thereafter, Landmark Education officially ended its operations in France.<ref name="Nouvel"> , '']'' (French newspaper), ], ], by Marie Lemonnier.<br>Labor inspectors showed up at Landmark offices, noted the exploitation of volunteers, and made a report of undeclared employment. The action accelerated; the vise was tightened.
	</ref>
	It remains unclear what role the investigation played in the official ending of Landmark Education operations in France.<ref>
	{{fr icon}}
	</ref>
	</nowiki>
	===Controversies===
	This section is almost entirely comprised of over-long treatments of minority opinions promoted by ill-informed or deliberately malicious commentators. <small>—The preceding ] comment was added by ] (] • ]){{#if:{{{2|}}}|&#32;{{{2}}}|}}.</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> (It was not unsigned - see above ] 08:58, 22 March 2007 (UTC))
	*This is POV. The citations all are sourced to reputable material/individuals. Please do not attack nor classify these sources in this manner. Thanks. ] 18:33, 20 March 2007 (UTC).
	**Whether or not the sources you cite meet wikipedia's criteria is a legitimate an important matter to discuss. Many of the ones you use are opinion pieces, or highly partisan.] 08:58, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
	*RE: unsigned, I was merely clarifying who had said what for other readers, and did not want to put your actual name there. Please do not read into things. What you resist, persists. Thanks. ] 18:53, 20 March 2007 (UTC).
	The underlying issue here is compliance with the '''undue weight''' provision in the ] policy:
	<blockquote>NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a verifiable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each. Now an important qualification: Articles that compare views need not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and may not include tiny-minority views at all (by example, the article on the Earth only very briefly refers to the Flat Earth theory, a view of a distinct minority). We should not attempt to represent a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserved as much attention as a majority view, and views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views. To give undue weight to a significant-minority view, or to include a tiny-minority view, might be misleading as to the shape of the dispute. Misplaced Pages aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation among experts on the subject, or among the concerned parties. This applies not only to article text, but to images, external links, categories, and all other material as well.
	Undue weight applies to more than just viewpoints. Just as giving undue weight to a viewpoint is not neutral, so is giving undue weight to other verifiable and sourced statements. An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. Note that undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements.</blockquote>
	Many of the critical sources are partisan, many have no expertise in the subject, many of them have little if any actual knowledge of Landmark's procedures, many of them are self-interested and self-promotional, and numerically they insignificant in relation to the numbers of reputable commentators who are of the opposing view. I urge everyone to work constructively towards a consensus on this page. ] 14:39, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
	* Misplaced Pages's policy requires a Neutral Point of View" and no original research or poorly substantiated references. The length of this article and the content of the sections is a testament to violations of all 3 of these policies. Misplaced Pages is not a "soapbox", but rather a "People's Open-Sourced Encyclopedia". I request this article and the editors return to managing the page from those policies, standards and ideals. ] 15:38, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
	I agree with the NPOV principal of undue weight. As I wrote above, when I printed out the article, it consumed 24 pages. Pages 11-19 (8 pages, or one-third) were about investigations that ended with nothing found wrong, lawsuits that were later withdrawn, or a range of amazing controversies. Not only should this entire category be cut down to it's proper proportion (say, 5-10% of total), but the NPOV principal of letting the facts speak for themselves operate as it should.
	I would also suggest that the editors, and particularly Smee, refrain from the nasty back-and-forth editing over minor points. For an example of a controversy that is being worked through in a collegial manner, I can recommend something I've been working on behind the scenes trying to resolve: ]. This is a case where a physical fact (the height of a mountain pass), not an opinion, cannot be agreed to. However, the editors are willing to accept a reasonable middle ground for now, and we are working to find a way to get a more accurate answer published. ] 05:06, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
	====The "cult" issue====
	This merits at most a couple of sentences. There is much discussion and accusation on bulletin boards etc, but almost no identifiable informed authoritative figures have made this claim. On the other hand many eminent psychiatrists, clerics etc are on the record stating the converse. The most cursory examination reveals that LE fails to meet the generally accepted criteria for being a cult – in fact in most respects it is the opposite! <small>—The preceding ] comment was added by ] (] • ]){{#if:{{{2|}}}|&#32;{{{2}}}|}}.</small><!-- Template:Unsigned -->(It was not unsigned - see above ] 14:39, 21 March 2007 (UTC))
	*Actually, no. The fact that this has been discussed by noted academics, and classified as such by the Federal Sovereign Governments of multiple countries - to the affect that Landmark Education had to completely shut down all operations in multiple countries - is ''highly'' notable for a for-profit, privately owned company. ] 18:36, 20 March 2007 (UTC).
	**I think the consensus is that is not a cult. The Gov't references are irregular, meaning some have Landmark as a "sect" not a cult and some don't depending on the year. Also in looking at the wiki ] article, Landmark does not fit these criteria.] 23:30, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
	***This ] thought is my POV and cannot be entered on my account only, but by several accounts including my own direct experience with "est", familial experience with LE and contemporary opinions from Tony Robbins adherents it matches the ] article on several lists. Shirley Harrison's and two more on a casual look. It *is* highly aberrant among many "sects" that it was banished, but that does depend on the culture of the countries too.] 06:30, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
	*** Some of the government references to "sect" would better translate as "cult". If we have any sort of continuum covering sect/cult, Landmark Education seems to lie within that continuum. Lack of evidence of culthood in certain years does not constitute lack of culthood overall. -- ] 05:46, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
	: What "continuum" are you talking about?
	:: For example, see ]. -- ] 05:31, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
	: Can you cite any legitimate research that puts Landmark on a sect/cult" continuum?
	:: See the references in ], especially those relating to est. (Yes, I assume a body of commonality between est and Landmark Education.) -- ] 05:31, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
	: You are coming form a pre-determined POV that it is a cult that is refuted by the vast majority of editors on this page.
	:: I hadn't noticed that my developing views had become pre-determined: thanks for pointing this out with such clear and detailed proofs. -- I recognize that certain editors dispute the mentioned point-of-view; I see no definitive refutation, however. -- ] 05:31, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
	:] 15:37, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
	: ], I can't tell if you are agreeing or disagreeing. I do have a caution though- one of the big minority views that caused the protection of the article is that "est" and Landmark Education are the same. They are certainly not... at least as far as I can tell from talking to people who have done both.
	:: The issue remains debatable, then. -- ] 05:46, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
	:::Nope - closed deal as far as I can tell. The vast majority seem to agree. ] 15:37, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
	:::: Lack of unanimity means the discussion may continue. -- ] 05:31, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
	: Because Landmark licensed Werner Erhard's technology (BTW: that IS a notable fact!) and some of the people involved in est like Werner's brother and sister and some of the est Trainers are also involved in this the two get collapsed by the "Werner Erhard's ghost is running the corporation behind the scenes" crowd. I also don't understand the Tony Robbins reference. I think there does need to be a section on this in the article by the way- just it should be a paragraph or two. Remember: although so.me bureaucrats and some journalists have called the company a cult NO US court has ever upheld that. Not once.
	:: We cannot allow mere US courts to trump sovereign governments in an international encyclopedia. -- ] 05:46, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
	:::I FULLY agree with this! And your point is? ] 15:37, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
	: ANd any journal article that straight up said "LE is a cult" has retracted. It is so non-notable and so a throwback to the whole "est" controversies that it merits at best two paragraphs.
	:: The alleged throwback to est controversies merits considerable analysis in itself in this context. -- ] 05:46, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
	:::It may indeed merit analysis - ON THE EST PAGE. But frankly- this is an encyclopedia not a platform for anlysis of proving some point. ] 15:37, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
	:::: Intersection between two articles calls for mention in each. Items and linkages of interest to the Misplaced Pages community and to the wider community deserve a place in the encyclopedia. -- ] 05:31, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
	:::::A mention is one thing, an X Files style conspiracy theory is something else.] 19:22, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
	:::::: A mention can hint at a conspiracy, but it may take thorough discussion of an issue to debunk/prove the multiple links and parallels. -- ] 03:38, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
	: ] 14:04, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
	: It does lead to an interesting question.. how do we in Misplaced Pages discuss the "merit" of a citation? I mean there are a lot of Internet articles about people asserting that the world will end when the Popcorn god crossed the tenth dimension and take all the true believers to the concession stand in the sky You might get ten links of detailed physics jargon and explanations about the path of ascension up the movie aisle. That doesn't mean even ONE of those belongs on the physics page of Misplaced Pages or on a cosmology page. I mean that is one of the things that happened in this article - it got drenched by POV, fringish references to journalism articles and books and references that said almost nothing but were given great weight. I mean- for instance- one of the references was to a book discussing the elements of a cult and there was a quote that had nothing to do with Landmark Education and the reference was justified robotically as a "valid, published source" by Misplaced Pages's policies. I know this problem is not unique to this article... can any editors give me a good reference to where this is talked about in Misplaced Pages? I am clear this isn't appropriate to this page ] 14:04, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
	The whole "cult accusation" drips with a Point of View designed to advance a particular agenda. Millions of people go to Starbucks every day to satisfy their particular tastes, recommend the place, even hang out there. Each year, millions of users around the world contribute their time as contributors to Misplaced Pages. If someone used their editing privileges to call Starbucks or Misplaced Pages a "cult" as a way to disparage the organizations, even if they could quote someone else's editorial point of view with reference to a book or article, such attempts to advance a Point of View would be quickly deleted from the Misplaced Pages pages. This whole section should be deleted. ] 21:01, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
	: Can one then use the term "cult" without disparaging something? Yes. -- Can one discuss accusations of culthood in Misplaced Pages? -- Of course. -- Does Landmark Education have some sort of exemption from such discussions, especially given the majority popular view of it? No. -- ] 05:31, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
	::If you are suggesting that the majority popular view is that Landmark is a cult, it smacks of POV. ] 19:22, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
	::: Just as the suggestion that Landmark Education represents a worthy and worthwhile endeavor represents a point-of-view -- albeit an extreme minority one. -- ] 03:38, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
	====Response to Zortyl's comments====
	Thanks ], for your contribution to the debate. I don't really understand what you mean in saying that Landmark meets Shirly harrison's criteria for being a cult: here are her tests, and my comments:
	''* A powerful leader who claims divinity or a special mission entrusted to him/her from above;''
	Doesn't apply - there is no overall leader of Landmark, it is run by an executive board which is elected annually by the shareholders, who are also the employees of the company. And certainly no-one claims divinity!
	: Ever hear of multiple/group leadership? -- And what happened to the alternative to divinity: "a special mission entrusted ... from above"? -- ] 05:46, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
	:: Good point - that is more evidence that Landmark is not a cult. The lack of "orders from some divine thing/above" Given this isn't present just adds to the massive evidence behind it not being a cult. Thanks! ] 15:37, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
	::: When did Landmark Education centers then stop preaching the "special mission" from above which we could paraphrase as "Go forth and recruit"? -- ] 05:31, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
	''* Revealed scriptures or doctrine;''
	Doesn't apply - there is no doctrine or belief system, merely a set of philosophical conjectures which customers are invited to "try out and see whether they work".
	: In practice, do you find a remarkable similarity of belief concerning leadership. responsibility, enrolment, etc among "graduates" of Landmark Education? -- ] 05:46, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
	:: No. It is one of the interesting things about participating in Landmark's programs: how diverse the particpant's are - in everything.
	::: I do not see a similarity here. It is like saying science and creationism are similar.] 15:54, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
	::: Acolytes start different. Their common demonstrated reverence for leadership, responsibility, enrolment, etc just happens? The commonality of language expressing such ideas suddenly springs up? -- ] 05:31, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
	::::Where do you get reverence? Using a word to convey and idea doesn't automatically reflect a belief system. What Pendant17 is saying here is based on personal conjecture. ] 19:22, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
	::::: I "get reverence" from the repeated appeals to such terms and their insinuation into multiple situations. -- I agree that using a word (such as "reverence') does not automatically imply a belief-system. But repeated use of a set of words may suggest a "doctrine", which relates to Harrison's point. -- Can one have non-personal conjecture? -- ] 03:38, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
	''* Deceptive recruitment;''
	Doesn't apply - prospects are invited to presentations where they find out about what goes on and what results people get, and can ask any questions they like, and then choose whether to register into a course or not. Not only that but they can choose to leave a few hours into any course and get their money back (actually two opportunities to do that in the case of the Landmark Forum).
	: You regard the presentations and the first few hours as representatively accurate? -- ] 05:46, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
	:: I think they do give people an accurate picture of what happens in the Landmark Forum. As a matter of fact they do a piece of the Landmark Forum in the introduction, they give a sylabbuss of what will be covered. So yes... extremely so. ] 15:37, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
	::: The results promised in the presentations are backed up by survey results from customers. Does the person who signs up to train for a charity marathon for the first time understand what the "wall" will feel like when they hit it? Are the personal challenges that they face in raising the money to participate in the race a suprise? Yes. Can you say that the Lukemia Society or the Breast Cancer Foundations are deceiving people? ] 15:54, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
	::: Accuracy as to the content of the "Landmark Forum" -- perhaps, but accuracy as to the pervading behavior and the "possibilities" of ongoing service to the greater goal? -- ] 05:31, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
	''* Totalitarianism and alienation of members from their families and/or friends;''
	Doesn't apply - on the contrary, many customers re-build relationships with friends and family members from whom they had become estranged.
	: And similarly, some "customers" estrange families and friends through their ongoing commitment to Landmark Education and all its works. -- ] 05:46, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
	:: Yeah. I understand that some people are upset when people change their lives and attribute it to Landmark's work. Frankly, that will happen with anything that has people reflect on their lives. Landmark's programs do a good job in helping me inspect what they are committed to and what they stand for in life. People then make decisions bas ed on that. Most people are happy with those decisions, a minority aren't. The same thing happens when people go to a business seminar , or a therapist, or change jobs. It impacts those around them, they make decisions . It does not make any of those things a cult. The fact is the VAST majority (see all the studies citing satisfaction, etc.)are positive and many strongly so. In the Landmark Forum core principles include "stop making your family wrong, forgive your family, re-establish communication where it has been broken, be authentic". This goes EXACTLY opposite what the metrics that describe a cult look for . In this particular metric LE is an anti-cult.
	::: We can chalk up "alienation from family and friends" as a given, then. It goes well with the totalitarianism of thought-processes as to (for example) the merits of Landmark Education and the deficiencies of outsiders. One need not seek far for examples of this one-track tendency. -- ] 05:31, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
	''* The use of indoctrination, by sophisticated mind-control techniques, based on the concept that once you can make a person behave the way you want, then you can make him/her believe what you want;''
	Doesn't apply - although many critics claim this, without much data to back it up!.
	: ... and some supports claim the contrary, without much data to back up their assertions. -- ] 05:46, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
	::If there is not much data for either side then it is like the Salem Witch Trials again. "If she floats and lives she is a Witch, if she sinks and drowns,then she is a mortal being." ] 15:56, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
	:: The point may apply, then? -- ] 05:31, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
	''* Slave labour - that is, the use of members on fundraising or missionary activities for little or no pay to line the leader's pockets;''
	Doesn't apply - certainly people do assist at Landmark event (but only those who want to - about 1% of customers in any given year), but no-one's pockets are being lined (except for the customers who get the courses at much cheaper prices than they would otherwise be).
	: What percentage of "graduates" perform the alternative: "missionary' (recruiting) work to the ultimate benefit of the corporate coffers? -- ] 05:46, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
	::I would imagine that Harrison was alluding to practices like the door-to-door poundings by groups like the Mormons or the Jehova’s Witnesses, not marketing by personal recommendation. Does American Express encouraging me to refer my friends make it a cult?
	::: Harrison may have omitted to make her meaning more precise. "Missionary activities" do loom large in the Landmark Education world-view. -- As for American Express, it may need to comply with others of Harrison's points -- as (I suggest) Landmark Education already does. -- ] 05:31, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
	::And besides - I’m sure that someone who has studied Landmark Education as much as you have must be well aware that there are no “corporate coffers” being swollen. Why are you trying to promote this misleading negative spin? ] 10:40, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
	::: Do I have to research the number and numbers of Landmark Education's bank-accounts to make a convincing case of the existence of "corporate coffers"? -- ] 05:31, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
	''* Misuse of funds and the accumulation of wealth for personal or political purposes at the expense of members; ''
	Doesn't apply - the modest operating profits are re-invested into the business and not distributed to the shareholders.
	: I wonder what proportion of Landmark Education profits go into legal expenses and/or into attempts to suppress free speech on the demerits of Landmark Education... -- ] 05:46, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
	:: This kind of POV baseless speculation does not even belong on a Misplaced Pages talk page. It is filled with weasel words, makes no attempt to constructively criticize the article, and is solely on the talk page to spread innuendo and negative spin. Please refrain from doing that. This kind of behavior is what got the page protected before. ] 15:37, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
	:: Pendant17, Thank you for your opinion, but I don't think our wondering or speculating about something there is no verifiable answer to is leading us toward consensus on this article.] 15:56, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
	::: Which of my words count as "weasel-words"? "Landmark Education"? "Profits"? "Legal expenses"? "Free speech"? "Demerits"? -- One could tot up the number of known legal cases and actions involving Landmark Education and debit the estimated costs against non-exploitative PR. -- Speculation in general and extrapolation on the behavior of Landmark Education in particular may lead to more insights than unquestioning acceptance of (say) corporate spin. Pending a full disclosure by Landmark Education, one can raise the "possibility" of what happens. And the Electronic Frontier Foundation <speculation> might not accept </speculation> that its actions against Landmark Education had nothing to do with "free speech on the demerits...". -- ] 05:31, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
	''* Exclusivity - "we are right and everyone else is wrong".''
	Doesn't apply - no-one is asked to ''believe'' anything.
	: I don't expect to hear any more complaints about minority non-notable viewpoints on the subject of Landmark Education then... -- ] 05:46, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
	::See above re: POV weasel words. Lets be constructive, if it is possible.] 15:37, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
	::: The point has a certain importance. The "we are right and everyone else is wrong" does sound like a minority view-point these days -- but one often encountered amongst Landmark Education boosters. Can anyone think of a way to demonstrate the contrary? -- ] 05:31, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
	] 17:38, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
	* While I am sure that we all have some opinions here (and we should respect them), lets keep dealing with facts and seeking consensus. ] 15:57, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
	** I endorse the search for facts. Consensus may have to wait a little longer. -- ] 05:31, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
	====Brainwashing accusations====
	The same as above, but more so – this is a completely absurd accusation, which does not merit even inclusion in a serious encyclopedia article. <small>—The preceding ] comment was added by ] (] • ]){{#if:{{{2|}}}|&#32;{{{2}}}|}}.</small><!-- Template:Unsigned -->(It was not unsigned - see above ] 14:39, 21 March 2007 (UTC))
	*It is a very serious issue that has been brought forth by legal cases, into the public domain, as well as by experts and participants, and should be described as such. ] 18:37, 20 March 2007 (UTC).
	*So has the Hostess Twinkie defense.] 20:05, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
	**Indeed, but not in multiple cases involving Landmark Education as defendant. ] 20:18, 20 March 2007 (UTC).
	*** My point here is that Brainwashing is sensational. Should the article on Brittany Spears have a section titled "No Underwear"? This is an encyclopedia. ] 21:18, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
	*** The lack of underwear does not explain Ms Spears's original and ongoing prominence. Whereas the concept of brainwashing might well explain Landmark Education's otherwise unaccountable success in survival and spreading amongst the small minority of people it has lured into its seminars. -- ] 05:46, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
	**** Pendant17, it appears that you presume that brainwashing is the reason for Landmark Education's success. That seems like a pretty big stretch, but I respect your right to an opinion. What it doesn't take into consideration however is the more likely explanation that significant numbers of people like the programs.] 19:32, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
	::EDITORS PLEASE TAKE NOTE: This is unbelievable. It is like you are channeling Smee. Are you sure you are not a sock puppet of Smee's? You are so hooked in your radical belief that Landmark has powerful enchantment powers (possibly acquired from space aliens)) and has brainwashed over a million people. You can't even see the POV dripping from your statements. That paragraph is nothing other than spin mud-throwing. The cult controversy IS NOTEWORTHY. However- it has been debunked over and over again. No serious study has ever called Landmark a cult. Every time a journal article has said "Landmark is a cult" they have retracted. The fact is that people have written books and it has been in the media so people assume it and have added Landmark to their "list of cults/sects". It has NOT ONCE. NOT EVEN ONE TIME survived study and investigation in a legal environment. How non-notable do you want to get. Now it is worthy of being mentioned in the article because it IS something that has been associated with Landmark in the public eye. But that is what make sit notable. Fact is: It is not a cult. All the studies and legal history support that. Please stop littering this page with that POV weaselling- it is what has been the source of all the troubles with this page. ] 15:37, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
	::: Do I channel ] or vice versa? Difficult to determine -- apart from our different styles, interests, and activities on Misplaced Pages. However, to return from the joys of gossip and the pastime of insults and the minority-viewpoint discussion of the issue of cultdom, I note a lack of specific relevant response to my discussion of Ms Spears and brainwashing. -- ] 05:31, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
	* Brainwashing accusations should be removed. They are vague, inflammatory, and apparently without sufficient foundation. We live in a litiginous society. The presence of a lawsuit against an organization, individual, or type of individual is evidence of very little, and there seems no other credible sources for any such accusation. For example, the number of lawsuits against obsetricians is particularly high in the U.S. It would be unwise to take this as evidence that obstetrics is a "quackish field of medicine." It is more likely evidence of the tendency to try to put blame on others in the face of misfortune, and of the current willingness to bring lawsuits against others. Further, "brainwashing" is an inflammatory term that could vaguely be applied to television commercials, training of soldiers in the U.S., standard psychotherapeutic and psychiatric techniques, and so forth. ] 00:02, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
	** Putting "brainwashing" in quotes shows great wisdom: we can now discuss the concept without becomimng inflammatory. -- ] 05:31, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
	* It could be said that McDonalds, Organic Farming, Western Medicine, Public Libraries and thousands of other models for delivering content, materials, food, etc. are brainwashing people by communicating a concept, or delivering a product. This is obviously not the case. Every organization or institution or goup or company that has a message could be seen as brainwashing it's contituencies or customers. If that is the case than those inferences should be drawn in hundreds of thousands of Misplaced Pages articles. ] 18:39, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
	** Few would dispute the prevalence of idea-peddling. We on the other hand may need to address the issue as to why Landmark Education has succeeded -- albeit in very limited and special circumstances -- in propagating its practices so thoroughly and overwhelmingly. -- ] 05:31, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
	====Austrian Classification====
	It is completely ridiculous to devote aboout a page to this issue. We have no idea what the criteria are the the compiler of the report used. It is a report about the tolerance of the Austrian government towards minority groups, not about the characteristics of the groups themselves, and LE has never had an operation in Austria anyway. The whole section should come out. <small>—The preceding ] comment was added by ] (] • ]){{#if:{{{2|}}}|&#32;{{{2}}}|}}.</small><!-- Template:Unsigned -->(It was not unsigned - see above ] 14:39, 21 March 2007 (UTC))
	*The fact that the for-profit, privately owned company was classified by the government of Austria as a "sect" in their country, in multiple reports, year after year, is highly unusual for a for-profit, privately owned company, and should be noted as such. ] 18:38, 20 March 2007 (UTC).
	: It is also notable that Landmark was dropped in 2006 from that report. Notice how little weight that was given. All POV pushing trying to get a single POV justified. ] 14:06, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
	:: Dropped or simply omitted? -- The decline of Landmark Education across Europe may deserve some weight. I append for reference the relevant section -- recently excised. -- ] 05:31, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
	<nowiki>
	===== Austria =====
	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'')<ref>
	"Sekten : Wissen schützt. Eine Information des Bundesministeriums für Umwelt, Jugend und Familie, Stubenbastei 5, 1010 Wien, 1996 (Sects : Knowledge protects. Information from the Federal Ministry of the Environment, Youth and the Family, Stubenbastei 5, 1010 Wien, 1996)
	</ref>
	According to the , the government of Austria had labeled Landmark Education as a "sect":
	<blockquote>
	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.<ref>
	, ].
	</ref>
	</blockquote>
	The ]'s did not list Landmark Education in the equivalent context and there is no evidence that Landmark ever operated in Austria.
	</nowiki>
	====Scientology====
	This is merely a blatant attempt to smear LE using guilt by association. There is no connection between LE and Scientlology and there never has been. No authoritative source have ever produced a convincing argument that there is. Most of the utterances on the subject are from armchair commentators who have no knowledge of Landmark. The whole section is inappropriate and should be removed. <small>—The preceding ] comment was added by ] (] • ]){{#if:{{{2|}}}|&#32;{{{2}}}|}}.</small><!-- Template:Unsigned -->(It was not unsigned - see above ] 14:39, 21 March 2007 (UTC))
	*All of the material is heavily sourced to reputable citations. The fact that noted academics continue to write about the similarities between Scientology methodology and Landmark Education coursework, over 10 years since the "founding" of this for-profit, privately owned company, is extremely notable and highly unusual. Clearly these authors and new religious movement/cult scholars have a differing opinion on this issue than the editor above. ] 18:39, 20 March 2007 (UTC).
	The only reason to even have something about Scientology in the article is to insinuate something sinister. If we are simply drawing a comparison bewteen two courses, then why has no one put Tony Robbins, Dale Carnegie, or Dr. Phil in this article? You can find noted and reputable sources that will make those comparisons to Landmark as well. Accusations are a dime a dozen in this day of modern spin. Insinuation of danger with an intention to scare people into beleiving something has been used since the begining of civilization. Senator Joseph McCarthy, when it came to accusing half of Hollywood of being comunists and calling them up infront of the HUAC really looked convincing at the time. For that matter so did Colin Powell when he went infront of the UN Security Council making the case for WMD's. I think the only basis for having a scientology section in this article is an attempt to fabricate a reality that is simply not there. By the way, today is the 4th anniversay of the begining of the War in Iraq. Lets be cautious about this.] 20:03, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
	*Cautious about what? And if you can find as many reputable citations comparing Landmark to Tony Robbins, Dale Carnegie, or Dr. Phil, we should add them to the article, yes. ] 20:05, 20 March 2007 (UTC).
	* Actually no DON'T DO THAT- Misplaced Pages is not supposed to be a link farm- as a matter of fact it is against policy. The Scientology connection is bogus. As far as I can tell the ONE connection is that the guy founded the organization from which Landmark bought their initial IP took some courses with Scientology at LATEST -->36<-- years ago and may or may not have used some of their material in a course he created and that was retired 21 years ago. That is your big notable link right? I am just checking. The links to TOny Robbins and Dr. Phil and such are far more recent but also just as not notable. You are pressing an EXTREMELY minority viewpoint. Even your own citations - when the issue is directly addressed have the SME's saying "NO- there is no link between Landmark and Scientology". The best you can muster is sensational journalism articles trying to drum up some sales. As ] said in this day and age of spin accusations are a dime a dozen. You just believe something and are desperately trying to wedge the facts to make your minority viewpoint more than it is. This is not a personal attack- I am rigorously commenting on innaccurate and weaselly-worded sections of the article trying to push a POV and prove something. I have nothing against you and have had pleasant exchanges with you! ] 03:49, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
	**I will not participate in discussion if you refuse to comment on '''content''' ''not'' '''contributors''', thanks. ] 03:53, 21 March 2007 (UTC).
	*** Refusing to engage in a discussion of content and pretending that this about you is the same IMO as merely opining in the article. I take it from your refusal to talk about '''content''' and insisting that this is about '''contributors''' to mean you have no answer to this and are acknowledging the points made by others as accurate. You are the one making this about contributors and not about content. RESPOND to questions about the content. Also I request you review ] and STOP accusing me of personal attacks against you. YOU are not YOUR opinion. Just because I disagree with your opinion and what you are writing does not mean I am attacking you. I also recommend you ] - it may enlighten you as to why you are hearing so much frustration about your edits. ] 04:24, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
	**** This is all blatent innuendo with no common thread and no specifics, excepting the Bavarian report which is not a comparison of LE and Scientology, but an evaluation of criteria. ] 04:54, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
	: This is probably obvious, based on the above discourse, but I agree with ] and ]. I believe that the Scientology links should be entirely eliminated from the article. I in no way question whether Werner Erhard did take some Scientology courses in the far past (late 60s) and did have run ins with them (late 80s?) but that is probably (just my opinion) exaggerated as well. We should certainly keep some reference to Werner Erhardt in the article and then people interested in him can get more information there. ] 13:30, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
	This section doesn't make a coherent statement and its purpose appears to be to associate LE and Scientology without asserting any concrete association. It reads like a collection of random sentences which contain the words Landmark Education and Scientology. The quotes don't draw any direct connections between the two organizations which would entail actions by LE (the subject of the article), but cite the most indirect actions of others who "compare", "suggest", and "reference". Further, the Bavarian Study quote is uninterpretable to this native speaker of English. I concur that the section should be removed. ] 23:09, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
	* Unless a definitive and clear business relationship exists between LE and Scientology, and there is no evidence that such exists, there is no point in linking them in this article. Both organizations arguable exist inside a category of "Personal Growth & Development Programs", in which case a seperate article about that topic that references a list of such programs might be appropriate (although Scientology is by it's own definition a religion, not a personal development program). Given there is no evidence of a specific business relationship between these two organziations, references to Scientiology should not be in an article on LE. ] 00:12, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
	** Some people have an interest in Landmark Education as a "business". Some people have an interest in Scientology as something else apart from a business. Nevertheless observers make or examine links between the two (Nedopil, for example), regardless of the issue of any "business relationship". The very distance (theoretically) between a business and a religion makes the topic noteworthy. I propose the restoration of the section on Scientology as a basis for further evaluation. See below for the currently deleted section. -- ] 05:31, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
	<nowiki>
	== Scientology ==
	In 1992 the ] (which has the classification of a religious organization in certain jurisdictions, such as that of the United States of America, but not in others) included Werner Erhard, EST (Erhard Seminars Training) and "The Forum" on a list of "Suppressive Persons and Groups".<ref>
	, Flag ED 2830RB, 25 July 1992.
	</ref><ref>
	"When it comes to Landmark Education Corporation, There's no meeting of the Minds.", ''Westword'', ], ], Steve Jackson.<br>Landmark contends that all the bad publicity ultimately can be traced to one enemy: the Church of Scientology. And in fact, there is some truth to the charge. The church's own records indicate that Erhard and his organization were placed on an enemies list by the late L. Ron Hubbard, Scientology's founder. There's also evidence that the church hired private detectives to dig up dirt on Erhard and disseminate it to the press.
	</ref>
	Scientology has a special procedure that new Scientologists must go through if they have previously participated in either Erhard Seminars Training or in the Landmark Forum. Scientologists refer to the procedure as the "Est Repair Rundown".<ref>
	, website, 2006. "Est Repair Rundown." "If you attended Erhard Seminar Training (EST) or Forum (one of its off-shoots), this rundown can repair any damage done by this off-beat activity. EST practices contained just enough truth, “borrowed” from Scientology processes, to get a case into restimulation — and then left it in that state without any means to repair it. This rundown undoes the damage and removes any stops so you can get everything Scientology has to offer.
	</ref>
	The German '']'' has compared Landmark Education to the ].<ref>
	, ''Stern'', ], April 2, 1998.
	<br>
	They consistently promise total control to the same people whom are then subjected to total control. A good example to read up on in regards to this is Scientology founder L. Ron Hubbard.
	</ref>
	The '''', stated that: "They are suspected of having connections with the Scientology Church."<ref>
	, '''', May 29, 1998., by Kristiane Huber.
	</ref>
	In ] a compared the practices of Landmark Education and of Scientology. ''The objective of the description and assessment of the Scientology and Landmark organizations was the investigation of the psychic, physical and social effects of the psycho- and social-techniques applied by those organizations respectively upon members and participants. The third objective also included the presentation of legal problems, conflicts or violations by the two organizations, along with pointers as to possible paths of resolution.''<ref>
	Heinrich Kuefner, Norbert Nedopil, Heinz Schoech, Robert Doerr, Stefanie Eiden, Raik Werner, "Expert opinion: Effects and risks of unconventional psycho- and social- techniques", ], ], ].
	</ref>
	In ], ] appeared in the documentary "]" addressing what she saw as extensive and precise similarities between ] and the ] utilized by Landmark Education.<ref>
	"]", ], '']'', ], 2004, ].
	</ref>
	A member of ] for seven years, Vasquez wrote the book ''Et Satan créa la secte'' .
	In ], ] discussed Landmark Education at a ] conference. She referenced a statement by journalist Martin Mireille who had stated that Landmark Education is "a branch of Scientology". However, in Palmer's remarks, she rejects this assertion.<ref>
	], "France's About-Picard Law and Neo-Phare: The First Application of ''Abus de Faiblesse''", ] 2006 International Conference, ], ].<br> "Landmark Education, founded under the name 'est' by Werner Erhardt in the early 1970s, incorporates techniques from the Human Potential Movement, and is not, as journalist Martin Mireille wrote, 'a branch of Scientology'."
	</ref>.
	</nowiki>
	==== Request Deletion of Section ====
	The disposition of this section is also overwhelmingly aligned on by the editors. I am proposing that the entire Scientology section is removed as a non-notable, minority-viewpoint, POV content. ] 21:01, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
	:{{tl|editprotected}} I have unprotected the page. Everyone may edit, but please bear in mind to discuss before reverting whenever possible. ] · <small>]</small> 02:34, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
	:: Thanks ]! In the spirit of their request could some of the other editors chime in on this section... ] 12:13, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
	::: The Scientology section is a random collection of unrelated statements, all negative, and all relatively vague. It should be deleted. ] 02:59, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
	Do we have a better place to refute alleged connections/parallels between Scientology and Landmark Education than in a reasoned and well-sourced section in the body of the ] article? -- ] 05:46, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
	*The talk page is the place for debates not the article.] 15:48, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
	** One debates on the talk-page. One presents non-minority opinions and studies and facts within the body of the article. -- ] 05:31, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
	:If the allegations were noteworthy you are absolutely correct but since it seems clear they are irrelevant, POV spin, and non-notable.
	:: I suggest Nedopil as a notable commemtator, for example. -- ] 05:31, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
	: NO. I don't mean to sound harsh but we want to stick with NPOV representations in this article and not break ]. If you can find a notable, appropriate link to Scientology to Landmark Education beside the founder of a predecessor organization's personal issues with it then I might give you more credence.
	:: The section in question contains more than personal issues. Let's put it back. -- ] 05:31, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
	: But the truth is Scientology has ZERO relationship to Landmark Education:
	:: Forget "relationship". Concentrate on links, influences, similarities, and differences. -- ] 05:31, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
	* Werner Erhardt took Scientoiology courses in the sixties. (Werner Erhardt page MIGHT be a place for that if anyone thought it notable enough)
	* Scientology and est had a tiff around Werner using their technology I think (not my area of expertise) (Maybe on Werner Erhard page or Scientology page if people thought it notable. )
	* Landmark is using technology Werner Erhardt had in the 80s and has purchased the right to it. (that is already in the article)
	There should be nothing on Scientology on the Landmark Education page as a majority of editors expressed in the two sections above.
	: The mere presence of editorial work, referenced and ordered and reflecting a substantial body of public opinion as to perceived linkages, suggests that a section on Scientlogy can only enrich the Landmark Education page. -- ] 05:31, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
	:I agree there is not a current notable citation that has been put forth and until there is one I think the this section should be removed.] 15:48, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
	:: Why the requirement for a single "current" citation? Misplaced Pages covers the history of everything. Citations slightly pre-current remain valuable. -- ] 05:31, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
	:In reviewing this whole article, the whole series of Scientology references is clearly "slanted" to advance a biased Point of View and violates Misplaced Pages policies. This is not the purpose of Misplaced Pages. The references should be removed. ] 20:20, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
	:: The "slanting" does not appear "clear" at all. Pending clarification, let's put the Scientology stuff back. -- ] 05:31, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
	====Loaded language====
	This whole section is essentially uninformed speculation, which is actually inaccurate and should be removed.] 14:19, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
	*This is clearly ''not'' "uninformed speculation", as every single sentence is highly sourced to a reputable secondary source. It is extremely unusual for a for-profit, privately owned company to be analyzed in this manner utilizing this methodology, and should be noted as such. Thanks. ] 18:40, 20 March 2007 (UTC).
	: You say "it is highly unusual for a for-profit, privately owned company to be analyzed in this manner using this methodology". Thank you for your unsupported opinion. Now- what methodology? What analysis? In what manner? You keep making these grandiose statements, utilizing weasel words. and insuating things without saying exactly what you mean. Please explain what the above sentence means. Thanks! ] 03:39, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
	::Please see all of the heavily sourced citations in this subsection. That is what I am referring to here. ] 03:53, 21 March 2007 (UTC).
	::I have reviewed them and find no manner of analysis or methodology. Random citations that mention vocabulary or "loaded language" or some reporter who is not a subject matter expert repeating something she read off the internet- not what I would call a reputable source! do not a cogent argument make. Please explain how these references actually prove anything. Thanks! ] 04:27, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
	I see no "loaded language" and the content is sourced. Please refrain from removing sourced content. If there have been various sources making the comparison between LE and SC then it does belong in the article. ] 04:57, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
	Let us consider this in the age of spin: Language and its dynamic definitions and appeal are the nature of all public teachings and marketing techniques. Movements fracture and join due to wording and terminology. Religions schism because of it. What makes that surprising or unimportant to all those here? Religions and Philosophies and (their word) mental "Technologies" ARE their terminology. Theology isn't an example? This isn't a new type of scrubbing brush they're selling, virtuous or malevolent.
	Regardless... if they are revolutionary or they are regressive and hackneyed, their use of terminology in teaching is an essential aspect of their definition.] 06:43, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
	====Religious Implications====
	I don't think this section is needed. For anyone in any religion there are "religious implications" to countless things. For an Orthodox Jew a door knob has religious implications on Saturdays. For a conservative muslim woman a hug has religious implications. For any number of Christian denominations, listening to the radio has religious implications. It may be notworthy that people from various religions have opinions about Landmark Education, but the section as it is currently written seems to imply that there is a religious status to Landmark makes no more sense than saying that a doornob has a religious status. ] 21:38, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
	: The religious fervor with which graduates of Landmark Education attempt to proselytise in itself gives Landmark Education significant religious implications. The section could profit from expansion rather than deletion. -- ] 05:46, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
	::See above. POV. First, I disagree,. Second, even if I agreed "hard sell" does not equal "religion". (unless you worship Money which some in our society do!)] 15:37, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
	::: I agree about the "distinction" between "hard sell" and "religious fervor". "Hard sell" occurs in specific situations and often involves sales-droids. Whereas religious fervor sweeps through entire groups of people and can pervade their entire existence. I suggest that Landmark Education has more to do with the "religious fervor" category, and that mentioning (at least) religion as a point of comparison or similarity adds to our understanding of Landmark Education. -- ] 05:31, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
	:::Please see my comment above about compliance with the ] undue weight policies. ] 14:39, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
	::::I agree that this section is not needed. ] 06:16, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
	:::: Few sections count as "needed". We could redistribute the content of the "Religious Implications" section into other existing or potentially new sections. But deleting the text doesn't help anyone. -- ] 05:31, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
	::::: I must say I agree with ] here. That section heading as always bothered me. perhaps we can come up with a more approriate heading or redistribute the info. ] 16:22, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
	====Bad Links====
	On the article there are references to outside sources that are bad links, 7, 15, 17, 31, and 42. They all go to pages that do no contain the cited content. ] 23:20, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
	: Perhaps this was already fixed but 31 and 42 do seem to be valid links. I agree on the first three:
	* 7 is a l;ink that is no longer good and ther eis also no ocntest on the question, I believe.
	* 15 links to a site no longer available.
	* 17 links to a site no longer available. ] 06:43, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
	====When possible link to original content====
	There are a number of citations to news articles that could just as easily to to oringal sources, but instead go to a third party page. For example references 2, 47, 75, and 76 are listed as articles but the links go to Rickross.com. This does not seem nescessary when the articles cites are already available at their original sources. ] 23:20, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
	: Agreed- this is Misplaced Pages policy anyway.. this is just a given. Those links were put in to link farm Rick Ross's sites not because they were the original source. That is a no-brainer change once the site becomes unprotected. ] 13:47, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
	== empty language ==
	Here is how the article begins:
	:''Landmark Education LLC (LE) offers training and development programs in over 20 countries. An employee-owned, private company, it has its headquarters in San Francisco, California. Its introductory course has the name The Landmark Forum.
	:''Landmark Education purchased the intellectual property of Werner Erhard and Associates, a successor to the controversial Est Training, and since its founding in 1991 has developed other courses.
	:''Landmark Education aims its courses primarily at individuals. Its subsidiary Landmark Education Business Development (LEBD) markets and delivers training and consulting to organizations. Landmark Education's subsidiary Tekniko Licensing Corporation licenses Landmark Education's "technology" to management-consulting firms.
	:''Some critics question (for example) whether and to what degree Landmark Education courses benefit participants. Others criticise the use of volunteers by Landmark Education and examine the origins of the organization (est/WEA etc).
	I am a native speaker of English, and I learned absolutely nothing from reading this passage. It would seem that the attempt at NPOV, combined with Landmark's own vagueness about itself, have produced a document that never actually says '''what''' Landmark is. What does this company do? I still have no idea.
	I am not surprised to encounter empty corporatese from the company PR department ("to empower and enable people and organizations to generate and fulfill new possibilities. We create and provide programs, services, and paradigms that produce extraordinary results for our customers."), but Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia. I don't think it's unreasonable to insist that an encyclopedia article tell you, in its first paragraph, what the subject of the article is. -] ] 06:05, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
	: ], Perhaps I can provide some background on that- that intro is the best we could do given some hostile POV editing . We had some better content about Landmark's actual commitment. Though don't be too quick to dismiss the above. One of the things that people don't get is that it is part of Landmark's core offerings to empower and people and organizations to generate and fulfill new possibilities. Whether they always succeed at that is another question but that is certainly in the design!
	:However- there is a lot of information there... you now know it is a "training and development" company that offers programs. You know it is international and in 20 countries. I agree that the historical stuff is a little fluffy and unnecessary but that is a result of compromise. I would recommend we add "in ] into the description to give a little more direction on what kind of training and development. WHat do you think? ] 19:49, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
	:: "personal training and development" also makes sense in the lead or the lead could tell a little more detail about what kind of training and development landmark education offers. ] 01:01, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
	== Market penetration over time ==
	This section looks like a re-hash of an old argument in the talk pages:
	See: "Majority opinions and minority opinions" from http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Landmark_Education/Archive_2
	and the later deletion of a similar section in:
	"Operational statistics section"
	: This section restores data previously deleted on questionable grounds. -- ] 05:46, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
	The argument previously was that participation in LE programs is stagnent or waning, but the contributor hasn't come out and said that here, and instead provides evidence that this might be the case leaving such a conclusion to a reader.
	: Statistics can have multiple functions. These statistics, published to the web by Landmark Education, provide extracts from the set of the less spun contents of the Landmark education corporate web. -- ] 05:46, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
	I thought the previous counter argument was pretty clear that the figures were not regularly updated on the LE website.
	: It might seem reasonable to assume that Landmark Education did not update its statistics on its website regularly, though I have seen no evidence of this, and one need not expect reasonable behavior from Landmark Education. On the other hand, someone with access to the Landmark Education website did and has updated that website with statistics from time to time. -- ] 05:46, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
	::As you inserted this section, and are keen to keep it, could you let us know what is the point you are trying to make here, please? It seems to me to simply take up quite a lot of space with some not very illuminating statistics. ] 10:40, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
	::: Statistics can prove useful, provided one knows their origin and degree authenticity. Statistics on the sales of tabulating machines in the 1920s would enhance any article seling with the story of IBM. Statistics on the number of converts or communicants would enhance any article on the story of Shinto in the 1930s. Landmark Education has generously "shared" with the world figures on its recruitment and scope. Unfortunately, some of those figures no longer appear on Landmark Education's web-page and have become inaccessible on the ]. Misplaced Pages can help! -- ] 05:31, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
	Citing them as such seems misleading.
	: Misleading as to what? The statistics apparently come from Landmark Education, and appear in the article with detailed references as to their provenance and dating. An interpretation of them might mislead, but the actual statistics provide a verifiable record of what Landmark Education published and when. -- ] 05:46, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
	::
	I think this section should be removed again, and added if some consensus is reached on the talk page.
	] 00:14, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
	: If someone can produce a better-attested set of statistics, we could merge them into the article. In the meantime I suggest retaining and building on what we have available on the important topic of Landmark Education's ongoing impact on humanity over time as measured by numbers of "graduations" and by numbers of offices. -- ] 05:46, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
	:: The lack of an update between 2002 and 2004 is evidence of not updating the site. I can think of other theories, but this is the simplest and most likely.
	:::The text demonstrates that someone did update the Landmark Education site between 2002 and 2004: the phrase "current 2001 numbers" became successively "current 2002 numbers" and "current 2003 numbers", as the quotes reveal. -- ] 05:31, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
	:: I see your point that it's not misleading to say: "This is what was published and when", but then the header should be something to suggest that, rather than that these are believable indicators of market penetration. The links cited are no longer accessible either, so the verifiable part is no longer the case. Without analysis these numbers don't contribute much of anything. Perhaps citing the most recent numbers posted (1,000,000 as of 2005) would be the most generally interesting. Talk of "ongoing impact on humanity over time" seems like it's best left for the discussion page and not in the article. ] 18:58, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
	::: Analysis might constitute ]. The most recent numbers convey less if divorced from their historical equivalents. Thank you for endorsing my placing of the phrase "ongoing impact on humanity over time" on the Talk-page rather than in the article proper. -- ] 05:31, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
	::: The list of statistics does seem to be unnecessary. I concur that the most recent numbers would be sufficient and the most interesting. ] 00:53, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
	:::: Some people maintain an interest in the past. Such people mnay sometimes read Misplaced Pages. Deleted text reads:
	<nowiki>
	=== Market penetration over time ===
	A quote from Charlotte Faltermeyer's 1998 article in ''Time'' magazine, as reproduced (without an attributed date) on the <ref>
	Retrieved ]
	</ref>
	gives a figure of 300,000 Landmark Forum-attendees since 1991.
	The previously held some historical snapshots from Landmark Education's website:
	linked to a of March 16, 1998, (Volume 151, number 10) where an article by Charlotte Faltermeyer estimated 300,000 graduates since 1991, and referred to Landmark Education's 42 offices in 11 countries.
	Before the owner of the http://www.landmarkeducation.com site blocked access to the information, the ]'s archive of , in excerpting Charlotte Faltermeyer's ''Time'' magazine article of March 1998, claimed approximately 600,000 "seekers" as having taken the Landmark Forum since 1991, and referred to Landmark Education's 60 offices in 21 countries ("pdated to reflect current 2001 numbers"). The Internet Archive record of this infomation became unavailable on the Web at some time between ] 2007 (when the information again became part of the Misplaced Pages article on ]) and ] 2007).
	Before the owner of the http://www.landmarkeducation.com site blocked access to the information, the ]'s archive of , in excerpting Charlotte Faltermeyer's ''Time'' magazine article of March 1998, claimed approximately 600,000 "seekers" as having taken the Landmark Forum since 1991, and referred to Landmark Education's 60 offices in 24 countries ("pdated to reflect current 2002 numbers"). The Internet Archive record of this infomation became unavailable on the Web at some time between ] 2007 (when the information again became part of the Misplaced Pages article on ]) and ] 2007).
	Before the owner of the http://www.landmarkeducation.com site blocked access to the information, the ]'s archive of , in excerpting Charlotte Faltermeyer's ''Time'' magazine article of March 1998, claimed approximately 600,000 "seekers" as having taken the Landmark Forum since 1991, and referred to Landmark Education's 58 offices in 26 countries ("pdated to reflect current 2003 numbers"). The Internet Archive record of this infomation became unavailable on the Web at some time between ] 2007 (when the information again became part of the Misplaced Pages article on ]) and ] 2007).
	Before the owner of the http://www.landmarkeducation.com site blocked access tothe information, the ]'s archive of , in excerpting Charlotte Faltermeyer's ''Time'' magazine article of March 1998, claimed approximately 725,000 Landmark Forum attendees since 1991, and 58 offices in 26 countries. The Internet Archive record of this infomation became unavailable on the Web at some time between ] 2007 (when the information again became part of the Misplaced Pages article on ]) and ] 2007).
	Landmark Education's web-site as of ] 2006, in excerpting Charlotte Faltermeyer's ''Time'' magazine article of March 1998, claimed approximately 758,000 "seekers" as having taken the Landmark Forum since 1991, and referred to Landmark Education's 58 offices in 26 countries ("pdated to reflect current 2004 numbers").
	] 2007], in excerpting Charlotte Faltermeyer's ''Time'' magazine article of March 1998, claimed "approximately 1,000,000" "seekers" as having taken the Landmark Forum since 1991, and referred to Landmark Education's 51 offices in 25 countries ("pdated to reflect current 2005 numbers").
	</nowiki>
	:::: Compare the less definitive current figures, all retrieved from the Landmark Education website yesterday:
	<nowiki>
	Landmark Education states variously that "More than 880,000"<ref>
	http://www.landmarkeducation.com/menu.jsp?top=26&mid=655 "Articles about Landmark Education" retrieved ]
	</ref>
	"approximately 1,000,000"<ref>
	http://www.landmarkeducation.com/display_content.jsp?top=21&mid=80&bottom=124&siteObjectID=593,"Time Magazine excerpt" retrieved ]
	</ref>
	or "almost " people have taken part in its introductory program, "The Landmark Forum" since 1991.<ref>
	, Landmark Education website, retrieval: ]
	</ref>
	</nowiki>
	:::: -- ] 05:31, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
	::::: This is notable how? AN encyclopedia on IBM for instance does not include its monthly sales figures- you can get peripheral information like that on their website or by downloading their annual financial reports or however you get that.
	:::::: Monthly sales -- no. Annual figures (if reliable) reflecting growth or non-growth provide an index of actual growth. I've seen very few precise figures on the career of Landmark Education -- yet here we have figures from the horse's mouth, deemed by the organization concerned (Landmark Education) as worthy of publication to the entire world on Landmark education's own web-site, and only subsequently suppressed from the archives. The figures become not only notable, but valuable.-- ] 06:36, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
	::::: The fact that you have a link or there is one more little piece of information does not suggest you should then add it to the encyclopedia article. You want to discriminate and ask yourself- does this do anything ti illuminate the subject and does it belong in the encyclopedic context.
	:::::: I endorse the desire for discrimination. If we had clearer, more definitive and less self-contradictory statistics covering the development of Landmark Education we would have no need for such little snippets of information as those provided above. In the circumstances, we do the best we can do and provide the fairest account of where one can or cannot confirm the information. -- ] 06:36, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
	::::: You said below "Shouldn't we keep it in on the off chance...?" and the answer is no.
	:::::: I said no such thing -- I merely questioned whether one should DELETE quite different -- qualitative -- information "on the off-chance". -- ] 06:36, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
	::::: This is not a junk pile of information- it is an encyclopedia article.
	:::::: ... and encyclopedic articles have encyclopedic scope: they potentially address everything, but specifically well-referenced first-hand statistics. -- ] 06:36, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
	::::: All argument and proposing and "what if" needs to happen here not the article page.] 18:27, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
	:::::: Meanwhile Misplaced Pages editors show admirable boldness (as per the WP:BOLD]] guidelines) in expanding the sum of Misplaced Pages-knowledge. -- ] 06:36, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
	:::: This seems to make a case for Landmark having poor content management software more than anything else. Since that's not their core competency (according to anyone), I concur with Dave and Alex that this isn't relevant to the article. ] 16:14, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
	::::: See the flexibility of raw figures! You can certainly make an assumption of "poor content management". But given Landmark Education's penchant for impeccability in the matter of "stats", you can also draw other conclusions -- left to the imagination of the readers of Misplaced Pages. No need to confine ourselves to alleged "core competencies". The figures on audience numbers and offices belong in the article on Landmark Education.-- ] 06:36, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
	== situation in germany ==
	''"Landmark Education sued for correction and, on May 14, 1997, the Berlin court (Volksgericht 27A)..."''
	the last "volksgericht" in germany existed in the 1920's in bavaria. i suggest the author should verify their source. believe me, there is no such court in berlin. i'm sorry i can't correct it, since i could not even find any other court decision concerning landmark in berlin in 1997.
	] 00:55, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
	==Examination of sources==
	As I've said above, there are controversies but the prominence given to them in the article is out of all proportion to the number of people holding these views or the quality of the evidence to surpport them.
	People who have an agenda of using this article to propagate damaging fallacious stories about Landmark frequently defend their edits by referring to the “reliable sources” on which their edits are based.
	But on examining the references, we see that many of them are highly questionable:
	===The "cult" issue===
	Samways has not observed the conduct of any Landmark courses,
	: Observing the conduct of all or any Landmark education "courses" does not constitute a pre-requisite for commenting on the observable outcomes of attending such things. -- ] 03:38, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
	and her entirely speculative comments are based on impressions gained from the comments of self-selected individuals who contacted her with complaints.
	: "entirely speculative"? -- The self-selecting individuals compare neatly with those self-selecting individuals who choose to boost Landmark Education. Samways has the advantage of fitting Landmark Education into an array of similar cults and dodgy operations. -- ] 03:38, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
	The "Psychogroups and Cults in Denmark", mentions Landmark almost as an aside and there is no suggestion that the comment is based on anything other than hearsay.
	: Asides have particular merit in the evaluation of objects of popular culture such as Landmark Education. Where a full-blown investigation might seem silly and time-wasting, an aside can reveal the everyday mainstream opinion on a matter. -- ] 03:38, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
	The paragraph about Sweden establishes no more than that public interest declined after the airing of a couple of sensationalistic TV programs, but we have no idea of the fairness or otherwise of the treatment in these programs.
	: So do some research, find out about the circumstances, and report in the article of the degree of alleged sensationalism and the balance of the programs. Deletion does not promote NPOV as well as further impeccable research. What a great opportunity to expand one's Swedish-language skills! -- ] 03:38, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
	The term cult has several distinct but related meanings, not all of which are pejorative (and this problem is compounded when a foreign language report is cited, without a sense of the precise nuances of the word in that tongue). Detractors often try to dig up references where the term has been applied in what may well have been a non-pejorative sense, in order to smear by association. This applies specifically to the Belgian, German and Austrian citations. There is no indication of who compiled these reports, what criteria they used, or what level of examination was applied.
	: The Belgian, German and Austrian reports themselves go into considerable detail on criteria and methodology. Bring that to the table. -- ] 03:38, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
	===Brainwashing accusations===
	There are two instances quoted of attempts to sue Landmark for allegedly prompting a mental breakdown. Apart from the possibility of these cases being opportunistically motivated, and the fact that the courts did not uphold the contention that Landmark could be established as a cause, two cases out of almost a million is clearly statistically insignificant (and in any event is vanishingly smaller than the number of instances that would be expected from a random sample of this size drawn from the population at large). And incidentally, neither of these cases actually reference the section heading of “brainwashing”.
	: I agree that court cases provide an unrepresentative sample. We could expand this section to deal with other allegations and degrees of allegation.
	-- ] 03:38, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
	The Lell reference is simply a subjective unsubstantiated opinion of one customer made in a book he wrote.
	: The reference to Lell reflects the writing of a detailed memoir which publishers deemed worthy of publication and defense. The inclusion of comments from the field of psychology and the expansion to include the account of Lell's parents give it weight far greater than that of "subjective unsubtatntiated opinion" -- even before the court case lent some support to the expression of that opinion. -- ] 03:38, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
	===Austrian Classification===
	See above, but this reference is particularly spurious, as the focus of that report is nothing to do with evaluating the groups mentioned, but is making a case for the tolerant nature of the Austrian state in accommodating divergent beliefs.
	: The very title of the Austrian ministerial report (''Cults: Knowledge protects"'') and the grouping of Landmark Education with other "Psycho-groups" suggests that the Austian ministerial report does more than advertise tolerance. See http://www.ilsehruby.at/Sektenbroschuere.html -- ] 03:38, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
	::Is there an english translation? My german/austiran is not that good.] 20:12, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
	::: I know of no English translation. Have you tried one of the on-line web-page translation services? -- Failing that or in addition to that, any translator or bilingual person could help out. I believe ] has excellent German. -- ] 06:36, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
	===Scientology===
	There is no connection between Scientology and Landmark, and attempts to pretend that there is is merely deliberate scaremongering.
	: If and only if one dismisses documented links, one can make such claims. -- ] 03:38, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
	Scientology is religion and has a dogma that we are Thetans from outer space who will be liberated when we re-connect with our Thetan nature.
	: Some people do regard Scientology as a religion. Others treat it as a commercial enterprise quite similar in several ways to Landmark Education. Misplaced Pages has the flexibility to cover different categorizations. -- ] 03:38, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
	Here for reference the latest undeleted version of the text as discussed below: -- ] 03:38, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
	<blockquote>
	== Scientology ==
	In 1992 the ] (which has the classification of a religious organization in certain jurisdictions, such as that of the United States of America, but not in others) included Werner Erhard, EST (Erhard Seminars Training) and "The Forum" on a list of "Suppressive Persons and Groups".<ref>
	, Flag ED 2830RB, 25 July 1992.
	</ref><ref>
	"When it comes to Landmark Education Corporation, There's no meeting of the Minds.", ''Westword'', ], ], Steve Jackson.<br>Landmark contends that all the bad publicity ultimately can be traced to one enemy: the Church of Scientology. And in fact, there is some truth to the charge. The church's own records indicate that Erhard and his organization were placed on an enemies list by the late L. Ron Hubbard, Scientology's founder. There's also evidence that the church hired private detectives to dig up dirt on Erhard and disseminate it to the press.
	</ref>
	Scientology has a special procedure that new Scientologists must go through if they have previously participated in either Erhard Seminars Training or in the Landmark Forum. Scientologists refer to the procedure as the "Est Repair Rundown".<ref>
	, website, 2006. "Est Repair Rundown." "If you attended Erhard Seminar Training (EST) or Forum (one of its off-shoots), this rundown can repair any damage done by this off-beat activity. EST practices contained just enough truth, “borrowed” from Scientology processes, to get a case into restimulation — and then left it in that state without any means to repair it. This rundown undoes the damage and removes any stops so you can get everything Scientology has to offer.
	</ref>
	The German '']'' has compared Landmark Education to the ].<ref>
	, ''Stern'', ], April 2, 1998.
	<br>
	They consistently promise total control to the same people whom are then subjected to total control. A good example to read up on in regards to this is Scientology founder L. Ron Hubbard.
	</ref>
	The '''', stated that: "They are suspected of having connections with the Scientology Church."<ref>
	, '''', May 29, 1998., by Kristiane Huber.
	</ref>
	In ] a compared the practices of Landmark Education and of Scientology. ''The objective of the description and assessment of the Scientology and Landmark organizations was the investigation of the psychic, physical and social effects of the psycho- and social-techniques applied by those organizations respectively upon members and participants. The third objective also included the presentation of legal problems, conflicts or violations by the two organizations, along with pointers as to possible paths of resolution.''<ref>
	Heinrich Kuefner, Norbert Nedopil, Heinz Schoech, Robert Doerr, Stefanie Eiden, Raik Werner, "Expert opinion: Effects and risks of unconventional psycho- and social- techniques", ], ], ].
	</ref>
	In ], ] appeared in the documentary "]" addressing what she saw as extensive and precise similarities between ] and the ] utilized by Landmark Education.<ref>
	"]", ], '']'', ], 2004, ].
	</ref>
	A member of ] for seven years, Vasquez wrote the book ''Et Satan créa la secte'' .
	In ], ] discussed Landmark Education at a ] conference. She referenced a statement by journalist Martin Mireille who had stated that Landmark Education is "a branch of Scientology". However, in Palmer's remarks, she rejects this assertion.<ref>
	], "France's About-Picard Law and Neo-Phare: The First Application of ''Abus de Faiblesse''", ] 2006 International Conference, ], ].<br> "Landmark Education, founded under the name 'est' by Werner Erhardt in the early 1970s, incorporates techniques from the Human Potential Movement, and is not, as journalist Martin Mireille wrote, 'a branch of Scientology'."
	</ref>.
	</blockquote>
	The first two references, from the Scientology organisation itself, merely demonstrate that Scientology is antagonistic to Landmark, and do nothing to demonstrate any similarities.
	: The very existence of antagonism implies causes in the past, which investigators of Landmark Education may or may not find of interest. Should we delete such points on the off-chance? -- ] 03:38, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
	The third one is merely an opinion expressed in a popular magazine article.
	: Did the text of the ] article provide a fair summary of this reflection of popular culture? -- ] 03:38, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
	The fourth is a study which compared the two (but omitting to mention the conclusion – which was that they were unrelated and that there were considerable differences).
	: Add a note on that alleged conclusion, then. Include some quotations (and translations). Account in passing for the comparing of the two entities in the first place. -- ] 03:38, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
	The fifth is a personal opinion expressed by someone who positions herself as a Scientology expert, but who appears to have no particular knowledge of Landmark Eduation.
	: ... but Mona Vasquez, whatever her background and knowledge, professed to recognizing extensive similarities... Once again, ask the question: why did a editors of a mass-media outlet see fit even to link the idea of Scientology and Landmark Education, let alone broadcast a suggestion of that link to an audience of millions? -- ] 03:38, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
	::I don't know - I wasn't party to the decision to make or screen the program. But since you are asking, my guess would be that they were assured of a large audience for a muck-raking program on a purported "cult". As you probably know, "cults" have the guaranteed grip on the public attention in France as, say, the Royal Family does in England. ] 16:13, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
	::: Fair guess. And it implies that the editors reflect the fabled majority-opinion -- at least the majority opinion in France. -- The single guess does also potentially gloss over other possibilities: the possibility that the editors believed in the link on the basis of this and other evidence; the possibility that the editors thought they had sufficient grounds to withstand any potential legal challenge from the reputedly litigious orgs involved (Scientology and Landmark Education); and the possibility that the editors wanted to perform a public service in exposing or airing the link between Scientology and Landmark Education. -- ] 06:36, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
	And the sixth is a reference to someone who was actually stating that there was no connection!
	: Perhaps an example of balance and contradiction. We do that in Misplaced Pages sometimes to promote something we call the "Neutral point of View "(NPOV). -- ] 03:38, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
	===Loaded language===
	All five references are merely quotes of opinions expressed by people of no particular expertise, in magazine and newspaper articles.
	: How many persons of expertise in the somewhat specialized field of "loaded language" need one seek out? And does publication of a mention of Landmark Education jargon in an august journal such as '']'' carry any particular weight? -- ] 03:38, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
	===Religious Implications===
	The section as it stands gives excessive weight to a handful of clergy who have voiced criticisms based on hearsay, rumour or speculation, relative to the large number who have gone on record giving positive accounts, based on personal observation. ] 10:40, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
	: Seek out and reference and quote those countervailing accounts, then. Don't complain on the talk-page: take action! -- ] 03:38, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
	=="Name changes" table==
	This strikes me as adding very little value to the article for the space it takes, and is actually misleading. Presumably the intention of it is to imply that this is a slippery operation which is always changing its colours? But the first two lines are entirely distinct companies with different ownership and product lines (but related - yes I know, and the point has already been made - several times). The next one is the name incorporated, and changed a week later - which is quite standard procedure. The next one was traded for four months before they had a re-think about it. The next one is not really a name-change at all, just a re-structure from an Inc to a LLC. So what? ] 10:40, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
	I agree, and I suggest the table be removed. ] 01:52, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
	Agreed. Making change. ] 23:22, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
	The table provided a valuable summary of the various forms in which the Landmark Education tradition operated. The dating militated against misleading. Speculation about the "intention" does not provide good grounds for suppression. -- ] 03:38, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
	== Weasel-word-cleanup ==
	I request editors take a look at what I did on the page- I did a cleanup of material and references that were non-notable or senteces that were full of weasel-words. FOr instance the section on Religion that inmplied some contraversy in the first semtemce and then followed by a bunch of references that merely imply some people were watching the organixzation and half the references being positive ones. And when list the positive references someone put in that these were "opinion as opposed to thoughtful theological analysis" implying the preceding references were more scholarly in some way. It doesn't go far enough as we can see in the above "Examination of Sources" section but I didn't want to be too bold too quickly. Better to slowly shift the article to NPOV and get agremeement than wholsale changes. Please let me know if anyone has any thought on those changes.] 02:08, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
	: "Positive" as to what? The minority-view that Landmark Education has some merit? That deserves a minor role in the article as well. -- Can one or can one not make a distinction between personal opinions and "thoughtful theological analysis", ever? if not, why not? If so, then why not here? -- ] 03:38, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
	:I am happy with the changes made by AJackl, and with the discussion on this talk page that preceded them. I have just reverted the changes made by Pedant17 because some of them were not NPOV and because they were made without being discussed or noted on this talk page. I am new to Misplaced Pages editing so please correct me if I am wrong, but it seems that editing a controversial page without discussion or an attempt to reach a consensus is not consistent with the policies. ] 12:18, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
	:: Thanks ]! In the spirit of the weasel-word alert and the above questions on "Examination of Sources" I am particular concerned about the recent change to "portrays" in reference to the charter of Landmark. That change is a highly particular one and makes me concerned we are dealing with a sock puppet. I think we should be careful that the cycle that started the edits wars before doesn't start happening again. I am perfectly willing to be wrong but it has been so great to have a community of editors working together to create a great article rather than a few holdouts desperately fighting a single-editor POV tsunami, and I don't want to lose the community that has emerged since the page was protected. Keep standing for the quality of WIkipedia ]- it is nice to meet you and be editing with you! ] 12:35, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
	:: Reversion of edits -- especially edits already uncontroversially foreshadowed on the talk-page, by myself or by ] -- does not constitute good Wiki-practice. See previous archived discussions in this Talk-page series. Restoration of each of the reverted edits for public exposure and specific discussion would show a better appreciation of the Misplaced Pages way, and would enrich the article's factual soundness and NPOV basis. -- ] 03:38, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
	::: It is hopeless spin to attribute the changes you are recommending as "uncontroversially foreshadowed".
	:::: For example, on April 1 I wrote:
	<blockquote>
	Any charter can claim or state anything. That doesn't necessarily make something valid outside that scope. To state that a charter "claims" or "states' or "professes" provides a more accurate and encyclopedic account of such matters. -- Pedant17 05:46, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
	</blockquote>
	:::: Nobody objected or countered: accordingly I edited the article on the basis of this "uncontroversially foreshadowed" view. -- ] 06:36, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
	:::: For another example, on April 6 ] wrote:
	<blockquote>
	The links cited are no longer accessible either, so the verifiable part is no longer the case. Without analysis these numbers don't contribute much of anything. Perhaps citing the most recent numbers posted (1,000,000 as of 2005) would be the most generally interesting. Talk of "ongoing impact on humanity over time" seems like it's best left for the discussion page and not in the article. Tealwarrior 18:58, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
	</blockquote>
	:::: I responded to Tealwarrior's uncontroversial comment on inaccessibility by interpolating explanations as to why the previously valid links went inaccessible, with an indication as to when this occurred. I responded to Tealwarrior's uncontroversial statement as to a more recent figure by adding a section including the claimed figure of 1,000,000 with a reference to a relevant source (the Landmark Education web-page) and contrasted that with different figures also sourced on the same day from the same set of Landmark Education web-pages. Tealwarrior provided uncontroversial foreshadowing of a need for change to the "Landmark Education" article -- which I accordingly carried out. -- Thus I made "uncontroversially foreshadowed" changes, which I suggest we now reinstate. -- ] 06:36, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
	::: You are using the same tactics that got this page protected in the first place - of staunchly putting in POV "proofs" to prove your POV. In fact, they don't. How do I know that? Look at he talk page since the page was protected. As soon as the minority viewpoint that Landmark was a soul-sucking cult that is being manipulated by Werner Erhard and is also Scientology and is also out to brainwash people into volunteering for it stopped its constant attacks a wide range of editors started commenting on the article and constructively working together and building consensus.
	:::: "Soul-sucking" -- I like that, and don't think I've heard it before. Rather a pity that this exaggeration makes a straw man out of various views which may not accord with approved doctrine. And unfortunately, an assertion that I have used tactics of 'staunchly putting in POV "proofs"' bears no relationship with the "proof" that certain events led to certain changes in editing-patterns. -- ] 06:36, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
	::: The tactics of:
	:::1. "accusing" the people who disagree with you of being a minority view point when the facts don't support- see the above great discussion by DaveApter- and
	:::: Thank you for putting "accusing" in quotes. I happen to see a distinction sometimes between "accusing" and "suggesting". -- ] 06:36, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
	:::2. making insinuations that NPOV is being hurt by taking unfounded accusations out of the article when the consensus is that they don't really make much sense, and
	:::: I will happily repeat and amplify any of my insinuations that deleting referenced material does not enhance a neutral point of view. -- ] 06:36, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
	:::3. Using WIkipedia as attack elements on the page to push your POV - like putting the advert tag on.
	:::: Thank you for this homily: I take it to heart, though I fail to see its relevance to my own editing. -- ] 06:36, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
	::: All of these things represent what is worst about Misplaced Pages. Come on- let's talk about the facts and not just spin. Show us you really can be NPOV and discuss content. I know you have been convinced somehow that there is an evil conspiracy but it just isn't.
	:::: I don't think you do *know* that. -- ] 06:36, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
	::: At worst there have been some bad business practices, and some people abusing a great thing. I can't speak for est or Werner Erhard. I don't know about those things and I don't need to- they have their own pages. Let's play nice in the sandbox. It has been so great here lately... ] 04:23, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
	:::: We can detail the evil practices and the abuse in the article. You go first. -- ] 06:36, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
	:::Pedant17, I am also at a loss to understand how you can describe your edits as "uncontroversial", given the discussion on this page. It seems to me that they are very controversial and that you are in the minority. However, I would not like to see the contents of this (or any other) Wiki page decided purely by the weight of the majority. Therefore, please present your responses to the specific questions asked below by DaveApter, so that we can continue the discussion. thanks, ] 06:28, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
	:::: I see the added accuracy and the provision of precise and documented facts in my edits as adding to the "Landmark Education" article and enhancing it, possibly at the risk of offending some entrenched viewpoints. -- ] 06:36, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
	::: I too am at a loss for what you is meant by "edits already uncontroversially foreshadowed" despite being referenced. ] 15:59, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
	:::: I refer you to my detailed explanations above. -- ] 06:36, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
	==Response to Pedant17==
	Hello, pedant17, and thank you for your contributions to this discussion.
	You have made a large number of comments on this talk page,
	: No. really: a mere few. -- ] 06:36, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
	but are they serious attempts to engage with the debate and reach consensus on the structure and content of an article which meets wikipedia policies and is useful to the general reader, or are they aimed at justifying an article which propagates your own personal viewpoint on the subject?
	: They aim at improving the article. Why do you ask? -- ] 06:36, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
	===Majority or minority viewpoints?===
	You assert several times that it is a Minority viewpoint that “that Landmark Education represents a worthy and worthwhile endeavor”. On what possible evidence or information do you base this extraordinary opinion?
	This is important because it relates to the wikipedia policies on NPOV and Undue weight.
	This is how it seems to me:
	In round figures, about 1,000,000 have done the Landmark Forum
	Surveys from several reputable organisations consistently report 93% - 95% “highly satisfied” or some such. It’s reasonable to assume that most of the remaining 5-7% are broadly satisfied to some degree, leaving say 1% who are actively hostile.
	: Whatever the reputation of the organizations involved in the polling, doubts often persist as to the methodology used. And regardless of these polls, measurement of customer-satisfaction may serve as a marketing tool, but says little about other aspects or effects of Landmark Education. We know that Landmark Education has a marketing method. We can expect that (say) carefully-selected groups of "graduates" in a Landmark-drenched environment will answer questionnaires "appropriately". We need more research on the broader picture before we paint all of Landmark Education as rosy. -- ] 06:36, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
	This is borne out by the large number of Landmark customers who recommend the program to their friends, and the large proportion who take further courses. They wouldn’t do either if they were not impressed.
	: The figures from Landmark Education's website (recently removed from the Misplaced Pages article on Landmark Education) may suggest how ineffective a strategy results. -- ] 06:36, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
	In other words we seem to have about 990,000 in favor and 10,000 against, from those who actually have first-hand experience. (and of course we should not get hung up on my 1% estimate – perhaps it’s 2% or even 3%?). Then we have people who haven’t done it, but have formed an opinion on the basis of hearsay, rumour or speculation. How many of them are there who are strongly antagonistic? It stretches credulity to imagine that there are more than say another 10,000. (and of course there are also those who haven’t done any courses but have positive opinions).
	: Your speculative figure on the "strongly antagonistic" group may underestimate the various oppositions. And you leave out (for example) the "mildly antagonistic" category. -- ] 06:36, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
	Then we have a few dozen journalists who have written negative articles (and another few dozen who have written positive articles).
	: We need some statistics here. Have you totted up known examples and developed a methodology for distinguishing "positive" journalism from "negative" and from "other"? -- I would speculate that more skeptical than adulatory articles exist. -- ] 06:36, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
	And finally we have half a dozen self-appointed “cult experts” who have a vested interest in stirring up paranoia, and who show remarkably little knowledge of what Landmark actuallly does and how it does it.
	: Other external "experts" also come into the mix. The concentration on alleged culthood or the lack thereof suggests institutionalized paranoia to me. -- ] 06:36, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
	What are your estimates for the size of the various populations of differing opinions, and what is the data and reasoning on which you base them? ] 16:13, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
	: You will recall the worked precise figures (along with mere estimates) discussed previously:
	http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Landmark_Education/Archive_2#Majority_opinions_and_minority_opinions And I don't accept your various populations as useful in assessing the overall picture. The issues of customer-satisfaction and culthood do not cover the full scope of Landmark Education. I would suggest we assess the pop-culture phenomenon in pop-culture terms as well. -- ] 06:36, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
	====Response by Esther Rice====
	I have restored the well-researched criticism sections that must have taken a lot of work to assemble but were removed by people acting on behalf of Landmark.
	I have read this page but cannot see any concensus (except among the Landmark people) for their removal.
	Arguments by analogy are not always appropriate, but the above statements by Dave Apter really beg for it. By analogy, Dave is saying that, for example
	i. only members of the LAPD who were personally involved in beating Rodney King can offer a valid opinion on any matter to do with Rodney King;
	ii. only guards of former concentration camps (whether in the Boer War, WWII, 50's Malaysia, or elsewhere entirely) are capable of knowledgeable comment about said concentration camps;
	iii. only members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints can have a valid opinion on the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints;
	iv. only personnel with US Marine training can have a valid viewpoint on the US Marines, etc. etc.
	Obviously Landmark is a much smaller phenomenon than e.g. the Church of Scientology and fewer outsiders would have heard of it. There is a good chance that more people have done the courses than have heard of Landmark but have a negative opinion. In fact, the high-pressure tactics used by Landmark believers to attempt to get their friends to cough up for the courses (e.g. the fact that a refuser will end up on the periphery of or completely ostracised by a group dominated by believers) makes this all the more likely, since in a group taken or formed by the Landmark meme only those who are willing to make waves and risk not going with the flow will feel able to avoid the courses.
	The Church of Scientology would almost certainly be able to make the same argument: our members outnumber our critics. Most people just don't have any interest, and why should they? That is, the arguments regarding ''size of various populations'' are specious and not worthy of any serious response.]<sup><font color="violet">]</font></sup> 08:54, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
	====Clarification====
	Thanks Esther for your contributions to this discussion. However you seem to have misunderstood the points I was making.
	'''Firstly''', the examples you give bear no resemblance to my position: to take just the first one, it is clearly the case that a number of groups could have "valid opinion" on the beating of Rodney King - a) Rodney King himself, b)eye-witnesses at the scene, c) those who had seen the events on videotape, d)those who had received accounts directly from any of the foregoing. Any of the above might qualify as a ] for the purposes of a Misplaced Pages article. Neither am I questioning the "validity" of the opinions held by individuals whose sources of information were less direct than these, but it is unlikely that such opinions would count as sources of factual data for an encyclopedia article.
	: In each of Esther's four tentative analogies, one group may comment, and others may not -- regardless of the existence of other groups with potentially different viewpoints; regardless of perceived majority/minority/significant-minority status. Identifying other parties to the Rodney King incident highlights the problems of selecting a single group or viewpoint and declaring it the majority. -- ] 02:12, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
	'''Secondly''', your comment that "the arguments regarding ''size of various populations'' are specious" shows a complete lack of understanding of Wikepedia's ] policy as it relates to "facts about opinions", which states:<blockquote>
	The policy requires that, where there are or have been conflicting views, these should be presented fairly. None of the views should be given undue weight or asserted as being the truth, and all significant published points of view are to be presented, not just the most popular one...
	Background is provided on who believes what and why, and which view is more popular. Detailed articles might also contain the mutual evaluations of each viewpoint, but studiously refrain from stating which is better. One can think of unbiased writing as the fair, analytical description of all relevant sides of a debate. When bias towards one particular point of view can be detected, the article needs to be fixed...
	Where we might want to state an opinion, we convert that opinion into a fact by attributing the opinion to someone... 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)...
	NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a verifiable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each. '''Now an important qualification:''' Articles that compare views should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and may not include tiny-minority views at all.</blockquote>
	How does all this relate to the article? Clearly some individuals are of the opinion that Landmark is a "cult" (which begs the questions of what precisely they mean by that), and some are not; some are of the opinion that Landmark is a cynical money-making operation, and some are not; some are of the opinion that it produces impressive objectively measurable results for the majority of its customers, and some are not; some are of the opinion that significant numbers of its customers are harmed in some way, and some strongly doubt that; and some think that those who assist at Landmark events have been duped into lining someone else's pockets, while others do not.
	All of the above are legitimate subjects for discussion in the controversies section, but within the bounds of the policy.
	: Ghettoizing discussion to a controversies section artificially breaches the neutral point of view by implying that some areas or alleged facts lack controversy. -- ] 06:36, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
	::Yes, I realised later that even using the word opinion was in error, but it was in response to the odd comments about numbers, which were indeed couched in such terms. I am familiar with the NPOV policy; perhaps the people who are so intent on removing the criticism could try reading it. The removal of well-researched information essentially on the grounds that 'I don't like it' or 'I disagree, and don't care if good references have been given' (precisely what's happening here) is clearly POV.]<sup><font color="violet">]</font></sup> 15:06, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
	How can we decide what weight to give the various views without some estimate of the various population sizes? And note the qualification that in the case of an opinion attributed to a name it "should be a recognized authority". Critical scrutiny of the sources for much of the negative material which has been introduced into the article reveals that many of them fall far short of these standards.
	: We have very little peer-reviewed work to support any view of Landmark Education. A Misplaced Pages editor has recently deleted an attempt at explanation as to why. We once referenced a sociological commentary by Drew Kopp on the layout and management of "Landmark Forum" rooms: http://www.u.arizona.edu/~kopp/Finalmat3.pdf . A Misplaced Pages editor subsequently removed that reference. Much of the remaining material does not meet the high standards that Misplaced Pages prescribes as optimal, and we fall back all too often on appeals to the marketing hype perpetrated by the Landmark Education web-page. Yet still we cherish the Misplaced Pages mission of providing balanced information. -- ] 06:36, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
	::The standard for most articles outside scholarly fields such as science, history, mathematics, etc. is the presence or absence of references in authoritative mainstream printed media. Most of the sources are recognised authorities by that criterion.]<sup><font color="violet">]</font></sup> 10:28, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
	And finally, for the avoidance of doubt, I am not editing "on behalf of Landmark" - I am editing with a clear commitment to a quality article which meets Misplaced Pages guidelines and policies rather than one which acts as a soapbox for certain extreme POVs. ] 10:52, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
	::That is very difficult to believe given the determination to remove material with an authority that would be accepted anywhere except in a topic controlled by POV pushers. We certainly see people working, or at least watching, around the clock to minimise any criticism. Unfortunately those of us that would like to see some balance ]<sup><font color="violet">]</font></sup> 10:28, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
	====Another reply to Esther Rice====
	Dear EstherRice. I can only speak for myself when I assure you that I am not "acting on behalf of Landmark." I am acting to ensure NPOV in this article. You write: "I have read this page but cannot see any concensus (except among the Landmark people) for their removal." I imagine the majority of editors for this page, if not all, have either done Landmark courses or have some specific knowledge through talking to people who have. As you say, who else would be interested enough to bother? And that is fine: I expect that substantial edits to most Wiki pages are only made by those who have some direct knowledge or interest.
	: Some Wikipedians edit at random, or edit for style rather than content or interest. Editors who know nothing about a given subject can often see the structural or logical or grammatical flaws in articles more readily than "insiders". Misplaced Pages encourages the boldness and contribution of such valued "drive-by" editors. -- ] 02:12, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
	::Exactly, that is how I came across this page. However, as an observer, sometime confidante, and sometime mark of people who've done EST/Landmark and similar "training", I do have experience that is just as valid as that of someone who has done a "course" (or is a "trainer") and is less PoV than either. ''Neither type of experience qualifies as anything but original research, as you should know.'' The argument above is thus invalid.]<sup><font color="violet">]</font></sup> 15:06, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
	Your comments indicate that you fall in the second group that I mentioned and you express a view that is not neutral. That is fine. I am also not neutral. I did the Landmark Forum 15 years ago and still regard at as one of the most important things I have done. I also do not consider myself to have been brainwashed. On occasion I have told people about Landmark if I think they might be interested, and several have done courses. Most have found it very rewarding and none have found it to be a negative experience.
	But my point is not to debate the merits of Landmark, as enjoyable as that might be. You obviously have negative experiences and I have positive ones. And I know that people who have done the Forum, particularly recently, can be very pushy. But Misplaced Pages is not the place to have these discussions. I have not looked, but I expect there are websites where people have vigorous discussions about Landmark.
	The purpose of Dave's comments, I think, was to point out that the hostile view is a minority among those who have some direct knowledge.
	: No single "hostile view" exists. Those who have "direct knowledge" (whatever that means) may form only an insignificant minority of those with a view on Landmark Education. -- ] 02:12, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
	To answer your analogies, of course people who have not done Landmark courses are entitled to have an opinion, but they must have ''some'' knowledge of it.
	: And in the real world, such minimal knowledge comes from rumor, hearsay and vague memes in the atmosphere. Compare voters in a local election: they may have only the vaguest notions of candidates' policies and characters, but they nevertheless form opinions and may vote accordingly. And the system takes notice of their opinions: majority and minority. -- ] 02:12, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
	I am not entitled to voice an opinion about Rodney King if I have never heard of him (actually, his story did make the news here in Australia). So let us consider those who know something about Landmark, either through having done courses or knowing those who have. You write: "There is a good chance that more people have done the courses than have heard of Landmark but have a negative opinion." I agree. But what about those who have heard of Landmark and have a positive opinion?! I would claim they are far more numerous than those with negative opinions. That is certainly the case among my friends and family, many of whom have not done any Landmark courses but who happily acknowledge the benefits to me.
	: This speculation as to personal reactions does not further our collective aim of determining the true objective majority/minority/significant-minority views on Landmark Education and all its works. -- ] 06:36, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
	:: ... and the idea of sources is again being diverted by this red herring.]<sup><font color="violet">]</font></sup> 10:28, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
	I see that while I have been writing this, you have reversed my reversion. I guess I should have written this before making the reversion, sorry. So now please read my comments and respond. I will repeat my reversion because I think you should have waited for some discussion before making your changes. I don't think that it is reasonable for you to make substantial changes without discussing them here and attempting to reach consensus.
	Finally, your remark that you "cannot see any concensus (except among the Landmark people)" deserves further comment. Surely those who have done Landmark courses are well placed to comment on them.
	: Not necessarily. Impartial external observers have much more credibility. -- ] 06:36, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
	::Once again, the argument 'Surely those who have done Landmark courses are well placed to comment on them.' is completely at odds with policy.]<sup><font color="violet">]</font></sup> 10:28, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
	Is it is really reasonable to exclude us when deciding on what is and is not concensus? Only if you think that participating in Landmark courses has made us unable to be objective.
	: Participating in Landmark Education activities does provide a bad indicator for objectivity. But Misplaced Pages can tolerate the opinions of such people -- in this case as minorities. -- ] 02:12, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
	::I don't think anyone is talking about exclusion, the article is full of advertising copy but well-sourced criticism is constantly being thrown out.]<sup><font color="violet">]</font></sup> 10:28, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
	That is of course possible, and I might agree there could be grounds for concern if all the "Landmark people" editing this page had done the Forum very recently and were fresh from the process. I cannot speak for the others, but I did the Forum 15 years ago.
	: You need to take into account as well the opinions of those who have attended Landmark activities but not done "the Forum". Such people may have encountered Landmark Education at any time within the last 16 years. An attendee from 1991 has as much right to comment with as much weight as an attendee from 2007. Not that accounts of personal experience can convey much objectivity in an encyclopedic evaluation of Landmark Education and its effects on the wider world. -- ] 02:12, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
	::I agree with ], having attended distastefully manipulative (I could say more) social events. However, this still has nothing to do with policy.]<sup><font color="violet">]</font></sup> 10:28, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
	I have done a few other courses since then, but the last was three years ago. Surely that is enough time for concerns about brainwashing to subside?
	: Not at all. Many people continue to harbor ideas they encountered more than three years previously. Some people even preserve some attitudes and beliefs that their parents inculcated in their childhood, or the principles they absorbed in the course of their formal education. If one views the ideas and attitudes and practices of Landmark Education as significant and different and impactful, would one expect them to subside significantly in three years? (Not to deny that Landmark Education actually prefers to bring its "graduates" back to further courses for supplementary indoctrination...) -- ] 02:12, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
	Isn't it possible that for some people (and I would say most), the Landmark experience is positive, whether as a participant or not?
	: Quite possible, but not statistically likely -- unless one gets sucked into the Landmark Education milieu. -- ] 02:12, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
	That is precisely the question that Dave was asking. Thanks for reading this far, ] 10:19, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
	: Artificial pseudo-consensus may exclude majorities too. -- ] 06:36, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
	== Balance and NPOV ==
	I was going to comment on all of ] and ]'s comments but I have found a theme and it is that same theme that caused all the isuses when ] was editing here.
	: I hate to diagnose stuckness "in the past". I prefer to look back on the glory-days. -- ] 02:12, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
	::I am very sorry that the Landmark devotees have managed to tire ] by organising (yes, I know it might have been spontaneous self-organisation) to monitor the page around the clock etc.]<sup><font color="violet">]</font></sup> 10:28, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
	If you look at the comments above there is a background of looking at Misplaced Pages as some kind of debate page- some place where if there are some citations about something or if a journalist said something then the default is that it should be in the article. That is not, IMO, the idea of an encyclopedia - citations and content must be valid and appropriate to encyclopedic content. Just because some journalist linked Scientology and Landmark (even though the connection is clearly nebulous and scholars have refuted the journalistic connection) does not mean we should include it because there is a citation. One of the stock phrases that ] would whip out is the "these are valid, well-formed citations" as if that were a good enough reason to include something. Any suggestions on how to create aguideline to check validity. Any suggestions? ] 13:22, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
	: Smee has called an attack page on Steve Zaffron "well sourced." The admins took one look at it and said, "Please don't create attack pages." It's a standard stock reply of Smee's that requires no thought. Smee, of course, promised not to edit the LE page anymore. ] 18:26, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
	: Debate occurs in much of the scrabbling-together of human knowledge that Misplaced Pages reflects. I would expect the Misplaced Pages article on Landmark Education to reflect/summarize and even continue this debate -- citations and all. Landmark Education, of course, has nothing to fear when all the cards appear on the table. -- ] 06:36, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
	::The statement that "these are valid, well-formed citations" is perfectly correct in this context, the page with the critical material could not be construed as an attack page. The fact that ] made a mistake or accidentally offended the wrong people elsewhere has no bearing on the LE page.]<sup><font color="violet">]</font></sup> 10:28, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
	== This article reads like an advertisement PR piece for Landmark... ==
	... and should be tagged as such. Thousands of KB of highly-sourced material, meticulously sourced to reputable secondary sourced citations, has been removed unjustly. ] 07:02, 18 April 2007 (UTC).
	Including material simply because it is well sourced is not necessarily consistent with NPOV. Please address the specific points raised above. ] 08:25, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
	*At least (2) other editors have brought up concerns regarding the whitewashing of this article, and concerns regarding critical sourced information being removed, ] and ]. Thus, the tags are highly justified. ] 07:56, 19 April 2007 (UTC).
	* Deleting material even when it has reliable sources does not necessarily enhance NPOV either. -- ] 02:12, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
	I agree that the "unbalanced" tag should probably stay for the momen and I have reinstated it. Hopefully it will attract new editors who can bring a fresh view. But the "advertising" tag remains to be justified and I have removed it. Once again: can one of these 3 editors please address the specific points raised above? And please note that being well sourced is not a sufficient reason for inclusion if the material represnets a minority view. ] 12:08, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
	: Note too that material representing a significant minority view (such as the view that Landmark Education constitutes merely a legitimate and innocuous business, for example) can even stay in the article if sufficiently well-sourced. -- ] 02:12, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
	Just to clarify, my reason for keeping the unbalanced tag is because I think the article gives too much weight to minority negative views.] 22:12, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
	: How much weight constitutes "too much weight"? How can one definitively make a distinction between "negative" and non-negative views? How many minorities can you count? -- ] 06:36, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
	* I have difficulty understanding the contention that this article reads like an advert when 25% of the length of the article comprises controversy, legal issues, religious implications etc. ] 13:59, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
	** 75% sounds like a lot to me... -- ] 06:36, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
	:: Again, Smee, you think that any negative material that is sourced is justifiable. It has to be within the balance guidelines of NPOV. Just as the article on Microsoft is controversial, you have to spend some space describing LE's products as you do Microsoft's products. This article has already more than enough criticism. ] 18:28, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
	::: The article has virtually ''no'' criticism, actually, at the moment. Much of the information that was sourced to highly reputable citations was removed. The article reads like a PR push / shill piece, advertising everyone to go and try out The Forum... ] 04:35, 20 April 2007 (UTC).
	Smee, looking at the history of this article, it is clear that you have spent an ''enormous'' amount of time and effort collating these negative comments. I can understand that you are reluctant to accept deletion of that material but NPOV guidelines are clear: undue weight should not be given to a minority option. ] 09:44, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
	As it stands, the article is pretty messy. The discussion is going in circles. There was a good suggestion at the ] by DaveApter. I suggest we adopt it. ] 09:44, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
	: Messy yes, however I think that this article has gotten much closer to a encyclopedic article than it has been in months, and is appropriately weighted. ] 20:09, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
	:: Misplaced Pages tolerates some degree of (temporary) messiness. We have merely to re-insert the deleted balancing material and go upwards and onwards on that basis. -- ] 06:36, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
	: I would not expect to subscribe to any consensus artificially limiting and abbreviating the article on the lines suggested in the "Summary of Current State of Play" section. Someone would need to convince me of the merits of such an approach. -- ] 06:36, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
	===Quality of sources===
	Smee, it would be great if you would actually engage constructively with the debate here instead of just parroting the same assertions over and over again and simply ignoring points made by other contributors which do not coincide with your viewpoint.
	You have not seriously addressed the questions that have been raised regarding the quality, verifiablity and relevance of many of the sources you have cited. Simply saying over and over again that they are "''meticulously sourced to reputable secondary sourced citations''" does not make that the case. In many instances they fall far short of the standards one would expect to justify an encyclopedia entry. When we actually look at the sources you have drawn from, we find that many of them are one or more of the following:
	# Statements by partisan commentators
	## One would legitimately expect to find partisan comments in such a contested field. They may come in handy to provide the balance associated with the neutral point of view. -- ] 02:12, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
	# Personal opinions of journalists writing in the popular press
	## Even the popular press gets sub-edited and vetted. Nevertheless it can (potentially) validly represent the views of the majority of the public. -- ] 02:12, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
	# Quotations of opinions of non-notable members of the public
	## Just as valid as the opinions of notable members of the public: i.e. minimally valid. -- ] 02:12, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
	# Opinions and assessments made by individuals with very little actual knowledge about the subject
	## Contributions with the potential advantage of detached observation and unbiased judgement. -- ] 02:12, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
	# Items in which Landmark Education does receive a minor mention, but which in no way support the critical content you inserted into the article.
	## Items likely to express the unvarnished, off-hand, popular majority view-point. -- ] 02:12, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
	Many editors (with no axe to grind either way) have pointed out that this article is seriously deficient in the amount of meaningful information about what Landmark actually does, and this certainly remains the case. ] 16:35, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
	*That is simply not the case. At the moment, I have no inclination to work on this article. You are correct - I had spent some time working on it and adding sources that satisfied ]. However, at this point in time it seems there are better ways to further the pervasiveness of information, and other more esoteric topics are interesting to me at the moment. Perhaps later, I will check back, see how things have changed, but for now, this article is remaining off of my watchlist, I am just checking in every once and a while. Have fun with the Public Relations work y'all! Live in the possibility of advertising / marketing! Just kiddin folks. ] 01:47, 21 April 2007 (UTC).
	== References and footnotes ==
	<references />
	</div>
	== This article exposes a great weakness of Misplaced Pages ==
	Motivated people esp those motivated by financial gain
	can make an extended effort to write and maintain pages favorable to them
	Through a mixture of hardheadiness, will and perhaps a number of persons they can employ round the clock.
	I'm not familar with this subject at all
	but just a cursory reading of this page I can see how skewed it is in favor of LE. {{unsigned|76.22.78.184}}
	*Thank you for voicing your comments. And the fact that random people like this come by and make comments like this is very illustrative of the problems with all of the sourced citations and material that has been removed from the article, in favor of re-writing it to look more like an advertisement / publicity-stunt piece... ] 12:02, 23 April 2007 (UTC).
	Oh yes, how convenient. This unsigned comment is either from a sockpuppet, or we are being asked to take seriously the comments of someone who admits being completely unfamiliar with the subject and who has only given the page a cursory reading.
	: Even a casual reader can react validly to the tone and language of an article. -- ] 03:08, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
	And then asserts with no evidence that editors of this page are employed by Landmark?
	: Non-specific musing/speculation on possible behaviors does not constitute an allegation that Landmark Education employs editors of this article. -- ] 03:08, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
	Certainly I am not and have never been, nor do I know anyone who is or has. Instead, I wonder why some people spend such an enormous amount of time arguing their case against Landmark.
	: You may indeed wonder about mainstream skeptics, but doing so here may not further the editing of the Misplaced Pages "Landmark Education" article much. -- ] 03:08, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
	They must have had a very bad experience,
	: That conclusion does not necessarily follow. -- ] 03:08, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
	which I am quite willing to recognise, but I wish they would stop trying to push their minority views.
	: Most views (on any subject) start as minority views. In the case of Landmark Education, have you distinguished extreme minority views (such as "we can fix Landmark Education's faults") from other minority views (such as "Landmark Education adopted the for-profit model to show how benignly it plans to treat humankind")? If so, how? -- ] 03:08, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
	If my friend drowned in a pool, does that give me the right to skew the article on ] by expanding the section on risks to give every negative opinion I can find on the Web?
	: Whether or not your whole family drowned, you have every right to expand the article on ] with well-referenced and relevant relevant material. -- ] 03:08, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
	] 12:13, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
	*Actually, we have been over this before. There are some editors that ''very'' actively edit this page, that have contractual relationships with the for-profit, privately owned company known as "Landmark Education"... Some have referred to this as a ]. Kinda like the whole problem with why ] was '''banned''' from Misplaced Pages... ] 18:24, 23 April 2007 (UTC).
	Smee, can you please clarify what you mean by "contractual relationships"? The unsigned post alleged that some editors are employed and receive financial gain. Are you also alleging this? If not, please be precise. It is clearly important to clarify any conflicts of interest. thanks ] 03:07, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
	;Archived ] issues, had been brought up by un-involved editor
	See archived comments by previously un-involved editor, ], here: ]. ] 05:23, 24 April 2007 (UTC).
	: All of the non-sense regarding "contractual relationships" is truly absurd. I don't know what to say. ] 06:43, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
	::The un-involved editor ] had stated: ''"There is a major conflict of interest WP:COI problem to overcome since appears to be involved in the situation."'', and: ''"The ] happens because you (as you state on your user talk page) are a seminar leader for the company. There are several guidelines for cases like this on the page I have linked: ]. In this case, your closeness to the source poses potential financial, promotional, and campaigning problems."'' (]). I agree with these statements, and there are probably other editors with similar ] issues, but it is most interesting to note that it was an un-involved editor that brought this up. ] 06:50, 24 April 2007 (UTC).
	== Not a Debate page for minority-held views ==
	There is a constant theme to all this that involves how well-sourced the non-noptable material is and how much the "public deserves to see all sides and then the Misplaced Pages readers can figure it out".
	# 1. Bad, non-notable, non-appropriate material can be as well-sources and from respected journals even but does not belong in the article. The problem is that the majority of editors feel that the links are non-notable.
	# 2. Misplaced Pages is not designed to be a newsgroup or a debate page. Over and over again this debate happens with this page and then when it escalates to a Misplaced Pages admin it always resolves in favor of the people against the non-notable negative attack entries.
	Let's stop the edit warring please... ] 16:48, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
	: Well-sourced material, as published, has already started on the journey to potential notability. "Respected journals" do not always deign to notice popular-culture fringe activity such as that of Landmark Education. That simply means that Misplaced Pages editors need to cut their cloth to fit the appropriate case. Hypersensitivity -- to the degree of branding mainstream criticism as "negative attack entries" -- hardly helps. -- ] 03:08, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
	== Reverted to Jossi's last one ==
	Esther Rice completely ignored the debate happening on this page and wiped out most of the edits and cleaning of the page that has happened since the page was protected.
	: Esther Rice sensibly and boldly responded to the emerging consensus on the Talk-page at the time of her edits. -- ] 03:08, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
	It is for that kind of stuff that the page was protected in the past! Let's work together and not start an edit war. ] 17:08, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
	*It seems as if there is no consensus for the mass removal of material backed up by reputable sourced information from citations that satisfy ], and some may even view this as censorship or even violations of ]. Perhaps it would be best for all of us to seek out some form of collaborative dispute resolution, or mediation, and to each be listed as a party to said discussion? ] 18:29, 23 April 2007 (UTC).
	** I would make a distinction between an edit war and a deletion war. Cumulative edits can assemble the raw material for a better article; wholesale deletions inherently harm the ]. -- ] 03:08, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
	I think there was majority consensus for that removal, although it was obviously not unaminous. To repeat the argument: material should not be included, no matter how reputably sourced, if it gives undue weight to a minority point of view. ] 03:11, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
	**There is no 'majority concensus'. One interesting point is that despite their greater available resources, the Church of Scientology apparently has to endure a rather long controversy and criticism section. Please look at the recent comments regarding 'Jossi's last one'.]<sup><font color="violet">]</font></sup> 15:06, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
	** If material gives undue weight to a minority view-point (such as the view-point that Landmark Education deserves respect as a mere "business"), one can optimally redress the balance in weighting by adding material expressing alternative views. -- ] 03:08, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
	==Creating a consensus on what represents a balanced article==
	The majority of editors and administrators who have weighed in on the subject feel that there has historically been undue weight given to criticism/controversy/brainwashing/cult/scientology.
	While Penant17 and EstherRice contend that the article has been white washed, note that all of these topics remain in the article ''(The exception of scientology where it was agreed by a majority of editors that the connection between Landmark and Scientology was a weak one that did not belong in the article).''
	I do not think anyone who edits on this article and is personally Pro-Landmark thinks that the article should be devoid of criticism. My evidence for this is that the controversial topic remain in the article.
	I do not think anyone who edits on this article and is personally Pro-Landmark thinks that the article should be devoid of criticism. My evidence for this is that the controversial topic remain in the article. As the talk page guidelines say, this is a discussion page about the writing of the article not a debate about the topic of the article. Given the positions of the of the involved editors are so divergent, we really need to have a dialog about what represents a balanced article. I do think that we as a group of editors can do that and I am requesing suggestions on how to accomplish that.] 20:19, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
	:The majority of editors and administrators who have weighed in on the subject feel that there has historically been undue weight given to criticism/controversy/brainwashing/cult/scientology.
	:: Editors come and go. Times change. Misplaced Pages changes. Even Landmark Education changes sometimes. Historical views of weightings likewise remain subject to change. Wikis operate like that. -- ] 03:08, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
	:While Penant17 and EstherRice contend that the article has been white washed, note that all of these topics remain in the article ''(The exception of scientology where it was agreed by a majority of editors that the connection between Landmark and Scientology was a weak one that did not belong in the article).''
	:: What topics remain? -- Some have vanished entirely. -- And the current state of the debate on the multiple and on-going connections and similarities between Scientology and Landmark Education does not reflect any sort of definitive vote by editors. -- ] 03:08, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
	:I do not think anyone who edits on this article and is personally Pro-Landmark thinks that the article should be devoid of criticism. My evidence for this is that the controversial topic remain in the article.
	:As the talk page guidelines say, this is a discussion page about the writing of the article not a debate about the topic of the article. Given the positions of the of the involved editors are so divergent, we really need to have a dialog about what represents a balanced article.
	:: Leaping forward to the idea of balance at this stage presupposes that we know what needs balancing. It may help to have that debate prior. At the moment we cannot even view the range of material available for our judgment. -- ] 03:08, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
	I do think that we as a group of editors can do that and I am requesing suggestions on how to accomplish that. ] 19:13, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
	I agree. At the moment, we cannot even agree on whether we have consensus! I suggest that we need a list of the editors who have made comments, with an indication of their opinion on whether the fraction of negative content is too high, too low or about right. I don't have time to do this at the moment, I'm afraid. ] 22:25, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
	: You would need to include editors who have made edits. You would need to ignore mere opinions about fractions and revert to solid arguments. You would need to define what one can regard as "negative" while allowing for a spectrum of material that may even embrace the "positive". -- ] 03:08, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
	I have reverted some of the changes made by EstherRice pending the decision on consensus. I do not have time to do any more today. ] 22:45, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
	: Reversions of edits made according to consensus does not encourage the ideal of consensus. I suggest you revert your reversions in order to allow a consensus to develop. (Consensus does *not* get "decided"...) -- ] 03:08, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
	I am clear that this article as it stands now, after Timb66's changes, is coming closer to have a balance- there is still too much negative but that can be adjusted over time. EstherRice and Pedant17 and Smee may have a LOT to say but history has proved out the minority and non-notable nature of the POV axe they keep trying to grind all the time. That is my two cents... ] 23:27, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
	: One cannot bask in the glow of a temporary mythical Golden Age and call it "history". Nor does the repeated assertion that a "minority ... POV" exists provide any evidence of a single unitary viewpoint, let alone whether one can regard it as minoritarian, significantly minoritarian, or majoritarian. -- ] 03:08, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
	::Pedant17, please do not intersperse your comments on other editor's comments. Please correct these and put all your comments in one block. ] <small>]</small> 03:26, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
	:: I agree, please put all your comments in one (or a few) larger blocks. I counted 16 inserted comments -- it makes the discussion extremely hard to follow, especially for those who may read this page in the future. Thanks. ] 09:05, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
	::: Sometimes the most effective comments come in large blocks, sometimes not. Indented points and queries highlight matters at issue and make the substance of debates easier to identify. -- ] 02:12, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
	==Partridge ref==
	Hello Mvemkr. You removed the sourced view of Partridge on the basis that you think its spurious. Would you care to elaborate? ] 11:54, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
	:When I checked out the reference what I read was an individuals opinion which in itself is not a problem but when I looked for what their criteria for LGAT was there was none. Exploring further the reference was to an Anti-Cult site in New Zealand also maintained by a single person and no criteria for why he deemed certain programs cults. I found that reference to be not notable and highly POV and contrary to what has been discussed previously regarding this page. ] 15:57, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
	::Hello Mvemkr. Its the Partridge ref that I am working on. The cults site is only corroboration. Here is more . As you probably know, Landmark is also a successor to EST, which is also known as a LGAT . But its the Partridge view that I am focusing on here. He states what I had included onto the article. He's a PhD and his book is peer reviewed (many contributors). Its a reliable source and I'm giving you the extra bits of information to explain why Partridge (and many other people) hold the view. ] 02:09, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
	:::], I did review The Partridge ref and it is a view of est, which is not Landmark Education; just as the 2007 ] are not the 1975 ]. So I do not see how it was relevant or appropriate for the context of "Religious Implications" in which you had cited it. ] 00:35, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
	:::: Given the close connections between est and Landmark Education, comment on the one does not preclude application to the other. Given the inclusion of the discussion of LGATs in Partridge's work (suggestively entitled ''New Religions: A Guide; New Religious Movements, Sects and Alternative Spiritualities'') it does not seem inappropriate to include this referenced linking of Rosenberg/Erhard's methodology in the context of a section entitled "Religious implications". Given the frequent association of est and of Landmark Education with the concept of LGATs, one might well expect a discussion of Large Group Awareness Trainings -- however brief -- in an article purporting to give encyclopedic balance in its treatment of the subject of "Landmark Education". Given the academic credibility of Partridge, his comment appears suitable as a reference for the fact that some people regard Landmark Education as having something to do with LGATs. Given the reputation of Partridge's publisher (the Oxford University Press) the case for the inclusion of Partridge's albeit tentative-sounding view on the possible identification of Landmark Education as an LGAT strengthens. -- ] 07:01, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
	:::Jeffrire,
	:::*This article is right at the max length for a wiki article.
	:::*Landmark has been identified, with counteless references, as using LGAT techniques. One more reference won't add any value.
	:::*The number of references and footnotes is ''incredibly'' long.
	:::Sometimes less is more
	:::* ''You Rock!!'' is two simple words.
	:::* ''You are the most incredible and wonderful person on this great planet that I have ever had the good fortune of knowing and I will truly consider our friendship to be a blessing forever.'' uses more words, but really doesn't add more value.
	:::Though, I'm not familiar with the specific Partridge ref that you're discussing, I would like to ask you if you feel that adding more information to this article actually improves it? Is there something you would consider taking out, in order to add that reference?
	:::The purpose of these articles is to provide factual information which informs the reader in a neutral way. It is not to provide a location where every single fact known to mankind can be found.
	:::Just my 2 cents. ] 02:19, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
	Its a reliable source that gives a view. The article requires what Krator mentioned; More explanation. Max length is neither here nor there. I read something about summary style the other day. I think it applies. ] 03:47, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
	::Jeffrire, I am neither picking on your link, nor making any suggestion of its value. I am neither saying your link doesn't qualify nor am I saying that it shouldn't be used. I'm asking if you feel it brings significant value to the article. An article needs to be more than a collection of usable facts. It needs to have flow and tell an unbiased story about the subject.
	::Maximum length is there for a reason. Generally everything that needs to be said to describe a subject can be said within the maximum lengh limitation. Articles that exceed that limit, are generally redundant and overly wordy. Certainly there are exceptions. In this case there are already several other Landmark-related articles. Many of these articles repeat the same information.
	::Do you believe that your reference adds significant value to this article? And if so, hypothetically speaking, if you had to remove another citation in order to include yours, pick a citation in the article that brings less value than yours?
	::I'm not suggesting that you would have to remove one. I'm asking you to look over the article and evaluate your reference and explain why it brings significantly more value to this article than the information that is already here. I am not saying it doesnt bring value. Im asking you, in your words and from your perspective, to explain what value it brings.
	::Thank you. ] 04:08, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
	:::Hello Lsi john. The choices you are presenting me seem to be unnecessary. If a solid reference helps to explain an aspect of the article then of course it can be added according to the main WP rules. Why is Landmark considered a LGAT? Which aspects of LGATs are relevant to Landmark? Are there any similar terms that are applied to Landmark? All this can be added to the article when I present the sourced information. There's plenty of space as long as summary style is used. Thanks for the suggestions though. ] 05:05, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
	::::You are quite welcome. I am sorry that you have chosen to ignore my question and merely repeat that since it qualifies as ] that it can be included. While you may technically be correct, that logic will lead to a very poor article. If we include everything that can be included in every article, the articles will be unreadable.
	::::My question was very simple. ''What is it about your link that you believe adds significant value to the article?'' Repeating that it meets wiki standards for inclusion does not address that question and my question is actually part of the wiki standard.
	::::<blockquote>"nor is Misplaced Pages a dictionary, a newspaper, or a collection of source documents"</blockquote> http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Five_pillars
	::::When another contributor questions the value of a citation, explaining your justification is polite and shows respect to the other contributor.
	::::It is possible that the other contributor did not realize the value. Merely citing a rule, to defend inclusion, will not convince the other party and will not help anyone move toward compromise or understanding.
	::::] 05:24, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
	::::Jeffrire, you gave a bunch of IF's.. Does your link explain why Landmark is an LGAT? Does it do it better than other sections of this article already explain it? My questions are real. I honestly am interested in your answers. I am interested in contributing to and producing high quality unbiased articles. If you have information which adds significant value, then it should be included.
	::::Perhaps I misunderstood. I was under the impression that someone removed a link you put in. ] 05:27, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
	: A missing link adds no value to an article. Since the "Landmark Education" article at the time of my writing contains no instances of the string "LGAT" and only generic "See also" and "Category" links to ], adding a sourced reference with a comment increases the scope and impact of the article, provides a degree of justification for the bland generic links, and subtly increases the ] by contrasting with the null view on the matter. -- As for concerns about the length of the "Landmark Education" article, we can fork out (say) the section on jargon and the section on courses into separate articles, freeing up "virtual" space for ] and expansive editing (and for re-incorporating previously spurned material). -- ] 02:12, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
	:: There a billions of "missing links" in this article. You will notice this article includes no links on bread baking, or the Loch Ness Monster. The article is better for missing these links. What value is added by adding any content on that? How does it expand the understanding of Landmark. It is mentioned and that is probably as notable an inclusion as it deserves. You also seem to think Landmark is VERY IMPORTANT- why do I sau yhat. Why spin off articles on it? A company's jargon having its own encyclopedia article. It was recently tried by ] and others and overwhelmingly defeated in an AFD. It just isn't notable enough. A Misplaced Pages article for a company's jargon? Come on. This all just attmepts to put non-notable, biased, POV material back into Misplaced Pages after it has been removed by consensus over and over again. I, by the way, am not that against the Partridge citation- I htink it is unnecessary and I wouldn't add it but it is OK. ] 04:21, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
	:::Hello AJack. I'd like to see the precise details of that crushing AFD defeat. A link would help. Also, I would say Landmark is significant enough to have its own article which includes all relevant views and criticisms, and explanations for why those criticisms exist. It also seems to be necessary to explain why Landmark is considered to be a LGAT. ] 05:22, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
	::::As far as I can tell, each company meets LGAT criteria, ''because the author says so'' and there is no way to disprove them, because there is no single concise universally accepted definition for LGAT.
	::::Therefore, I agree with Jeffrire. Lets, once and for all, get a good scientific definition included in this article, that shows exactly and specifically why Landmark's practices are LGAT. Once Jeffrire provides us with a nice clear, clean, crisp, scientifically verificable method for determining LGAT, we can begin getting references which show the falacy of this terminology and how other authors have mis-applied the term to other companies. Otherwise, Jeffrire, anything you have, will simply be more RRacR and it won't add significant value, other than what is already in the article. The term pretty much means whatever each author wants it to mean (within some broad limitations). ] 12:34, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
	::::: I can live with that but let's do it here first- that is what talk pages are for. Given this is likely or at least my be contentious let us work out all the kinks here. Get consensus and then put it in the article. A good strating point would be for us to look at the Misplaced Pages article on ]s.] 15:30, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
	:::::: Working out "all the kinks" on a Talk-page provides a recipe for inaction. We need only add appropriately-sourced references, then debate their individual appropriateness if really necessary. -- ] 07:01, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
	::::: The article on "Landmark Education" does not seem a suitable place to spend time evolving a single definition of "LGAT" - scientific or otherwise, crisp or limp. We have the ] article in which to present possible definitions, and we can link to that article. On the other hand, I would encourage content in the ] article which demonstrates use -- appropriately and/or inappropriately -- of the term with reference to Landmark Education. Such content may emerge over time, thus the sooner we provide a base for it in the ] article the better. Setting out with the aim of showing the fallacies of this usage or its mis-applications does not sound likely to enhance the ] we strive for here -- ] 07:01, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
	::: The current article on "Landmark Education" does not explain the extremely cryptic links to ]. A properly-sourced reference to the labeling would improve the article slightly. -- ] 07:01, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
	::: When articles expand with the information provided by Misplaced Pages's thousands of keen editors, some people object to individual article becoming too long. In such cases, we can "spin off" new articles by forking. The spinning off of ] provides an example. I note that nobody has raised any objections to my suggestion of spinning off an article on Landmark Education courses. I suggest that such an article would not want for material or perceived notability. -- ] 07:01, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
	==== Some history ====
	Hello. Nice to meet you. The link is . When the consensus declared that the "jargon" content that had been added by ] was non-notable and removed from the article and it was obvious that the consensus was strongly against that inclusion ](supported by ] and ]) then went and created a whole new article that housed all the old non-notable material. This was clearly POV pushing and the article was soundly defeated as you can see from the link. I agree with you 100% that Landmark is significant enough for its own articles and criticisms should be included. The LGAT definition is a fuzzy one and it is not a generally accepted term because it has been mostly appropriated by those labeling things they call LGAT as cults. As a result you will see less acceptance of the LGAT term here. We still mention it because people have referred to Landmark's courses as "LGAT"s it at best applies to only some of Landmark's courses and has become somewhat of a pejorative term.
	: What may seem 'obvious consensus" to some may not seem so evident or consensual to others. -- The link to the deletion debate shows that an administrator made a decision to delete -- it does not by any means show that "the article was soundly defeated as you can see from the link". -- ] 07:01, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
	What most of the editors on this page are struggling with is to keep as minority viewpoint from overwhelming the page. This is clearly a contentious issue with strong feelings on both sides so we are attempting to really talk things through on these pages before making any changes in the article. Unfortunately there is a core of users who keep trying to wholesale re-introduce content that was deleted before and when thwarted at that here spin off pages with that same content. You can follow this process by going through the archives of this Talk page. Obviously those representing the minority viewpoint will say that we are secret spies for Landmark hawking Landmark's POV and advertising. The more reasonable eyes looking at the article the better it becomes.
	: I would posit that most of the Wikipedians who edit the ] article do struggle to keep the different minority viewpoints from overwhelming the page; however, they disagree strenuously as to which opinions to brand as "minority". In such circumstances, a more tolerant and less deletionist approach seems called-for. -- ] 07:01, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
	Glad to have you on board - we have found the more voices outside the core editors of the article the more obvious the balance points become. That is how Misplaced Pages works and it becomes less of an user vs. user battle, and this page is slowly straightening out because of it - welcome! ] 11:13, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
	:Thanks AJack thats helpful. From what I see from the little detail of the AFD, the jargon page in itself may not be necessary. However, if the information has 7 reputable sources then it has a high significance somewhere and this article seems to be the place. I would suggest that the term "obscurantism" will apply though considering the pseudoscientific nature of the subject. That will also need explaining. From what I understand, Landmark is a minority activity and its promotion is fringe (just those wanting to promote). The majority would be the scientific skepticism view on the psychological techniques and perhaps the sociological views of Landmark. I think thats the best way to consider the matter of balance. ] 11:23, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
	:: Allow me to posit my point of view on this: Landmark Education is a private company that puts on seminars on a variety of topics. There is no "psuedo-scientific" nature of the subject at all. Landmark Education doesn't even pretend to put forth a scientific body of knowledge. At best Landmark Education's courses could be referred to as "applied philosophy". Even treating it like sociological/psychological phenomena is already relating to it from what many of the editors believe to be a minority view point. Landmark doesn't claim to be, and indeed directly asserts it is not, therapy. It is a series of courses that are philosophical in nature. In an encyclopedia article my thought is that the company should be described, the courses it offers described, and some history given. Much more than that is probably overkill. I am very interested in Landmark's pedagogy but I believe that is because I have been involved in Landmark's course design and delivery. I am not clear that that is notable in an encyclopedia article. I am by the way "pro-Landmark" in the sense that I think they deliver a very good product and I enjoy participating in their programs. I just think there is "much ado about nothing" in some of these article debates (on my side sometimes as well) and we need to keep stepping back and thinking form the whole of Misplaced Pages and making sure people adding content actually are knowledgeable on the topic. ] 12:48, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
	::: Anyone can produce pseudo-science -- even private companies who see their own product as non-scientific. We evidently need to add a section -- or a new article -- on the view of Landmark Education content and attitudes as pseudo-science. -- Given the wide interests and incisive research-skills of Misplaced Pages's editorship, limiting future topics as "probably overkill" does little to encourage bold editing in the spirit of NPOV. As for proposals to make "sure people adding content actually are knowledgeable on the topic", this smacks of elitist censorship. Misplaced Pages (unlike Landmark Education) welcomes well-researched input to its content from any netizen -- ] 07:01, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
	::::Only elitist in the sense that someone who writes on a topic should be informed on it. Don't twist my word into being about some kind of censorship- but when an article has been worked on by dozens and dozens of editors and crafted to a place and then someone deletes most of the article and put some hearsay and opinion in its place that is not good for the article. As an example - one of the articles I monitor and work with is "Education". Frequently people come in a delete paragraphs and replace them with "Education in the US sucks and doesn't work". Wile this is a valid opinion- it doesn't belong n the Misplaced Pages article on Education. There are places in the article where it talks about the pedagogy used and conflicts regarding that but that is just vandalism. There are also articles I watch where people don't like something- like the George Bush article where it has been locked at times because people wanted to put their opinion instead of encyclopedic content. You may not like Landmark Education for some reason- which is none of my business- but that dislike is not a basis to put hearsay and original research into the article.] 12:48, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
	::::: Thank you for your clarification as to "knowledgeable on the topic" meaning "informed". I accept that informedness makes for better contributions. -- Hearsay and opinion, as possible sources of or as possible providers of impetus towards informedness, profit from good references and citations and through them become Misplaced Pages-worthy and more than mere hearsay/opinion. We do tolerate hearsay to the effect (say) that Landmark Education has little to do with est/Erhard -- based on the flimsy assertions of people too close to the action to evaluate the matter dispassionately. And we may put up with surveys of opinions on Landmark Education covering the "converted" -- those who have "completed the Landmark Forum". But a balanced and NPOV article requires more than such slanted hearsay and opinion and welcomes hearsay and opinion from different sources and/or from different viewpoints -- referenced and cited to at least an equivalent standard. -- ] 04:37, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
	:: I have been driven to participate so heavily in this article primarily to counter what I see as vandalism and editing by people who don't really understand the subject and are pushing some POV. *shrug* This is just my POV. Part of what makes Misplaced Pages great is that we can put that aside and work together. If you have any questions about Landmark or its pedagogy please feel free to email me. ] 12:03, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
	:::Landmark is known as a LGAT. Thats not in dispute. LGATs are known to use techniques such as meditation, neuro-linguistic programming, biofeedback, self-hypnosis, bizarre relaxation techniques, mind control, body touching, yoga, trance induction, visualization and in some cases, intense confrontational sessions akin to the "attack" therapy methods that emerged in the 1960s and 1970s. They are pseudoscientific. Their theories are pseudoscientific and they are not effective for their claimed effect, and they are potentially harmful in some cases and actually harmful in others. I think that much is obvious. I don't intend to "vandalize" the article with such information. I do intend to explain such techniques according to any reliable sources presented. ] 13:08, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
	:::: As I said above the question that Landmark has been referred to as an LGAT- the issues you brought up above is the very reason why the term has been de-emphasized. It is the techniques that you refer to that have been exaggerated in their application to Landmark. There are also a lot of valid techniques and pedagogy that are used that are not "psuedo-science". Do you understand Landmark's pedagogy and instruction style? That is the question. Calling something psuedo-science without an analysis of the specifics is just hearsay and innuendo. ] 16:01, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
	::::: One can term something "pseudo-science" for the first time without invoking hearsay -- and recall that in the field of popular culture (where Landmark Education operates) hearsay can prove a valuable and significant factor. As for innuendo, Misplaced Pages encourages good references, and if these convey innuendo, Misplaced Pages simply reports and replicates that innuendo, entirely appropriately, as expressing published and cited judgments. Such activity seems inevitable in writing of an alleged "applied philosophy". -- Unfortunately, few serious researchers have carried out "analysis of the specifics" of Landmark Education, so the generic studies of LGATs have particular value in presenting and summarizing Landmark Education in an encyclopedia-article. -- ] 07:01, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
	:::::: This is probably not the place for it but I fundamentally disagree with your statements above. Misplaced Pages is not a collection of references- however well -sourced- on innuendo and rumor. That is one of the frustration I have with some of the suggestions yourself and ] have brought up. Just because somebody said it or published something does not mean it belongs in an encyclopedia article on that subject. The degree to which the citation is RELEVANT to the article is absolutely essential. Also - which citations you pick to include and which to not include do shape the tenor of the article and the degree to which is it NPOV or not. There is no question that the term LGAT has been used to describe Landmark Education. However, it is a broad, sweeping term that does not have precise meaning or agremeement in the professional community at all. Some researchers have carried out specifics and inevitably their results do not match what is "commonly" held about LGATS . See the main article for that. The other thing I disagree about is that Landmark is in the "field of popular culture" and therefore hearsay is somehow more relevant. Landmark Education is an educational company whose courses deal with what it calls "transformation". It is in the field of "educational organizations". ] 12:48, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
	::::::: You appear to object to "references ... on innuendo and rumor". The unreferenced innuendo that "transformation" enhances and profits the customers of Landmark Education would have no place in the ] article on that basis. We would need to exclude (say) the rumor that "rackets" rob humans of opportunities, too. On the other hand, innuendo and rumor reflecting the observed behavior and outcomes of multiple persons who have encountered and recoiled from the sort of innuendo and rumors which Landmark Education and its boosters put about, when such behaviors and outcomes have a basis in statistics or in repeated patterns, qualify them for discussion in this Misplaced Pages article. -- Not only do sociologists use the term LGAT to refer to Landmark Education and its ilk -- they practically originated the term to apply to just such phenomena. The LGAT-connection already merits discussion in the article on ] on that basis. If it has become a "broad, sweeping term that does not have precise meaning" then it behoves us to point out in what specific ways Landmark Education and its ancestor-trainings and /or the "LGAT" term have evolved away from each other, and when. Such analysis has a place in the ] article. I look forward to your providing details in the ] article on how 'ome researchers have carried out specifics and inevitably their results do not match what is "commonly" held about LGATS'. -- I agree with you in rejecting the absurd notion that Landmark Education 'is in the "field of popular culture"' -- but Landmark Education does operate within the field of popular culture. How could it do otherwise -- targeting as it does the hearts and minds of large numbers of people? The fact that popular culture has not assimilated it does not mean that popular culture cannot comment -- it does, massively and rejectionally, and hearsay (as usual) serves as its tool and agent. This flip-side (but equally valid application) of Landmark Education's"word-of-mouth" advertising-technique deserves a place in our overall examination of the phenomenon we call "Landmark Education". -- You assert that "Landmark Education is an educational company" and that it 'is in the field of "educational organizations".' Such "what's so" claims may actually have a degree of merit, but these identifications by no means close the field of classifications for Landmark Education LLC or for its products. As editors of an NPOV encyclopedia, we need to take a much broader view than that espoused (say) in mere company literature and marketing propaganda. -- ] 04:37, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
	: Landmark Education jargon appears sufficiently notable to have a place in the ] article, and that material could function equally well in a separate article. Misplaced Pages already has a ] and an article on ] and a ]. And bear in mind that Landmark Education transcends the mere label of "company". -- ] 07:01, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
	:: Landmark "transcends" the mere label of company? Why? Don't get me wrong- I think the company is a decent one and I think , in my personal opinion , that is does far more good than harm- but it is just an educational company. How does it "transcend" that? I understand some editors seem to have some kind of axe to grind with regard to it but that doesn't make it any more notable...] 12:48, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
	::: The company "Landmark Education LLC" appears in a registry of commercial enterprises somewhere in the bowels of the bureaucracy -- fine. Its subsidiaries and/or associated companies worldwide have similar status -- that much remains uncontroversial. But when those "companies" act in non-traditional ways (like relying on "volunteer" labor and selling unproven products) matters become more interesting to observers at large. And when the concepts/teachings/methodology known as "Landmark Education" emerge into public scrutiny, we have moved far from the the idea of a mere "company" -- even a so-called "educational company". -- Some people -- even admirers of Landmark Education -- may actually have a greater interest in the ideas and speculations of Landmark Education than in the company structure and in the administrative and managerial office-holders. I suggest that such "non-company" stuff has notability, and that we need to take this into account in editing and evaluating this article. -- ] 04:37, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
	: Forking or "spinning off" articles allows for a richer more varied and more nuanced expansion of the content of Misplaced Pages, untrammelled by the limitations of a paper-based encyclopedia and with all the advantages of hyperlinking. I do not think you could approve the removal of such Misplaced Pages-worthy material of interet by invoking a spurious "consensus". -- ] 07:01, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
	*In the paper, "The Promise of Philosophy and The Landmark Forum", the authors (one of which is Steven Zaffron, CEO of Landmark Education subsidiary Landmark Education Business Development), '''''twice''''' used the term "large group awareness training". They cited the studies of both Denison and Finkelstein, Wenegrat, and Yalom, in making this assertion:
	{{Citation
	| first = Charles Wayne
	| last = Denison
	| author-link =
	| first2 =
	| last2 =
	| author2-link =
	| editor-last =
	| editor-first =
	| editor2-last =
	| editor2-first =
	| contribution =
	| contribution-url =
	| title = Children of EST a Study of the Experience and Perceived Effects of a Large Group Awareness Training.
	| year = 1994
	| pages = ] Dissertation
	| place =
	| publisher = ]
	| url = http://www.rickross.com/reference/forum/Art106.html
	| doi =
	| id = }}
	{{cite journal
	| last = Finkelstein
	| first = P.
	| authorlink =
	| coauthors = Wenegrat, B.; Yalom, I.
	| title = Large Group Awareness Training
	| journal = Annual Review of Psychology
	| volume = 33
	| issue =
	| pages = 515-539
	| publisher = ]
	| date = 1982
	| url =
	| doi =
	| id = {{ISSN|0066-4308}}
	| accessdate = }}
	So, the term can most certainly be applied to Landmark. ] 14:03, 30 April 2007 (UTC).
	== Entire criticism section is gone? ==
	Wow guys, wow. So interesting. Score one for the advertising / marketing / public relations department... ] 14:05, 30 April 2007 (UTC).
	Look again- it just isn't labeled in big letters. Score one for balance. ] 15:38, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
	:Looks gone to me... Score one for the public relations reps / volunteer laborers... ] 15:41, 30 April 2007 (UTC).
	==Jargon==
	There is no citation which justifies a prejudicial word like ''jargon'' in a section heading.
	<blockquote>"''Main Entry: 1jar·gon Pronunciation: 'jär-g&n, -"gän Function: noun Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French jargun, gargon 1 a : confused unintelligible language b : a strange, outlandish, or barbarous language or dialect ''"</blockquote>
	There is no indication that their terms are strange, unintelligible, outlandish or barbarous. There is no citation included in the article to justify this term.
	The article needs to remain neutral and ''Jargon'' is not a neutral word.
	] 17:14, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
	*Most (as in the majority of people on the earth) would argue that ''jargon'' is the appropriate word. Be that as it may ...]<sup><font color="violet">]</font></sup> 17:20, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
	: Google finds 171 references to "Landmark jargon" and about 293 for 'Landmark Education jargon". Granted the quite specific nature of those search-strings, it becomes apparent that a significant group of people sometimes associate some Landmark Education language with jargon, and thus with possible connotations (though the word has other definitions) of the "strange, outlandish or barabarous". But compare a more thorough dictionary entry, in this case from the American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language: Fourth Edition. 2000 at http://www.bartleby.com/61/98/J0019800.html :
	<blockquote>
	Jargon:
	1. Nonsensical, incoherent, or meaningless talk.
	2. A hybrid language or dialect; a pidgin.
	3. The specialized or technical language of a trade, profession, or similar group. See synonyms at dialect.
	4. Speech or writing having unusual or pretentious vocabulary, convoluted phrasing, and vague meaning.
	</blockquote>
	: One might conclude that the word "jargon" has no necessarily negative or prejudicial connotations. -- ] 07:01, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
	:: One might, but others might think otherwise. Of the 4 definitions 3 are pejorative. I believe definition 3 applies, but for the sake of clarity it is best to avoid a loaded term like that. You also want to check the degree to which ] is in play on those "293" Google results. ] 12:20, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
	::: Language-usage does not operate on a basis of majority-votes on the number of separate definitions. Non-historical lexicographers often tend to arrange their definitions in order of perceived popularity, but in evaluating them we need to take into account the context, as well as the seepage of connotations between ostensibly separate usages. -- What one regards a pejorative and what not remains an individual matter. Someone could regard all 4 of the definitions given as pejorative; someone else none of them. I suspect the third definition given fits Landmark Education jargon best, but for the sake of clarity we can subsume the other meanings as well -- each of them. I persist in my conclusion that 'the word "jargon" has no necessarily negative or prejudicial connotations'. -- As for evaluating the google-test results in terms of "reliable sources" -- that misses the point that the phrase has become widespread in the overall noosphere. (NB: Whereas Google found 171 references to "Landmark jargon" and about 293 for 'Landmark Education jargon", the other day, it finds a mere 47 for "Landmark terminology" and just an initial 2 for "Landmark Education terminology".)-- ] 04:37, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
	== Please don't edit-war ==
	I reverted the wholesale revisions made yet again by ], while preserving some of the subsequent edits by ].
	The material that Esther wants to re-instate has been extensively discussed on this page, and there was general consensus that it was spurious for reasons that have been adequately explained above. Principally that it violated wikipedia policies in giving undue weight to minority opinions, that many of the sources do not meet reliability stantdards, and that in many cases the points being made in the article are not in fact substantiated when the content of the citations is examined. Contrary to what Esther suggests above, no-one suggested that it should be removed "because they didn't like it".
	Please engage with the arguments before making extensive changes, or is that too much to expect from someone who claims to be able to pronounce on behalf of "the majority of people on the planet"? ] 16:50, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
	:That is precisely the level of the objections. Your final statement is taken out of context, and missed the intended humour of my earlier comment. However, if one were to expose a group of people who do not know of Landmark but do know the true definition of jargon, what do you guess would be the result? This is presumably why the word was chosen (before 'terms') in the first place.
	:The material is being removed precisely because people having some affiliation with or loyalty to Landmark do not like it. The discussion of the claimed majority above at points like . A quick glance at the history of this page also makes it clear that there is no concensus, but rather control by a group who want to remove all of the criticism, despite the sources etc. being valid by normal standards here.]<sup><font color="violet">]</font></sup> 01:39, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
	:I agree completely. When an editor comes in and reverts back to something several edits old, their actions are potentially disruptive. This is especially true in cases where there were technical corrections, spelling corrections, grammar corrections, which were not controversial. Such meticulous edits take time and reverting them in the name of a ''cause'' is disruptive and does an injustice to any editor who got caught in the edit war.
	:Reverts should be limited to the most recent version (or oldest edit in a series by the same editor).
	:] 18:04, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
	::There were no corrections of the kind claimed above; instead, we had removal of the entire criticisms section and introduction of PR-style information.]<sup><font color="violet">]</font></sup> 01:39, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
	:::Even if there were minor edits and corrections after the large edit/deletion; It is perfectly reasonable to make a complete reversion nevertheless. If I made minor moves and corrections just after a major deletion I would have to accept reversions to my edits and I would probably explain to the person that I was not just trying to protect the major deletion. Only if it is not too much trouble, try to keep legitimate minor edits. But othewise its fine to just revert. The minor corrections are easier to re-do as they can be found in the archives and no actual proofreading needs to be done. ] 05:42, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
	: The enthusiasm for reversion seems at odds with the Misplaced Pages norms of ] such as:
	<blockquote>
	==When to revert==
	===Do===
	:''See also ]''
	* Reverting is '''a decision which should be taken seriously'''.
	* Reverting is used primarily for fighting ], or anything very similar to the effects of ].
	* If you are not sure whether a revert is appropriate, discuss it first rather than immediately reverting or deleting it.
	* If you feel the edit is unsatisfactory, improve it rather than simply reverting or deleting it.
	===Don't===
	* Do not simply revert changes that are made as part of a dispute. Be respectful to other editors, their contributions and their points of view.
	* Do not revert good faith edits. In other words, try to consider the editor "on the other end." If what one is attempting is a positive contribution to Misplaced Pages, a revert of those contributions is inappropriate unless, and only unless, you as an editor possess firm, substantive, and objective proof to the contrary. Mere disagreement is not such proof. See also ].
	* Generally there are misconceptions that problematic sections of an article or recent changes are the reasons for reverting or deletion. If they contain valid information, these texts should simply be edited and improved accordingly. '''Reverting is not a decision which should be taken lightly.'''
	* There's sometimes trouble determining whether some claim is true or useful, particularly when there are few people "on board" who are knowledgeable about the topic. In such a case, it's a good idea to raise objections on a talk page; if one has some reason to believe that the author of what appears to be biased material will not be induced to change it, editors have sometimes taken the step of transferring the text in question to the talk page itself, thus not deleting it entirely. This action should be taken more or less as a last resort, never as a way of punishing people who have written something biased. See also ]
	* Do not revert changes simply because someone makes an edit you consider problematic, biased, or inaccurate. '''Improve the edit, rather than reverting it'''.
	</blockquote>
	: -- ] 07:01, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
	:: Agreed! We should take these guidelines very seriously. ] 12:10, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
	:::Yes I agree. If someone deletes a whole load of stuff, then the best way to improve it is to revert so that the sourced information reappears. Of course if its not been arranged too vexatiously, then try to keep the other minor improvements if there are any. Reversion in some cases can be the major part of improving the article. ] 13:06, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
	::::Yes, I agree with ]'s comment too, so have reverted the article again. Let's make a sincere attempt to start from this more comprehensive version as a base, and not simply revert the article to get rid of well-sourced points that the topic and its adherents don't like.]<sup><font color="violet">]</font></sup> 13:14, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
	:::: YEs- if you look at ] and the related pages they are an excellent guide to the whole Revert, Edit, Discuss style of editing. I don't prefer it because I think it leads to edit warring more than the consensus building model does but I understand it. I just reverted ]'s wholesale revert. This kind of revert is the worst kind. Ignores the talk page, no consensus. It is BOLD but anyone who does those kidns of reverts should expect BOLD action to follow immediately. I think REVERTS are serious but I think this revert by ] is an example of a revet that should be immediately reverted back. Please lets keep our changes slow and measured so editors have a chance to respond and also don't have to be full-time employees paid to work on these pages. I certainly don't have that luxury- so let's keep the pace down a little please. By the way the page is in a stable state right now... this is a good starting point and many editors have gotten us here. Please don't do massive weeping reverts. ] 13:22, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
	:::::Please read the text at ]. Specifically
	::::::*You want to find out who has a particular page on their watchlist, and/or is sufficiently interested, and then discuss with them. In a way, you're actively provoking another person to make an edit, so you're going to need all your tact to convince them that you are acting in good faith
	::::::#Boldly make the desired change to the page.
	::::::#Wait until someone reverts your change or makes another substantial edit. DO NOT Revert back!
	::::::#Discuss with the reverter (don't go for discussion with too many people at once). Once you reach agreement, start the cycle again by making the agreed change.
	::::::*Wash, rinse, repeat. If no one reverts after a couple of days, congratulations! You got out of the impasse and got changes done.
	:::::It does '''not''' say to keep reverting back several revisions old.
	:::::That type of reverting is distructive and counter productive. Numerous spelling, grammar and other changes are lost in those abusive types of reverts. Reverts should be limited to the last edit (or sequenece of edits by one editor if a large revert is truly necessary).
	:::::Once you have been reverted, it is then incumbent upon you to discuss it with the person who reverted you and come to a concensus. It is not appropriate to re-revert. That could easily be considered violations ] or ].
	:::::An admin once said, regarding revert wars: "you will not obtain the edits you want by reverting".
	:::::#Please make the case for exactly why you believe an old version should be reverted over numerous edits.
	:::::#or please make a case for individual changes that you wish to make.
	:::::: ] seems unsuitable as a model for multiple editors changing several areas of text and with many assumptions not held in common. I suggest that we drop bulk-deletion from our tool-kits in the refinement and expansion of this article. -- ] 04:37, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
	:::::We have already discussed the word Jargon. It is uncited, prejudicial, leading and is unacceptable.
	:::::: But see above for counter-suggestions. -- The word "jargon" ''is'' none of the things you claim. It just seems that way to you. -- ] 04:37, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
	:::::] 13:33, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
	::::::You are both self-confessed PoV pushers for the subject of the article and none of the above comments have any validity in terms of logic, sincerity, or the reality of what is happening here. I also note that the Landmark partisans never make a direct response to comments like 'hey these are real and authoritative sources' etc. etc. but continually come up with red-herring arguments that have nothing to do with the actual flow or comments but are solely intended for presentation as diffs. for the benefit of possible outside parties who can't be expected to bother going through the actual flow and history of edits or the discussion (quite sensibly, I must admit: I don't think I've ever gone through the whole discussion page; I find the kind of diversionary, off-the-point, and circuitous arguments espoused by the Landmark people here quite tiresome). This discussion page gives ample evidence of other editors who want the criticisms left in. Why not accept that the material is valid insofar as the normal application of wikipedia policy? Why try to eliminate everything? I boredly anticipate more off-the-point illogic in reply.]<sup><font color="violet">]</font></sup> 13:58, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
	: As is obvious from the above discussions, I disagree with ]'s above opinions and truly believe that the article as it currently stands, while not perfect, is better than many times in the past in terms of its appropriateness as a encyclopedic article. However, I do apologize for characterizing ]'s revert as vandalism. That was overly harsh and did not follow ]. I take my characterization of it as vandalism back. ] 14:21, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
	-outdent-
	Your claim is interesting, though unfounded. I know nothing of Landmark Education and I have no opinion of Landmark Education. There is nowhere that I have ''confessed'' to being a POV pusher. That is a typical tactic used by people who have no real arguement to make. Unless you are saying that '''neutrality''' in an article is POV. In which case, yes, I am pushing a Neutral POV.
	Your reverting, with the comments "''undid whitewash''" clearly demonstrates that you are 're-inserting' POV into the article which you believe was ''white washed away''.
	In fact, wiki articles should (in a manner of speaking) be whitewashed. That is the definition of Neutral and ]. In contrast, your edits (and edit comments), are clearly self-proclaimed to be ''"putting back in bias"'' which you believe has been removed.
	A truly neutral article, if one could actually exist, will list facts, provide descriptions, provide opinions and opposing opinions in order of majority view, and will leave any '''decisions or conclusions up to the reader'''. ] 14:09, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
	:Yawn.]<sup><font color="violet">]</font></sup> 14:12, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
	::Indeed. I have no opinion of Landmark. Do you? What is your opinion of them? ] 14:13, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
	:::Yawn. From your user page: ''For the record, I am a graduate of a Personal Growth seminar company.'' Well, maybe it wasn't Landmark. est, perhaps? Hardly non-partisan. I would be happy to see the article in a balanced state, which it most definitely is not right now.]<sup><font color="violet">]</font></sup> 14:16, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
	:::::No, not Landmark, not est, and not any company related to them. I know nothing of Landmark. ] 19:23, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
	::::How do you translate ''I am a graduate...'' into a ''confession'' of pushing a POV? What about the rest of that essay, where I am a self-proclaimed NPOV editor? In the interest of full disclosure, I declared my background. I believe that there are bad companies and good companies. I believe that there are companies which are both bad and good. I believe that those facts should be reported/represented accurately and fairly. What about you? What is your opinion of Landmark? What is your background? Are you writing objectively? Do you have any personal experience with the subject matter? ] 14:47, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
	::::By the way, many of the academics and scientists who write opinions about Landmark (and others) are also ''Graduates'' of those programs. It is one way of evaluating the trainings. Does that make them self-confessed POV pushers? If so, do you suggest we begin filtering out their opinions? ] 14:52, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
	::::: We should treat mere "opinions" from whatever source with the contempt they deserve, paying much more attention to grounded and referenced research uncontaminated by too-close a personal association with the subject-matter. -- ] 04:37, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
	::::Lets stop debating each other's motives and debate article content. If you have something you feel should be in the article, lets discuss it and its merits. ] 14:54, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
	: I do, by the way, have an opinion about Landmark Education. I am, in general, for it. I make no mystery of that and have said that from the beginning- see my talk page. I have nothing to hide. However, I am nNOT a "self-confessed POV pusher". That is insulting and innacurate- I have never said any such thinng. I am also a dedicated WIkipedia editor and I truly believe in Misplaced Pages. I will always be up front about my bias and will strive to make great articles in Misplaced Pages wherever I am editing. I wish all the editors would be as up front in their biases. Thanks! ] 14:21, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
	==Suggestions for the article==
	I suggest some editors learn to accept well sourced views and facts. They are not going away. ] 15:21, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
	I agree - are you explaining to us something you are learning? This kind of self-evaluation belongs on your talk page not on an article talk page. Please regard ]! There are many sides to every perspective - from mine your edits represent a blatant disregard for facts in favor of your POV. I don't make sarcastic comments about it and I request you don't either. ] 05:13, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
	:User AJack. I am being civil and I am reminding editors to accept NPOV policy. There is no sarcasm in my line at all. I am being perfectly straightforward. If you wish editors to lay down and accept the deletion of well sourced facts and views - and just let it slide, then I think you need to re-assess your motivations for being here. If I were to repeatedly delete well sourced facts, I would have to face the fact that I would have an unconstructive aversion to certain facts and views in that case. And in that case I would most likely be unconstructive as an editor. Lets keep unreasonable deletes in check please. Editors seem to be generally fine discussing the finer points of how facts are presented. But the zealous removal of well sourced facts is something we should all guard against as a group. ] 07:24, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
	==McCarl article needs checking==
	1/the journal is not peer reviewed or indexed-& I get a "Can't find server" error when I try its link. 2/SSRN is a very reputable archive, but it's policy is to include and preserves any paper sent to it. 3/None of the authors are notable by WP standards 4/ At least one of the authors is an employee of the Forum. ''']''' 00:25, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
	:Thanks DGG. I'll check up a bit more on the repute of the source. Actually I think on its own its inappropriate. Its basically a pov rather than an account of the situation. It should be placed with other povs for balance. ] 02:48, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
	:: You must be joking- this is a published paper in an academic journal, properly sourced, and EXACTLY ABOUT THE SUBJECT MaTTER of the article. Give me a break. Yes- one of the four authors is a course designer and executive of Landmark Education. It is not unusual to have papers written by experts in their field. ] 05:10, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
	:::Please tone it down AJack. I'm presently checking the source and I will urge others to do likewise. I personally have no problem with it being presented in the meantime. ] 07:27, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
	Two of the authors are genuine academics working in sociology: , . On the other hand, "Contemporary Philosophy" is not held by our university library (U. Sydney). I can't find it on Google and the URL given on SSRN seems to be dead. ] 23:58, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
	:Yes I can't find it either, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Well it leaves a big question mark. Perhaps someone can provide an answer. I'd apply patience. ] 00:23, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
	Thanks. Patience is in short supply around here! If the article cannot be verified then I suggest it be removed, or at least given less prominence in the article (eg relegated to a footnote). ] 22:32, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
	:Actually yes, thats a reasonable suggestion. I'll change the heading of this subdiscussion accordingly so people remember to check. I have no problem with it being absent from the article. We can be persistent with it on the talkpage until the question is resolved. ] 11:07, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
	== Comments on the on-going edit war ==
	Over a period from about 16th March to 13th April about half a dozen different editors made changes to the article by removing material which they regarded as irrelevant, biased, poorly sourced, or violating the undue weight principle of the ] policy. All of these changes were fully discussed on this talk page before being implemented and received general consensus.
	On 13th April ] did a bulk revert which cancelled the whole of these updates. A few hours later ] restored the state to the one that had resulted from the earlier collaboration. Since then there have been repeated reverts by Esther, ], ], ] and others (sometimes anonymously) to re-establish the version prior to the one that had wider approval.
	These are often accompanied by a) re-iterations that the material was ‘cited from reliable sources’, b) accusations that the other editors are ‘attempting to whitewash’ the article, c) accusing anyone who disagrees with her of being a ‘POV-pusher’, or d) claims that they are ‘restoring NPOV’.
	There are frequent condescending lectures on the need to ‘preserve well sourced material’, or ‘comply with NPOV’. I would appreciate it if you would show enough respect for other editors to acknowledge that we agree with those principles. Where we differ is in our evaluations of whether the sources in question are in fact reliable or notable, whether they do support the assertions in the disputed material, and whether or not the material you are so keen to include violates the undue weight principle. There has been detailed discussion of all these points on this page, but you appear to me to prefer repetitions of your own already stated opinions and sarcastic dismissal of others, rather than constructive engagement in the debate. ] 17:24, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
	:I have just completed reading this talk page from top to bottom and I am frankly tired. The various sections have been broken apart by people inserting their comments inside other people's comments. It has made this talk page difficult to follow. With that said, I agree with most of the assesment by DaveApter above. Prior to the 16th of March- This article contained huge swaths of quotes from sources critical of Landmark Education added primarily by one user. While the sources of text may or may not have been reputable, the points were made redundantly and repeatedly to the point where the criticism and controversey section comprised fully 2/3 of the article. If you go back in the history of this file (I know that it is tedious) you will see that this one particular user: Smee on some days spent 19 hours adding Landmark-critical material to the article as well reverting others edits. They did this repeatedly until several weeks ago when someone reported them for violating WP:3RR twice within the same day. Since then, multiple editors have used the talk page to collaborate in bringing the article back into balance. I think that the version of the article from 17:25, 11 May 2007 by DaveApter represents the balance that many editors have worked hard to acheive. That is what I have to say and I request that my comments here be left intact and not be subdivided by other editors. ] 21:46, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
	::I agree that edit warring should be avoided. Thats what we need to work on now.
	::*If it is the intention of editors to reduce the size of the criticisms then it should be done so on the basis of majority vs minority view. That is a subject for constructive discussion. It will likely lead closer to a decision on the size and weight of specific critical views.
	::*If reversions were undertaken on the basis of NPOV or restoration due to the sources being reliable then thats fine. I also took this approach. We do need to make it clearer that the weight and presentation of those facts are up for constructive discussion.
	::I suggest that all relevant edits that are supported by reliable sources should stay in the article no matter what their size or weight until we have constructively discussed each point in turn. All feel free to contribute to discussion. ] 05:31, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
	You last point is at the core of the issue. The bulk of that material, added predominatly by one editor, reflects a minority point of view. In my view, putting them back in the article is precisely the wrong way to proceed, given that the majority of editors disagree with their inclusion (see these talk pages). ] 22:49, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
	:Well whatever its status its weight needs to be discussed and its size and prominence adjusted accordingly. Even if it were a minority view it still needs to be in the article. So removing it is wrong. Condensing it would be the way to go, but thats only when we have determined exactly what weight to condense it to. ] 02:00, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
	: Make the distinction between (1) a majority of Misplaced Pages editors at a given period of time in the past; and (2) other majorities. -- ] 02:22, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
	Pedant17, I have reverted your edits to this talk page because you inserted them as multiple (12) small blocks that broke up the earlier posts, despite being requested not to do so. Please respect this request and at least discuss the issue here before rejecting it. The argument against is that it breaks the flow of this page, fragments postings that others have spend time creating as a coherent whole, and makes it extremely difficult to follow the discussion, especially for newcomers. Do you have a strong reason in favour? Thanks. ] 07:57, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
	: Hi Timb66: If you wish to read my reasoning for editing with standard indentation, you could re-insert my edits which you deleted from this talk-page, and which included just such reasoning. -- If you prefer not to become an exemplary poster-child for the suppression of debate, you could re-insert my edits which you deleted from this talk-page, and which engaged in debating specific points which you made. If you wish not to incur the wrath of Wikipedians who take a very dim view of the removal of material from Talk-pages, I suggest that you re-insert my edits which you deleted from this talk-page, and which as of now form a relatively invisible but lurking part of this talk-page, indicting your actions by their absence. If you wish to contribute to the overt purpose of this talk-page (improving the ] article), why not re-insert my edits which you deleted from this talk-page, thus encouraging us to discuss enhancing the article rather than to bicker about formatting the talk-page? -- ] 03:17, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
	Hi Pedant17. Ok, I see your point. Here are your comments, as requested. To see them in their original context, see ] 10:51, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
	: Which consensus has eroded and given way to a different concensus since then. We need not remain stuck in the past. -- ] 02:22, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
	: This sense of history belongs less on the Talk-page (devoted to discussions on improving the article) and rather on the history page (which more accurately reflects that ], for example, has made no edits in the ] space since ] -- let alone reverts. But an accurate sense of history could well enhance the ] article: addressing for instance more details of its origins, timings of alleged course revisions, and explanations for the suppression of historical landmarkeducation.com material from the ]. -- ] 02:22, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
	: Indentation makes arguments more readily followed while militating against wordiness. -- ] 02:22, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
	: Much of Misplaced Pages comprises heroic editing efforts by individual users, adding and assembling diverse material. More power to their elbow! -- You make an excellent case for spreading comment and analysis throughout an article. In the case of ], such comment and analysis could redily and plausibly and balancedly comprise approximately 99% of the article. -- ] 02:22, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
	: We can expect Misplaced Pages articles to grow . We can expect that subsequent editors will correct any alleged imbalance by adding equally meritorious material -- not by deleting on any grandiose scale. The ] suggests: "If the page can be improved, this should be solved through regular editing, rather than deletion." -- ] 02:22, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
	: When "bringing the article back" results in imbalance, you can expect re-balancing efforts. -- ] 02:22, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
	: No doubt the version of 17:25, 11 May 2007 represents a state that some might regard as "balanced". But such matters seldom remain static and fossilized. -- ] 02:22, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
	: Making formulaic "requests" does not always "work" outside Landmark Education environments. -- Have you ever seen this: "''If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed by others, do not submit it''"? -- ] 02:22, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
	: Until such time as we agree on minorities and significant minorities we have no reliable basis on which to remove anything. -- ] 02:22, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
	==Constructive suggestions==
	Hello all. Perhaps starting afresh: Here are some suggestions that may help us work towards some determination of what should be presented in the article and how. Please feel free to make comments under the specific headings ] 05:44, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
	*'''Reliability'''
	*'''Weight'''
	*'''Relevance'''
	] makes a good point; perhaps going through all disputed points would be beneficial. However, the people who are e.g. able to edit the page from the workplace would have to make allowances for those who can only make a more occasional contribution rather than jumping in with an artificial concensus.]<sup><font color="violet">]</font></sup> 15:30, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
	==Revert to older versions==
	Please do not revert to old versions of this article. There have been numerous spelling, grammar, punctuation and content changes by numerous editors which are all adversely affected by backward reverts beyond the most recent edit(s).
	Though there is no rule preventing it, simple courtesy suggests that we, as editors, use revert sparingly, in order to contest a specific recent edit. It is unproductive to use it in order to re-instate a preferred version of an article.
	Thank you. ] 16:21, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
	Hello Lsi john. You mentioned something about numerous improvements in your edit summary . I've looked high and low and can't find any. Could you please provide diffs to show which improvements you mean? Right now it seems the only big improvement is the maintenance of balance referred to by Esther Rice. ] 17:25, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
	:Due to the numerous back and forth reverts, many of them have been lost. Editors on both sides of this issue are being ] and reverting to old versions. Nothing personal, Jeffrire, but your last revert was no exception. You didn't merge in changes, you reverted to old wording and simply claimed it was the best way. As editors we can choose to work together or we can choose to work independently. One way will work toward compromise, the other will simply keep the edit warring going. One way we get to be right, the other way we get a good balanced NPOV article. I am choosing not to play the revert war. I reverted Esther and asked that people not revert to old versions. You chose to revert back to the older version anyway. Thats up to you. If you wish to go back through my edits, I know that I made several grammar, spelling and context changes. I have no desire to go find them again. Other editors have made similar changes and edits that have been lost.
	:Suggesting that all editors wait until everyone has had a chance to get off of work and review discussions is one thing, brute force reverting to days-old text is quite another.
	:I'm here to help create good NPOV articles. I'm not here to repeatedly correct spelling and remove the same POV text. Until everyone stops reverting to their preferred text, this article will never stabilize. ] 17:41, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
	::I'm in the middle of compromising. Please provide specific diffs here then we can work on adding them if necessary. I restored well sourced information and I have every interest in improving the article further. Your cooperation will be helpful. ] 19:50, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
	::: Repeated use of ] on the part of user ] (]; ] -- three times) may not gel too well with asserted "choosing not to play the revert war". -- ] 03:17, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
	::::I did not say I never reverted. I said I am choosing not to play revert war. Some editors are choosing to revert an old version of the article as the 'only option' and to 'remove whitewash'. This is not in keeping with the spirit of cooperation and goes against the guidelines layed out in both ] and ]. It also causes corrections and content changes by other editors to be lost. Not once have I reverted to an 'old' version. When I edit, I edit going forward. When viewed in context, my edit history here speaks for itself. ] 03:46, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
	::: Whatever time-zone one edits/works in, many other Wikipedians will inhabit a quite different time-zone. -- ] 03:17, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
	::::I'm not the one who requested this. Check the edit-comments and commentary from other editors. ] 03:46, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
	::: The editing of a Misplaced Pages-page does not have a goal of stabilization. Perversely, the spate of reversions to an old, stripped-down version of the ] article has introduced a stifling stabilization which must inevitably give way to improved versions. -- ] 03:17, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
	== Request_for_comment ==
	This article has suffered from a protracted edit war since April 13th. Both sides in the dispute claim to be upholding the policies and guidelines of wikipedia and accuse the other of flouting them. 15:13, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
	'''Statements by editors previously involved in dispute'''
	*The article was in a reasonably balanced state for a period of six months up to May 2006, when ] (aka Smeelgova) embarked on a sustained 11-month-long onslaught, flagrantly using the article as a ] for ] of a particularly extreme POV. During this period Smee made many thousands of edits, removed much informative material, and inserted extensive coverage of minority opinions. He carried out many repeated reversions of other editors’ work and violated ] on may occasions. After a 3RR violation on 21st March, Smee undertook to refrain from editing this article. Over the next few weeks a number of editors removed various sections which they felt were violations of the ] policy, or were poorly supported by the citations, or both (after full discussion on the Talk Page and reaching consensus). On 13th April, ] made a wholesale reversion to cancel the previous 3 weeks editing by multiple users. Since then, she and a few others in turn have made this same block reversion about 16 times. As far as I can see, nothing they have said on the Talk Page answers the reasoning given for the original removal of the various items.] 15:13, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
	*That seems to sum it up. There are more details there than I'm specifically aware of, but the general overview seems to be accurate. I have specifically reverted and requested users not to revert to old text. My requests have been ignored. (see article edit history and discussion history). ] 15:32, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
	* '''COMMENT''' I agree with the above completely. These wholesale revisions to past views of the article are an attempt by a few minority view point editors to skew the article to their POV. They have hidden behind Misplaced Pages policies like ] to justify and protect their right to put non-notable and non-relevant content into the article. I am starting to feel like we will need to start involving admins again as we have in the past. That has always corrected the page with editors like ] then apologizing and then starting up again or sending in sock-puppets or a new editor to do their same thing again. The majority of editors here are prepared to compromise and work things out as long as we realize that we need a fair compromise. This is like global warming where 95% of the scientific community unquestionably believes that climate change is real and a serious matter, and extremely vocal 5% believe it is not. An article on climate change should be 95% serious content on climate change and 5% on the extreme minority view point. That is an extreme obvious case - in this case it might be 15%- 85% or 20-80 but none the less. The point remains. Misplaced Pages page editing should not be an endurance contest where serious editors get worn down by prolific and minority view editors that seem to have too much time on their hands. My comments are a little strong but I stand by them- lets create a great article. ] 20:46, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
	::This diff shows it all: . I invite anyone to read through this diff to examine the large amount of information that is deleted. Count how many of those pieces of information are verifiable and reliable according to NPOV policy. I suggest any reliable information should get pasted back in block by block. That way we get to hear some editor's lengthy objections and get them stored on the talkpage, and other editors get have all that reliable information back in the article. Doesn't bother me how much complaining gets done, just as long as reliable information gets presented. If there is any unreliable POV in the article we can get rid of it or source it properly. On with the Wiki process. ] 16:09, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
	*'''COMMENT:''' -- I am not involving myself with this article anymore in depth, taking an extended break. However, it is interesting how DaveApter cannot talk without personally attacking me. He cannot get his point across without being polite and discussing content, not editors, in order to frame the issues at hand, as outlined in ]. This article is still not on my watchlist. I just thought that this OBVIOUSLY INAPPROPRIATE behaviour should be pointed out - it is quite amusing, considering the high number of reputable sourced material that I had added to the article in those months. ] 22:58, 15 May 2007 (UTC).
	::That really all belongs on his user page. Did you have any comments about the article itself? ] 01:15, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
	:::DaveApter's last revert/removal of sourced information of the article had 44 citations in his version. Last I checked, the last version that I had edited had at least '''(55)''' citations. This shows that sourced information is continuously being removed from the article. This is not simply a case of violations of ] through ridiculous assertions when I ''had'' worked very, very, very hard in the past to find lots and lots and lots and lots of reputable citations to back up material added to the article, it is also a case of removal of sourced material from the article. ] 03:45, 16 May 2007 (UTC).
	:::: This is a complete misrepresentation. I do believe that Smee worked very hard- but it was to keep asserting the same things over and over again- always hiding behind Misplaced Pages RS policies to justify keeping material most of the other editors thought was not notable or not relevant. That, in itself, is a misuse of Misplaced Pages's policies- using Misplaced Pages polices and guidelines to justify bad content is NOT in the spirit of Misplaced Pages. ON top of that the changes resulted from a methodical attempt at consensus building that succeeded after the page was locked out from tampering and other editors started to emerge that weren't scared away by the edit war. Then a reasonably stable consensus was created and then EstherRice and sometimes Jeffrire would wholesale try to revert to the pre-consensus edit-war version instead of attempting to build consensus. I thin kit is noteworthy that the "independent" editors all tryto restore the same version form that pre-consensus time. Lets not spin what is happening and tell the truth about it. ] 20:46, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
	Hello AJackl. You made this large reversion . Could you please explain to me why you think removing over 10 RS compliant pieces of information can be considered allowable using consensus? I have been providing sections for you to make comments and air your grievances. So far you havn't provided a single piece of evidence to support your activities. Right now you are deep into information suppression territory. Your diffs are very telling as is your lack of reasonable discussion. If you cannot provide a WP rule that allows consensus to trump NPOV and RS, then the information will simply get un-suppressed again. ] 03:06, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
	**'''comments''' -- I respectfully disagree with User:Smee assertion about DaveApter and personal attacks. Having a legitimate complaint about another editor as it relates to having a balanced article and asking for comments about it does not equal a personal attack. In fact I think that it is a bit of a smoke screen to play the personal attack card. As for my response to Dave Apter's request for comments, whether the material removed was highly sourced, it was excessive, redundant and in many cases quoted multiple paragraphs of the original source material. So much so that at times it comprised 2/3 of the article. It is not a question of whether the material was sourced; it is a matter of whether it’s inclusion in the article adhered to the policies about balance and minority point of view. Multiple quoted paragraphs about labor investigations that result in no actions, allegations of brainwashing that have never held up in court and are only obliquely referred to in the articles from which they are cited have all been used to promote a severe pre-existing bias against Landmark Education. ] 16:17, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
	:::Hello Smee. I think we are going to have to put up with all sorts of accusations for the long term. If thats the way some editors want to behave against Wikiquette, then thats their behaviour. I don't mind presenting each piece bit by bit. If editors give good comments then thats fine. If they rant, accuse, and drivel then there's nothing I can do about it apart from point them towards NPOV and Wikiquette recommendations. The only work I need to do to maintain sanity in the actual article is say that something complies with NPOV policies. I'm thinking long term. The way I see it is those well sourced deleted NPOV compliant edits got into the article partly because of some editors make unjust complaints and deletions concerning those facts. Its likely that even more similarly solid sources will be found in this process whether some editors like it or not. From what I can see from goings on here and on similar pages, the more proponents complain about a particular well sourced fact, the more relevant its likely to be, and weighting can be adjusted accordingly. NPOV policies rule. ] 04:39, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
	::::How strange that none of the people opposed to including the reputable citations chose to participate in the above discussion under Constructive suggestions.]<sup><font color="violet">]</font></sup> 11:13, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
	::::: Dave Apter made a detailed set of constructive suggestions for the improvement of the article (see the top of this page and archived pages), and no-one seems to have seriously contested it. I think we should go with those suggestions. I would like to see more credible sources, as well, from more organizations than just individuals giving an account. ] 21:03, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
	:::::True Esther. We have given rather a lot of concessions. Perhaps I'm not being rigorous enough by not letting obviously solid facts in immediately. I'd better keep that in check. There are other avenues for keeping information suppression out of an article. ] 11:23, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
	:::::: This article probably needs to be protected again at some point and go into mediation. As far as I can tell in this instance, DaveApter merely restored the work of multiple editors which were wholesale reverted by EstherRice. EstherRice has, in the past, added references to unfounded references to Synanon, which is totally ridiculous. ] 17:40, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
	'''Comments'''
	*While I have made some minor edits, I have noticed a protracted editing war with wholesale reversions of the article based clearly on biased Points of View. Although the site is not now (or ever will be) perfect, it at least now reflects some balanced thought. I request that the wholesale reversion cease and the focus be on fulfilling the original intent of a People's encyclopedia.] 00:48, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
	I agree with the gradual change suggested by Jeffire. I think that is the only way we will reach some kind of consensus. But we must be mindful that a minority point of vierw is not given too high prominence in the resulting article. ] 12:05, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
	:Hello Timb66. Sorry but you are being extremely vague. Could you explain to me what you mean by minority source, and give me a specific example? ] 13:27, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
	::He said minority 'point of view', not 'source' ;) Peace. ] 17:02, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
	==Danish reference (in the section on Religious Implications)==
	Hello all. I added this piece of reliable information to the article . If anyone wishes to discuss, do so here. ] 01:30, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
	In the spirit of working on one block at a time, I have edited the part that you added for style. Comments welcome. My opinion is that it is sensible to include this information, although I do not have a strong opinion. ] 12:29, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
	I suggest that we continue to work on this section on religious implications (and I have modified the talk heading accordingly; hope that's ok). I would like to see discussion on whether the other existing parts of this section should be edited, removed or added to. For example, I prefer not to have red links (links to non-existent Wiki pages), especially for people. Also, why is the word "after" in italics? ] 12:36, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
	::Hello Timb66. Why don't you want red links? For my part it looks like an opening for possibly helpful WP articles. Also, why would you restrict the Danish source to religious implications? ] 13:30, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
	:::I guess red links on people imply that they are notable and should one day have a page. Something funny happened when I was making the edits, somehow versions got mixed up and at one stage the whole section appeared as a footnote, maybe an editing clash? Not sure what happened, but anyway I thought I was editing the text that you inserted. Anyway, after reading the Danish paper in full, in which Landmark was only a small part, the current text looks balanced and a fair summary to me. ] 08:53, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
	==Any questions about sourcing as above==
	Hello all. If anyone has a particular question about a particular well sourced fact, then please state the source here and we can discuss. Just as above with the Danish source. If you find one that does not comply with NPOV policy just state the name of the source here as a section and we can discuss. Thank you. ] 13:22, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
	:Does it have to be only about the well sourced facts? What about questions regarding poorly sourced or trivial facts? ] 13:29, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
	::Any sensible questions are fine. If you have a question about any of the sources, simply state the source and point out anything you are worried about. ] 14:59, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
	:::Ok. I asked because it looked like you only wanted questions about the well sourced facts and might not be interested in questions about any facts that might not be well sourced or relevant. Thank you for clarifying. ] 16:10, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
	==Landmark==
	Jeffrire, you appear to be quite a good researcher. You're finding quite a bit of information which suggests this company is a blight on humanity. I'm amazed that in all your research you haven't come across a single reference which portrays Landmark in a positive light. Considering your research skills, this speaks poorly for Landmark. Based on this article, I'm not sure why Landmark hasn't been shut down. Have you considered collecting all this information and filing a class action lawsuit against Landmark on behalf of all its graduates? ] 13:40, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
	:Hello Lsi john. Please refrain from sarcasm. I know that the situation is about presenting good sources here. We are actually working on putting together an encyclopedic article based on fact - NPOV policies. Believe me, if I find a reliable science source that states landmark education is helpful according to empirical studies I will be the first to present it. ] 14:58, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
	::Interesting limitations. ] 15:15, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
	:::Hello Lsi john. You made some changes after AJackl's edit summary about request for comment and reducing changes . I think you need to accept that your changes may well end up being steamrollered out on account of the amazing and relentless power of NPOV compliant and RS edits that are going to come back any time soon. Restoral of NPOV oriented information is imminent. I suggest you refrain from making insignificant changes or any changes at all until that large amount of well sourced edits gets allowed back in. Some editors may consider your actions to be an attempt to "cap" or seal in the current information suppression. I'm not going to stop you from doing it. Just trying to improve your standing in the eyes of other editors. ] 05:25, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
	Jeffrire, as I said above I liked your idea of working on the article one block at a time, so I don't understand why you then increased the article by 33% in one go. That is way too much to allow any discussion on individual points. The problem with that material is that, while some of it may be well sourced, several editors feel it reflects minority viewpoints and is being given too much weight. A 33% increase (which means 25% of the final article) is a lot! ] 08:57, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
	:Well Timb66, I understand what you are saying but your main argument for deletion is built on weak foundations and only by a -claimed- consensus. Unfortunately such an alleged consensus was always in doubt. It was a claimed consensus a long time ago and since then it has definitely shown itself to be no consensus whatsoever. In addition to that, information can be added according to RS regardless of consensus. So it can get in to the article under whatever weight. Weight is an issue and requires an activity to be conducted in context (within the article). So firstly, deleting the information is just wrong. Continually deleting it is clearly information suppression. Including the information is the only realistic way to deal with the weighting issue. Which is why well experienced editors are reverting the information back into the article with such a strong sense of realistic justification. I suggest that if you want to present yourself as a reasonable editor, simply allow the presentation of Misplaced Pages compliant information into the article, and work on ensuring its accurate weighting together with the editors who kindly spent energy supplying the information with RS and NPOV as the objective. Please allow the article to be supplied with RS information and we can work on the whole article and discuss any of the points (critical and otherwise). ] 10:30, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
	You say that I (and others) are deleting material that is well sourced and reliable, I say that you (and others) are including biased and non-neutral POV material that skews the balance. Please do not say that one argument is weaker than the other. I did not say we have a consensus. We clearly don't. We have a disagreement and both sides deserve to have their opinions respected.
	Above you wrote: ''I suggest any reliable information should get pasted back in block by block. That way we get to hear some editor's lengthy objections and get them stored on the talkpage, and other editors get have all that reliable information back in the article. Doesn't bother me how much complaining gets done, just as long as reliable information gets presented. If there is any unreliable POV in the article we can get rid of it or source it properly. On with the Wiki process.'' I completely agree with your proposal and I don't understand why you have changed your position. ] 10:51, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
	:Hello Timb66. We are way past that now. After my suggestion, other editors placed all of the said information back in the article. And it was justifiable because its such a lot of useful information. In addition, you and others made no realistic attempt to discuss any part of what I was suggesting. I have to say I disagree with you entirely on the notion that non-neutral material (all material is non neutral anyway) is to be deleted irrespective of RS. Clearly if it is a reliable piece of information then it can be in the article regardless of weight at first, and then weight be adjusted if need be. I respect your opinion, but your action is basically to ignore NPOV and RS and to insist on keeping critical information out of the article. I am pushing for reasonable action on RS material - which is to include it according to NPOV policies and then to work on improving the article through discussion. Right now you seem to be blocking inclusion (information suppression) so that information cannot be presented in context, and so we end up nowhere near any kind of agreement on weight. So naturally its totally justifiable to have all that information right back in the article where it belongs. ] 12:20, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
	Sorry, Jeffire, how can we be way past that now? You posted your suggestion two days ago! And on what basis do you say that I made no realistic attempt to discuss what you suggested? Please look at this page, you will find that I endorsed your suggestion. What more discussion did you expect? I am finding it difficult to understand why you have switched from your patient (your word) and constructive approach. ] 14:02, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
	:I have changed my position based upon consensus and NPOV policies. Firstly there is no consensus for discussing point by point as can be seen by the instances that it keeps getting quite rightly placed in the article. Secondly (actually this is the priority) the information is RS compliant and anyone will be perfectly within their rights at any time to put it into the article whether you want to spend months arguing back and forth over it or not. The information can be presented. Exactly how you would like it presented depends upon adjustments when it gets there. ] 15:22, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
	::] is a requirement. '''] is not, and cannot be used as sole justification for inclusion'''. Material can be challenged on the basis of ''not'' satisfying ], in which case an argument for ] would be appropriate, but an argument for inclusion solely on the basis of ] is invalid. Material must meet numerous standards for inclusion and citing any one in particular, as justification, is an invalid argument. If, for example, ''relevance'' is challenged, RS is not a valid counter-argument. If ''notability'' is questioned, RS is not a valid counter-argument. So, unless RS is being challenged, your claim that RS is the priority justification, is exactly wrong. A valid argument for inclusion, must address '''all''' of the requirements ] ] ] relevant, significant, etc etc. , not just one. ] 15:43, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
	:::Sorry, the information can obviously be included on the basis of all of those things. Its reliable, verifiable, highly relevant, and if it is minority (as some of you have been arguing) it can be included also. The information satisfied all requirements. I am starting to get the feeling that a form of ] is now being presented to me. Its up to you to continue. Its not me conducting such behavior. ] 15:51, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
	::::And '''THAT''' is the fundamental basis of the problem here. It's so '''obvious''' to you that you aren't addressing that as a question. The editors who delete the material, clearly add comments which indicate they challenge things like 'relevance' or 'notability', and the counter arguments don't address those questions. The counter arguments say ''revert because its reliably sourced.'' Only when editors stop assuming its ''so obviously and highly relevant'', and start addressing the specific challenges, and explain '''why''' its so obvious, will this discussion start moving forward to compromise. ] 15:59, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
	None of those editors are moving the information to be discussed here. Why not? Here I will do it for you ] 16:32, 17 May 2007 (UTC):
	::Thank you. Though I wasn't aware it was solely my responsibility, and I thought that it has been asked, just not answered, above several times. ] 16:52, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
	------------------
	==Views from Scandinavia==
	In a ] 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."<ref name="Kronberg"> , '']'', Vol. 1, No. 1, ], by Deacon ], B.Th. and Consultant ], B.Th. of the ] in ].
	</ref>
	On ], ] Landmark Education in ]. As in France, the causes of the closure included a diminishing ] in participating, evinced in connection with very critical articles in the press and on television<ref>
	'''', ].
	</ref>
	. The airing of two documentaries on national ] by the broadcasting corporation ] on ], ] and on ], ] called "]" (Happiness ]) in the program series "" contributed to the termination of the organization there.<ref>
	, 2004, Lofgrens Analys AB.
	</ref>
	{{Fact|date=February 2007}}
	*'''Please discuss here:'''
	------------------------
	==== Governmental classification ====
	===== Austria =====
	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'')<ref>
	"Sekten : Wissen schützt. Eine Information des Bundesministeriums für Umwelt, Jugend und Familie, Stubenbastei 5, 1010 Wien, 1996 (Sects : Knowledge protects. Information from the Federal Ministry of the Environment, Youth and the Family, Stubenbastei 5, 1010 Wien, 1996)
	</ref>
	In the , the government of Austria included Landmark Education among the "sects":
	<blockquote>
	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.<ref>
	, ].
	</ref>
	</blockquote>
	The , 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.
	*'''Please discuss here:'''
	------------------------
	===== Belgium =====
	A Parliamentary Inquiry of the ] into cults and their dangers listed and discussed Landmark Education in an official report of ] 1997.<ref>
	''Enquête Parlementaire visant à élaborer une politique en vue de lutter contre les practiques illégales des sectes et le danger qu'elles représentent pour la société et pour les personnes, particulièrement les mineurs d'âge. Rapport fait au nom de la Commission d'enquête par MM. Duquesne et Willems. Partie II.''
	http://www.dekamer.be/FLWB/pdf/49/0313/49K0313008.pdf -- bilingual report in French and Flemish, retrieved ].
	</ref>
	*'''Please discuss here:'''
	------------------------
	===== Germany =====
	In 1994 a report of the Senate Committee of the State of ] in ] included Landmark Education in a report on cults with the sub-title "entities espousing a ] and new religions". Landmark Education sued for correction and, on ], 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''). <ref>
	''"Sekten" - Risiken und Nebenwirkungen: Informationen zu ausgewählten neuen religiõsen und weltanschaulichen Bewegungen und Psychoangeboten''. Herausgeben von der Senatsverwaltung fũr Schule, Jugend and Sport. Redaktion: Anne Rũhle, Ina Kunst. Stand: Dezember 1997. Downloadable in PDF form from http://www.berlin.de/imperia/md/content/sen-familie/sog_psychogruppen_sekten/risiken_und_nebenwirkungen_1.pdf
	Retrieved ].
	<br>
	Quoted text extracts from the Table of Contents in the original German:
	<br>
	7 Ausgewählte Anbieter<br>
	7.1 Gruppen mit christlichem Hintergrund ...<br>
	7.2 Gruppen mit heidnischem Hintergrund ...<br>
	7.3 Gruppen mit hinduistischem Hintergrund ...<br>
	7.4 Anbieter von Lebenshilfe <br>
	kommerziell: <br>
	7.4.1 Bruno Grõning-Freundeskreise <br>
	7.4.2 Kontext Seminar GmbH <br>
	7.4.3 Landmark Education (LE) <br>
	7.4.4 Art Reade <br>
	7.4.5 Scientology <br>
	7.4.6 The Natale Institute (TNI) <br>
	nicht kommerziell: <br>
	7.4.7 Verein zur Fõrderung der psychologischen Menschenkenntniss (VPM) <br>
	7.5 Okkultismus/Satanismus <br>
	7.6 Sogenannte Strukturvertriebe
	</ref>
	*'''Please discuss here:'''
	------------------------
	=== Sales and marketing practices ===
	In an article published in ] on ], ], Charlotte Faltermayer wrote:
	<blockquote>
	Critics say Landmark is an elaborate marketing game that relies heavily on volunteers. Says Tom Johnson, an "exit counselor" often summoned by concerned parents to tend to alumni: "They tire your brain; they make you vulnerable." Says critic Liz Sumerlin: "The participants end up becoming recruiters. That's the whole purpose." Psychiatrists who speak on Landmark's behalf dispute these claims. But Sumerlin says a 1993 Forum turned her fiance (now her ex) into a robot. She organized an anti-Landmark hot line and publications clearinghouse. Landmark officials made sounds to sue her.
	</blockquote>
	In ], ] from ''], Weekend'' took the Landmark Forum and reported:
	<blockquote>
	I made some eye-opening discoveries about myself and how I function in the world. One of the most irritating aspects of ''The Forum'' is the hard sell to sign up future participants.<ref>
	Jill P. Capuzzo, '']'', ],
	</ref>
	</blockquote>
	*'''Please discuss here:'''
	------------------------
	=== Allegations of brainwashing ===
	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:
			== RfC - Undue weight given to 'Cult accusations'? ==
	# In ''Ney vs. Landmark Education et al.'' (1992), Stephanie Ney sued Landmark claiming she suffered a ] following participation in the Landmark Forum. The court ruled that while her participation may or may not have played a part in her breakdown, this had no relevance as Virginia law did not allow her to claim damages since she suffered no physical harm.
	# In ''Been vs. Weed and Landmark Education'' (2002), Jason Weed claimed that the Landmark Advanced Course had caused him to experience a ] in which he killed a ] employee. The court ruled that Landmark did not precipitate his psychosis in the Federal criminal trial of Weed. There is an ongoing wrongful death civil suit against Landmark and others by the family of the deceased.
	# In ''Landmark Education vs. Lell'', Landmark sued Martin Lell for using the word "Brainwashing" in the title of his book on Landmark Education (''Das Forum: Protokoll einer Gehirnwäsche: Der Psycho-Konzern Landmark Education'' , Deutscher Taschenbuch Verlag, Munich, 1997, ISBN 3-423-36021-6). The court ruled the description "brainwashing" a matter of opinion, and let the title of the book stand.
			<!-- ] 16:01, 27 November 2024 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1732723276}}
	In ] Landmark Education asked Dr. ], a psychologist and past President of the ] (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".<ref>
			Is ] being given to the issue of "Cult accusations" in the light of the references cited in support of these claims? ] (]) 15:10, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
	, ], Landmark Education '''Corporate Website''', Document number '''"L-014E"'''. 'I saw nothing in the Landmark Forum I attended to suggest that it would be harmful to any participant. ... the Landmark Forum is nothing like psychotherapy ... has none of the characteristics typical of a cult ...does not place individuals at risk of any form of "mind control" "brainwashing" or "thought control."'
			:Please don't waste people's time with pointless RfCs. You have wasted an insane amount of time of our volunteers.
	</ref>.
			:If I was a member of a group that got repeatedly labeled as a cult I wouldn't spend more than 19 years and 10 months trying to remove all negative information from its Misplaced Pages article. That proves the point, right?
			:If you dislike the fact that reliable sources have published negative information about Landmark/Est/Erhard then you should contact those sources, not ] on Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 15:34, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
			:@] No, there is not undue weight being given to its accusations of being a cult.
			:It provides multiple sources and explanations as to why some experts believe this characterisation to be fair. Neither does the characterisation appear to be fringe.
			:However, I do think that the section on its characterisation as a cult be put later in the article. Imo the sections about it's characterisation as a self-help corporate training should come first. When reading the article and learning of it's characterisation as a cult, I was unsure as to what the group actually did. I think the subsection under 'history' should be moved under 'reception'.
			:] (]) 22:20, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
			::The cult/NRM stuff is probably the most important part of its history, because Landmark is a successor to ]. Currently the focus is far more on making money and less on the culty-stuff. Hiding all negative information in a section near the bottom of an article is discouraged. ] (]) 10:30, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
			::{{re|FropFrop}}, Thank you for joining with the debate, but I am puzzled: which "{{tq|experts believe this characterisation to be fair"}}? I did not see anybody named - "expert" or not - in the cited refs (relevant extracts quoted recently a little higher up this page). Furthermore, almost all of the writers went on to say that in their opinion, it was '''not'' a cult. Did I miss something? Did you actually read those refs? ] (]) 12:06, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
			:::@]
			:::Apologies, I was a bit flippant in my response.
			:::It would have been better for me to say "Various sources, including some cult-experts, have characterised it as cultish, cult-like, etc."
			:::Even though most/all went on to retract or amend their statements, I think the section is well balanced and contains encyclopedically-relevant info.
			:::] (]) 23:07, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
			::::See . There are, as far as we know, only 2 scholars who said it was not a cult, one was a grandmother who got sued by Landmark and bullied and threatened by Scientologists who said {{tq|she would not recommend the group to anyone, and would not comment on whether Landmark used coercive persuasion for fear of legal recrimination from Landmark.}} and one is an economist who credits Landmark with restoring the relationship with his daughter and is therefore not independent. Turns out Abgrall says he never expressed an opinion one way or the other in the documentary (and he got paid over 45.000 euro by Landmark). Every independent commentator calls it either a cult or a New Religious Movement (a newer term that some sociologists use). ] (]) 23:20, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
			:I'm don't think the issue here is "undue weight", since a large portion of what makes Landmark notable is that it tends to attract either very negative or very positive opinions of those who have interacted with it. So the "cult allegations" are a key part of the notability. Our presentation leads something to be desired, however, as a whole this article does not do a great job at explaining this. ] (]) 02:01, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
			:I am glad to see this RFC. I see people talking about references saying Landmark is a cult, but I don't see the actual references. I recall a NPOV message board thread I commented on about a year ago that started with the assertion the Landmark is a cult stated as a fact. Since then there has been an attempt to incorporate that into the article. That is original research if I am not mistaken. If there are actual reliable sources that unequivocally call Landmark a cult, they can easily be copy and pasted here for everyone to discuss. ] (]) 15:39, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
			::This has been debated over and over for years. References have been provided many times. ], when you can simply check the article or the talk page history (or use Google) is unreasonable. No sources will ever be good enough for the cult members. Not even the ] (], ]) and the ] (]). I understand that people like their favourite soccer team or country or religion or hobby or cult or whatever, but why deny the reality that others have a different opinion? You have my full permission to dislike my favourite music artists/movies/country/et cetera. Why can't the cultmembers agree to disagree?
			::Proving or disproving that it is a cult is not what we do here on Misplaced Pages. That would fall under ]. So we only need sources to prove that it '''has been called''' a cult. ]. ] (]) 15:54, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
			:::Now that you’ve resorted to name calling, revealing a decided lack of neutrality, it is clearly appropriate that DaveApter has requested another RFC.   I initially found myself in some agreement with you ("proving or disproving that it is a cult is not what we do here on Misplaced Pages"), but only to a point.  As an editor, haven’t you agreed to validate the edits you make?  To assess cited resources for accuracy and credentials? Or have you merely looked for “evidence” to support what your “cult members” references reveal to be an obvious point of view?     ] (]) 18:15, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
			:::I agree with Ndeavour. Openly insinuating that other editors are "cult members," without a shred of evidence supporting such a remark, would seem to clearly demonstrate your own bias in this matter and belie your statement that this argument is not about proving whether Landmark is a cult. If you're calling others cult members, then it seems clear that you believe this organization is a cult and, therefore, cannot claim neutrality in this discussion. ] (]) 18:23, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
			::::{{tq|Interesting pattern. Accounts lay dormant, often for months, and suddenly there is a flurry of activity where they all show up to support eachother. Not suspicious at all.}} . Time is a flat circle. ] (]) 21:03, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
			::::You'll forgive me for being a bit jaded, because I have seen this all before. Multiple times. ] (]) 21:08, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
			I'm disappointed that this RfC has generated so much in the way of accusations and aspersions, and so little discussion of how to address the question within the framework of Misplaced Pages's policies. In particular, the relevant section of the ] policy states:
	*'''Please discuss here:'''
			{{tq|* '''Avoid stating ]s as ]s.''' Usually, articles will contain information about the significant ] that have been expressed about their subjects. However, these opinions should not be stated in Misplaced Pages's voice. Rather, they should be ]}}.
			Undoubtedly, some people do hold the opinion that Landmark is a "Cult", but who are they? If they are no more than anonymous internet discussion commenters or bloggers, do they deserve this prominence in an encyclopedia? If they are notable individuals, then it should be possible to find ] who identify them and attribute the opinion to them. None of the existing references do so. Several assertions have been made in the foregoing discussion for which no sources have been offered, for example: {{tq| "Various sources, including some cult-experts, have characterised it as cultish, cult-like, etc."}} So what are these sources and who are these cult-experts? I could not find either of these terms - 'cultish' or 'cult-like' in any of the refs. ] (]) 13:36, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
			:], but that does not make them more true. Your repetitive questions has been answered many times over the past decades.
			:Misplaced Pages's role is to summarize existing reliable sources rather than create new content. If you disagree with how a topic is currently covered, the most effective approach would be to:
			#Work with reliable, independent sources to publish new, more positive, coverage
			#Request corrections from existing sources if there are factual errors
			:Once new coverage exists in reliable sources, it will then be incorporated into Misplaced Pages articles.
			:I have read many Misplaced Pages articles I (partially) disagree with. But I can't remove well-sourced neutral information just because ''I'' think it is bullshit. And I can't go around deleting the research of scientists I dislike, or the quotes from politicians I dislike, or the mention of groups I dislike.
			:This ]-approach is incompatible with Misplaced Pages's goals.
			:If you want more information about FropFrop's statement you should contact FropFrop on their talkpage. ] (]) 15:14, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
			::You keep saying that Misplaced Pages must summarize what the sources say, but the section on cults goes far beyond what is stated in the cited refs. Yes, "some people say" is commonly accepted in some quarters as authoritative - but not when it comes to providing an impartial record. If some people say you are a giraffe, are you a giraffe? What does it say about the poster who inserts that in an article? "Some people say" is an excuse to insert opinion. I don't read where anyone is saying that the accusation against Landmark be removed - rather that it be acknowledged and given the weith of gossip. Put in perspective. ] (]) 17:50, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
			:::If basically every independent observer who has ever written about me mentions that I am considered to be a giraffe, then that fact is worth mentioning in ], no matter if you or I agree with it. Most giraffes lack artistic ability, although their tails look deceptively like paintbrushes. The article does not say that Landmark ''is'' a cult. Do you think we should remove all negative opinions about all article topics everywhere on Misplaced Pages? Or just about the topics you like? You stated you have {{tq|done Landmark's programs}} and {{tq|have participated for quite some time}}, but perhaps (since the word "worldwide" is in the name) your experience differs from that of others? I am happy for you that you had a positive experience, but other people have a more negative opinion and experience and there is no reason to exclude them (or to pretend their opinions are based on "gossip"). ] (]) 18:48, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
			::::Unless you are about to make an argument that everyone everywhere has the same experience, then of course my experience differs from that of others. As it happens - in the case of Landmark - I am in agreement with the vast majority (over 3,000,000) who found it favorable, and, at the same time, I am aware that that was not the experience of every participant. In all the responses here on the talk page, I don't see any evidence that responders are calling for the elimination of contrasting opinions - only that they be put into context, and not given undue weight bolstered by less than authoritative supporting articles. And, by the way, I completely disagree with any who might accuse you of membership in ANY other species! They need to check their sources! ] (]) 15:53, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
			:::::I think we can agree that it would be unfair to frame the negative experiences of others as "", it feels rather ]y to act as if they didn't experience what they did and as if their feelings are not real. I of course do not believe the 3 million number, but there is no company on Earth that has exclusively 100% satisfied customers if they have more than 100. And if you check online you'll find the astroturfed 5 star fake reviews (and people telling you they were pressured to write them), but also . ] (]) 12:57, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
			::::::My, my, my, you are certainly an inventive individual. Who said anything about gossip? Or discounting the opinions or experiences of others? I certainly did not. As for whether or not you "believe" that Landmark has had over 3 million participants, do you have any evidence that the number is inaccurate? Again, no one is denying that some people had unfavorable experiences; nor is anyone saying that they shouldn't be included in a Misplaced Pages article. As to reviews, in this age of bots and AI I suggest they are less than reliable and don't belong in Misplaced Pages articles. ] (]) 16:27, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
			:::::::Thank you! Have you not noticed that the word gossip is a link to a statement the account you are using made earlier? {{tq|Who said anything about gossip?}} The Ndeavour account did. {{tq|I certainly did not.}} . And giving the experiences and opinions of those you disagree with the weight of gossip would certainly be a form of {{tq|discounting the opinions or experiences of others}}. ] (]) 17:19, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
			::::::::Why, so I did - I used the word. But what I said was that comments without valid sources (e.g., articles where the sole use of "cult" was in the title AND where the author refuted the use of the term) are no better than "someone said" and the equivalent of gossip. That doesn't discount otherr's experiences - only faulty references. . ] (]) 16:19, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
			:::::::::Nope, you wrote: {{tq|I don't read where anyone is saying that the accusation against Landmark be removed - rather that it be acknowledged and given the weith of gossip. Put in perspective.}} Treating the accusation as gossip is discounting the experience of others. ] (]) 19:36, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
			:We have another dispute over the use of ''cult'' language at ], which means we have another group of editors who have already spent some time thinking about the meaning of ''cult''. I therefore ping/dragoon/beg assistance here from a few of those editors: ], ], ], ], ], and ].
			:Friends, this RFC question is phrased as a yes/no, but I suspect that a more general answer would be helpful (e.g., "we should keep all the stuff about the lawsuits" or "all that stuff about the lawsuits should be condensed by 50%" or whatever). ] (]) 21:01, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
			::Thank you. The question is not "''is this a cult''" (which would be ]) or "''should we call it a cult in wikivoice''" (which we don't) but "''should we allow members of the cult to hide the fact that Landmark was called a cult by pretty much everyone including the ] (], ]) and the ] (]) and by many cult experts and commentators.''". But COI editors don't get to decide what we should focus on. As Wikipedians we should make up our own minds about what needs to be improved most. If there is one area of the article that is most in need of improving it is the part about what Landmark actually ''is and does''. The heart of the article. They offer a bunch of seminars and training courses; what are they and what do they teach? It may also be a good idea to explain where these ideas come from (e.g. ], Scientology, Buddhism, various books like ]) and how they fit in compared to the rest (e.g. the ] and ]). ] (]) 22:47, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
			:::I sense a conflict between {{xt|"The question is not "''is this a cult''" (which would be ])"}} and {{xt|"''should we allow members of the cult to...''"}}.
			:::If your main concern is about editors with a COI holding a discussion about whether the article has struck the right balance, then you're in luck: I just pinged half a dozen editors who are (a) unlikely to have any connection to this subject and (b) already aware of how the word ''cult'' was used in the wake of the ] vs how it might be used today. ] (]) 17:35, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
			::::Wikivoice is very different from my personal opinion. You would never read {{tq|Harley-Davidson, Inc. (H-D, or simply Harley) is a shockingly incompetent American manufacturer of the worst motorcycles ever built}} in a Misplaced Pages article, although that that opinion is factually correct. Thanks for the pings; I checked their userpages and I have asked ProfGray to take a look at ]. ] (]) 18:28, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
			I just made an edit to the 'Accusations of being a cult' section to more accurately express what the sources say, and it was instantly reverted without explanation even before I could finish correcting the citations. It seems clear to me that the article is being guarded against any edits that do not reflect a certain point of view.] (]) 22:21, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
			:We can discuss this below; but we could make more progress if you would recognize/admit your own bias when you accuse others; your edit summarized/removed a LOT of the info about cult accusations, and you didn't use an edit summary either. ---''']]''' 22:30, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
			The extent of the coverage of the "cult" issue is not undue, in light of the sources. I do think, however, that the placement is undue (at least in ). The introductory section should be, well, introductory. It should give the reader a quick overview of the subject. ] writes, "Hiding all negative information in a section near the bottom of an article is discouraged." I agree. The opposite extreme, however, is to launch right into a discussion of the pros and cons of the accusation. It's too much detail for the intro section. I would rewrite the second graf along these lines:
	------------------------
			:Landmark does not use ], but instead pressures participants during courses to recruit relatives and friends as new customers. This and other features have caused some observers to characterize Landmark as a "]" (NRM) or as a ], which the organization denies (see ]).
			My editing one of the other sentences in the graf doesn't mean that I think it should be that prominent. That sentence and the rest of that graf should be moved to the detailed subsection.
			Incidentally, that "Accusations of being a cult" subsection summarizes the substance of the accusations (maybe "characterizations" would be more neutral) and summarizes the actions taken by Landmark in response, but it's light on summarizing the substance of Landmark's response. Surely Landmark has issued some statements along the lines of "Here's why we're not a cult"? If so, the subsection should be improved, not by deleting any of what's there, but by paying more attention to Landmark's side of the merits of the question. ]<small>&nbsp;]&nbsp;]</small> 00:12, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
	=== Use of "loaded language" ===
			:It would probably be wise to keep the view of sociologists and religious scholars, who describe it as an NRM, separate from those who describe it as a cult, which is basically every other independent commentator (like journalists), cult experts, groups/organizations and parts of various governments (France/Berlin/Belgium).
			:The reasons that it is an NRM are not the same as the reasons that it is a cult; its a different set of boxes to tick.
			:The method of recruiting perhaps qualifies it to be an ], or something similarly word-of-mouth based, but it is afaik not a defining feature of cults or NRMs. ] (]) 00:52, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
			*No, I don't think this is undue, given the amount of coverage of this issue in reliable sources. ] (]) 08:31, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
			LOL. It's not a cult. Cults take you away from people and try to make you cut people off. Landmark encourages you to reach out to other people who you see their lives not going as they want-it and see if the course helps them. Everybody's journey through the course is different. And they have other followup classes you can get enlightenment in new areas.
	Some articles have reported that the Landmark Education's coursework uses "]" and "]":
			I can see how that might look like a "cult" to an outsider but it's for two entirely different reasons. The other reason is after you take the class you'll move on to more challenging things in life. And friends who are content in not moving anywhere in life and just complain become boring energy killers. You thusly move on two different wave lengths. Ofcourse if they take the class and you can hold frank discussions with them on anything and they no longer get offended, that's when that relationship shifts again. ] (]) 19:48, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
			:Wow. Anyway, Misplaced Pages talk pages ] for sharing your personal opinions or ]. This discussion should focus on how to proportionately summarize ] and ] sources. ] (]) 20:54, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
	A former ] disciple made the comparison to "loaded language", in an article in ''NOW Toronto''.<ref>
	, Enzo Di Matteo, ''NOW Toronto'', April, 2000.
	<br>
	"The "milieu control," use of "loaded language" and "organized peer pressure," former EST disciple Kevin Garvey says, are all part of "a patterned exercise designed and orchestrated to undercut any comprehensible discussion, all behind the facade of being this profound self-exploration." "
	</ref>
			== Allinson ==
	In an article in '']'', Vanessa Grigoriadis states that "the Forum drives its points home with loaded language, relentless repetition, and a carefully constructed environment."<ref>
	, ], Vanessa Grigoriadis, July 9, 2001.
	<br>
	''Like those organizations, the Forum drives its points home with loaded language, relentless repetition, and a carefully constructed environment. "We controlled even subtle things like the quality of light and the sound that came out of the microphones," says White. "The style of lettering on all the signs had to be exactly the same or it was a really big deal. We covered the mirrors. We put all the chairs in a specific order."''
	</ref>
			{{ping|DaveApter}} wants to be included, I do not. We can use this space to discuss.
	'']'' referred to Landmark Education's use of language as "eccentric jargon".<ref>"The Story of Our Lives.", ], Vanora Bennett, July ].
	</ref>
			<nowiki>Amber Allinson, writing in ''The Mayfair Magazine'' describes Landmark's instructors as "enthusiastic and inspiring". Her review says that after doing The Landmark Forum, "Work worries, relationship dramas all seem more manageable", and that she "let go of almost three decades of hurt, anger and feelings of betrayal" towards her father.<ref name=Allinson>{{Cite journal|last=Allinson|first=Amber|date=April 2014|title=Mind over Matter|url=https://issuu.com/runwildmedia/docs/mayf_apr_14_issuu|journal=The Mayfair Magazine (U.K.)|volume=April 2014|pages=72–73}}</ref></nowiki>
	*'''Please discuss here:'''
			Also note that DaveApter is editing the article directly when they should be using {{tl|edit coi}}.
			] (]) 15:49, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
			:Apart from the fact that "you don't want it included" - surely a case of ] - could you please be more specific? This segment is sourced, and has been part of the page for many years. ] (]) 16:00, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
	------------------------
			::No, not wanting to include something is not {{tq|surely a case of ]}}. There are many reasons that someone might not want to include something. Do you need more specificity than ] ] ]? ] (]) 16:04, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
			:::Yes I do - you have no hesitation in including opinion pieces that are critical of Landmark, and yet you object to any that report the (numerically far more extensive) positive reactions to their offerings. You have made your own POV on this topic entirely clear, yet you claim that any alternative perspective violates ]. And what is your objection on ] grounds? ] (]) 16:20, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
			::::This person's only objection to your edit is that it doesn't support his point of view. His history of bias on this particular topic is clear. The only difference in this particular episode is that he hasn't yet resorted to nonsense statements and veiled insults. I'm sure he'll return to form soon. ] (]) 16:45, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
			== Lack of Verifiability in Cited Sources ==
			I've looked up the references that supposedly support this statement, and I am removing the initial sentence in the Accusations of Being a Cult Section because the cited sources do not reference any individuals who have accused Landmark of being a cult. Therefore, the statement is hearsay. Three of the authors state the opposite view that Landmark is in fact ''not'' a cult, and the fourth doesn't mention Landmark at all. See as follows:
			"On this point, at least, I agree with Landmark. Having thoroughly researched the company over the past month I have come to the conclusion that they definitely aren’t a cult, despite the weird conversations you tend to have with Landmark advocates." ''Colorado Springs Independent''
	In ], two years after the emergence of Landmark Education, Rev. Dr. ] conducted a survey of clergy to assess their opinions of cults, entitled . The 53 respondents came from the ] 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".<ref>
	, The Rev. ], D. D., ''Cult Observer'', Vol. 11, No. 3 (]).
	</ref>
			"Landmark has faced accusations of being a cult, but I saw nothing of that. Far from working to separate us from our families and friends, we were told there was no relationship too dead to be revived, no love too cold to be warmed." ''The Observer''
	In ]' ] book (published 10 years ''after'' the establishment of Landmark Education), '']'', Werner Erhard, Erhard Seminars Training and The Forum are discussed<ref name="oddgods">{{cite book
	| last = Lews
	| first = James R.
	| authorlink =James R. Lewis
	| coauthors =
	| title = ]
	| publisher =Prometheus Books
	| date =2001
	| location =]
	| pages =382-387
	| url =
	| doi =
	| id = }}
	</ref>. ''Odd Gods'' describes the spiritual influences of the coursework, including ], ], ], ], ] and Asian spiritual leaders<ref name="oddgods" />.
			"And now to that important question: is it a cult, brainwashing and evangelical? Cross out the first two; tick the third (but not in a literal, bible-bashing way — it’s just that there’s a lot of American hard sell). The party line is that evangelism is not a corporate approach: they attribute it to the individuals’ passion. But I don’t buy that. Whipping up the fervour and lurve is how they put bums on seats." ''Spears Magazine'' ] (]) 16:57, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
	In ] theologians Deacon ], B.Th. and Consultant ], B.Th. of the ] in ] 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."''<ref name="Kronberg" />
			:By the multiple other editors who responded to the RfC above "RfC - Undue weight given to 'Cult accusations'" - the consensus is that that statement IS adequately sourced. ---''']]''' 00:37, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
	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."''<ref name="Kronberg" />
			::The downside of RfCs is that they can backfire. Reintroducing the humorist Alford and mentioning the 84% is probably also not a great move (I recommend reading his article). Perhaps its time to ask some topicbans? ] (]) 10:49, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
	*'''Please discuss here:'''		== Please do not edit war ==
			The recent reversion by {{U| Avatar317}} amounts to vandalism. Please discuss the reasons for proposed changes here, rather than simply reverting to a preferred version. The two sections that I reinstated had been part of the article for many years. They had been removed without explanation by a drive-by editor with no history of involvement in this topic. The removal of the reference to the Amelia Hill article was particularly egregious, as this is one of the more sober and responsible pieces of journalism on this subject, in a well-respected London broadsheet, the ''Observer''; and multiple citations to that source throughout the page had also been removed.
			On the other hand I feel that {{U|Coalcity58}} was excessive in removing the opening statement entirely: clearly Landmark has faced these accusations (or "characterizations" as one editor above suggested), but the wording does misrepresent what the sources actually say, and the Barker ref is irrelevant since it does not mention Landmark.
			Please do not revert again before discussing here. ] (]) 13:39, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
	------------------------
			:Are you joking? {{tq| Please do not edit war}} you and the other Landmarkian accounts have repeatedly editwarred for '''years'''. Tagteaming with multiple accounts does not hide that fact. The perspectives of the Landmarkians and the Wikipedians are so far apart it is silly. {{tq|amounts to vandalism}} false {{tq|They had been removed without explanation}} false. Which Landmarkian account will be woken from its slumber next to report me to some noticeboard? ] (]) 13:52, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
	== Section on Sales and marketing practices ==
			::No, I am not joking. I just note that you have reverted these edits yet again without explanation. The Amelia Hill article in a quality British newspaper has been cited for over twelve years on this page without anyone objecting to it. Neither you or Avatar317 nor the editor who removed these references a week or so ago has provided any discussion here about reasons for the removal. Also you removed my small edit to correct the misleading summary of the sources in the cult section. Again, please discuss this if you disagree with it. ] (]) 16:57, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
			:::I have read the archives of this talkpage and various related pages. On the one hand the Landmarkians, as a group, are not interested in a civilized discussion where people with differing viewpoints reach a middle ground; they want to get rid of anything negative and add a bunch of positive stuff (devoid of its context). On the other hand, the Wikipedians, as a group, are also not interested in reaching a middle ground because NPOV is policy and Wikipedians don't make exceptions to it, even when someone ]es or ]s for a decade or two. So it is impossible for both groups to reach a middle ground. At some point the Landmarkians need to ] or they need to get blocked for ] reasons. If I die tomorrow there will be another Wikipedian who removes promotional material. And another. And another. Wikipedians will always remove POV material and add information from reliable sources, no matter if its positive or negative. What is the relationship between you and the other Landmarkian accounts? Which are the socks and which are the meatpuppets? Would they stop if you tell them to? Why do you care so much about a Misplaced Pages article about a cult? Jensen credited Landmark with restoring the relationship with a family member; maybe you have a similar reason to care? I am not a mindreader. Can we perhaps have a normal conversation instead of this weird stuff where there are no winners and we just waste each-others time? I can imagine how frustrating it must be if you work for Landmark for decades and then you feel like outsiders smear its name, but I am not an evil person and I only care about Misplaced Pages, not about Landmark. In all this time a normal conversation where two adults with opposing viewpoints try to understand each-other hasn't been tried yet, maybe that would help? ] (]) 17:05, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
			::::Once again, you have reverted without providing an explanation, and resorted to accusations of bad faith without any justification. You have made your own POV on this topic abundantly clear and you have been assiduous in working to have it represented in this article in violation of the ] policy which you claim to uphold. ] (]) 17:27, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
			:::::My offer stands. Are you willing to have a normal conversation as adults where we try to understand eachothers point of view? Perhaps we can break this cycle. If not, then at least we tried. ] (]) 17:28, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
			::::::I'm wondering where/when/how you would propose to hold such a conversation; it would seem to me that it is a very valid suggestion, but given the tendency we can see throughout these pages to have content quoted without context, I would think it would be worthwhile to consider the logistics of such a conversation in order to ensure that what emerges is NOT "he said"/"they said", but rather an accurate rendition. What medium would you propose? ] (]) 18:06, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
			:::::::The medium would be Misplaced Pages. Perhaps a subpage of this page? That way its easy to refer to things and the conversation is open and accessible to all. The goal is '''not''' to have yet another fight; it is trying to work towards mutual understanding. Understanding each-other does not mean we have to agree. Ideally we would have a normal respectful conversation. So we need to be a bit openminded and willing to forgive because it is difficult to unlearn bad habits. ] (]) 18:12, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
			::::::I for one would be delighted if we could accomplish this, and put an end to the adversarial nature of the recent conversations. I think that this page is the appropriate location for this discussion, and I don't see that a 'sub-page' is necessary. The normal conventions of Misplaced Pages to ] and avoid casting ] or making ''ad hominem'' remarks should suffice to keep the conversation ]. ] (]) 19:35, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
			:::::::The reason I suggested using a subpage is to have a clear demarcation. Any hostilities/fights/arguments/unpleasantness can remain here, and we can use the other page to try to understand each-other better. It would be difficult to have a civil, perhaps even friendly, conversation when surrounded by unpleasant stuff imo. We have to avoid falling in the same trap over and over again and I think a change of venue would help. A new page can symbolize a fresh start. ] (]) 19:39, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
			::::::I am open to having any conversation that stands a chance of being fruitful. As previously stated, I think that here - rather than any sub-page - is the appropriate place. Let me start by stating that I have never intentionally and deliberately made any assertion that could be interpreted as {{tq|" WP:CPUSHing and WP:BADGERing and sealioning" or "ad hominems" or "bullying"}}. If you can point to any such instances, I will be happy to repudiate them. My interest in editing this page is in having it conform to Misplaced Pages's policies of NOT being '''advocacy''' for a specific minority viewpoint, and of ''accurately'' summarizing such sources as exist on the topic. On another point, I note that another editor has claimed that I have declared a COI - which is not the case. Being open about the fact that I have been a customer of Landmark does not amount to having a "close connection". Does the fact that I have bought Apple products prohibit me from editing the Apple page? Are all of Landmark's three million customers to be outlawed from editing here? ] (]) 17:28, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
			:::::::Apples and oranges, clearly not equivilent products. Seems disengenous to even make the comparison. ] (]) 17:58, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
			:::::::You spent 20 years trying to remove all negative information about Landmark and related entities from Misplaced Pages. It is not about having a "close connection" it is about the fact that you have a conflict of interest. ] explains all that. Have you ever admitted that you('ve) work(ed) for Landmark (either as a volunteer or paid employee), now or in the past? People who do a bunch of Landmark courses always get pressured into volunteering/working for them. {{tq|As previously stated, I think that here - rather than any sub-page - is the appropriate place.}} I already explained why that is a bad idea. Is the fact that its a different page really a reason for you to not try to have a civil conversation? I can embed it here if you insist. ] (]) 19:11, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
			::::::::So this is an example of your idea of 'a normal conversation to try to understand each-other better'? ] (]) 10:30, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
			:::::::::{{ping|DaveApter}} No, as explained before, that would be in ]. At the bottom of this page. And you are invited. We got tea and cookies. ] (]) 11:49, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
			::::Well, were it not for your history of lobbing sideways insults and nonsensical responses, plus your perfectly clear point of view that this organization is a cult, i might actually be willing to have a 'normal conversation' with you. In fact, you and I might have become new acquaintances, collaborators in editing, or possibly even friends with time. But you chose instead to create enmity within a day or two of my first editing here by reversing a minor edit I made without explanation or discussion, and then attempting to create difficulties for me with Misplaced Pages when I restored the edit and objected to your arbitrary actions. In addition, I have repeatedly requested you explain your interest and point of view on this article and have been met with further stonewalling and nonsensical remarks such as how you dislike unloading the dishwasher. Given that history, it's difficult to take your suggestion of a normal conversation seriously. It might still be possible, but from my point of view the onus is now on you to demonstrate some good faith. ] (]) 19:31, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
			:::::Everyone is invited but no one is forced to attend. From my point of view the onus is on the Landmarkians. I believe the Wikipedians have, in general (there are exceptions), been kind to the Landmarkians. ] (]) 19:45, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
			::::::This is rather disappointing. In this brief note, you are making it abundantly clear that you have no intention of following {{tq|"The normal conventions of Misplaced Pages to assume good faith and avoid casting aspersions or making ''ad hominem'' remarks"}}. Without adhering to these, there is no possibility of useful and constructive dialog. You have previously referred to editors who do not share your viewpoint as "cult members" (which is absurd anyway because there is no such thing as "membership" of Landmark), and you now refer them as "Landmarkians". Is this even a word? Did you make it up? And then you compound the insult by indicating that such editors are somehow '''not''' Wikipedians. There is clearly no authentic intention on your part to {{tq|"try to understand each-other better"}}, and in any case the point of this page is to discuss the merits of proposed changes with a view to improving the article. The discussions should be framed in the context of adherence to the policies of Misplaced Pages. As noted several times above, the article content regarding cult accusations completely misrepresents what the cited sources actually say. You have simply refused to answer the direct questions on this point and also those about the two valid references which you edit warred to remove. ] (]) 16:28, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
			:::::::Look, if you want to keep going for another 2 decades, getting more and more frustrated, then that is up to you. I was hoping to have a normal conversation to try to understand each-other better. If you keep posting these rants then that is not possible. ] (]) 16:34, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
			::::::::DaveApter's note is not a rant. It makes several good points. He, and others here, have consistently attempted a balanced, good faith dialogue - and you have just as consistently resisted those efforts at every step. For my part, despite your negative history, I'm willing to have that 'normal conversation' with you. But for that to happen, as I said, you need to demonstrate some good faith. What that looks like is drop the name calling and accusations, the nonsensical gaslighting, and the instantaneous reversal of edits that you don't agree with. Actually step up and have a real dialogue, state your positions, and make your case honestly. When i see that, I'll be happy to come to the table. Take DaveApter's words to heart, answer people's questions, present your arguments. You said you're not an evil person. Well, act like it and earn some respect. Seems to me you're getting some olive branches extended to you. Accept one. ] (]) 21:47, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
			:::::::::Au contraire, the Landmarkians have spent literal decades ]ing and ]ing and ]. They have wasted an insane amount of time of the Wikipedians. Not to mention the ad hominems, the bullying, the tagteaming, the socking and meatpuppeting, the editwarring and the bad faith accusations. As I said above, most are {{tq|not interested in a civilized discussion where people with differing viewpoints reach a middle ground; they want to get rid of anything negative and add a bunch of positive stuff (devoid of its context)}}. If anyone gets to make demands of the other party it is the Wikipedians, because this is Misplaced Pages and not Landmarkipedia. Despite all that I am still willing to talk to the Landmarkians. I don't think we are going to fully agree on everything, and I don't think it is useful to make long lists of who did what when and demand apologies and all that. I have spoken to all sorts of people, including people with whom I have very fundamental disagreements. It can be interesting to learn about others POV. And communication is easier when you understand each-other a bit. And I am certain the Landmarkians don't understand the Wikipedians, and vice versa. We can bicker about this for 48 years or we can make the decision to try to have a normal polite conversation. I am willing to give it a try, and it seems unlikely that the relationships between the Landmarkians and the Wikipedians can get soured any more than they already have been in the past decades, so I don't think we have much to lose by trying to understand each other. ] (]) 22:10, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
			:::::::::I boldy created ]. ] (]) 22:18, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
			::::::::::Well, I think you just reiterated DaveApter's points. You know, I can only speak for me, not others. I've indicated willingness to have the civilized discussion you're talking about. When you're ready to set aside your positionality and engage in a genuine, human conversation, you're welcome to reach out. Oh, and by the way, you might want to check your mirror before you accuse other people of being bullies. ] (]) 23:12, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
			:::::::::::Well, I started the civilized discussion I proposed. If others are unwilling to join a friendly conversation with the goal of improving mutual understanding then that is telling. I have read the archives, they are publicly available, and anyone who wants to take a look can easily figure out who is interested in having a balanced and fair Misplaced Pages article (neutrally presenting what is written in reliable sources, both the good and bad) and who isn't. ] (]) 23:21, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
			:::::::::::{{ping|Coalcity58}} For the record, maybe I was unclear, but the fact that I am willing to have a friendly conversation ] does not mean that I am somehow not allowed to debunk false claims and point out faulty reasoning on this page. That is not how this works. When you are ready to {{tq|set aside your positionality and engage in a genuine, human conversation, you're welcome to}} join me in the War Room. In an ideal world the mutual understanding and friendship created in the War Room would lead to this talkpage becoming a harmonious Utopia at some point in the future; but we haven't reached that point yet. It would be awesome if the Landmarkians could demonstrate some good faith by stopping the ad hominems and false accusations, the nonsensical gaslighting and badgering, and the attempts to remove all negative information. But I don't demand that they do that as a prerequisite for entering the War Room; I am hoping to convince them during a friendly conversation in the War Room that they should stop doing that. ] (]) 23:35, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
			{{Talk:Landmark Worldwide/thewarroom}}
	In that section I just corrected the title of the article by Jill Capuzzo in The Philadelphia Inquirer. In doing so, I noticed two things: the quote in the Wiki article is quite selective. Most of Capuzzo's article is descriptive, and perhaps best described overall as neutral to pro-Landmark. I don't think the Wiki quotes accurately reflect the content and tone of the article. The second thing is that the article is stored on a website called , which is maintained by pro-Landmark people and contains many links to other artciles (including a follow-up article by Capuzzo) and various other mostly (but not entirely) pro-Landmark articles, experiences, opinions from psychiatrists, etc. None of this is currently referenced in the Wiki article, as far as I can see. These two facts together, while only a single instance, throw some doubt on the repeated assertions that the "deleted material" is reliable and well-sourced. ] 11:08, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

---

Latest revision as of 12:33, 30 November 2024

The following Misplaced Pages contributors may be personally or professionally connected to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view. AJackl (talk · contribs) This user has contributed to the article. This user has declared a connection. () DaveApter (talk · contribs) This user has contributed to the article. This user has declared a connection. ( Comment from Drmies in 2014 "...Dave, you obviously have a COI,...": ) Ndeavour (talk · contribs) This user has not edited the article. This user has declared a connection. ()

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Landmark Worldwide article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32Auto-archiving period: 30 days

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

This page is not a forum for general discussion about personal discussions about the subject. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about personal discussions about the subject at the Reference desk.

Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.

This article is rated C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

California: San Francisco Bay Area Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of California on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CaliforniaWikipedia:WikiProject CaliforniaTemplate:WikiProject CaliforniaCalifornia Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by San Francisco Bay Area task force (assessed as Low-importance). Companies Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Companies, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of companies on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CompaniesWikipedia:WikiProject CompaniesTemplate:WikiProject Companiescompany Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. WikiProject Companies To-do: Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Article requests : Misplaced Pages:Requested articles/Business and economics/Companies Assess : Category:Unassessed company articles Copyedit : Category:Company articles needing attention Infobox : Category:Company articles needing infoboxes Maintain : Portal:Companies Stubs : Help expand stub articles located at Category:Company stubs Other : Tag company articles with the {{portal|Companies}} template Tag company talk pages with the {{WikiProject Companies}} project banner Answer requests for comments Education Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Education, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of education and education-related topics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EducationWikipedia:WikiProject EducationTemplate:WikiProject Educationeducation Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Psychology Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Religion: New religious movements Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Misplaced Pages's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by New religious movements work group (assessed as High-importance).

Voyage au pays des nouveaux gourous was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 23 September 2014 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into Landmark Worldwide. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here.

To-do list for Landmark Worldwide: edit · history · watch · refresh · Updated 2024-10-08 Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Article requests : Add some images with detailed fair-use rationale, or if possible, some free images, to the article. Cleanup : Cleanup and format all citations as per Misplaced Pages:Citation templates. Copyedit : Copyedit grammar, paraphrasing quotations where appropriate. Expand : Expand and add to the article from the citations currently cited in the See Also and References sections. Update : Add information/expand from more recent citations in secondary sources, if known/available. Other : Partial list of sources with relevant material in cite format... Journalism Alford, Henry (28 November 2010). "You're O.K., But I'm Not. Let's Share". New York Times. New York. p. L1. Anderson, Kurt (2007). "Son of EST: The Terminator of Self-Doubt". In Ross, Lillian (ed.). The Fun of It: Stories from The Talk of the Town; The New Yorker. New York: Vintage Books/Random House. p. 413. ISBN 0375756493. Baker, Richard; McKenzie, Nick (30 August 2011). "Department Chops $80,000 'Charisma' Seminar". The Age. Melbourne, Victoria: Fairfax Media. Beam, Alex (6 November 1998). "A Harvard Forum For Self-Promotion?". Boston Globe. Boston Massachussets. Beam, Alex (2 April 1999). "Case in Point". Boston Globe. Boston Massachussets. Boulware, Jack (2000). San Francisco Bizarro. New York: Macmillan/St. Martins. p. 38. ISBN 0312206712. Collier, Roger (18 November 2014). "10 health stories that mattered: Oct. 11–17". Canadian Medical Association Journal. 186 (17). Ottawa, Ontario: Canadian Medical Association. doi:10.1503/cmaj.109-4924. Davidson, James (17 October 1987). "Businessmen get expert coaching". Globe & Mail. Toronto. p. B1. Elsener, Marcel (3 September 2014). "Landmark spielt schon lange keine Rolle mehr". Thurgauer Zeitung. St. Galler, Thurgau Switzerland: St. Galler Tagblatt AG. Retrieved 5 September 2014. Faltermayer, Charlotte (24 June 2001). "The Best of est?". Time Magazine. New York. Retrieved 8 December 2014. Goldwag, Arthur (2009). Cults, Conspiracies, and Secret Societies. New York: Knopf Doubleday. pp. 28–30. ISBN 9780307390677. Grigoriadis, Vanessa (9 July 2001). "Pay Money, Be Happy". New York Magazine. New York, New York. Retrieved 10 October 2014. Hellard, Peta (11 June 2006). "Stress Fear in $700 Child Forum: WA children as young as eight who attend "life-changing" coaching sessions by a controversial US company could have difficulty with their schoolwork afterwards, according to experts". Sunday Times. Perth, Western Australia: News Corporation. Jaffe, Eric (15 November 2010). "A look at four psychology fads: The basics of est, primal therapy, Transcendental Meditation and lucid dreaming". Los Angeles Times. Los Angeles, California. Retrieved 9 September 2014. Kaminer, Wendy (1993). I'm Disfunctional, You're Disfunctional. New York: Vintage Books/Random House. ISBN 0-679-74585-8. Lutz, Ashley (9 January 2014). "Lululemon Spends $500 for Workers to Attend a Controversial Retreat Endorsed by Founder Chip Wilson". Business Insider. New York, New York: Business Insider, Inc. Retrieved 5 September 2014. McClure, Laura (July/August 2009). "The Landmark Forum: 42 Hours, $500, 65 Breakdowns; My lost weekend with the trademark happy, bathroom-break hating, slightly spooky inheritors of est". Mother Jones. San Francisco, California. Retrieved 8 December 2014. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help) Russell, Charles; Russell, Jennie (15 October 2014). "AHS employee complaint over Landmark seminars sparks review: Public Interest Commissioner will look into complaint over controversial Landmark Education training". CBC News. Ottawa, Ontario. Retrieved 8 December 2014. Russell, Charles; Russell, Jennie (15 October 2014). "Alberta Health Services staff pressured to attend controversial seminars: Government continued to use Landmark Education despite employee complaints". CBC News. Ottawa, Ontario. Retrieved 8 December 2014. Russell, Charles; Russell, Jennie (17 October 2014). "Alberta Health Services hired 'coach' to implement Landmark ideology: Sole-source contract breached department policy". CBC News. Ottawa, Ontario. Retrieved 2014-10-25. Scioscia, Amanda (19 October 2000). "Drive-thru Deliverance: It's not called est anymore, but you can still be ridiculed into self-awareness in just one expensive weekend". Phoenix New Times. Phoenix, Arizona. Sexton, Mike (15 November 2011). "Landmark's controversial training programs". 7.30. Australian Broadcasting Corporation. Retrieved 5 September 2014. {{cite episode}}: Unknown parameter |serieslink= ignored (|series-link= suggested) (help) staff (3 September 2014). "Cults Week—Café Gratitude and the Cult of Commerce". Curbed LA. Los Angeles: Curbed. Retrieved 11 November 2014. staff (17 December 2013). "Landmark Education Targeting Indians with Its Overpriced Courses". Moneylife. Dadar, Mumbai: Hind Service Industries. Welkos, Robert W. (29 December 1991). "Scientologists Ran Campaign to Discredit Erhard, Detective Says: Religion: Competition for customers said to be the motive behind investigation launched into activities of the est founder". Los Angeles Times. Los Angeles, California. Walsh, Nikki (19 February 2012). "One Weekend to Fix Your Life?". Irish Mail on Sunday. McNutt, Helen (December 2006). "Managing My Inner Brat". The Sunday Times. London. Thornburg, Nathan (7 March 2011). "Change We Can (Almost) Believe In". TIME. Kim, Jen (16 July 2013). "Why We Are the Way We Are". Psychology Today. Lieber, Chavie (8 January 2014). "The Self-Help Movement Behind Lululemon's Eerie Dogma". Racked. Capuzzo, Jill (March 1996). "Come on! There's a New Life Waiting Over the Weekend". Philadelphia Inquirer. Thorne, Matt (13 July 2008). "Chuck Palahniuk talks sex dolls, strippers and the one subject he won't write about". The Independent. Bernstein, Elizabeth (16 April 2011). "Friendly Fight: A Smarter Way to Say 'I'm Angry'". Wall Street Journal. Taylor, Camille (26 November 2008). "A Dream to Transform Self, Company and Country". Jamaica Gleaner. Sociology Arweck, Elisabeth (2004). Researching New Religious Movements: Responses and Redefinitions. Leiden: Brill. ISBN 0203642376. Aupers, Stef (2005). "'We Are All Gods': New Age in the Netherlands 1960-2000". In Sengers, Erik (ed.). The Dutch and Their Gods: Secularization and Transformation of Religion in the Netherlands. Studies in Dutch Religious History. Vol. 3. Hilversum: Verloren. p. 193. ISBN 9065508678. Barker, Eileen (2005). "New Religious Movements in Europe". In Jones, Lindsay (ed.). Encyclopedia of Religion. Detroit: Macmillan Reference. ISBN 9780028657431. Beckford, James A.; Levasseur, Martine (1986). "New Religious movements in Western Europe". In Beckford, James A. (ed.). New Religious Movements and Rapid Social Change. London: Sage/UNESCO. ISBN 92-3-102-402-7. Beckford, James A. (2004). "New Religious Movements and Globalization". In Lucas, Phillip Charles; Robbins, Thomas (eds.). New Religious Movements in the 21st Century. Abingdon and New York: Routledge. p. 208. ISBN 0-415-96576-4. George D. Chryssides (2001). Historical Dictionary of New Religious Movements. Lanham, Maryland: Scarecrow. ISBN 0810840952. Clarke, Peter B. (2006). New Religions in Global Perspective: A Study of Religious Change in the Modern World. Abingdon: Routledge. pp. 11, 102–103. ISBN 9780415257480. Cresswell, Jamie; Wilson, Bryan, eds. (1999). New Religious Movements. Routledge. p. 35. ISBN 0415200504. Greeley, Andrew M. (1995). Sociology and Religion: a Collection of Readings. London: HarperCollins. p. 299. ISBN 0065018818. Hammer, Olav; Rothstein, Mikael, eds. (2012). The Cambridge Companion to New Religious Movements. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press. pp. 19, 45. ISBN 9780521145657. Helas, Paul (1991). "Western Europe: Self Religion". In Clarke, Peter; Sutherland, Stewart (eds.). The World's Religions: The Study of Religion, Traditional and New Religion. London: Routledge. ISBN 0-415-06432-5. Wallis, Roy (1991). "North America". In Clarke, Peter; Sutherland, Stewart (eds.). The World's Religions: The Study of Religion, Traditional and New Religion. London: Routledge. ISBN 0-415-06432-5. Jenkins, Philip (2000). Mystics and Messiahs: Cults and New Religions in American History. London: Oxford University Press. p. 180. ISBN 0195127447. Kurtz, Lester R. (2007). Gods in the Global Village: The World's Religions in Sociological Perspective. Thousand Oaks, California: Pine Forge. p. 219. ISBN 9781412927154. Lewis, James R. (2004). The Encyclopedic Sourcebook of New Age Religions. Prometheus Books. p. 187. ISBN 1591020409. Lockwood, Renee (2011). "Religiosity Rejected: Exploring the Religio-Spiritual Dimensions of Landmark Education". International Journal for the Study of New Religions. 2 (2). Sheffield, England: Equinox: 225–254. ISSN 2041-9511. Lockwood, Renee D. (June 2012). "Pilgrimages to the Self: Exploring the Topography of Western Consumer Spirituality through 'the Journey'". Literature & Aesthetics. 22 (1). Sydney, New South Wales: Sydney Society of Literature and Aesthetics: 111, 125. ISSN 1036-9368. Nelson, Geoffrey K. (1987). Cults, New Religions and Religious Creativity. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. ISBN 0-7102-0855-3. Palmer, Dominic (2011). The New Heretics of France. New York: Oxford University Press. pp. 27, 160–161, 186. ISBN 9780199735211. Parsons, Gerald (1993). "Expanding the religious spectrum: New Religious Movements in Modern Britain". In Parsons, Gerald (ed.). The Growth of Religious Diversity: Britain from 1945: Volume 1 Traditions. Abingdon and New York: Routledge. ISBN 0415083265. Ramstedt, Martin (2007). "New Age and Business: Corporations as Cultic Milieus?". In Kemp, Daren; Lewis, James R. (eds.). Handbook of the New Age. Brill Handbooks on Contemporary Religion. Vol. 1. Leiden: BRILL. pp. 196–197. ISBN 9789004153554. Roof, Wade Clark; McKinney, William, eds. (1987). American Mainline Religion: Its Changing Shape and Future. New Brunswick, New Jersey: Rutgers University Press. p. 245. ISBN 0813512158. Rupert, Glenn A. (1992). Lewis, James R.; Melton, J. Gordon (eds.). Perspectives on the New Age. Albany, New York: SUNY Press. p. 130. ISBN 079141213X. Siegler, Elijah (2004). "Marketing Lazaris". In Lewis, James R. (ed.). The Encyclopedic Sourcebook of New Age Religions. Amherst, New York: Prometheus. ISBN 1591020409. Taliaferro, Charles; Harrison, Victoria S.; Goetz, Stewart, eds. (2012). The Routledge Companion to Theism. Routledge. p. 123. ISBN 9780415881647. Wuthnow, Robert (1986). "Religious movements in North America". In Beckford, James A. (ed.). New Religious Movements and Rapid Social Change. London: Sage/UNESCO. ISBN 92-3-102-402-7. York, Michael (1995). The Emerging Network: A Sociology of the New Age and Neo-pagan Movements. Lanham, Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield. pp. 55–57. ISBN 0847680010. History Roth, Matthew (2011). "Coming Together: The Communal Option". In Carlsson, Chris; Elliott, Lisa Ruth (eds.). Ten Years That Shook the City: San Francisco 1968-1978. San Francisco: City Lights. pp. 201–202. ISBN 9781931404129. Sandbrook, Dominic (2012). Mad As Hell: The Crisis of the 1970s and the Rise of the Populist Right. New York: Anchor Books. pp. 168–169. ISBN 9781400077243. Religion and philosophy Collins, Gary R. (1998). The Soul Search: A Spiritual Journey to Authentic Intimacy with God. Nashville: Thomas Nelson. ISBN 0785274111. Evans, Jules (2013). Philosophy for Life and Other Dangerous Situations. Novato, California: New World Library. pp. 135–142. ISBN 9781608682294. Hexham, Irving (1993). The Concise Dictionary of Religion. Vancouver, B.C.: Regent College Publishing. pp. 75–76. ISBN 1573831204. Hexham, Irving (2002). Pocket Dictionary of New Religious Movements. Downers Grove, Illinois: IVP Academic. p. 47. ISBN 0830814663. Kyle, Richard (1993). Religious Fringe: A History of Alternative Religions in America. Downers Grove, Illinois: Intervarsity. ISBN 0830817662. Est is no ordinary California cult. Rather, as John Clark points out, it is 'a form of secular salvation.' It is 'secular' because it is not identified with any formal religion. In fact, est denies being a religion at all. Yet est does propound a worldview and does have religious overtones. Since its purpose is to alter one's epistemology and instill a monistic or pantheistic belief in impersonal divinity, est qualifies as religious in the expansive use of the term. Richardson, James T. (1998). "est (THE FORUM)". In Swatos, Jr., William H. (ed.). Encyclopedia of Religion and Society. Walnut Creek, California: AltaMira. pp. 167–168. ISBN 0761989560. Saliba, John A. (2003). Understanding New Religious Movements. Walnut Creek, California: Rowman Altamira. p. 88. ISBN 9780759103559. Smith, Jonathan Z., ed. (1995). HarperCollins Dictionary of Religion. New York: HarperSanFrancisco. pp. 343, 365, 795. ISBN 0060675152. Vitz, Paul C. (1994). Psychology as Religion: The Cult of Self-worship. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans. pp. 26–28. ISBN 0802807259. Young, Wendy Warren (1987). "The Aims and Methods of 'est' and 'The Centres Network'". In Clarke, Peter Bernard (ed.). The New Evangelists: Recruitment Methods and Aims of New Religious Movements. London: Ethnographica. pp. 134–147. ISBN 0905788605. Business Atkin, Douglas (2004). "What Is Required of a Belief System?". The Culting of Brands: Turn Your Customers Into True Believers. New York: Penguin/Portfolio. p. 101. ISBN 9781591840275. Black, Jonathan (2006). Yes You Can!: Behind the Hype and Hustle of the Motivation Biz. New York: Bloomsbury. p. 133. ISBN 9781596910003. Hayes, Dennis (1989). Behind the Silicon Curtain: The Seductions of Work in a Lonely Era. Boston: South End Press. pp. 120–121. ISBN 0896083500. Ries, Al (2005). Focus: The Future of Your Company Depends on It. New York: HarperCollins. p. 164. ISBN 9780060799908. Sosik, John J. (2006). Leading with Character: Stories of Valor and Virtue and the Principles They Teach. Greenwich, Connecticut: Information Age. pp. 16–17. ISBN 9781593115418. Wildflower, Leni (2013). The Hidden History of Coaching. Maidenhead: McGraw-Hill. p. 101. ISBN 9780335245406. Psychiatry and psychology Barker, Eileen (1996). "New Religions and Mental Health". In Bhugra, Dinesh (ed.). Psychiatry and Religion: Context, Consensus and Controversies. London and New York: Routledge. p. 126. ISBN 0415089557. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help) Brewer, Mark (August 1975). "We're Gonna Tear You Down and Put You Back Together". Psychology Today. 9. New York: Sussex: 35–39. Chappell, Clive; Rhodes, Carl; Solomon, Nicky; Tennant, Mark; Yates, Lyn, eds. (2003). Reconstructing the Lifelong Learner: Pedagogy and Identity in Individual, Organisational and Social Change. London: RoutledgeFalmer. pp. 94–106. ISBN 0415263484. Colman, Andrew M. (2009). A Dictionary of Psychology. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press. pp. 260, 412. ISBN 9780199534067. Conway, Flo; Siegelman, Jim (1995). Snapping: America's Epidemic of Sudden Personality Change. New York: Stillpoint. pp. 15–18. ISBN 0964765004. Eisner, Donald A. (2000). The Death of Psychotherapy: From Freud to Alien Abductions. Westport, Connecticut: Praeger. p. 60. ISBN 0275964132. Farber, Sharon Klayman (2012). Hungry for Ecstasy: Trauma, the Brain, and the Influence of the Sixties. Lanham, Maryland: Jason Aronson/Rowman & Littlefield. pp. 131, 134, 139. ISBN 9780765708588. Galanter, Marc (1989). Cults and New Religious Movements. American Psychiatric Association. p. 31. ISBN 0890422125. Gastil, John (2010). The Group in Society. Thousand Oaks and London: SAGE. pp. 226–227. ISBN 9781412924689. Klar, Yechiel; Mendola, Richard; Fisher, Jeffrey D.; Silver, Roxane Cohen; Chinsky, Jack M.; Goff, Barry (1990). "Characteristics of Participants in a Large Group Awareness Training". Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology. 58 (1). Washington, D.C.: American Psychological Association: 99–108. ISSN 0022-006X. Klar, Yechiel; Mendola, Richard; Fisher, Jeffrey D.; Silver, Roxane Cohen; Chinsky, Jack M.; Goff, Barry (1990). Evaluating a Large Group Awareness Training. New York: Springer-Verlag. ISBN 0387973206. (full study) Koocher, Gerald P.; Keith-Spiegel, Patricia (2008). Ethics in Psychology and the Mental Health Professions: Standards and Cases. New York: Oxford University Press. p. 151. ISBN 9780195149111. Moskowitz, Eva S. (2001). In Therapy We Trust: America's Obsession with Self Fulfillment. Baltimore, Maryland: John Hopkins University Press. pp. 236–239. ISBN 0801864038. Oakes, Len (1997). Prophetic Charisma: The Psychology of Revolutionary Religious Personalities. Syracuse, New York: Syracuse University Press. pp. 51, 189. ISBN 0815627009. Paris, Joel (2013). Psychotherapy in an Age of Narcissism: Modernity, Science, and Society. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. pp. 20–21. ISBN 9780230336964. Rubinstein, Gidi (2005). "Characteristics of participants in the Forum, psychotherapy clients, and control participants: A comparative study". Psychology and Psychotherapy: Theory, Research and Practice (78). Leicester: British Psychological Society: 481–492. Zimbardo, Philip; Andersen, Susan (1995). "Understanding Mind Control: Exotic and Mundane Mental Manipulations". In Michael, Langone (ed.). Recovery from Cults. New York: Norton. ISBN 0393313212.

RfC - regarding the neutrality of this article

Has the neutrality of this article been improved or compromised, by changes made since the lifting of Discretionary Sanctions in February 2022? Current:Landmark Worldwide Feb 2022: Diff DaveApter (talk) 14:02, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Dave, I recognize that you've dedicated two decades to removing negative information from Landmark-related articles on Misplaced Pages. While I respect your level of commitment, I respectfully suggest that redirecting our energies to other pursuits may be more beneficial for all parties going forward. More than 626749417 seconds (174097 hours, 7254 days) have passed since you first started pov-pushing and you are still unhappy with what you've achieved. If you are looking for a way to help Misplaced Pages, check out the Misplaced Pages:Task Center. Thank you. Polygnotus (talk) 01:27, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

On the RFC question, I think that some of the changes are fine, and others might benefit from some review, but I doubt that it's perfect. For example, the lead says this group is called a cult because it pressures current customers to recruit future customers. If that's the standard for a cult, then Melaleuca is a cult. If enthusiasm is enough to earn that label, then Tupperware is a cult. (As Dave Barry wrote, Tupperware dealers give standing ovations for plastic dishes.) There's more to being a cult than recruiting, and I don't feel like that is explained well in the body of the article.

But overall, I would not say that the article is worse now than it was then. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:29, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

I agree that the reason it is considered a cult by some can be worded better. The reason is that it meets certain criteria. Polygnotus (talk) 04:56, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

What are the criteria you are referring to and what are the reliable sources that state that?Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 19:47, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, I'd like to hear some specifics about those 'criteria' as well. Coalcity58 (talk) 20:10, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

What? No answer as usual? Coalcity58 (talk) 16:03, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Please read WP:INDENT. And I could, in theory, explain some things to you but I am not so sure you'd be really all that interested, and it wouldn't be a very productive use of our limited time on this planet. Polygnotus (talk) 17:00, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Interesting comment, considering the amount of your 'limited time' you blow on this. Coalcity58 (talk) 18:46, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. Polygnotus (talk) 18:59, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

• This isn't a neutral RFC. For the past several years I've contributed to discussions about the many problems with this article, and DaveApter has, superficially at least, accepted these comments. To now imply that the old version was better basically ignores those past discussions. It's honestly a bit difficult to assume good faith for this kind of behavior. To restate what I said last year, the article is significantly improved from where it was in past years. Obviously, as with every article, there is still plenty of room for improvement, but this improvement would be much better discussed based on specific and actionable proposals. Grayfell (talk) 20:27, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Yeah the goal of the RFC appears to be to punish Avatar317 and others who worked hard to improve this article. Can we just close bad-faith RfCs or what is the procedure? Polygnotus (talk) 20:51, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

It's a bit of a stretch to interpret my reply to you as "superficially accept your comments" (ie, implying that I accepted the state of the article at that time). What I actually said was:

"::I also agree with Grayfell that a total re-write of the piece may well be the way to go. The article is a mess, largely as a result of its history as an uneasy compromise from the battle between two factions with widely varied viewpoints on the subject. It is also handicapped by the fact that most of the "sources" are lifestyle and opinion pieces rather than factual reporting. Also many of them are written from a sensationalist and biased perspective, and rarely give clear indications of the primary sources on which they are based. DaveApter (talk) 09:51, 30 November 2023 (UTC)"

Furthermore, the article has changed considerably since last November, diff: , amongst other things giving greatly expanded comment on the already undue weight dicussion of "cult accusations". DaveApter (talk) 09:38, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

That is not the first or only time we have interacted on this talk page. I was referring to Talk:Landmark Worldwide/Archive 32#Recent activity on this page where you at least halfheartedly acknowledged that the article had a problem with promotional language and filler. As asked, the RFC says nothing about about if the cult section was undue, and presenting that claim as an accepted fact in this discussion is misleading. If that is the main issue, you should've framed the RFC to be about that. As I said, this RFC is not neutral. Grayfell (talk) 19:34, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

I never said it was the first or the only time we discussed this; I thought that was what you were referring to, since I did mention agreement (that a re-write might be a good idea). I see nothing in the link you gave here that implied that I was happy with the state of the article at that time, even if I did agree with a few of the points you made. I even made one minor edit at your suggestion, and that was instantly reverted by Polygnotus. DaveApter (talk) 16:54, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if you were happy with the article, because the RFC is not about your level of happiness. The article was unacceptably bad before for reasons that you have at least partially agreed with. Grayfell (talk) 19:35, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

In this day and age, anyone can say anything and if it is repeated loudly enough, people believe it. The only way to counteract that is to provide evidence - and even THAT needs to be qualified. When writing for an encyclopedia, then at the very least every claim of "cult" that's been added should reference who made it, what qualifies them as an expert, what they mean by the term as used, exactly what evidence they provide and just what makes their opinion worth being referenced. With that kind of research, the reader can make informed decisions without the excessive sway of an author's point of view. Ndeavour (talk) 15:46, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

What you are proposing would introduce Misplaced Pages:No original research issues, among other things. Grayfell (talk) 19:34, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing to that link - but after reading through it, I mut ask: why do you think what I suggested falls into the pool of "original research?" My understanding of research includes sources such as textbooks, academic papers and the like as primary sources, versus magazine articles that range from using the world cult in the title but denying it in the article to essentially "some people say" where there's no mention of who or why their opinions are notable. Which, as I read it, makes it appear that those citing them are actually inserting "original research" into the article. Ndeavour (talk) 16:06, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages is a tertiary source and as such, we strongly favor WP:SECONDARY sources. Further, textbooks etc. can be either primary or secondary sources depending on how they are used, and being a magazine article doesn't make a source inherently any less reliable. Additionally, if enough reliable sources repeat something loudly enough than Misplaced Pages will also repeat that, because Misplaced Pages summarizes sources. If we're asking editors to deep-dive into sources to evaluate the 'evidence', or so we can imply that a source is not a qualified expert, or so we can attempt to divine precisely what they mean by 'cult', we are introducing our own research into the article. There is a very important distinction between attributing sources and casting doubt on those sources based on our personal understanding of the topic. Grayfell (talk) 19:26, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

@Grayfell, I apologize for failing to express myself clearly; you actually expressed the point I was attempting to make. But I still have to ask, if a source fails to cite a primary source for the assertion that "some people say" things like "Landmark is a cult," how do they qualify as satisfactory secondary sources? What am I missing? Ndeavour (talk) 23:07, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Sources are considered reliable if they have a positive reputation for accuracy and fact-checking. Pragmatically speaking, this is usually achieved via editorial oversight, a history of retractions and corrections, and similar. Being cited by their peers can also demonstrate this reputation.

Sources are not, however, required to cite their own sources for any particular claim they make (nor would those sources be required to cite their own sources, etc.). Grayfell (talk) 20:58, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Everything you say there is correct Grayfell, but with regard to Ndeavour's first comment to which you responded, what they propose is not WP:OR, but very much the opposite, and broadly considered best practice by the community. Specifically, when they say "When writing for an encyclopedia, then at the very least every claim of 'cult' that's been added should reference who made it, what qualifies them as an expert, what they mean by the term as used, exactly what evidence they provide and just what makes their opinion worth being referenced.", that is is not original research but rather attribution. Now as you point out, we are not in a position to interrogate every secondary source as to their primary sources (or their methodology in general), and other than sources that are deprecated through RSN or other means because they have shown a consistently unacceptable level of reliability in terms of editorial control or some other red flag, we don't "look behind the curtain" into a source's reasons for making most claims. But certainly where the information is highly controversial or otherwise WP:Exceptional, if we do have that information that Ndeavour was referencing (primary sources relied upon by the RS, what they mean by the term, the evidence they relied on) we should provide it, to some extent. And there are times where we might deem a label inappropriate (that is not to have passed a WP:WEIGHT test for inclusion), unless we have that extra context and/or unless multiple high quality RS use it. And needless to say, the other thing Ndeavour mentions there (attributing who the expert is an why their opinion on the issue has weight)--that is just common best practice and backed by multiple policies. So yes, there is a line that can be crossed in questioning sources where we dip into OR territory, but what Ndeavour is suggesting is not really that--or at least, not per se that.Now what does that say for the "cult" label? Eh, that's complicated, and I'm not going to lodge an opinion on this page at this time. But I will say that, having seen this subject come up no less than five times over the last couple of months, and connected to as many different groups (at ANI, AE, and on talk pages for individual articles--guess the issue is just having a moment right now), I can tell you that my sense is that the community wants claims of a group being a cult to be both robustly sourced before the label even comes in, and then the opinion directly attributed to the parties making the claim, and with inline attribution, mostly. Take that impressionistic read for what you will. SnowRise 22:51, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

As I said, there is a very important distinction between attributing sources and casting doubt on those sources based on our personal understanding of the topic. Whether or not this proposal crosses that line is ultimately subjective, at least not without a much more specific proposal. My goal was to explain a bit about how Misplaced Pages works to a relatively new user, and to explain one major potential pitfall.

If you want to discuss whether or not "Landmark has sometimes been described a cult" belongs in the lead as a summary of Landmark Worldwide#Accusations of being a cult, you should probably do that somewhere other than a response to a response to an RFC about a much, much broader issue. As I said, this isn't a neutral RFC. Grayfell (talk) 21:45, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

"there is a very important distinction between attributing sources and casting doubt on those sources based on our personal understanding of the topic."

Yes, that's true, which is why virtually the entirety of my post was about making that distinction and indicating where the divide lays. But I'll be honest with you, I don't see how, in interpreting Ndeavour's initial comments, you arrived at the conclusion that they were advocating for casting doubt on sources. It looked like they were arguing simply for normal attribution and inline discussion of the source's credentials to me. Which, again, is simply best practice in cases of potentially controversial statements, and not OR.

"My goal was to explain a bit about how Misplaced Pages works to a relatively new user, and to explain one major potential pitfall."

Fair enough. But I do get the feeling that they understand the difference between the advised and proscribed practices, and I think you two ended up talking past eachother.

"If you want to discuss whether or not 'Landmark has sometimes been described a cult' belongs in the lead as a summary of Landmark Worldwide#Accusations of being a cult, you should probably do that somewhere other than a response to a response to an RFC about a much, much broader issue. As I said, this isn't a neutral RFC."

No, as I pretty expressly noted in my comment, I don't wish to weigh in on that topic and my observations were entirely meant to clear up some confusion that seemed to be occurring between the two of you. As to the RfC prompt, it looks perfectly neutral to me, but it does have another major issue: it's far too vague and broad. Which is why I recommended below that the OP consider closing it and making another with a much narrower inquiry or proposal, a little over 24 hours ago. I do think this discussion was bound to lead to unproductive discussion because of how it was framed (albeit in good faith), and it's good the OP is withdrawing it for something more pointed, but meanwhile I think Ndeavour's recommendation to which you initially raised concerns is more or less a good one, and consistent with core policy. SnowRise 23:33, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

I suggest that people commenting here read through the Arbcom case that created the discretionary sanctions - https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?oldid=643800885#Motion_.28Landmark_Worldwide_discretionary_sanctions.29 Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 17:07, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Interesting pattern. Accounts lay dormant, often for months, and suddenly there is a flurry of activity where they all show up to support eachother. Not suspicious at all. Polygnotus (talk) 21:40, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

And who's talking here? The word pot, kettle and black come to mind... Coalcity58 (talk) 16:02, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

I recently created the User:PolygnotusTest account. It is pretty interesting to see all the linkspammers. Polygnotus (talk) 16:11, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Who knows, PG--you could be right. But regardless, this is not the place to discuss it, and it's somewhat ABF and WP:aspersion-leaning to just make the implication. If you have proof, or even very substantial suspicions, that someone active on this article is violating policy, then take the matter to ANI, AE, or SPI, as appropriate. Some degree of comparing notes may even be acceptable in user talk, if it's for purposes of sock-busting. But here, that kind of commentary accomplishes very little other than to tip-off bad actors if you are correct and unnecessarily poison the dialogue if you are wrong. SnowRise 22:59, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

• DaveApter, I believe this RfC was created in good faith, so I'm not attacking it on the same terms others have raised here, but I do think it is sub-optimal regardless. Ideally RfCs should have as narrow a scope as possible and address very discrete issues which, if a consensus is reached, could lead to an immediate solution. In most cases, this means making a very specific proposal that respondents can !vote up or down or a very straight-forward question about a specific editorial dispute. It's not strictly speaking a necessity that your prompt contain one of those two things, but the very, very broad question you have asked (essentially "Have all the changes made to this article in the last three years mad it more neutral/accurate?" is not well-calculated to lead to any immediate concrete improvements. It's more likely, actually, that it will just inflame opinions further and make the parties more polarized and entrenched. Perhaps you can withdraw it and consider a couple of more concrete questions about specific changes that respondents could provide feedback on, and then hold one RfC at a time on each? SnowRise 23:11, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

  @Snow Rise: Thank you for all the helpful and constructive comments. I am not experienced with RfCs, having only raised them a couple of times and that was more than a decade ago. I have closed the RfC (If I have understood the instructions correctly). I will probably raise another shortly as I feel there are still numerous issues here; but I think this discussion did home in on perhaps the most egregious one. DaveApter (talk) 19:18, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

RfC - Undue weight given to 'Cult accusations'?

Is Undue Weight being given to the issue of "Cult accusations" in the light of the references cited in support of these claims? DaveApter (talk) 15:10, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Please don't waste people's time with pointless RfCs. You have wasted an insane amount of time of our volunteers.

If I was a member of a group that got repeatedly labeled as a cult I wouldn't spend more than 19 years and 10 months trying to remove all negative information from its Misplaced Pages article. That proves the point, right?

If you dislike the fact that reliable sources have published negative information about Landmark/Est/Erhard then you should contact those sources, not WP:CPUSH on Misplaced Pages. Polygnotus (talk) 15:34, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

@DaveApter No, there is not undue weight being given to its accusations of being a cult.

It provides multiple sources and explanations as to why some experts believe this characterisation to be fair. Neither does the characterisation appear to be fringe.

However, I do think that the section on its characterisation as a cult be put later in the article. Imo the sections about it's characterisation as a self-help corporate training should come first. When reading the article and learning of it's characterisation as a cult, I was unsure as to what the group actually did. I think the subsection under 'history' should be moved under 'reception'.

FropFrop (talk) 22:20, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

The cult/NRM stuff is probably the most important part of its history, because Landmark is a successor to another cult/NRM. Currently the focus is far more on making money and less on the culty-stuff. Hiding all negative information in a section near the bottom of an article is discouraged. Polygnotus (talk) 10:30, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

@FropFrop:, Thank you for joining with the debate, but I am puzzled: which "experts believe this characterisation to be fair"? I did not see anybody named - "expert" or not - in the cited refs (relevant extracts quoted recently a little higher up this page). Furthermore, almost all of the writers went on to say that in their opinion, it was 'not a cult. Did I miss something? Did you actually read those refs? DaveApter (talk) 12:06, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

@DaveApter

Apologies, I was a bit flippant in my response.

It would have been better for me to say "Various sources, including some cult-experts, have characterised it as cultish, cult-like, etc."

Even though most/all went on to retract or amend their statements, I think the section is well balanced and contains encyclopedically-relevant info.

FropFrop (talk) 23:07, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

See this comment. There are, as far as we know, only 2 scholars who said it was not a cult, one was a grandmother who got sued by Landmark and bullied and threatened by Scientologists who said she would not recommend the group to anyone, and would not comment on whether Landmark used coercive persuasion for fear of legal recrimination from Landmark. and one is an economist who credits Landmark with restoring the relationship with his daughter and is therefore not independent. Turns out Abgrall says he never expressed an opinion one way or the other in the documentary (and he got paid over 45.000 euro by Landmark). Every independent commentator calls it either a cult or a New Religious Movement (a newer term that some sociologists use). Polygnotus (talk) 23:20, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

I'm don't think the issue here is "undue weight", since a large portion of what makes Landmark notable is that it tends to attract either very negative or very positive opinions of those who have interacted with it. So the "cult allegations" are a key part of the notability. Our presentation leads something to be desired, however, as a whole this article does not do a great job at explaining this. PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:01, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

I am glad to see this RFC. I see people talking about references saying Landmark is a cult, but I don't see the actual references. I recall a NPOV message board thread I commented on about a year ago that started with the assertion the Landmark is a cult stated as a fact. Since then there has been an attempt to incorporate that into the article. That is original research if I am not mistaken. If there are actual reliable sources that unequivocally call Landmark a cult, they can easily be copy and pasted here for everyone to discuss. Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 15:39, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

This has been debated over and over for years. References have been provided many times. To demand that everything is spelled out for you yet again in 2024 after 20 years of debates, when you can simply check the article or the talk page history (or use Google) is unreasonable. No sources will ever be good enough for the cult members. Not even the Parliamentary Commission on Cults in France (1995, 1999) and the Senate of Berlin (1997). I understand that people like their favourite soccer team or country or religion or hobby or cult or whatever, but why deny the reality that others have a different opinion? You have my full permission to dislike my favourite music artists/movies/country/et cetera. Why can't the cultmembers agree to disagree?

Proving or disproving that it is a cult is not what we do here on Misplaced Pages. That would fall under original research. So we only need sources to prove that it has been called a cult. And you already know that it has. Polygnotus (talk) 15:54, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Now that you’ve resorted to name calling, revealing a decided lack of neutrality, it is clearly appropriate that DaveApter has requested another RFC.   I initially found myself in some agreement with you ("proving or disproving that it is a cult is not what we do here on Misplaced Pages"), but only to a point.  As an editor, haven’t you agreed to validate the edits you make?  To assess cited resources for accuracy and credentials? Or have you merely looked for “evidence” to support what your “cult members” references reveal to be an obvious point of view?     Ndeavour (talk) 18:15, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

I agree with Ndeavour. Openly insinuating that other editors are "cult members," without a shred of evidence supporting such a remark, would seem to clearly demonstrate your own bias in this matter and belie your statement that this argument is not about proving whether Landmark is a cult. If you're calling others cult members, then it seems clear that you believe this organization is a cult and, therefore, cannot claim neutrality in this discussion. Coalcity58 (talk) 18:23, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Interesting pattern. Accounts lay dormant, often for months, and suddenly there is a flurry of activity where they all show up to support eachother. Not suspicious at all. Original here. Time is a flat circle. Polygnotus (talk) 21:03, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

You'll forgive me for being a bit jaded, because I have seen this all before. Multiple times. Polygnotus (talk) 21:08, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

I'm disappointed that this RfC has generated so much in the way of accusations and aspersions, and so little discussion of how to address the question within the framework of Misplaced Pages's policies. In particular, the relevant section of the WP:NPOV policy states:

* Avoid stating opinions as facts. Usually, articles will contain information about the significant opinions that have been expressed about their subjects. However, these opinions should not be stated in Misplaced Pages's voice. Rather, they should be attributed in the text to particular sources.

Undoubtedly, some people do hold the opinion that Landmark is a "Cult", but who are they? If they are no more than anonymous internet discussion commenters or bloggers, do they deserve this prominence in an encyclopedia? If they are notable individuals, then it should be possible to find reliable sources who identify them and attribute the opinion to them. None of the existing references do so. Several assertions have been made in the foregoing discussion for which no sources have been offered, for example: "Various sources, including some cult-experts, have characterised it as cultish, cult-like, etc." So what are these sources and who are these cult-experts? I could not find either of these terms - 'cultish' or 'cult-like' in any of the refs. DaveApter (talk) 13:36, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

You keep repeating your claims over and over again, but that does not make them more true. Your repetitive questions has been answered many times over the past decades.

Misplaced Pages's role is to summarize existing reliable sources rather than create new content. If you disagree with how a topic is currently covered, the most effective approach would be to:

1. Work with reliable, independent sources to publish new, more positive, coverage
2. Request corrections from existing sources if there are factual errors

Once new coverage exists in reliable sources, it will then be incorporated into Misplaced Pages articles.

I have read many Misplaced Pages articles I (partially) disagree with. But I can't remove well-sourced neutral information just because I think it is bullshit. And I can't go around deleting the research of scientists I dislike, or the quotes from politicians I dislike, or the mention of groups I dislike.

This damnatio memoriae-approach is incompatible with Misplaced Pages's goals.

If you want more information about FropFrop's statement you should contact FropFrop on their talkpage. Polygnotus (talk) 15:14, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

You keep saying that Misplaced Pages must summarize what the sources say, but the section on cults goes far beyond what is stated in the cited refs. Yes, "some people say" is commonly accepted in some quarters as authoritative - but not when it comes to providing an impartial record. If some people say you are a giraffe, are you a giraffe? What does it say about the poster who inserts that in an article? "Some people say" is an excuse to insert opinion. I don't read where anyone is saying that the accusation against Landmark be removed - rather that it be acknowledged and given the weith of gossip. Put in perspective. Ndeavour (talk) 17:50, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

If basically every independent observer who has ever written about me mentions that I am considered to be a giraffe, then that fact is worth mentioning in the Misplaced Pages article about me, no matter if you or I agree with it. Most giraffes lack artistic ability, although their tails look deceptively like paintbrushes. The article does not say that Landmark is a cult. Do you think we should remove all negative opinions about all article topics everywhere on Misplaced Pages? Or just about the topics you like? You stated you have done Landmark's programs and have participated for quite some time, but perhaps (since the word "worldwide" is in the name) your experience differs from that of others? I am happy for you that you had a positive experience, but other people have a more negative opinion and experience and there is no reason to exclude them (or to pretend their opinions are based on "gossip"). Polygnotus (talk) 18:48, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Unless you are about to make an argument that everyone everywhere has the same experience, then of course my experience differs from that of others. As it happens - in the case of Landmark - I am in agreement with the vast majority (over 3,000,000) who found it favorable, and, at the same time, I am aware that that was not the experience of every participant. In all the responses here on the talk page, I don't see any evidence that responders are calling for the elimination of contrasting opinions - only that they be put into context, and not given undue weight bolstered by less than authoritative supporting articles. And, by the way, I completely disagree with any who might accuse you of membership in ANY other species! They need to check their sources! Ndeavour (talk) 15:53, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

I think we can agree that it would be unfair to frame the negative experiences of others as "gossip", it feels rather gaslighty to act as if they didn't experience what they did and as if their feelings are not real. I of course do not believe the 3 million number, but there is no company on Earth that has exclusively 100% satisfied customers if they have more than 100. And if you check online you'll find the astroturfed 5 star fake reviews (and people telling you they were pressured to write them), but also many 1 and 2 star reviews. Polygnotus (talk) 12:57, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

My, my, my, you are certainly an inventive individual. Who said anything about gossip? Or discounting the opinions or experiences of others? I certainly did not. As for whether or not you "believe" that Landmark has had over 3 million participants, do you have any evidence that the number is inaccurate? Again, no one is denying that some people had unfavorable experiences; nor is anyone saying that they shouldn't be included in a Misplaced Pages article. As to reviews, in this age of bots and AI I suggest they are less than reliable and don't belong in Misplaced Pages articles. Ndeavour (talk) 16:27, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you! Have you not noticed that the word gossip is a link to a statement the account you are using made earlier? Who said anything about gossip? The Ndeavour account did. I certainly did not. Your account did. And giving the experiences and opinions of those you disagree with the weight of gossip would certainly be a form of discounting the opinions or experiences of others. Polygnotus (talk) 17:19, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Why, so I did - I used the word. But what I said was that comments without valid sources (e.g., articles where the sole use of "cult" was in the title AND where the author refuted the use of the term) are no better than "someone said" and the equivalent of gossip. That doesn't discount otherr's experiences - only faulty references. . Ndeavour (talk) 16:19, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Nope, you wrote: I don't read where anyone is saying that the accusation against Landmark be removed - rather that it be acknowledged and given the weith of gossip. Put in perspective. Treating the accusation as gossip is discounting the experience of others. Polygnotus (talk) 19:36, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

We have another dispute over the use of cult language at Talk:International Churches of Christ, which means we have another group of editors who have already spent some time thinking about the meaning of cult. I therefore ping/dragoon/beg assistance here from a few of those editors: Valereee, Cordless Larry, North8000, Nemov, ProfGray, and Levivich.

Friends, this RFC question is phrased as a yes/no, but I suspect that a more general answer would be helpful (e.g., "we should keep all the stuff about the lawsuits" or "all that stuff about the lawsuits should be condensed by 50%" or whatever). WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:01, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. The question is not "is this a cult" (which would be WP:OR) or "should we call it a cult in wikivoice" (which we don't) but "should we allow members of the cult to hide the fact that Landmark was called a cult by pretty much everyone including the Parliamentary Commission on Cults in France (1995, 1999) and the Senate of Berlin (1997) and by many cult experts and commentators.". But COI editors don't get to decide what we should focus on. As Wikipedians we should make up our own minds about what needs to be improved most. If there is one area of the article that is most in need of improving it is the part about what Landmark actually is and does. The heart of the article. They offer a bunch of seminars and training courses; what are they and what do they teach? It may also be a good idea to explain where these ideas come from (e.g. Mind Dynamics, Scientology, Buddhism, various books like Think and Grow Rich) and how they fit in compared to the rest (e.g. the human potential movement and large-group awareness training). Polygnotus (talk) 22:47, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

I sense a conflict between "The question is not "is this a cult" (which would be WP:OR)" and "should we allow members of the cult to...".

If your main concern is about editors with a COI holding a discussion about whether the article has struck the right balance, then you're in luck: I just pinged half a dozen editors who are (a) unlikely to have any connection to this subject and (b) already aware of how the word cult was used in the wake of the Satanic panic vs how it might be used today. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:35, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Wikivoice is very different from my personal opinion. You would never read Harley-Davidson, Inc. (H-D, or simply Harley) is a shockingly incompetent American manufacturer of the worst motorcycles ever built in a Misplaced Pages article, although that that opinion is factually correct. Thanks for the pings; I checked their userpages and I have asked ProfGray to take a look at Efrat (organization). Polygnotus (talk) 18:28, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

I just made an edit to the 'Accusations of being a cult' section to more accurately express what the sources say, and it was instantly reverted without explanation even before I could finish correcting the citations. It seems clear to me that the article is being guarded against any edits that do not reflect a certain point of view.Coalcity58 (talk) 22:21, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

We can discuss this below; but we could make more progress if you would recognize/admit your own bias when you accuse others; your edit summarized/removed a LOT of the info about cult accusations, and you didn't use an edit summary either. ---Avatar317 22:30, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

The extent of the coverage of the "cult" issue is not undue, in light of the sources. I do think, however, that the placement is undue (at least in the version that is current as I write). The introductory section should be, well, introductory. It should give the reader a quick overview of the subject. Polygnotus writes, "Hiding all negative information in a section near the bottom of an article is discouraged." I agree. The opposite extreme, however, is to launch right into a discussion of the pros and cons of the accusation. It's too much detail for the intro section. I would rewrite the second graf along these lines:

Landmark does not use advertising, but instead pressures participants during courses to recruit relatives and friends as new customers. This and other features have caused some observers to characterize Landmark as a "new religious movement" (NRM) or as a cult, which the organization denies (see Accusations of being a cult).

My editing one of the other sentences in the graf doesn't mean that I think it should be that prominent. That sentence and the rest of that graf should be moved to the detailed subsection.

Incidentally, that "Accusations of being a cult" subsection summarizes the substance of the accusations (maybe "characterizations" would be more neutral) and summarizes the actions taken by Landmark in response, but it's light on summarizing the substance of Landmark's response. Surely Landmark has issued some statements along the lines of "Here's why we're not a cult"? If so, the subsection should be improved, not by deleting any of what's there, but by paying more attention to Landmark's side of the merits of the question. JamesMLane t c 00:12, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

It would probably be wise to keep the view of sociologists and religious scholars, who describe it as an NRM, separate from those who describe it as a cult, which is basically every other independent commentator (like journalists), cult experts, groups/organizations and parts of various governments (France/Berlin/Belgium).

The reasons that it is an NRM are not the same as the reasons that it is a cult; its a different set of boxes to tick.

The method of recruiting perhaps qualifies it to be an MLM, or something similarly word-of-mouth based, but it is afaik not a defining feature of cults or NRMs. Polygnotus (talk) 00:52, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

• No, I don't think this is undue, given the amount of coverage of this issue in reliable sources. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:31, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

LOL. It's not a cult. Cults take you away from people and try to make you cut people off. Landmark encourages you to reach out to other people who you see their lives not going as they want-it and see if the course helps them. Everybody's journey through the course is different. And they have other followup classes you can get enlightenment in new areas. I can see how that might look like a "cult" to an outsider but it's for two entirely different reasons. The other reason is after you take the class you'll move on to more challenging things in life. And friends who are content in not moving anywhere in life and just complain become boring energy killers. You thusly move on two different wave lengths. Ofcourse if they take the class and you can hold frank discussions with them on anything and they no longer get offended, that's when that relationship shifts again. 108.20.240.158 (talk) 19:48, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Wow. Anyway, Misplaced Pages talk pages are not a forum for sharing your personal opinions or first-hand observation. This discussion should focus on how to proportionately summarize reliable and independent sources. Grayfell (talk) 20:54, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Allinson

@DaveApter: wants this to be included, I do not. We can use this space to discuss.

Amber Allinson, writing in ''The Mayfair Magazine'' describes Landmark's instructors as "enthusiastic and inspiring". Her review says that after doing The Landmark Forum, "Work worries, relationship dramas all seem more manageable", and that she "let go of almost three decades of hurt, anger and feelings of betrayal" towards her father.<ref name=Allinson>{{Cite journal|last=Allinson|first=Amber|date=April 2014|title=Mind over Matter|url=https://issuu.com/runwildmedia/docs/mayf_apr_14_issuu|journal=The Mayfair Magazine (U.K.)|volume=April 2014|pages=72–73}}</ref>

Also note that DaveApter is editing the article directly when they should be using {{edit coi}}.

Polygnotus (talk) 15:49, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Apart from the fact that "you don't want it included" - surely a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT - could you please be more specific? This segment is sourced, and has been part of the page for many years. DaveApter (talk) 16:00, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

No, not wanting to include something is not surely a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. There are many reasons that someone might not want to include something. Do you need more specificity than WP:PROMO WP:RS WP:NPOV? Polygnotus (talk) 16:04, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Yes I do - you have no hesitation in including opinion pieces that are critical of Landmark, and yet you object to any that report the (numerically far more extensive) positive reactions to their offerings. You have made your own POV on this topic entirely clear, yet you claim that any alternative perspective violates WP:NPOV. And what is your objection on WP:RS grounds? DaveApter (talk) 16:20, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

This person's only objection to your edit is that it doesn't support his point of view. His history of bias on this particular topic is clear. The only difference in this particular episode is that he hasn't yet resorted to nonsense statements and veiled insults. I'm sure he'll return to form soon. Coalcity58 (talk) 16:45, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Lack of Verifiability in Cited Sources

I've looked up the references that supposedly support this statement, and I am removing the initial sentence in the Accusations of Being a Cult Section because the cited sources do not reference any individuals who have accused Landmark of being a cult. Therefore, the statement is hearsay. Three of the authors state the opposite view that Landmark is in fact not a cult, and the fourth doesn't mention Landmark at all. See as follows:

"On this point, at least, I agree with Landmark. Having thoroughly researched the company over the past month I have come to the conclusion that they definitely aren’t a cult, despite the weird conversations you tend to have with Landmark advocates." Colorado Springs Independent

"Landmark has faced accusations of being a cult, but I saw nothing of that. Far from working to separate us from our families and friends, we were told there was no relationship too dead to be revived, no love too cold to be warmed." The Observer

"And now to that important question: is it a cult, brainwashing and evangelical? Cross out the first two; tick the third (but not in a literal, bible-bashing way — it’s just that there’s a lot of American hard sell). The party line is that evangelism is not a corporate approach: they attribute it to the individuals’ passion. But I don’t buy that. Whipping up the fervour and lurve is how they put bums on seats." Spears Magazine Coalcity58 (talk) 16:57, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

By the multiple other editors who responded to the RfC above "RfC - Undue weight given to 'Cult accusations'" - the consensus is that that statement IS adequately sourced. ---Avatar317 00:37, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

The downside of RfCs is that they can backfire. Reintroducing the humorist Alford and mentioning the 84% is probably also not a great move (I recommend reading his article). Perhaps its time to ask some topicbans? Polygnotus (talk) 10:49, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Please do not edit war

The recent reversion by Avatar317 amounts to vandalism. Please discuss the reasons for proposed changes here, rather than simply reverting to a preferred version. The two sections that I reinstated had been part of the article for many years. They had been removed without explanation by a drive-by editor with no history of involvement in this topic. The removal of the reference to the Amelia Hill article was particularly egregious, as this is one of the more sober and responsible pieces of journalism on this subject, in a well-respected London broadsheet, the Observer; and multiple citations to that source throughout the page had also been removed.

On the other hand I feel that Coalcity58 was excessive in removing the opening statement entirely: clearly Landmark has faced these accusations (or "characterizations" as one editor above suggested), but the wording does misrepresent what the sources actually say, and the Barker ref is irrelevant since it does not mention Landmark.

Please do not revert again before discussing here. DaveApter (talk) 13:39, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Are you joking? Please do not edit war you and the other Landmarkian accounts have repeatedly editwarred for years. Tagteaming with multiple accounts does not hide that fact. The perspectives of the Landmarkians and the Wikipedians are so far apart it is silly. amounts to vandalism false They had been removed without explanation false. Which Landmarkian account will be woken from its slumber next to report me to some noticeboard? Polygnotus (talk) 13:52, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

No, I am not joking. I just note that you have reverted these edits yet again without explanation. The Amelia Hill article in a quality British newspaper has been cited for over twelve years on this page without anyone objecting to it. Neither you or Avatar317 nor the editor who removed these references a week or so ago has provided any discussion here about reasons for the removal. Also you removed my small edit to correct the misleading summary of the sources in the cult section. Again, please discuss this if you disagree with it. DaveApter (talk) 16:57, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

I have read the archives of this talkpage and various related pages. On the one hand the Landmarkians, as a group, are not interested in a civilized discussion where people with differing viewpoints reach a middle ground; they want to get rid of anything negative and add a bunch of positive stuff (devoid of its context). On the other hand, the Wikipedians, as a group, are also not interested in reaching a middle ground because NPOV is policy and Wikipedians don't make exceptions to it, even when someone WP:CPUSHes or WP:BADGERs for a decade or two. So it is impossible for both groups to reach a middle ground. At some point the Landmarkians need to drop their stick or they need to get blocked for IDHT reasons. If I die tomorrow there will be another Wikipedian who removes promotional material. And another. And another. Wikipedians will always remove POV material and add information from reliable sources, no matter if its positive or negative. What is the relationship between you and the other Landmarkian accounts? Which are the socks and which are the meatpuppets? Would they stop if you tell them to? Why do you care so much about a Misplaced Pages article about a cult? Jensen credited Landmark with restoring the relationship with a family member; maybe you have a similar reason to care? I am not a mindreader. Can we perhaps have a normal conversation instead of this weird stuff where there are no winners and we just waste each-others time? I can imagine how frustrating it must be if you work for Landmark for decades and then you feel like outsiders smear its name, but I am not an evil person and I only care about Misplaced Pages, not about Landmark. In all this time a normal conversation where two adults with opposing viewpoints try to understand each-other hasn't been tried yet, maybe that would help? Polygnotus (talk) 17:05, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Once again, you have reverted without providing an explanation, and resorted to accusations of bad faith without any justification. You have made your own POV on this topic abundantly clear and you have been assiduous in working to have it represented in this article in violation of the WP:NPOV policy which you claim to uphold. DaveApter (talk) 17:27, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

My offer stands. Are you willing to have a normal conversation as adults where we try to understand eachothers point of view? Perhaps we can break this cycle. If not, then at least we tried. Polygnotus (talk) 17:28, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm wondering where/when/how you would propose to hold such a conversation; it would seem to me that it is a very valid suggestion, but given the tendency we can see throughout these pages to have content quoted without context, I would think it would be worthwhile to consider the logistics of such a conversation in order to ensure that what emerges is NOT "he said"/"they said", but rather an accurate rendition. What medium would you propose? Ndeavour (talk) 18:06, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

The medium would be Misplaced Pages. Perhaps a subpage of this page? That way its easy to refer to things and the conversation is open and accessible to all. The goal is not to have yet another fight; it is trying to work towards mutual understanding. Understanding each-other does not mean we have to agree. Ideally we would have a normal respectful conversation. So we need to be a bit openminded and willing to forgive because it is difficult to unlearn bad habits. Polygnotus (talk) 18:12, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

I for one would be delighted if we could accomplish this, and put an end to the adversarial nature of the recent conversations. I think that this page is the appropriate location for this discussion, and I don't see that a 'sub-page' is necessary. The normal conventions of Misplaced Pages to assume good faith and avoid casting aspersions or making ad hominem remarks should suffice to keep the conversation civil. DaveApter (talk) 19:35, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

The reason I suggested using a subpage is to have a clear demarcation. Any hostilities/fights/arguments/unpleasantness can remain here, and we can use the other page to try to understand each-other better. It would be difficult to have a civil, perhaps even friendly, conversation when surrounded by unpleasant stuff imo. We have to avoid falling in the same trap over and over again and I think a change of venue would help. A new page can symbolize a fresh start. Polygnotus (talk) 19:39, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

I am open to having any conversation that stands a chance of being fruitful. As previously stated, I think that here - rather than any sub-page - is the appropriate place. Let me start by stating that I have never intentionally and deliberately made any assertion that could be interpreted as " WP:CPUSHing and WP:BADGERing and sealioning" or "ad hominems" or "bullying". If you can point to any such instances, I will be happy to repudiate them. My interest in editing this page is in having it conform to Misplaced Pages's policies of NOT being advocacy for a specific minority viewpoint, and of accurately summarizing such sources as exist on the topic. On another point, I note that another editor has claimed that I have declared a COI - which is not the case. Being open about the fact that I have been a customer of Landmark does not amount to having a "close connection". Does the fact that I have bought Apple products prohibit me from editing the Apple page? Are all of Landmark's three million customers to be outlawed from editing here? DaveApter (talk) 17:28, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Apples and oranges, clearly not equivilent products. Seems disengenous to even make the comparison. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:58, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

You spent 20 years trying to remove all negative information about Landmark and related entities from Misplaced Pages. It is not about having a "close connection" it is about the fact that you have a conflict of interest. WP:EXTERNALREL explains all that. Have you ever admitted that you('ve) work(ed) for Landmark (either as a volunteer or paid employee), now or in the past? People who do a bunch of Landmark courses always get pressured into volunteering/working for them. As previously stated, I think that here - rather than any sub-page - is the appropriate place. I already explained why that is a bad idea. Is the fact that its a different page really a reason for you to not try to have a civil conversation? I can embed it here if you insist. Polygnotus (talk) 19:11, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

So this is an example of your idea of 'a normal conversation to try to understand each-other better'? DaveApter (talk) 10:30, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

@DaveApter: No, as explained before, that would be in the War Room. At the bottom of this page. And you are invited. We got tea and cookies. Polygnotus (talk) 11:49, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

Well, were it not for your history of lobbing sideways insults and nonsensical responses, plus your perfectly clear point of view that this organization is a cult, i might actually be willing to have a 'normal conversation' with you. In fact, you and I might have become new acquaintances, collaborators in editing, or possibly even friends with time. But you chose instead to create enmity within a day or two of my first editing here by reversing a minor edit I made without explanation or discussion, and then attempting to create difficulties for me with Misplaced Pages when I restored the edit and objected to your arbitrary actions. In addition, I have repeatedly requested you explain your interest and point of view on this article and have been met with further stonewalling and nonsensical remarks such as how you dislike unloading the dishwasher. Given that history, it's difficult to take your suggestion of a normal conversation seriously. It might still be possible, but from my point of view the onus is now on you to demonstrate some good faith. Coalcity58 (talk) 19:31, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Everyone is invited but no one is forced to attend. From my point of view the onus is on the Landmarkians. I believe the Wikipedians have, in general (there are exceptions), been kind to the Landmarkians. Polygnotus (talk) 19:45, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

This is rather disappointing. In this brief note, you are making it abundantly clear that you have no intention of following "The normal conventions of Misplaced Pages to assume good faith and avoid casting aspersions or making ad hominem remarks". Without adhering to these, there is no possibility of useful and constructive dialog. You have previously referred to editors who do not share your viewpoint as "cult members" (which is absurd anyway because there is no such thing as "membership" of Landmark), and you now refer them as "Landmarkians". Is this even a word? Did you make it up? And then you compound the insult by indicating that such editors are somehow not Wikipedians. There is clearly no authentic intention on your part to "try to understand each-other better", and in any case the point of this page is to discuss the merits of proposed changes with a view to improving the article. The discussions should be framed in the context of adherence to the policies of Misplaced Pages. As noted several times above, the article content regarding cult accusations completely misrepresents what the cited sources actually say. You have simply refused to answer the direct questions on this point and also those about the two valid references which you edit warred to remove. DaveApter (talk) 16:28, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Look, if you want to keep going for another 2 decades, getting more and more frustrated, then that is up to you. I was hoping to have a normal conversation to try to understand each-other better. If you keep posting these rants then that is not possible. Polygnotus (talk) 16:34, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

DaveApter's note is not a rant. It makes several good points. He, and others here, have consistently attempted a balanced, good faith dialogue - and you have just as consistently resisted those efforts at every step. For my part, despite your negative history, I'm willing to have that 'normal conversation' with you. But for that to happen, as I said, you need to demonstrate some good faith. What that looks like is drop the name calling and accusations, the nonsensical gaslighting, and the instantaneous reversal of edits that you don't agree with. Actually step up and have a real dialogue, state your positions, and make your case honestly. When i see that, I'll be happy to come to the table. Take DaveApter's words to heart, answer people's questions, present your arguments. You said you're not an evil person. Well, act like it and earn some respect. Seems to me you're getting some olive branches extended to you. Accept one. Coalcity58 (talk) 21:47, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Au contraire, the Landmarkians have spent literal decades WP:CPUSHing and WP:BADGERing and sealioning. They have wasted an insane amount of time of the Wikipedians. Not to mention the ad hominems, the bullying, the tagteaming, the socking and meatpuppeting, the editwarring and the bad faith accusations. As I said above, most are not interested in a civilized discussion where people with differing viewpoints reach a middle ground; they want to get rid of anything negative and add a bunch of positive stuff (devoid of its context). If anyone gets to make demands of the other party it is the Wikipedians, because this is Misplaced Pages and not Landmarkipedia. Despite all that I am still willing to talk to the Landmarkians. I don't think we are going to fully agree on everything, and I don't think it is useful to make long lists of who did what when and demand apologies and all that. I have spoken to all sorts of people, including people with whom I have very fundamental disagreements. It can be interesting to learn about others POV. And communication is easier when you understand each-other a bit. And I am certain the Landmarkians don't understand the Wikipedians, and vice versa. We can bicker about this for 48 years or we can make the decision to try to have a normal polite conversation. I am willing to give it a try, and it seems unlikely that the relationships between the Landmarkians and the Wikipedians can get soured any more than they already have been in the past decades, so I don't think we have much to lose by trying to understand each other. Polygnotus (talk) 22:10, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

I boldy created Talk:Landmark Worldwide/thewarroom. Polygnotus (talk) 22:18, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Well, I think you just reiterated DaveApter's points. You know, I can only speak for me, not others. I've indicated willingness to have the civilized discussion you're talking about. When you're ready to set aside your positionality and engage in a genuine, human conversation, you're welcome to reach out. Oh, and by the way, you might want to check your mirror before you accuse other people of being bullies. Coalcity58 (talk) 23:12, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Well, I started the civilized discussion I proposed. If others are unwilling to join a friendly conversation with the goal of improving mutual understanding then that is telling. I have read the archives, they are publicly available, and anyone who wants to take a look can easily figure out who is interested in having a balanced and fair Misplaced Pages article (neutrally presenting what is written in reliable sources, both the good and bad) and who isn't. Polygnotus (talk) 23:21, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

@Coalcity58: For the record, maybe I was unclear, but the fact that I am willing to have a friendly conversation in the War Room does not mean that I am somehow not allowed to debunk false claims and point out faulty reasoning on this page. That is not how this works. When you are ready to set aside your positionality and engage in a genuine, human conversation, you're welcome to join me in the War Room. In an ideal world the mutual understanding and friendship created in the War Room would lead to this talkpage becoming a harmonious Utopia at some point in the future; but we haven't reached that point yet. It would be awesome if the Landmarkians could demonstrate some good faith by stopping the ad hominems and false accusations, the nonsensical gaslighting and badgering, and the attempts to remove all negative information. But I don't demand that they do that as a prerequisite for entering the War Room; I am hoping to convince them during a friendly conversation in the War Room that they should stop doing that. Polygnotus (talk) 23:35, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

The War Room

"Gentlemen, you can't fight in here. This is the War Room!" -- Dr. Strangelove

Welcome! Grab a cup of tea and make yourself at home. I think the first question should be: what should I call you as a collective? Polygnotus (talk) 22:19, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

I am also quite curious what the most important things people have learned from Landmark (or experienced because of Landmark) are. If that's not too personal to share. Polygnotus (talk) 22:40, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Call me old fashioned, but conversation's a term that denotes (to me) the give and take of the verbal exchange of ideas, whereas I've found this method to be very distinct. For instance, I've already edited my comments a number of times before posting them, which isn't possible in verbal conversation. However, short of using newer tools like Skype (well, it's newer than typing, right?) or Zoom or whatever you use for face to face dialogs. I recognize that this is what we have to work with. So, having preambled on, I'll respond to your second question, then your first, and then, in turn, have at least one question for you. One more thing - I don't work for Landmark and do not speak for the company. I speak from my experience - others may have different things to say,

I first did the est Training. I registered thinking I would be attending a program that would help me managing my money. (That was both correct and inaccurate, by the way.) I sat in the room for the first three hours, thinking "I know that" and "I already know that," and deciding which person speaking was worth listening to, based on things like how they looked or how they sounded - in other words, whether they met my "standards." I distinctly remember when a man about my age stood to talk and I dismissed him based on some of those arbitrary standards - yet within 30 seconds he had my rapt attention as what he was sharing sounded so much like my life and concerns that I was stunned.

That was shocking to me, and in the rest of that program I began to see the ways that I did that all over my life as I dismissed people without even realizing it. More importantly, I began to see how that cost me in failed relationships, lack of friends and estrangement from family. Nowadays, the Forum calls that a blind spot - something that has an impact on one's life but is unseen. My discovery of that about myself was life altering. I know others had told me things like it but they couldn't get through because I already "knew it all."

In many respects, that question about "the most important things people have learned from Landmark" has as many different answers as there are participants, since the current methodology has participants applying constructs to their personal lives. People stop being lonely. Some come to peace with long-standing issues in their lives. Some come away with the experience of having shed heaviness from their thinking. Results vary according to what is important to the participant - which defies what we think "education" should provide after all our many years of schooling.

Regarding your first question, let me suggest that "what shall I call you as a collective" is simple: human beings. The only thing that everyone has in common is their humanity. They are people - not "Landmarkians." People completing the courses don't come out converted to a "Landmark way" - they come out more at home with values that work for them in their life. (And yes, people have been known to go overboard - as in ANYTHING ELSE).

Now, questions for you: do you feel compelled to question the value I got? (Look and see - do you have things you want to say about the previous two paragraphs - that's what I mean) So please look for yourself - what were your reactions? Can you say anything about the nature of those reactions?

Next, what are you arguing for? I don't disagree that "cult" claims have been around a long time - but most cited are decades old, many of them are not qualified experts providing evidence but rather are the literary equivalent of click bait - a headline mentioning Landmark and cult but a subsequent article denying it. There are none that I know of regarding the current program. So I ask again, what your arguing in favor of?

Looking forward to your responses. Ndeavour (talk) 17:40, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

I agree that verbal communication can be superior, especially since the human voice adds nuances that are difficult to convey in text, but unfortunately I don't think we have that option. During the COVID years I started developing an intense dislike for Zoom and the like, because it somehow feels incredibly artificial. Weird how seeing someones face can make videocalling feel more artificial than a normal voicecall.

Interesting that you started back in the est days. The bad old days; according to some. About that blind spot, would you consider it something you learned or something you already knew, perhaps subconsciously, but suddenly were forced to confront and deal with? People are of course unique, but that does not mean we don't often share similar struggles.

The reason I asked what people have learned is because I see the determination and enthousiasm with which people defend Erhard/est/Landmark and I don't know any organisation that elicits the same response in me. I am also not the type to go be a spectator at sport events so maybe thats just me.

The Wikipedian/Landmarkian thing is of course just an easy way to talk about the 2 groups. Since the Wikipedians are also human (very very much so) "human" is not a very useful label in this context.

I already knew that some (but not all) people were getting something they believe to be of value of course. I have read (some of) what they wrote online about it. Erhard was obviously inspired by various sources, and not all of those sources are bad or evil. I know quite a few people who love Eastern philosophy. I agree that humans unfortunately have a tendency to go overboard and turn even harmless activities into true horror.

I am arguing in favor of Misplaced Pages. Doing what we do here. I am arguing in favor of accepting that someone uninvolved wrote the article.

As you can probably imagine there are loads of people who strongly disagree with what reliable sources are saying, create a Misplaced Pages account and then end up disillusioned (and/or blocked). It is not unlikely that some of those people are correct, but the overwhelming majority are not. I don't know what media you consume but it is difficult to not notice that even what we call "reliable sources" on Misplaced Pages do not always match up with reality as we experience it. Misplaced Pages will never contain the whole truth, and be perfectly accurate, it is doomed to be a work in progress until the end of days. Polygnotus (talk) 11:17, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

I'm going to suggest that you have collapsed some ideas that really are distinct, based solely upon how you wrote here: "I see the determination and enthusiasm with which people defend Erhard/est/Landmark and I don't know any organization that elicits the same response in me." If - for the moment - you leave out your personal response, can you agree that there are any number of organizations that have determined and enthusiastic followers? In the US, there's are political and social movements; elsewhere there are things like labor unions, the IRA, ISIS, the various denominations of religions - in short, any number that have enthusiastic proponents. If you have a response to any of those organizations that differs from your response to Landmark, isn't it worth some time to distinguish for yourself how and why there is a difference?

I'm not sure that people are so much defending Erhard/est/Landmark as they are proponents of programs that - for them - made an enormous difference. In every program I attended/supervised, every leader makes the point that what is presented isn't "the truth," but instead one possible way of looking at life. The focus of Landmark (est has been out of existence for almost 40 years) isn't on knowledge but on one's relationship to one's assumptions about life - a subject that's fed philosophers from time immemorial. Want to learn about money? Take a course on it. Want to explore your relationship to money? That happens to many in Landmark programs.

You also wrote: "I am arguing in favor of accepting that someone uninvolved wrote the article " What constitutes "uninvolved?" There are magazine articles listed where the authors participated (were involved) - shouldn't they be disallowed as involved? Additionally, they even reject the cult label - it's the editors who add the titling. I look forward to your response. Ndeavour (talk) 18:23, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

To Polygnotus: I find it puzzling that you set up this "war room" to establish a dialog and it's been about two weeks since I posted and you have yet to respond, especially given how rapidly I've seen you respond to others on this talk page. Is everything all right in your world? Ndeavour (talk) 16:15, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

@Ndeavour: Sorry, I have been very distracted by things irl. And I've had to do some research. Its one of those "life is what happens while you are making other plans"-situations we all know and love. Polygnotus (talk) 11:23, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

I haven't cared to edit on Misplaced Pages for awhile, however, I'd like to point out there are copious amounts of personal experiences documented (including in the articles cited), particularly first hand accounts of journalists. This question got me curious, and I found this playlist on their YouTube channel: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dSPkT_yV6JY&list=PLRJmT-S5OojXXfbSu3KDsml_myJZoAU6h. Nwlaw63 (talk) 17:00, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Interesting, thank you. Polygnotus (talk) 11:35, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Categories:

• Articles edited by connected contributors
• Misplaced Pages controversial topics
• C-Class California articles
• Low-importance California articles
• C-Class San Francisco Bay Area articles
• Low-importance San Francisco Bay Area articles
• San Francisco Bay Area task force articles
• WikiProject California articles
• C-Class company articles
• Low-importance company articles
• WikiProject Companies articles
• C-Class education articles
• Low-importance education articles
• WikiProject Education articles
• C-Class psychology articles
• Mid-importance psychology articles
• WikiProject Psychology articles
• C-Class Religion articles
• Mid-importance Religion articles
• C-Class New religious movements articles
• High-importance New religious movements articles
• New religious movements articles
• WikiProject Religion articles
• Misplaced Pages pages with to-do lists