Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Smee (talk | contribs) at 15:51, 23 May 2007 (→Comments by []). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

- Please stick to the subject. Do not allow other editors to derail this process by distracting you with personal comments.

- Please also keep all comments to issues relating to content, and not contributors, as per WP:NPA.

General problem, probably long term - dispute on how to properly include cited material in proper NPOV manner.

Hello Medcab

We need some help with mediating the Landmark Education article. Some editors have been removing well sourced edits from the article on the basis that consensus trumps NPOV policies , or that minority views cannot be presented on Misplaced Pages I will assume good faith and for the time being state that they are just being unbelievably misguided. However, after suggestions to discuss weight, relevance, and reliablity, proponents made no attempt to make suggestions , and after the information was moved to the talkpage, the main proponent push was towards dismissing the information rather than offering suggestions for presentation .

Editors who wish to have the information presented into the article are doing so on the basis that the edits are well sourced, and are therefore admissible. Such editors are open to appropriate adjustments being made to those edits in context. Jeffrire 08:34, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment to Mediators: The above framing of the issues is how one side of the issues being dealt with would articulate. Some of the above is even factually inaccurate (I believe). For instance, I would be surprised if Jeffrire Can show one entry on the talk page where an editor expressed that "consensus trumps NPOV". That is merely weasel-wording on Jeffrire's part- misstating other editor's positions in order to invoke sympathy in newcomers to the conversations. Alex Jackl 21:23, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Comments from involved editors

Comments by DaveApter

Just a quick comment for now - Jeffrire has framed the summary in manner which begs the question under dispute. It is not that he is a standard bearer for upholding the NPOV policy and others wish to ignore it. The issue is rather that other editors differ from his judgement that the material is in compliance with the NPOV policy. Also that the sources are in some cases far from reliable, that the sources sometimes do not support the assertion made in the article, and that what is being put forward is opinion rather than fact without a notable individual or identifiable population being shown to hold that opinion. DaveApter 14:02, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Comments by Lsi john

I had no knowledge or experience with Landmark Education prior to joining wikipedia editors on 28-March-2007.

With all due respect to Jefrire, the above is not an accurate portrayal of the situation. I do agree that lengthy repeated discussions, regarding the material in question, have failed to yield productive results and it may be time for mediation.

While some editors may disagree on specific points, by and large the majority of editors are open to compromise on the wording, provided the end result contains relevant material that is worded in an NPOV manner.

One important point in particular:

• The foreign language sources use the word 'sectant' which properly translates to 'sect'. Jeffrire has refused to accept this proper translation and repeatedly insists that Landmark Education is a cult.

Thank you for your time and attention.

I look forward to accurate citations which properly reflect the material being cited in an NPOV manner.

Lsi john 14:24, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I've also noticed that one editor here has specifically refused to have their own comment section. Instead, this editor is commenting in everyone else's section about other editors, ironically, insisting that the other editors stop commenting about other editors. I respectfully request that this editor (who has not made a single article-related comment) take their own advice and stop focusing on the other editors and, instead, start focusing on the article. Thank you. Lsi john 15:38, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

• I have stated already, I am no longer involved with editing this article. I had grown sick of all of the rudeness and threats on the talk page. I simply wanted to come to the Mediation to check if individuals were focusing on content, or on contributors - for focus on the latter will not lead to anything productive, but only to personal attacks on individual editors. I see that this is what is going on here, from the majority of comments made, and that is quite unfortunate. It is unfortunate that a majority of individuals here do not wish to have a polite dialogue about the content of the article itself, and the inherent issues involved. Smee 15:51, 23 May 2007 (UTC).

Comments by Spacefarer

While I don't edit a lot, at the request of Jeffrire, I took the time to add comments, and they have not been addressed. I am concerned that the artilce stay balanced and NPOV with reputable sources, not just individual opinions. Spacefarer 16:25, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Comments by Sm1969

I have edited on and off on this page, and, over the period of about 1.5 years, the article has gone in circles, with A) wholesale deletions of sourced material and B) overrepresentation of insignificant minority positions (which should not be included by NPOV guidelines) and C) overrepresentation of significant minority opinions (which should be given due representation, but not overweighted). Numerous articles have been created surrounding Landmark Education on non-notable people and subjects to create a basis for portraying Landmark Education in a negative light, and such articles have also been administratively deleted for violating policies on notability and attacks. The LE page has gone on and off protection, yet the problems with certain editors persist. We are a long way from a neutral, accurate and informative article, and have been circling (at best) that objective for about 1.5 years. Sm1969 18:47, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

• Surprisingly, User:Sm1969 has framed his opinions on certain issues here without personally attacking other editors (so far), but rather by describing the issues at hand and the general ideas regarding content in dispute, and I appreciate that. Polite language makes for more constructive dialogue, overall. Smee 00:22, 22 May 2007 (UTC).

Comments by AJackl

First off , the framing of this mediation request is ludicrous and a PERFECT example of the kind of spin and POV work that has been done on this article. Few editors would say that the above is the issue. None of us have argued that "COncensus trumps NPOV" AT ALL. We have argued consistently that the mass reverts being done by these users to a single old version of the article is a POV attack against the article and contains POV-pushing, non-notable, and non-relevant, information. The framing of this mediation request is the kind of use of weasel words I find most objectionable about what has been going on in this page. Alex Jackl 21:16, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I have edited on this page for some time. In the interest of not repeating material I concur with users DaveApter, Sm1969, SpaceFarer, and Lsi john above. I have been frustrated over time with the lack of compromise, have been exhausted by dealing with bulk reverts of contentious, POV, insignificant minority-view (IMO) material (however cited and sourced it is). DaveApter tried to create a discussion frame which was mostly ignored and then it worked because the page was protected and the editors that actually wanted to work on content started showing up once the edit warring disappeared and for a few weeks/months we worked together and got the page to a reasonable state. Then EstherRice and Jeffrire picked up where Smee left off and the assault began again. I would love to work out the issues but I don't have much faith and am tired of mass reverts happening with no (or little to be more accurate and fair) discussion of the content or response to factual concerns except "this is highly sourced material". I hope this process makes a difference but I am sure glad the page is protected. Alex Jackl 21:12, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

• User:AJackl seems to only be able to describe his opinions regarding the issue by personally attacking other editors - most amusing, and yet, highly inappropriate, and especially not conducive to any form of constructive polite dialogue through a Mediation process. Smee 23:50, 21 May 2007 (UTC).

A notice as per WP:TPG -- .

• NO, they were characterizing and attacking other editors - as opposed to framing the particular dispute in the framework of whatever content he disagrees with and wishes to remove from the article. That would be a more constructive way to go about positive change, instead of starting right off the bat making this a tit for tat personal attack on other editors - as opposed to a dialogue about what content is and is not appropriate for the article itself. Smee 00:14, 22 May 2007 (UTC).
• This comment was in response to a comment by User:Lsi john, which he then removed. Check edit history if you wish to see it. Smee 00:17, 22 May 2007 (UTC).

• Comment Smee's contribution to this debate should been seen in the context of his extensive involvement in the Landmark article during the period May 2006 - March 2007, which was substantially responsible for the state of the article which several editors judged to be in gross violation of NPOV, and which is at the root of this current dispute. DaveApter 09:04, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

• Further personal attacks from DaveApter, though amusing, are not surprising. The root of the current debate is not any one individual editor's contributions, but rather inclusion of certain sourced chunks of material that is critical of the company, that others wish to remove. I am no longer taking an active role in the article, having experienced personal attacks, veiled legal threats, and generally highly rude, inappropriate and impolite behaviour from certain individuals - however I wanted to stop by the Mediation to point out these further personal attacks occurring here, and the fact they they are wholly non-productive to any form of constructive dialogue related to the actual content of the article itself. Smee 09:09, 22 May 2007 (UTC).

*For what it is worth, I do not see how what Dave Apter is saying can be construed as a personal attack. All Dave Apter did above was factual and outlined in the comments already on this page. Triplejumper 19:35, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

By addressing indivdual editors and what he feels are their motivations, rather than issues that he sees as problems with the articles content. WP:NPA - The best way to have a better polite and positive dialogue about the content issues we wish to address here, is to discuss content, not contributors. Smee 22:52, 22 May 2007 (UTC).

Comments by Timb66

I started editing this page and contributing to the discussion in early April 2007, soon after I started editing Misplaced Pages. As I have disclosed on the talk page, I did the Landmark Forum in 1994 and have done a few other courses since then, the most recent being about 3 years ago. I noticed that the Wiki page was in bad shape, with many fragmented and disconnected facts. I soon realized that the page was controversial. I have been struck by the strong opposition that has been displayed by some editors, to the point of one stating that Landmark is a cult (Jeffire) and another stating that "participating in Landmark Education activities does provide a bad indicator for objectivity" (Pedant17). I realize that my comments are directed at editors. That was deliberate -- the reason this article has not stabilized is becasue of disagreements between editors, so it seems obvious that we should discuss those disagreements. As I have said on the talk page, I do not question the good faith of other editors. I accept that we all want to improve Misplaced Pages. But I do question the neutrality of some editors who have made it clear they have strong opinions.

Concerning the article, I don't advocate removing all criticism of Landmark. Indeed, I think it is notable that some people find the "hard sell" approach to be irritating. However, I also think it is notable that studies have shown that the majority of participants find the courses extremely rewarding and I think the article needs to reflect all points of view with appropriate balance. I hope that this mediation process can lead to some resolution. Timb66 00:29, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Note to mediator: the page on Landmark Education litigation contains much of the material that is under discussion here. Timb66 00:35, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Comments by Jeffrire

Hello and thanks for reading. I am simply going to state that some editors would be misguided in thinking that the information presented (and deleted on many occasions) was insignificant or unreliable. The information is certainly critical and derives from articles that to my knowledge are reliable and often show a variety of views on the subject. I'm open to all relevant views being presented in the article according to NPOV policies and would like to work with the mediators and all involved in order to present all relevant views. It would also be useful to set up a habit of dialogue that allows editors to discuss the issues at hand (sourced views on cult status, views on manipulation and the general notoriety of Landmark Education) without some editors always taking offense or making undue accusations of negative POV pushing. I believe these issues do need to be stated in discussion and though they may be objectionable, it should be possible to discuss them without any antagonism or threats of legal action, whether contrived or real. Jeffrire 08:42, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Comments by Triplejumper

I have two comments. One, the issue with the content in questions is minority POV pushing, not weather it is sourced. In looking further at Jeffrire, Esther Rice, Smee, Penant 17 the over whelming majority of their edits are on articles that involve LGAT, Cult, lists of organizations accused of being such, individuals aledged to be involved as such, lists of individuals and researches who have fought against such organizations. Many of these articles have been created by the same people. I think that this plainly reflects an intense POV. Second, is that on the talk page of the Landmark article, Jeffrire thoughtfully posted all of the material that he felt should be included in the article and invited comments. Most of the editors who have posted on this cabal page took up that invitation and raised significant questions about the reliability of the references and how they were used to support the assertions made in the text. I do not see where anyone has responded to address the significant problems and questions most editors had with the text. Triplejumper 15:12, 23 May 2007 (UTC)