Talk:Landmark Education/Archive04

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Is this Advertising

After clearly annoying people with my edits, I thought before I did anything big, I'd ask

  • Does this section Landmark_Education#University_of_Southern_California contain advertising.
    • It has a contact number and a cost.
      • Mark? (Please sign in and sign your posts with four tildes). You're right. It should have a standard bibliographic reference, which it's lacking, but not ordering information. I'll let you fix it; I'm starting to feel like a maid.  :) Something which may explain the controversy about Landmark to you. If you're experienced in military history, you're familiar with partisan military accounts which exaggerate the victories and minimize the defeats. Generally speaking, they can't hold a candle to what Landmark advocates do. It takes a huge battle to try to get to something accurate, balanced, and neutral. Kat'n'Yarn 20:41, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Opps Sorry I thought I did Mark1800 01:05, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
      • This is bizarre! You complain about the direct link being to a re-print on Landmark's corporate site, and yet when a note has been provided about where the original can be obtained, you remove it on the grounds that it’s advertising! DaveApter 13:40, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
        • Dave, Dave Dave! You're combining several editors into one, and whatever you think is bizarre isn't clear, but there's nothing bizarre about this. What is needed is a standard bibliographical reference, not ordering information, not Landmark's interpretation. Standard bibliographical references usually include: authors name(s), title of study, title of larger work if it's published as part of something else, name of publisher, date of publication, page number(s) if you're referring to less than the whole. Please read Wikipedia's policies on Reliable sources and Citing sources. Kat'n'Yarn 02:45, 20 September 2006 (UTC) And whoever included the information on this study in the article should have actually read the study, and taken what was included in the article from the study, not from what Landmark said about it. Kat'n'Yarn 03:11, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
        • Kat'n'Yarn and DaveApter, I changed the reference from how is was to how it is now based on a number of points.
      1. I don't have access to the primary source & could not find it anywhere on the Internet (Landmark also seems to be the only secondary source) so I could not quote chapter & verse. I could only point to a secondary source.
      2. Someone included it here and it looks like it might have been a valid study, so deleting it might not be a good idea
      3. If I gave a link to the Landmark site, at the very least someone would go, "hey this looks like advertising, I better either read what's here with a grain of salt or order the report and find out what it says"
      4. I could not find who commissioned the study, so moving it to "Landmark commisioned studies" may have been wrong
      5. Generally it was an attempt at reducing page legth while providing the reader the ability to find out how to source the original document, without the advertising being from here.
        • Mark1800 06:50, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
      • In order to stay in the article in the long run, the entry has to have an acceptable citation. I would have fixed it myself, but there isn't even a full reference on Landmark's website. It doesn't have to be available on the web. There was a time when people used libraries.  :) Landmark's website is not a secondary source. Secondary sources are published. Kat'n'Yarn 03:47, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
    • LOL The Forum, The new Battlefield. I was thinking about this. In Military History we often get conflicting reports, popular misconseptions and outright lies. As you can imagine this creates for interesting discussion. My experience is often the best course to ambiguity is to point out the facts, and leave the reader to fill in the gaps. I'll give some examples. In the late 1300's there is a record of a battle. We have the records of the number of knights on side one being being around 400. We also have records from side two saying they killed over 1000 knights. How is this so. We may never know. (trust me some of the theories are interesting) What we do is we record what side one said was there and what side two said they killed. Often in these cases the only source documents are what each side said, so it is often difficult to cross-reference. There is a great quote History is written by the victors. What I'm trying to say is that is the case of this wiki entry, you may have to use Landmark's information as your source document and wait until other evidence turns up. Me personally I'm interested in stamping out advert's Mark1800 01:25, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
      • In the case of Landmark, there is other evidence. There are also people who don't like and ignore it. Kat'n'Yarn 03:45, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
      • Yep we do that is military history too :-) The trick is to get the facts out and let the reader make up thier mind. The hardest part as an editor is which facts to include and which facts to exclude. Mark1800 06:50, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Should Landmark Education Business Development (LEBD) have it's own wiki page

I noticed in my reading of the site and modification to the above discussed section that several of the studies and some of the information refers to LEBD, not Landmark Education. I'm also left with the impression (no facts found yet) that LEBD runs a course based on the Forum technology, but it is not the same as what Landmark Education (LE) runs. I also note that LEBD is a subsidury company, with it's own directors, etc. Given some of the information on this page is for LEBD and not LE, would it reduce the page length, to pull out the studies and information about LEBD and place them on a seperate page Mark1800 01:56, 17 September 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Controversies section

I’ve taken you at your word and removed the entire Controversies section, except for the summary at the beginning, which presumably we can agree on(?).

I don't know who you took at their word, but if you're going to remove the entire Controversies section, as if there is no controversy, then you also, in the interest of being NPOV, need to remove all favorable information which is not sourced or not properly sourced. Applying a double standard couldn't be more POV. It might be more helpful if you'd do something contructive, like rewriting a section to be NPOV and properly sourced, rather than just criticizing and editorializing. I'd also remind you again that the article needs to be based on published sources, not on "what you know" and on your opinions. Kat'n'Yarn 03:23, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
Well, I'm sorry if the two pages of discussion here don't count in your book as doing something constructive (or the section above This article is a mess, the substance of which no-one has disputed. You were complaining that the entire controversies section violated the NPOV guidelines. I agree. I've explained why in some detail in this section. I haven't "deleted the entire section as though there were no controversy" - I reduced it to a stub summarising the disputes that exist. Do you agree that that's a fair summary or not? If not, please suggest an alternative formulation. Deleting the complete article as a whole back to a stub, and then building up consensus here about how to re-construct it, is definitely an option worth considering. Please don't give high-handed lectures on partiality without taking a look at the asymmetry with which you apply the policies in your own edits (and maybe getting some independent feedback from someone impartial).
I am committed to having this article be a work of quality, fully in accordance with wikipedia guidelines. You say that's what you want too. Let's work together on that, and let's both try to avoid verbal sparring and point-scoring. How about starting by going through this section and saying what you agree with and what you disagree with, and why? I don't see why we can't reach consensus about what shoud be re-inserted within a few days. DaveApter 08:52, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
Please, let us first discuss this section on the talk page before deleting the entire section en masse. The controversies and lawsuits sections were in place without dispute on the Landmark Education article long before you took note to being editing the article, and there are numerous reputable citations within the subsections, both cited and in blockquote citation format. If you have issue with a particular part of the section, then discuss it. But if you have issue with your interpreted POV of the section, please do not simply delete the entire section, but first engage in discussion of said referenced sources on the talk page. Smeelgova 16:13, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
So why don't you engage in the detailed discussion in this section? I don't really know what to add to what I have already said here. I note that you didn't complain when kat'n'yarn made a wholesale deletion of about a third of the article without getting consensus here. That resulted in a ridiculously unbalanced page, as I explained in detail above, and no-one has contested. The section misrepresents opinions as facts, fails to identify or quantify the populations who hold those opinions, and gives undue weight to minority or extreme minority views.
btw, didn't your last revert breach the '3 revert rule'? DaveApter 16:55, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
  • As I see it, this section of the article at present has 20 referenced citations, mostly from reputable sources. (Though some were still from Landmark Education's Corporate website, which really doesn't comply with Wikipedia:Reliable sources to the extent that these sources are being used 10 times throughout the article as a whole). I will try to find time soon to go through and analyze each referenced citation. As to the '3 revert rule', no, the last revert did not breach it, for I had restored user Mark1800's edit, not yours. Therefore, this would really have been my second restoration of the material in question. Smeelgova 20:44, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I suggest that we work towards a consensus on this page on what should go back in, how it should be expressed, and what citations are acceptable in support. Here is a start to the discussion:

[edit] General

The section as a whole is about varied opinions which are held by different groups of people, rather than about matters of material fact which can satisfactorily be substantiated (matters of fact, if they belong in the article at all, would belong in some other section). The relevant wikipedia guideline from WP:NPOV is:

Assert facts, including facts about opinions — but don't assert opinions themselves….Where we might want to state an opinion,…we "convert" that opinion into fact by attributing it to someone. It's important to note this formulation is substantially different from the "some people believe..." formulation popular in political debates. The reference requires an identifiable and objectively quantifiable population or, better still, a name.
But it's not enough, to express the Wikipedia non-bias policy, just to say that we should state facts and not opinions. When asserting a fact about an opinion, it is important also to assert facts about competing opinions, and to do so without implying that any one of the opinions is correct. It's also generally important to give the facts about the reasons behind the views, and to make it clear who holds them. It's often best to cite a prominent representative of the view.
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. Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation among experts on the subject, or among the concerned parties.

The "populations"are as follows:

a) Satisfied Landmark customers

b) Dissatisfied Landmark customers

c) Non-customers impressed by Landmark

d) Non-customers critical of Landmark

e) Persons presenting themselves as "authorities on Cults and similar groups"

Objectively quantifying these is a challenge, especially groups (c) and (d). Group (e) is a small subset of group (d). The following reservations should be borne in mind with respect to group (e):

  1. They are essentially self-appointed, and there is no accreditation process for such practitioners
  2. They have a vested interest in stirring up alarm and concern about unconventional groups
  3. They have a vested interest in not owning up to errors of fact or interpretation in their pronouncements
  4. They have no first-hand observation of Landmark’s programs
  5. They base their conclusions substantially on opinions solicited from groups (b) and (d) above – clearly an unscientific procedure and one suffering systematically from selection bias
  6. For the above reasons, they are not reliable sources of WP:NPOV data.

The sizes of populations (a) and (b) can be estimated as follows: total number of Landmark customers: 800,000 (LE figures); Proportion rating the course good or excellent in at least one respect :95%. Of the remaining 5% rating the course fair or poor, only a small proportion would be actively hostile, say 1%. This would indicate roughly 760,000 in group (a) and maybe up to 8,000 in group (b). I appreciate that detractors will object to using the DYG survey on the grounds that it was commissioned by LE, and reported by them. On the other hand, it was carried out by a reputable and highly respected researcher. Does anyone know of any scientifically sound studies indicating any alternative estimates, or have other suggestions on arriving at them?

I question your numbers here, having come as you say from Landmark itself. (The fact that DYG is reputable is almost irrelevant--tobacco companies used to hire reputable firms which showed that smoking didn't cause lung cancer.) If you excuse my appeal to original research (I'm not suggesting this should go in the article!), of the people I talked to who did the same Forum as me, about 15-30% had strong criticisms of it--criticisms of the sort which are discussed in the article. Besides, I think you have a false dichotomy here: for example, I would consider myself a "satisfied" customer, yet I don't think the phrase "actively hostile" misrepresents my view of Landmark. Ckerr 15:16, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
Dave says a lot of things that aren't relevant unless he knows of published sources which say the same thing. No point in debating irrelevant comments.  :) Kat'n'Yarn 05:48, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
Kat'n'yarn's opinons of the relevancy of my comments aside, the identifying of the populations holding various viewpoints, and giving due weight to the reporting of those viewpoints is a requirement of the WP:NPOV policy. DaveApter 11:16, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
It isn't possible to identify numbers, there haven't been any studies done. Are there any areas of criticism/controversy where there is objective evidence that the criticism/controversy is not significantly held? If would be much easier to focus on those than to try to speculate about everything. Considering that the article doesn't even yet have an accurate representation of most of the controversial areas, it may be premature to do the niggling now. Just the fact that these same controversies have a long-standing pattern and won't go away should provide evidence that they're significant enough to be fairly represented. Kat'n'Yarn 06:42, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
It feels to me Kat'N'Yarn like you are not listening to the people you are debating with: #There have been studies done- you just don't like them. I think this is because some of them, particularly DYG, were funded by Landmark. Please suggest an alternative! Remember- get a perspective here- Landmark is a company. Consulting companies are not falling over themselves to do studies on Landmark. It just isn't a big topic!
  1. There is a LOT of evidence that the the criticism/contraversy is not widely held. ALL the studies cited of people who have actually taken the course indicate an overall level of satisfaction. This doesn't match your world view apparently because you choose to deride that and instead go on your opinion about it. I am not suggesting in ANY way that your criticisms are invalid or should not be referenced in the article- just that they are exaggerated and held by a minority. Currently the page is clearly - based on the above points- unbalanced and POV in favor of the negative view of LE. This is supposed to be an article about LE and its work NOT a debate page. What works about Wikipedia is NOT using it for that.
  2. You say: "Just the fact that these same controversies have a long-standing pattern and won't go away should provide evidence that they're significant enough to be fairly represented. " You are right but to have them be fairly represented would mean cutitng about half the material out and NPOVing half of the remainder. If you compare the LE page to other Wikipedia pages it far overly exaggerates the negative opinions held by a vocal minority.

As a result I did revert the Key Ideas section. This is an ENCYCLOPEDIA article about an educational organization and the work that it does - deleting the core ideas that represent a major part of its pedagogy is innapropriate unless you can demonstrate that these are NOT the key ideas.

Alex Jackl 13:33, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Can anybody suggest any established objective basis for estimating the sizes of populations (c) and (d)? Although they clearly do exist, and group (d) is often stridently vocal, especially on unmoderated or hostile internet forums, is there any evidence that their numbers are significant relative to the number of satisfied customers?

[edit] Cult (or cult-like)?

Although this accusation is thrown about loosely in some circles, are there any reliable sources who state the opinion clearly and unambiguously that Landmark is a Cult, or define with any precision what they mean by cult in this context? If not, I suggest that this section be left out entirely.

On objective grounds, the suggestion is absurd. We rightly condemn cults because they restrict their members' options in life, cut them off from friends and family, stunt their self-expression, prescribe specific lifestyles, and sequester their assets.

Landmark, on the other hand, expands their customers options, encourages communication with friends and family and encourages the repair of estranged relationships, empowers their Self-expression, is compatible with any conceivable lifestyle-choice, and seeks no financial transaction beyond the very modest tuition fees for whatever course is taken (typically less than $5 per hour, and in some third-world countries, less than $1 per hour).

[edit] Brainwashing?

Are there any reliable sources who state the opinion clearly and unambiguously that Landmark uses brainwashing, or define with any precision what they mean by the term? If not, I suggest that this section be left out entirely.

[edit] Court cases

Do we need all these? If so, how could they be summarised to get across whatever point is being made more concisely?

[edit] Berlin report

This section doesn’t seem to make any coherent point. Do we need it at all?

[edit] Religious implications

Apart from cutting out the multiplicity of references, as suggested above, this seems to be a succinct statement of the spectrum of opinions.

What further suggestions / comments? DaveApter 14:13, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] DaveApter's Deletions

  • Please do not remove whole sections of the article before establishing a consensus on the talk page. The sections you removed without consensus had been present in the article for a long period of time, and are sufficiently sourced in the blockquoted, citation format for referencing.Smeelgova 17:24, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Kat'n'yarn suggested that this section was POV and I agree (though perhaps for opposite reasons). Why not address the discussion above rather than getting immersed in an edit war? (apologies that I had let my login time-out before doing the previous reversion btw). DaveApter 18:18, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
      • Apology accepted, didn't know it was you, sorry as well. I agree that we should try to avoid an edit war, but rather than blanking/deleting whole sections of the article that are sourced with referenced citations, most in blockquoted format, why don't we instead debate that particular content here on the talk page, and edit portions as needed as we hopefully reach consensus?Smeelgova 18:29, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
    • I feel that the whole section had become so muddled that taking it out and building up from nothing was much more likely to be fruitful than trying to tackle it piecemeal, and other commentators on this page seemed to be of the same mind. One other possible approach (which has been suggested) would be to delete the entire article back to a stub and start from there. I am minded to delete this section again, but will not make any edits for at least 12 hours to allow things to settle for a while. In the meantime, I invite you to engage with the debate in the section above. regards DaveApter 18:59, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Do that again and I'll remove everything from the entire article that Wikipedia guidelines say should be removed. Regards, Kat'n'Yarn 03:54, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Landmark Education in France

I've removed the section "France 3 documentary" due to inaccuracies. NOTE: Landmark Education was the subject of a sensational and inaccurate broadcast on France TV3. The broadcast and promotion of the broadcast was identified as inappropriate and against the French journalistic standards. Based on this information, the station removed this entry from their website and pulled the program which was originally scheduled for re-broadcast.Blondie0309 14:56, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Please back up your claims with cited sources. Yours, Smeelgova 01:07, 6 October 2006 (UTC).
You have one link that does not lead where it claims to and your other links go to an unreliable, self-published online source. Please review these policies before adding materialBlondie0309 18:43, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Please do not remove blockquoted, referenced sources in citation format. Information is factually accurate and relevant. Yours, Smeelgova 18:59, 6 October 2006 (UTC).
  • Why do we have a "broken link" here. What's the issue with removing it? Mark1800 09:38, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Other opinions"

  • I removed this section. The study cited is on the est training, and belongs if anywhere on the est page. The opinion of Dr Langone belongs if anywhere in the controversies section. DaveApter 14:28, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
    • It would be helpful if editors would actually read something before deleting it. This citation refers to both LGATs in general and est in particular. It also wouldn't hurt if you read the entire article it was excerpted from. It is relevant. I restored it. Kat'n'Yarn 03:36, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
      • It seems Langone could have referred to LE in specific (as LE is the largest of the so-called LGAT's), but Langone intentionally chose not to. On that grounds, I tend to agree with Smeelgova that it should go to the EST page. Sm1969 05:13, 26 September 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Summary of the History of this Article

From its creation in 2002 by an anonymous editor this article was written from a strong anti-Landmark POV.

After many edits by a field of different editors and with much constructive discussion, it reached a state in November 2005 where differing viewpoints on the subject were all represented and there was qualified agreement on the talk page that the article was broadly fair and in accordance with the WP:NPOV policy.

The entry maintained its stability and balance for a period of about six months until the sudden arrival in May 2006 of User:smeelgova, who embarked on a very aggressive determined editing initiative to shift the POV of the article firmly in an anti-Landmark Education direction.

In July 2006, User:Kat'n'Yarn appeared and announced that the article had a pro-Landmark bias and was too long and that he would boldly edit it to reduce the length. The proceeding edit by [kat'n'yarn] excised almost all the practical information that a reader would want to know about the company - its principles, courses, the results customers received; but leaving substantially untouched (and even expanding) any negative bias and/or report of allegations from detractors.

Since that time there have been many attempts by various editors to restore the balance of the page that have been almost always met by an blitz of immediate reversions by either Smeelgova or Kat'n'Yarn.

This summary is an attempt to give a context for any new readers trying to make sense of the revisions happening on this site. PLEASE do not remove this summary without discussion on the talk page.Alex Jackl 15:28, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Above editor's Personal Attacks

I personally resent the personal attacks made by the above editor, as well as by the prior editor who reverted my formatting which was in accordance with the Wikipedia Policy : New topics and headings on talk pages. I would feel much more comfortable sticking to a discussion of sources, references and the content of the article at hand, rather than wasting time attacking each other. This is in clear violation of Behavior that is unacceptable, at Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. Let us all try to instead focus on the content and debate of sources, rather than discussions of which editors did what when. It would seem that certain editors are set in their resolve to "make others wrong". - Smeelgova 09:53, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Personal Attacks: NOT

In no way were any of my statements personal. I do believe that the actions that have been taken are vandalism and against at least the spirit if not the letter of Wikidepia policies.

My comments are directed at the vandalism not the people doing them. Mistakes can be made and people czn be misguided. In the last month and half the changes that have been enacted are so obviously attempts to dimisnh and destroy the positive POV aspects towards Landmark Education and instill and add negative POV entries. All of it is hidden behind a smokescreen of "cutting down the size of the article" and m"making it more NPOV". It is all a pretense. This is a classic case of a POV attack on a site. I have been busy in RL and hadn't had a chance to really track what was happening and was so shocked when I saw the extent of the changes.

The changes that have happened are innapropriate and where railroaded through without true consensus. Kat'n'Yarn has no hisotry as an editor of the page and came out of the blue suggesting major re-writes without taking into account the editors that have been working on the page for two years (or however long it has been). Any irritation you sense in my words is because of that.

I would suggest we roll-back the revisions to mid-to early August- when we had achieved a consensus and then slowly achieve consensus on changes. I am open to starting where we are and simply adding back the content that was innappropriately deleted but I am open to what the other editors have to say. I suggest that we revert the roganization content that was delted and then make changes only after both pro- and con- "factions" have come to agreement. Otherwise it is just a childish revision war which frankly none of us have time for and is TOTALLY against the spirit of Wikipedia.

And please do not make personal attacks against me because I disapprove of what actions have been done to the pages. I did not in any way malign you personally. I totally disapprove of the actions but the "certain editors are set in their resolve to 'make others wrong'." comment is out of line and it is not accurate.

Let's get to work.

[edit] Acceptable behaviour?

On the contrary there is nothing in the Summary of the Hisory section which is a personal attack. It is an entirely clear statement of a number of objective facts, about the article itself, namely:

  1. The article as originally created in 2002 had a clearly anti-Landmark POV. (would anyone dispute that?)
  2. There was qualified agreement on the talk page that differing sides of the debate were represented in the version of around November 2005. (as can be checked on the archived talk page).
  3. It was reasonably stable for about six months (as can be checked from the history).
  4. You, smeelgova, did appear in May 2006 and make a large number of edits (over 2500 to date, almost all on topics related to Landmark Education, or Werner Erhard, or related individuals or organisations).
  5. Your edits do almost universally shift the POV in a particular direction (and I think you have said as much on occasions - even if from your viewpoint, you regard that as shifting from a 'pro' to a 'neutral' balance).
  6. It is true that you have often done widespread and repeated reversions of other editor's work.
  7. It is true that Kat'n'Yarn removed much information about Landmark courses and results, while leaving much negative material, and to some degree enhancing it (and I am clear that he felt justified in doing so, even though I do not agree).

I do not see how any reasonable person could characterise any of that as a personal attack, insult or threat.

Regarding your high-handed interference with the post however, you should be aware that the item you refer to is a Guideline, not a Policy, and as such this qualification applies:

However, it is not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception.

On commonsense grounds there is clear merit in having it at the top of the page. The writer made it clear that it was intended to provide a context for the debate, and I see no reason to contest that. Your moving of it is however definitely an example of Behavior that is unacceptable. DaveApter 13:57, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Former admin wanders by

Dave asked me to take a look at Outrageous Betrayal, which I did.

My two cents is that the problem of being neutral lies primarily with decisions about which points to assert as fact, and which to tag as disputed.-

The good news is that there's a simple rule of thumb for making these decisions: if two Wikipedians can't agree whether something is a fact, then there is probably a dispute in the real world about it too. So the way to deal with it is to say that it's disputed, and to give both sides of the story.

Like:

  • Proponents of est say the seminars worked wondrous transformations in their lives. For example, "Now my life works!"
  • Opponents call Erhard and his seminars abusive and worthless. "Nurture this, dad!"

That's the general flavor. I'm not saying to use those 2 specific quotes :-) --Uncle Ed 14:56, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pressman

Cut 2 sentences:

The suit was brought under the pretext of compelling discovery for use in the then-active Cult Awareness Network litigation. However, Pressman concluded that the suit was brought primarily to harass him.

This is word for word the same as the old version of Outrageous Behavior. I see no reason for this passage to be in both places. And it's entirely from Pressman's anti-Erhard point of view.

We can't call anything a pretext without saying who's calling whom a liar. --Uncle Ed 15:01, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Current Edits

I added a series of changes that took out some POV stuff and some innapropriate placement of things- like a long historical thing in the middle of the opening paragraph that was a also in, and more appropriately in the origin section. I also edited some of the stuff that was included and gratuitous. For instance if you cite an article to demonstrate a fact then don't include other POV stuff that might happen to be in that same article- just put the reference in that supports the fact. Anything else is just an innappropriate sliding in of POV content.

ALso- the issues with "lot " of the data coming from the Landmark Education sites... Come on! This is an article about a company and its offerings. That is expected. The Wikipedia guidelines correctly "caution" users to not overly rely on that data- but it will be a big chunk of where information about an organization comes from. *SIGH* The Wikipedia guidleines staate "be careful not to rely on it exclusively if other reliable sources are available, in order to maintain a neutral point of view." Note the word "EXCLUSIVELY". Frankly this web site now needs a lot more of that kind of content replaced that was taken out to make it even close to NPOV. Alex Jackl 15:24, 5 October 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Proposed intro

Here is my outline proposal for an intro:

Landmark Education LLC (LE) is an international employee-owned for-profit private limited liability company headquartered in San Francisco, California which offers self-development courses and trainings. Its primary product is The Landmark Forum. Many of the techniques used in Landmark's courses have been developed or borrowed from Werner Erhart's est.

Landmark Education's courses are primarily designed for individuals. Its subsidiary Landmark Education Business Development (LEBD) provides training and consultancy to organizations.

Landmark Education and its methods evoke controversy, with passionate opinions held both by supporters and detractors.

...

This is too brief for the intro of a 51KB article, but I think the balance is better than that of the current article. I think it is absolutely essential that the first sentence state exactly what Landmark is (that is, a personal development corporation), but I also think some mention of est needs to be made early on in the intro. I also think the intro should cover a bit more of the structure of Landmark (i.e. the "curriculum for living"). Unfortuantely I don't have time to actually write something myself along these guidelines, but hopefully if others agree then they can. Ckerr 01:53, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Well for one, you could remove limited liability company from the middle of the sentance, the term LLC which is stated at the beginning already says it is a limited liability company.
  • Mark1800 06:38, 8 October 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Removal of References to Copyrighted Material which was taken down (YouTube et al)

The references to YouTube have been taken down at YouTube and other sites which hosted LE's copyrighted material. YouTube removed the material promptly when notified. That now leaves us with unverifiable excerpts from the French documentary. Sm1969 22:13, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, Smeelgova, show your evidence that it was reviewed? Youtube took it down. It passed in France because it was French law (and LE chose not to pursue the issue in the French courts). Sm1969 04:45, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Per Google video support: "Videos submitted for inclusion in Google Video must be reviewed and pass our technical requirements and policies in order to become live on Google Video." Therefore, as the video is now live on Google Video Inside Landmark Forum, this indicates that it indeed was reviewed and passed their technical requirements. Yours, Smeelgova 05:00, 14 October 2006 (UTC).
It pass *TECHNICAL* requirements. They have no way of knowing whether something is copyrighted until they are informed of that, unless it is obvious. Youtube decided it violated terms of use after LE's DMCA notification. Do you want to bet which way this one is going to go?
Please provide verifiable sources that it was Landmark Education that complained to YouTube. And yes, technical requirements. "After you've entered your metadata, your video will be in the "Processing" stage for up to several days and then will become "Live." If your video fails to meet our technical criteria or policies, your video will appear under the "Rejected" or "Failed" tab." Therefore, the video passed Google Video's policies and was approved by human reviewers. Smeelgova 05:18, 14 October 2006 (UTC).
No, the assumption that human reviewers looked at any significant part of it is wrong. Google has sophisticated algorithms for looking at this stuff, likely not humans. We'll see as soon as it is taken down. Sm1969 05:28, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
Do you have verifiable sources as to how you know that it was Landmark Education that complained to YouTube? Yours, Smeelgova 05:31, 14 October 2006 (UTC).
The message at YouTube noted that it was "Removed due to violated terms of use." The only entity that can make that complaint is the copyright holder. I think it is a sound deduction that LE complained. Sm1969 05:32, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps, but Landmark Education does not hold copyright over the video itself. If anything Art Schreiber would only have cause to make a claim against the portions which feature use of their "technology". And since, as you claim above: "It passed in France because it was French law (and LE chose not to pursue the issue in the French courts). ", Copyright status should still rightfully belong to France 3 and Pieces a Conviction, until contested. Therefore even if Art Schreiber did make a complaint, which we still do not know yet, he would first have to contest this in France before claiming to have cause over the video anywhere else. But that is another matter entirely. We shall indeed see how things develop. Yours, Smeelgova 05:46, 14 October 2006 (UTC).
LE does not need copyright to the video. The sections of the video that are of LE's technology and course in progress are the copyright violation from LE's perspective, not what else the video focuses on. Your understanding of law is wrong. Copyright law does not give any intermediary the right to reproduce. How else do you think it was removed for "Terms of Use?"


Per your statement above: "It passed in France because it was French law (and LE chose not to pursue the issue in the French courts)." This is unverifiable information. Please back up this claim with information as to how you know that Landmark Education "chose" not to pursue the issue in French courts. For all we know the video was shown to over 1.5 million people in France with the full faith and backing of a government that officially labeled the organization as a "Secte". Yours, Smeelgova 05:00, 14 October 2006 (UTC).
It was a smear job for entertainment. The journalist/participants signed confidentiality waivers which they broke. I think you will see Google take it down shortly. Will that satisfy you not to add more links to this video?
"It was a smear job for entertainment" This is obviously the POV of the prior editor. This is an organization that has received international recognition from 60 Minutes, International Herald Tribune, and Time Magazine as well as being a featured expert on investigative journalism at the October 2006 International Conference on Investigative Journalism, sponsored by the Nieman Foundation of Harvard University.
Please do not revert again until we have reached a consensus on the talk page. Recently user Mark1800 and I were able to work relatively amiably on this very same talk page regarding the Rick Ross content and reached a consensus. This has slightly changed my POV regarding Landmark Education and its supporters. Please help me to shift my viewpoint towards a more positive POV of Landmark supporters and the technology the coursework teaches, by acting in a more professional and polite demeanor. I am open to the possibility of having a pleasant working discussion/relationship with you. I hope that you will transform your listening of myself into a more open space. Thank you so much for your time. Yours, Smeelgova 05:00, 14 October 2006 (UTC).
  • Smeelgova, Thank you for your inclusion in Wikipedia of the link to the french video, I was able to watch it, for research puposes. I do have some conserns about some of your quotes, but I'll address them when I get a chance.
    BTW: I noted with interest that the time stamp on the live posting of the video on the Google site and the time stamp on your inclusion of the reference in Wikipedia were less then 30 min apart. I also note, that Googles policy states "After you've entered your metadata, your video will be in the "Processing" stage for up to several days and then will become "Live." I also note that when I found the reference here, I did a search on Google.com and the google engine had not yet added any links to the video. I'm curious, how did you find it. Is there a section in Google Video that lists upcoming video's?
    ALSO NOTE: I'm not really a supporter of Landmark, I actually not sure which way I lean. I do have an opinion that, if you are going to argue a point on Wikipedia, you need to back it up. That opinion includes my opinion of myself.
  • Mark1800 04:33, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
I did a search for the phrase "Landmark Forum" on Google Video. 2003_Inside_Landmark_Forum was the first hit that showed up there. I am glad to see that you have reserved your opinion on the organization, and are not sure which way you "lean". I as well have some reserved opinions regarding the organization. I agree with the Transformation Reformers, on some of the changes that should be made to the organization, particularly with regard to the realm of full financial disclosure. Thank you for the frank and open discussion. Yours, Smeelgova 04:45, 15 October 2006 (UTC).
I have spoken with people at LE accountable and the request to remove was made by Art Schreiber on grounds of copyright ownership. The fact that Rick Ross will not post the video, and it was taken down from YouTube and Archive.org and that France 3 on its site only refers to LE's web site are strong indications that neither France 3 nor Landmark Education gave permission. Wikipedia is not a means for promoting copyright infringement. Please contact me by email on this site and I will put you in communication with people at LE. Sm1969 08:03, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
Do you have verifiable, sourced information to back up this claim? Thank you, Smeelgova 18:14, 15 October 2006 (UTC).
That's not the good faith test. We now have several points indicating promotion of copyright infringement:
1) France 3's web site no longer mentions the broadcast, but does post a reference to Landmark Education.
2) It was taken down at both YouTube and Archive.org for "violating terms of use" and "issues with the item's content."
3) The entity doing the translation into English subtitles does *NOT* identify itself (remains anonymous).
4) Rick Ross, who has also promoted the video with links, will not host its content.
5) The only entity that can make the rescission request is the entity that owns the copyright (to any or all of it).
6) I think this is unambiguous evidence that it is copyrighted and that one of the copyright holders has invoked copyright.
7) Please call the Director of Media Relations referenced at LE's web site for confirmation. With the evidence of infringement presented here, I feel you have the burden of proof if you want to keep promoting this video.

Sm1969 18:31, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

All of the above is a clear violation of Wikipedia No Original Research. So I ask again, do you have verifiable, sourced information to back up your claims? Yours, Smeelgova 18:36, 15 October 2006 (UTC).
That is not the intended interpetration of "No Original Research." If someone else were to copy and distribute, on the Internet, an hour long episode of any television episode, the default interpretation would be that it IS copyright infringment, not that asserting it is copyright infringement is "original research." I take the position that this is using the reputation and availability to promote copyright infringement and an intent to have an encyclopedia "make news" rather than report on news. Further, the fact that the translator will not identify himself/herself only increases the likelihood of copyright infringement. Please call in the wikipedia administrators. 71.146.134.77 18:54, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
If someone posted an hour long episode of any television show, or a CD of the Beatles, your default interpretation would be that this is copyright infringement, absent explicit written permission. Sm1969 19:36, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Ok, I agree with you. Anoher point regarding copyright infringment is that the person doing the translation into English is not identified. That more than anything should be a tell-tale indicator of copyright infringement. Please see articles for deletion / Voyage and vote on the matter. Sm1969 17:08, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Contributory Copyright Infringment from Wikipedia Guidelines / Google Video of Inside Landmark Forum

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Copyrights#Linking_to_copyrighted_works

Linking to copyrighted works

External sites can possibly violate copyright. Linking to copyrighted works is usually not a problem, as long as you have made a reasonable effort to determine that the page in question is not violating someone else's copyright. If it is, please do not link to the page. Knowingly and intentionally directing others to a site that violates copyright has been considered a form of contributory infringement in the United States (Intellectual Reserve v. Utah Lighthouse Ministry). Also, linking to a page that illegally distributes someone else's work sheds a bad light on us. If the site in question is making fair use of the material, linking is fine. Sm1969 08:20, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

There has to date been no verifiable and sourced/cited proof that the video in question consists of copyright infringement. Yours, Smeelgova 16:22, 16 October 2006 (UTC).
As you know, both YouTube and Archive.org took it down for "violating terms of use" and "a problem with the item's content." Why don't you put up a Beatle's CD or any other 1 hour 5 minute version of a news show? The default interpretation is that that IS copyright infringement. The journalist who attended the Forum with the camera even signed a document stating that all materials were copyright by Landmark Education. Whoever put it up on Google might very well get civil or criminal action taken against them, as copyright infringement is actually a criminal matter, though I doubt LE wants to be the first to do this. I think you (Smeelgova) are well aware of all of this. Sm1969 16:37, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
Absolutely nothing of what you said above constitutes sourced, written cited proof of any claimed copyright violation. And I'm sure that Landmark would simply contact Google Video re the 2003_Inside_Landmark_Forum and complain to them. Besides, if you are so confident that there was a copyright violation, why did Landmark Education pull out of all of France, rather than trying to sue France 3 and Pieces a Conviction? And no, there is no such thing as a "default interpretation". This also would consist of Wikipedia:No original research. Thank you for engaging in a more polite kind discussion, by the way. Yours, Smeelgova 17:34, 16 October 2006 (UTC).
Regarding France (my belief), once the assistants were declared unpaid labor, you dramatically shift the cost-effectiveness of the programs, including whether a center can be run at a profit; as a business, one perspective is to look where you can maximize return on investment, and France would have been an expensive, long battle for very few customers; you would wind up spending a lot of time and money for few customers; said another way, if you stand is to make the power and magic of transformation alive and real for all people, you can get more by going in other directions, e.g., Asia. Like any business--even if it were a non-profit, which it is not--you can't run on negative cash flow. I did see the video and thought there were numerous practices LE should end or have ended by now and, like you, agree with much of what "transformation reformers" wants. By "default interpretation" I am referring to the logic that you can't take an hour-long news broadcast and put it on the Internet without permission, and it is clear that one of the owners invoked ownership rights. You would not put up a Beatle's CD or an hour long news broadcast and claim that, since you don't have written proof to the contrary, you should assume that you are allowed to do this. Don't you see the parallel logic? Would you put up an hour long CNN broadcast without permission and claim that you had the right to do this because CNN did not yet ask you not to or that you did not have proof that they requested that you not do it? No, you would have the default assumption that this is NOT permitted. You could not go into a state university with a hidden camera, videotape a lecture, and then post it on the Internet without permission. You would not assume that, without permission, you had a right to do this because written proof of assertion of copyright was not made. The state university could and likely would invoke copyright, irrespective of whether there were some intermediary news organization that did the actual taping. It's clear from the messages at YouTube that an owner invoked copyright.

Sm1969 17:54, 16 October 2006 (UTC) 17:52, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, yes, these all may be valid inferences that could be drawn from above interepretations. But as of yet, we still have no citable proof. And the fact remains, Landmark Education never did sue France 3 or Pieces a Conviction for copyright infringement, and it's been almost 3 years since the videos were aired, they had plenty of time to sue for copyright infringement and chose not to. And yes, there actually are whole segments of news broadcasts on Google Video. And yes, there actually is a clip that is on Google Video's front page, of someone who did just what you described, and it's up there uncontested: You could not go into a state university with a hidden camera, videotape a lecture, and then post it on the Internet without permission. See video on Google Video. Thank you for acknowledging your stand on transforming/reforming Landmark Education to change some of these more questionable practices. Yours, Smeelgova 18:04, 16 October 2006 (UTC).
My understanding is that France 3 was, in fact, fined for the broadcast. Sm1969 18:45, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for providing this information. Do you have any verifiable citable sources for this? Yours, Smeelgova 18:47, 16 October 2006 (UTC).
translated response of LE to France 3 Sm1969 19:04, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

"Unfortunately, considering that the fines to be paid are tiny for a violation of the code of ethics of the media, France 3 decided that it was better for its rate TV rating to pay these fines symbolic systems rather than to offer to the public the report right and objective which he had the right to wait."

Thank you, I see it, though it's kind of a jumbled translation. We don't know exactly which fines they are referring to and where exactly these fines are coming from, and of how much value they were. Perhaps more documents will come out in the media at some point. Yours, Smeelgova 19:08, 16 October 2006 (UTC).
I think its clear that there were fines for violating the media code of ethics. I'm sure if there were someone equally committed as the person who translated the French video, we would have it by now. I'd speculate that Landmark's response, entitled "Right of Reply" was, in fact, the invocation of a legal remedy. I know German law provides for an analogous "right of reply" (German: Gegendarstelling) when false, inaccurate of unsubstantiated information is put forth, i.e., the publisher is forced (has no choice) by law to publish the offended party's reponse. Sm1969 19:26, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
Ah interesting, thank you for the clarification I was unaware of this German "right of reply". Though it still looks like no lawsuits were ever filed since 2004. Perhaps more information will come to light. Yours, Smeelgova 19:32, 16 October 2006 (UTC).
The Rick Ross papers only talk about the US cases. There were other cases that made it to the courts, such as the Haarlem case I cited. The Berlin case also made it to the Volksgericht (a court) in Germany, which forced the Senate committee to modify its stance. There is one other European country where corrections were forced. Sm1969 19:37, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
Oh? Most curious. And what was that "one other European country where corrections were forced."? Yours, Smeelgova 19:39, 16 October 2006 (UTC).
Take a guess. Sm1969 19:44, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
Well, we already have classification issues with Germany, France, Austria, Sweden and the Netherlands listed in the article. Did Landmark Education have issue with a different government's classification as well? Yours, Smeelgova 19:56, 16 October 2006 (UTC).
I'm not sure if it was a government agency or classification per se, but LE did invoke a legal remedy to certain adverse discourses. What's your guess? Sm1969 19:58, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm really not sure, but as per an edit I had earlier, perhaps Israel? Though at the moment I don't know where the sources would be on that one. Yours, Smeelgova 20:10, 16 October 2006 (UTC).
We'll need to create a separate web page where we can gather all the assertions and refutations to LE being a cult. Switzerland is the country; it was not a government agency, but a legal process. A member of the Israeli parliament and LE customer was prepared to testify in the Rick Ross trial on behalf of LE (Shlomo Shahan, I believe is the name). Sm1969 20:16, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
Or, we could simply shorten the sections on those particular countries, and make them more concise. Do you have some sources as to this information re: Switzerland? I am appreciating this newfound more cordial and professional demeanor of yours. Yours, Smeelgova 20:25, 16 October 2006 (UTC).
I think we actually do need to create a page. Here's the Swiss reference in German (Landmark versus Infoseka: History of A Judicial Process) http://www.infosekta.ch/is5/gruppen/lm_straeuli1998.html.
You are correct, there is certainly enough information for another page. However there would probably be a pretty good case for merging that page back into Landmark Education at some point by others. Let's discuss this some more first and further develop these referenced sources. Yours, Smeelgova 20:40, 16 October 2006 (UTC).
I think there can be a separate page that lasts over time, just as there is a "Criticisms of Microsoft" web page. Sm1969 20:42, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
Interesting. What would be your proposed title of the new page? What material would be kept/shortened on the Landmark Education page? Yours, Smeelgova 20:53, 16 October 2006 (UTC).
You could probably just call it "Criticisms of Landmark Education" and I would like to see LE's responses (where referenced) interleaved. What could go there: 1) the cult discourse, 2) business operations practices (volunteer assistants), 3) marketing practices, 4) legal cases (defamation, freedom of speech, adverse psychological effects). I can tell you LE has had, from what's going on on Wikipedia, a light shined up its rear end to a far greater degree than just about any other company on Wikipedia. I think it is unfair and intentionally distortional, but that's another story.

Sm1969 21:07, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Alright, this sounds interesting. Again, I'm truly pleased to be discussing this with you in such a polite demeanor. Sounds like we might actually be coming to a consensus on this topic. Let's discuss this some more before taking any action, however. The title seems appropriate per the Criticisms of Microsoft model. What information/references/subsections would you envision remaining on the page of the main article? Yours, Smeelgova 21:10, 16 October 2006 (UTC).
I don't know Smeelgova. I'm trying to figure out what we should be heading for in the long term. The way the article (and all of the surrounding stuff you have put out) reads, anyone would have to have their head examined to have anything to do with Landmark Education. It's kind of like writing an article on the United States where you start it off by writing about slavery, even though the Constitution says, "All men are created equal." From there, you would include the problems with all the Presidents, starting with George Bush being a recovering alcoholic elected by the US supreme court, and then Clinton being impeached for fellatio, and then Reagan having alzheimers and the massive budget deficits, and then Carter being ineffective, and then Ford not having been elected, and then Nixon being impeached for criminal activity. You could go all the way back, referencing factually negative information, and shortly you would want nothing to do with the United States. That's kind of where we are with the Landmark Education article, and if I may extend the analogy, the vast majority of customers are happy with Landmark Education, and some are not. Then retracting peripheral material becomes the issue (the "requests for deletion"), and the two sides engage in voting and getting supporters. It seems never ending. Sm1969 21:29, 16 October 2006 (UTC)


YouTube and Google video are not reliable sources unless the video in question has been uploaded by a reputable organization such as CNN, CNBC, etc., and should not be used to substantiate any claims, positive or negative. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 18:40, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

They are not being used to substantiate claims, merely a source for further information should the reader be interested. Smeelgova 18:46, 17 October 2006 (UTC).
But that fails WP:V as we cannot assure our readers that these videos have not been tampered with. For that reason, user-uploded videos from YouTube, Yahoo video, Google videos and other video sharing websites should not be used in Wikipedia articles. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 19:16, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
This is simply not the case. There are numerous Wikipedia Articles firmly in place which refer to videos on Google Video and YouTube and the like, and we have no verification of specifics on these. Examples include: Howard Dean, Ted Stevens, and David Hasselhoff. So far, none of these references have been deleted. The fact that the video has been shut down in multiple locations actually makes it more notable and reference-worthy according to this model. Yours, Smeelgova 19:22, 17 October 2006 (UTC).
These have not been deleted because they have not been challenged. Videos from video sharing sites are not to be used in Wikipedia as these fail WP:V. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 19:27, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
I will not revert a third time. However, I do not appreciate your summarily removing material that fits the model of numerous articles as cited above, without coming to a consensus on the talk page. Landmark Education preaches higher standards with regards staying within others' listening than this, and being more conscious of your own already always listening than you have been. Yours, Smeelgova 19:36, 17 October 2006 (UTC).
You are wrongly assuming that I have anything to do with Landmark. I am not, so spare me your assessment of my motives and assume good faith. The google video in the EL section, was no longer in Google, probably removed becaause of TOS violation. The video clips from the other video sharing website, fail WP:V, and hence removed. Unless you have proof that these videos are both not copyvios and accurate copies, these need to remain deleted. better err on the side of caution. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 19:40, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] External links section

See:

Please do not add links to sites that are or may be violating the copyrights of others. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 19:44, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

The only person who has alleged copyrights so far anywhere on the internet is User Sm1969 here on Wikipedia. There is no citable evidence anywhere else as of yet. Yours, Smeelgova 19:48, 17 October 2006 (UTC).
The video can only be verifiable if it was made available by Pièces à Conviction. The clips in the video sharing site can be easily tampered with, specific POV selections could have been made by the uploader, etc. Hence, these fail WP:V. The BitTorrent file from, no more and no less than from "thepiratebay.com", is a copyvio. And the text encouraging others to dowload and share, is totally out of place. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 19:52, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
The burden to check if the material is a copyvio or not, is on the editor wanting to add that material. You can email Pièces à Conviction and ask them if they have given permission to distribute their documentary to thepiratebay. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 19:57, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
That is better, thanks. Readers that are interested in that documentary can request a copy from the producers. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 20:27, 17 October 2006 (UTC)


Despite your requests for consensus, Smeelgova, you keep ignoring the fact that there is no consensus to keep adding lionks to copyvio materials. There is no consensus to leep adding these. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 00:20, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Also note, that you are pretty close to violating WP:3RR. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 00:23, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I do not understand, I have not added any external links, in fact I have removed links. Exactly how am I close to violating 3RR? Please specify, and I will immediately cease said actions, however I think that you are missing the difference between 3RR and new edits on a new theme. Thanks for engaging in discussion, however. Yours, Smeelgova 00:28, 18 October 2006 (UTC).
Aren't any refereces to PirateBay and EMule "contributory copyright infringement" with no place in Wikipedia? Sm1969 01:08, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
Not really. We are not linking to the offending material now. Questionable is the fact that that section may be violating WP:NOR. I would suggest that both of you take a well deserved break from editing these articles. Let some time pass, and see what other editors can accomplish in your absence. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 02:08, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Yeah, a break, that's it. It seems you are heavily invested in the outcome of all of these articles yourself. Too late for breaks, I've had it. I'm starting to agree with all of the guys over at Wikitruth. Thanks for all of the POV slanted agenda-based biased help and support, it was truly appreciated. Sigh, for a while there you were nice to me Jossi, but after that it seems now like you are just trying to be a relatively kinder supporter of Sm1969 and his crew of 10 or so Landmark Education volunteer "assisting program" Wikipedia Trolls Thanks for all of your hard work and support on my behalf, but after a legal threat like that above, and a Wikipedia Administrator such as yourself working so hard to turn me away from editing on Wikipedia, even when I restore things back to your last edit - I'm done. If you have any further questions you know where to reach me, if I'm still around - but I'm - dissapointed to say the least. Yours, Smeelgova 02:19, 18 October 2006 (UTC).


Why the sudden animosity? I have made a suggestion to both of you to take a break, as I believe that it is the best for both of you at this point. I have no agenda to support anyone of you in particular. The "legal threats" argument of yours, does not stand, IMO, it is a bit of an exaggeration, same as the personal attacks you claim to have been a victim of. Fact is, if I may say, that both of you have an agenda: one pro and one anti. Wikipedia is one of the few places that opponents get to interact with each other, and I know from experience that it is not easy. But it is possible if we take refuge in Wikipedia policy and respect each other despite the obvious differences in POV. Having said so, Wikipedia is not for everyone, and if the process is too painful to bear, or too stressful, better is not to edit. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 02:27, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] History of Name Changes for IBM vs. Landmark Education

IBM History IBM Wiki

Here are the history of name changes for IBM:

  • 1889 - Bundy Manufacturing Company
  • 1896 - Tabulating Machine Company
  • 1901 - Computing Scale Company
  • - Dey Register Company
  • 1911 - Copmuting-Tabulting-Record Company
  • 1924 - International Business Machines Corporation

We have about six name changes, let alone all the subsidiaries of IBM. IBM, one of the largest companies on the planet, does not have any of this information on its Wiki page, but yet LE has every trivial detail. I wonder why this is? Sm1969 06:54, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

  • The information is relevant and duly sourced, not to mention shifted from the bottom of the article to the history section not by myself but by user Alex Jackl. Let's discuss this further and come to a consensus on the talk page before summarily deleting sections of the article agreed upon by editors on both sides of the issue. Yours, Smeelgova 07:13, 17 October 2006 (UTC).
    • Well, it takes up a huge amount of space and some of it is trivial (LE to LE LLC) as well as the interim names (Breakthrough and Transnational). If you could find some way of making it a lot smaller, I'd have less of a problem with it. Sm1969 07:42, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
      • Thank you for the amiable response and more professional demeanor. Actually, if there was a way to shorten the "box style", that would be most appropriate, for there is really no need for the two wing columns, just the middle one. I'll look into it. Yours, Smeelgova 07:45, 17 October 2006 (UTC).
  • Fixed. -- Beland 02:21, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../l/a/n/Talk%7ELandmark_Education_Archive04_44c2.html"