User talk:Sm1969

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Contents

[edit] Welcome

Hello, Sm1969, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using three tildes, like this: ~~~. Four tildes (~~~~) produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Psy guy (talk) 07:05, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy on linking to copyrighted works

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.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Hunger

[edit] Articles regarding ongoing enterprises

2) The principles of editing articles about ongoing enterprises are analogous to those which govern Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. As applied to this matter, unsourced or poorly sourced negative material may be removed without discussion, such removal being an exception to the 3 revert rule Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Remove_unsourced_criticism. This extension of policy is based on the proposition that any unsourced or poorly sourced negative material is potentially harmful.

Passed 6 to 0 at 14:24, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Caselaw decision

  • You may be interested in this, given your interest in alleged defamation and libel : Victory in Barrett v. Rosenthal Case Smeelgova 07:42, 26 November 2006 (UTC).
    • Yes, I have seen this. The California State Supreme Court, like the New Jersey Superior Court, is interpreting the federal law to have precedence over state law, and this is just another instance of it. Both authorities have (correctly) noted that it is up to the US Congress (or the Supreme Court) to act. Fortunately, we have the Wikipedia content policy on libel to protect us! Sm1969 08:07, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
      • This is a major decision from the highest court in the state of California. It basically means only the original source can be held liable for any alleged defamation, and not the reposter of that source. This therefore gives much precedence and protection in this particular case with regard to links and references on Wikipedia. Thanks. Smeelgova 08:10, 26 November 2006 (UTC).
      • With your contentious Mona Vasquez example, this would mean that only Vasquez would be liable for any of her statements, but no one who reposted those quoted statements on the internet would be held liable. Smeelgova 08:22, 26 November 2006 (UTC).
        • No, you can pretty much always get in trouble if you do something knowingly. Furthermore, the Wikipedia content policy on libel is closer to that of written publications. In other words, I can pretty much guarantee you that Wikipedia content policy is going to align with what the restrictions that printed matter has, not US Internet law under CDA 230. Indeed, Wikipedia has had offers to have a certain version published in print (for major articles at least). If you know that Mona's statements are factually false, I believe you can still get in trouble. Otherwise, the Internet would truly be an open free-for-all. That said, the California Supreme Court decision does give you (Smeelgova) better protection for posting to links and requoting, unless you do something knowingly, which is why I'm here to remind you about some of the court decisions and things that have been found to be "triable questions of fact." Alas, we have the more restrictive Wikipedia content policy on libel and in the case of the French video, also contributory copyright infringement. I myself recognized early on that LE had a weak argument re fair use, so I switched to the Wikipedia content policy vis-a-vis "France 3's" ownership of the video, which is uncontested. Sm1969 08:33, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Blanking Comment On Your Talk Page

You continue to blank out my fair commentary about your bias on your talk page. This is a clear violation of Wiki policy. You are as entitled to comment on my talk page as I am yours. Wbroun 04:15, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Show me the policy that says I can't remove your comment on my talk page? You should not remove an administrator's comments, but we are user-to-user. Sm1969 04:35, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Removing administrators' warnings from user talk pages, is considered vandalism. Besides that, editors can delete or archive anything from their talk pages at their discretion. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:40, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

:::You two have both put "following the rules" ahead of ethics, or indeed, improving Wikipedia. Sm1969 has a "point to prove." Uggggg. Wbroun 18:17, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I think both of the rules user-to-user and administrator-to-user have lengthy precedent on Wikipedia, and it can be proven that they existed in writing prior to your first edit. Sm1969 18:22, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I have been proven wrong. You indeed are willing to work toward fair compromises. I regret my initial cyncism. I have struck out some of my comments here because I no longer believe them. With compliments. Wbroun 04:35, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. Let's work together. Sm1969 04:42, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mediation

I would suggest you reconsider mediation. I would argue that it is the best next step for that article. I will assist mediators from the sidelines. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:35, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I would respectfully request User:Jossi, that if you do not with to take part in the mediation and are going to recuse yourself from editing the article in question - that you also do not assist mediators from the sidelines. That would seem to be an indirect involvement in the mediation process itself. Perhaps you could simply let it play out, independent of your involvement? Smeelgova 19:41, 9 December 2006 (UTC).
I am recusing myself from mediation, so that I can assist with the mediation process, not to interfere with it. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:43, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
I have changed my view point to agree to the mediation. Sm1969 19:45, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cult

  • Quick question - where exactly was it allegedly established that "cult" is factually false and defamatory with regard to Landmark Education? Smeelgova 08:14, 12 December 2006 (UTC).
    • "Self Magazine" case established that "cult" is a "triable question of fact" and the operative definition they gave (strict authoritarian leader et al); that's on the Rick Ross site. The retractions thereafter (Kisser, Singer et al) were basically the end to the conversation. It's an indirect establishment, not a jury verdict, but easily enough to get it off Wikipedia, in my opinion, for their libel content policies. "brainwashing" and "thought control" and "mind control" also are assertions of fact that have operative definitions. Schreiber reiterates this in the Schreiber Declaration that these terms are capable of being proven true or false (and by these operative definitions would be proven false), and they are inarguably derogatory (and the New York courts accepted that as well). So, I have established that they are A) questions of fact and not opinion and B) that they are derogatory and C) the experts retracted under the definintions given above and D) the courts accepted this. Things are different depending on context as well. "brainwashing" was, in the Lell case, accepted as a statement of "opinion" and not an assertion of fact. Both the Lell case and the Elle case were dismissed for that reason. To my knowledge, the only case to ever to go trial was the Stephanie Ney case. Sm1969 08:31, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
      • Thanks for that elaboration. So basically, this is conjecture and assumption - albeit perhaps good conclusions - but assumptions nevertheless, from various settlement agreements - and nothing was ever decided formally on this by a jury or judge in any court? Smeelgova 08:43, 12 December 2006 (UTC).
        • The case in the Netherlands (under their version of libel law) appears to have been decided by a judge. The case in Switzerland also appears to have been decided by a judge as to what Infosekta could and could not say. None of the US cases were decided by a judge, other than the judge said these cases will go to a jury, and then the defendants retracted (Self, Singer, Kisser, etc.). The judges in the US (New York) clearly concluded that allegations of "cult" and "brainwashing" and "mind control" were assertions of fact, not opinion, and the terms are obviously derogatory. Sm1969 10:09, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
          • Okay. Can you show me where specifically there was a court ruling by these New York judges saying that these terms are allegedly assertions of fact, not opinion, and the terms are obviously derogatory.  ? Or is the second part your opinion? In any case, some court rulings/documents would be most interesting. Smeelgova 10:33, 12 December 2006 (UTC).
  • Thanks for the reference. Though the summary judgement decision is indeed a very interesting read, it seems to only state that there is enough evidence for a trial and for a debate on the issue by a jury. As far as assertions of fact, not opinion - the judge seemed to only be referring to that article in particular - and was not making a declaratory statement about any and all future potential statements regarding "cult" and "Landmark Education". Are there any other existing court decisions by judges or juries on this issue from cases that went to trial? Smeelgova 10:45, 12 December 2006 (UTC).
    • Yes, libelous language is (in most jurisdictions) context dependent. For example, the article "The Cult of Fashion" (about LE on the RR site) is not language that is subject to concrete meaning, capable of being proven true or false. In another context, you could call "Apple Computer" a "cult" and they would thank you and tell you that they work very hard at being a cult. People, after all, are willing to stay up overnight and sleep in sleeping bags for the opening of a new Apple store, as they did in New York, not so with a new LE center. All that aside, let me find some more on "cult" and "brainwashing" etc., as it regards LE. Sm1969 10:49, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
      • Okay, sounds good. Basically what I am getting at is that this is most likely a case-by-case basis decision, and not necessarily always derogatory, defamatory, or triable fact, etc. In other words, it's difficult to have one case hold sway in some kind of blanket mechanism over any future case, especially if it only took place in the lowest court in a particular state. In any event - I look forward to your other sources. Actually, this is a fun discussion - rare to experience such cordial language/demeanor on this topic, and it is most appreciated. Thank you. Smeelgova 10:54, 12 December 2006 (UTC).

Here is another one: http://www.rickross.com/reference/landmark/landmark95.pdf—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sm1969 (talk • contribs).

Thanks for that link. But again, this is a motion from the Plaintiff Landmark Education to dismiss, and not a ruling by a judge or jury or magistrate on anything at all. Merely having the plaintiff assert anything themselves is nice, but doesn't provide any sort of basis for a ruling of some sort. This is such a funny argument in the Plaintiff's motion though, because it's just so amusing how Landmark thought that thousands of posts were authored by Rick Ross himself and himself alone! ROFLMAO! But let's keep digging and see if there indeed exists some sort of ruling of some sort on this topic regarding Landmark Education. Smeelgova 21:50, 12 December 2006 (UTC).
It is the statement "We believe, and court decisions have held, ... triable question of fact, capable of being proven true or false." I don't think LE thought RR did all of them. The specific language I remember is that RR is alleged to have done "some of the more damning ones." Sm1969 22:52, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Again, wouldn't the "We believe" itself be language stipulating that this is only the belief of the Plaintiff, and not the ruling of any judge? Smeelgova 04:33, 13 December 2006 (UTC).
We believe and "court decisions have held" is the second half of that. Those decisions have held that it is a triable question of fact. Eventually, I am sure we are going to have it out with ArbCom and you will get to see how neutral outsiders see that you are not creating a A) neutral, B) accurate and C) informative encyclopedia. I see some of your recent edits today. Sm1969 06:29, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Well, I would most appreciate it if we can stick to the subject of discussion at hand, for a while we were interacting cordially, and I thought that you would enjoy that, I know it is a relief for me at least. But when you state Those decisions have held that it is a triable question of fact. - I again have to inquire - what specific court decisions have held this with regard to Landmark Education? Smeelgova 06:31, 13 December 2006 (UTC).
Alright, again, it is the New York case against "Self Magazine" where the judge says that it is for a jury to decide in reference to "cult", where the legalese for that is "this is a triable question of fact" not an expression of opinion. If the judge had not found it to be a triable question of fact, the judge would have dismissed the case, as happened in both the Elle and Lell cases. There, the statements were interpreted as opinions, not capable of being proven true or false (Elle and Lell also did not deal with the "cult" question). If you want some comic relief, read the Rick Ross lawsuit papers--both sides. I am sure over $1 million was spent on that case, and it would have been fascinating had it gone to trial.

Sm1969 06:44, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

It is a funny read isn't it? But I thought we had discussed that above. The judge was only referring to that specific article, and in the end, there was never any actual ruling. Smeelgova 06:50, 13 December 2006 (UTC).
On another note Sm1969, I would request that if you try to remember the Golden Rule, and treat me with more politeness, respect, and try to be more cordial, you will quickly see that I will strive to act the same to you. I hope that you can see this at the very least in this particular line of discussion right now. Smeelgova 06:50, 13 December 2006 (UTC).
That's all any judge can ever refer to is the subject brought before him or her. That judge gave a ruling: there will be a trial on whether LE is a cult. The ruling is "there is a trial" (a question of fact) and not an opinion (for which he would have dismissed). The definition LE's expert witnesses would have given is that of a cult involving an authoritarian leader, etc., as the term is subject to concrete meaning in the field of psychology. I think LE would have won those cases (Self, Kisser, Singer) regarding the use of the word "cult." The fact that they were experts (asserted themselves as experts) and retracted is all evidence that could be used against anyone who now asserted LE is a cult. I don't know of anyone, in print media, who is willing to say LE is a cult at this point, particularly if they are asserting they are some sort of expert. Do you know of anyone in the English-speaking world who says it in print media? Sm1969 07:01, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
At the moment I do not know of any, however there are lots of sources that now say that "other sources have referred to the group as a "cult" or "cult-like", or something to that effect, without actually saying it themselves. Of course, the obvious counterpoint to that is that those particular organizations and individuals that Art Schreiber came after did not have the time, money or inclination to fight out a prolonged court battle, and instead agreed to a settlement. Remember that a settlement is not a stipulation that the other side would have won, simply that both parties did not want a protracted period of court battles. Smeelgova 07:04, 13 December 2006 (UTC).
Their settlements were written and published retractions. If you see the court documents, you will find that is the case. I think if RR can get pro bono help, surely a UC Berkeley associate professor (Singer) could have as well. Sm1969 07:10, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
I understand that retractions were published in some instances. But perhaps this was not actually what the group would have preferred - even with pro bono help, it is possible that Singer and the others simply wished for the matter to be done with, and a settlement would have done that - regardless of what their actual opinions were on the issue. In other words, a settlement is a settlement is a settlement - and terms of a settlement are just that - terms of a settlement. The terms of the settlement do not mean that the parties agree with the terms per se, just that they acquiese in order to end the matter. Smeelgova 07:16, 13 December 2006 (UTC).
Of course, Singer did not agree with LE. Retractions were published in all instances that I know of (Self, Singer, Kisser/CAN) where the word "cult" was used, and we should get them into the Wikipedia article in blockquotes. Also, the media outlets certainly did have the time/money to defend themselves, e.g., Self Magazine. (It is ironic that 12 years ago LE sued Self, and now Self is publishing a column, in effect, praising LE.) Sm1969 07:36, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Oh? To which article are you referring? Smeelgova 08:02, 13 December 2006 (UTC).
You will have to wait and see. Sm1969 08:19, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Do you have a hyperlink for this article or some sort of reference? If so, could you please provide this? Also, upon further inspection it looks like pursuant to settlement agreements, no "retractions" were given but instead statements of clarification. For example, Self Magazine never "retracted" anything said in their article, merely clarified that they personally did not hold Landmark or The Forum to be a "cult". Smeelgova 08:26, 13 December 2006 (UTC).
That is a retraction because they explicitly did call it a "white collar cult that wants your mind" (close language) and then retracted. Sm1969 08:28, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
It is most certainly not a retraction. They did not print any sort of apology about the article, or any statement ever saying "we retract what we said". They only issued a new declaratory statement. And the court documents show that they did not ever directly label Landmark as a cult, just "painted it with the same brush. Therefore, to my knowledge at this point, no retractions were ever given after any court case actually - merely statements pursuant to settlement agreements. No one ever formally said anything to the effect of retracting anything that they had previously said. Smeelgova 08:34, 13 December 2006 (UTC).
"tarring with the same brush" is probably language used to refer to all of the entities addressed in the article being referred to as "cults." I haven't seen their retraction in a while.

http://www.rickross.com/reference/landmark/landmark156.pdf

I would consider that to be a retraction. Sm1969 08:46, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I simply do not see how this could be construed as a "retraction". Please show me any place where the writers/editors say they are sorry about printing what they had previously printed, or where they say that anything at all that they had previously printed was incorrect. There isn't anything like this. It is a simple one-sentence clarification, at best, but not a retraction. Smeelgova 08:51, 13 December 2006 (UTC).
Here's the statement from Appendix B: "The article in question was based on soruces "Self" believed to be reliable, but "Self" has no first-hand knowledge or evidence that either Landmark or The Landmark Forum is a cult."

(Even on its own, I consider that a clear retraction, let alone the entire Appendix A that Self published per the settlement agreement.) Sm1969 08:56, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Right, that's the statement I'm referring to. It's simply a further explanation of the article itself and their original intentions of the article - if anything, they are further asserting their faith in the article and their sources. They are also saying that they don't have first-hand knowledge or evidence that either Landmark or The Landmark Forum is a cult. But that is all they are saying. There is nothing in there about an apology, or saying that anything previously published by them is invalidated or retracted in any way. I'm sorry, I just don't see this, if you have anything further to add, I would love to try and understand your point of view, but it does not read like a retraction, just clarification language from a settlement agreement. Smeelgova 09:01, 13 December 2006 (UTC).

[edit] new Self article

  • What else do you know about this new Self magazine article? I am most interested. Smeelgova 08:34, 13 December 2006 (UTC).
    •  :) Sm1969 08:41, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
      • Why will you not provide me with more information on this? If I knew of some other secondary source that you were interested in I would provide you with more information. Smeelgova 08:52, 13 December 2006 (UTC).

To those readers who read last week's column and inferred that I have been captured by a cult: I can assure you I'm fine. I researched the Landmark Forum thoroughly before attending and decided to check it out anyway. I had fun, and I remain in full possession of my skeptical mind. To those of you who oppose the seminar and think I have piqued others' interest by writing about it, perhaps I have. But the purpose of my column is to cross boundaries.

Smeelgova 09:12, 13 December 2006 (UTC).

  • Yes; she's even affirming it is not a cult in response to readers from RR likely. The good thing about 2007 (in late 2007) is that we will finally cross the million mark: since 1991, over 1 million people will have done the Landmark Forum. Sm1969 09:19, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Too bad that is all internal data to Landmark Education - and probably counts graduates of Werner Erhard and Associates among that data. How do you know about that specific information and that it will occur in late 2007? Is that talked about somewhere in Landmark classes? Smeelgova 09:22, 13 December 2006 (UTC).
      • "Time Magazine" published statistics separating "Est" from "The Landmark Forum" (starting in 1991). The January 2006 update to LE's web site said 880,000. They run about 65,000 to 75,000 per year, so January 2007 should see around 950,000. That would make September/October 2007 the point at which one million is crossed. It will be referenced in Wikipedia. Sm1969 09:31, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
      • I also have not personally participated in LE classes in a while, so I don't know precisely what they are talking about at LE these days. Sm1969 09:33, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
        • Again, unfortunately the Time Magazine article relied solely on Landmark Education for their data. Scientology claims 8 million members worldwide, but it is probably closer to 100,000. But it's nice to see that Landmark likes to keep up with that website of theirs, and their sister website, www.wernererhard.com , hehe. Since they are a private for-profit company, they don't have publicly available records to verify their alleged statistics. Just out of curiosity, what is your involvement with Landmark Education? Have you taken their "Curriculum for Living"? Smeelgova 09:36, 13 December 2006 (UTC).
          • Yes, I have taken the Curriculum for Living, years ago (1993-1995) or so. That's the only thing anyone can rely on for participation statistics: LE's statements. You can look on their web page and see where are the Landmark Forums are scheduled, calculate frequency, average participation, and you will quickly arrive at the notion that the annual jumps in cumulative participation are quite plausible. I assume you have taken some of their courses as well. A non-customer would not, in my opinion, know all of the buttons to push. Sm1969 09:48, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
            • Buttons to push? I honestly have no idea what you are referring to or what you mean by this? But if you tell me what buttons I am pushing I suppose I will try to stop pushing them, so long as it is a reasonable request. Smeelgova 09:53, 13 December 2006 (UTC).
  • Alright, we know now from months of interactions that we aren't going to resolve this. For humor though, we can read the court documents. They are hilarious. I think, between LE and Ross' pro bono attorneys, over $1 million was spent. Sm1969 10:04, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
    • One wonders how much Est/WEA/Landmark has spent total on litigation over the last 35 years... It would also be interesting to find out how many other cases are out there - how many other individuals were silenced by settlement agreements and juicy amounts of money from Est/WEA/Landmark rather than pursue their case to the end result... Here is an example of one such case [1]

Posted on Monday, November 04, 2002 - 4:32 pm: I am an attorney in Seattle, Washington. I have a client who attended the Landmark Forum 3 day seminar last November. The day after she attended the seminar, she had a psychotic episode, was in 2 car accidents, walked away from the second with her car running and went to the Landmark office where she was screaming and incoherent. The police came and took her to Harborview Medical Center where she was committed for weeks of mental health counseling. She had no history of mental illness. I am starting a lawsuit against Landmark for damages suffered by my client. I am considering a class action lawsuit for those who have had similar experiences. I am looking for such people. I hope to obtain statements about their experiences with the Landmark Forum. If anyone in this discussion group is interested in submitting their statement, please contact me

Who knows how many more of these there are/were/will be in the future? Smeelgova 10:48, 13 December 2006 (UTC).

Well, you would have to calculate the frequency of unexplained psychotic episodes in the population at large, factor in that there will soon have been one million customers of the Landmark Forum, and you would get a small, non-zero number; compare this to the number who say LE is at fault. Let's say, the first calculation yields eight (8) parts per million. Let's say there have been six (6) of these unexplained incidents. Would you then conclude that LE reduces psychotic episodes by 25%? Sm1969 10:52, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Not exactly, but I follow your logic and your math is interesting. It is much more likely that there are a great number of cases that go unreported because Est/WEA/Landmark probably settles these complaints out of court for settlement offers. There are also probably others who simply never voice their concern/presence of psychotic episodes, etc. due to fear of some sort of recrimination, or of losing friends who still think positively of the organization, even if they have had a significant negative event/experience with it. Smeelgova 10:57, 13 December 2006 (UTC).
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../s/m/1/User_talk%7ESm1969_2d2b.html"