Talk:Landmark Education/Archives/2008/Mar

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Religious Implications (irrelevant)

I agree completely that this cannot be a Landmark Advertisement. However this is also not a forum for the airing of "opposing views" and a debate. This is an encyclopedia article. There is little noteworthy on the matter of religious implications - even in the section no one has serious religious concerns about Landmark and lots of different religious types speak positively about it. That aspect of it is vanilla- there is no meat to it. The only people that think the Landmark Forum has serious religious implications in itself are the same people that think theaters have religious implications or biology. Alex Jackl (talk) 03:10, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah but like I said, balance. Especially considering the lawsuit against the 21st Century Democrats...there's relavence here you can't ignore. When's the last time you can remember a lawsuit similar to that without googling? I can't for the life of me. --Pax Arcane 03:21, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
  • BTW, Alex...is it only people who have taken LE courses who are qualified to declare relavence? Seems like Jossi's little scandal on the Prem Rawat page, and let's not bring this page to that point. There's similar arguments on that article's talk page, and I gather adherents feel as though they are the sole deciders of relavence. Big no-no. --Pax Arcane 03:34, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

--Pax Arcane 04:58, 26 February 2008 (UTC)===Edit request disabled===

There is currently no section called "Religious Implications", so the request cannot be fulfilled. Sandstein (talk) 21:00, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

It was deleted by vandals. --Pax Arcane 22:14, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

The section shouldn't be there and neither should "Office Closures". It is not sources and is rediculous to have in an article about a company that has many offices that sometimes open and close offices. Spacefarer (talk) 13:19, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi, welcome to Wikipedia! I see you've learned how to use the discussion page! It is notable because of the circumstances of the closures, especially in France. Openings are not notable...in the case of McDonald's, why a closure of an area would be notable, but openings would not. On Wikipedia, use of the talk pages is highly encouraged! --Pax Arcane 13:27, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

As you know, I have put comments on the talk page in past, thanks. I don't know why you are responding in what you have written, but it is unimportant. The closures section is not sourced, nor is it on other company pages. I am removing it. Please comment here before doing something else. Spacefarer (talk) 03:16, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Sourced. Deal with it. Like Landmark would be honest and have the integrity to admit to closing offices. LOLZ. --Pax Arcane 04:58, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

The sources given do not represent closures and one is not in English. My understanding is that this branch of Wikipedia is in English. Please say why you think this section should be here and let people discuss it before it is put back. Do other company pages include closures of offices? Spacefarer (talk) 03:27, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

  • The sources given do not represent closuresThe French branch of the movement had officially disbanded.
  • this branch of Wikipedia is in English. The Swedish source is ok as long no English sources are available.
  • Do other company pages include closures of offices? Yes, if disbanded from a country it is notable. -- Stan talk 03:51, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

The Religious implications section is based on bogus citations and doesn't belong in the article

This section should not be in the article. Users Stan Enand Pax Arcane continue to put it back into the article without addressing the very legitimate issues that are raised below.

In my opinion it was put into the article by a former editor who was known for an extreme POV (Smeelgova/Smee) for the purposes of implying that Landmark Education is a Religion. It is full of problems

For example one paragraph is using an unattributable quote by an obscure blogger:

  • Paul Derengowski, formerly of the Christian cult-watch group Watchman.org, states that Landmark "has theological implications".[59]

When you go to the references provided, you can’t find anything about who this Paul Derengowski is or where he said what he said. That is like “I over heard a guy who was sitting at a picnic bench at the Dairy Queen say it” kind of reference.

Also what is written in the following two paragraphs is not reflected in the citations provided.

  • In 2002 theologians Deacon Robert Kronberg, B.Th. and Consultant Kristina Lindebjerg, B.Th. of the Dialog Center International in Denmark discussed the religious aspects of Landmark Education, stating: "Also we see a large number of people joining groups, such as Landmark and Amway, which become controversial because of their sales practices."[63]
  • Kronberg and Lindebjerg posited that Landmark Education's courses seem to fill a void in the lives of disillusioned young adults, who have not found answers in religion: "Landmark seems to appeal to young people between 20 and 35 in liberal professions who are disillusioned with or discouraged about their lives. Landmark seems to be a pseudo-scientific substitute for the need for religious answers to life's fundamental questions."[64]

In the citation provided (63 and 64 are the same) In the first paragraph, the “religious aspects” of Landmark education are not discussed in the reference provided. Landmark education in the article is mentioned in reference to sales practices. The second paragraph is a non sequitur. Everything, from money, to sex, to football has been written about as a replacement for religion. Triplejumper (talk) 03:31, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Balance in the article

This article suffers relentlessly from individuals with strong personal viewpoints attempting to drag in material to skew it towards their own point of view (and also suppressing material which does not do so).

Wikipedia is not a soapbox, nor is it a forum for expression of opinion. The NPOV policy lays down that facts about opinion are acceptable, but only where authoritative individuals or clearly defined populations holding those opinions can be identified, and even then, they should only be represented giving due weight to the size of those populations.

Much of what is in the article currently is clearly opinion rather than fact. For example:

This article suffers from whitewashing by Spacefarer, DaveApter, Triplejumper, Saladdays, Ratagonia, Gilbertine goldmark, and AlexJackl, among other, all strong LGAT and/or Landmark Education graduates and apologists attempting to create an article devoid of any crtical thought, as their livelihood/reputation likely rides on it. This is known as "looking good" in Landroid-speak, and is identified by their "technology" as a negative defense and something grads should know by now to be avoided. But the corporation takes presidence over all. Good luck guys. Your edits are denied. --Pax Arcane 19:01, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Please remain civil and refrain from personal attacks. DaveApter (talk) 18:22, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Religious implications

The entire section is a report of opinion, and not particularly representative or authoratitive opinion. This has been expressed above clarly by Triplejumper and by myself and our points have not been effectively answered, but some editors persist in re-inserting this section.

Observe WP-NPOV and stop pushing an agenda. --Pax Arcane 18:54, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Denison thesis

It is not clear that a PhD thesis would qualify as a Reliable Source. Especially not one which derives its data from a statistically insignificant sample of 20 individuals ( and admits that they may not be representative of any larger body of Forum participants). The quotations of the opinions of these anonymous individuals should form no part of what is supposed to be a factual account. A google search on Denison doesn't find anyone of expertise or notability in the field.

Again, we've been through this. Limitations of study noted in article (as I carefully wrote it), source published from a reputable university (accredited, mind you!). Stop the vandalism. --Pax Arcane 18:53, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
The WP:RS policy states:
  • "Material that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable; this means published in peer-reviewed sources, and reviewed and judged acceptable scholarship by the academic journals."
- a PhD thesis that has not been published in peer-reviewed sources... or ... academic journals does not qualify as a reliable source according to this policy. DaveApter (talk) 18:22, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
It's a source published by a university and you can read the data behind it, it's completely transparent....it's not a "closed information study" like LE's nefarious corporate "studies." The fact is, it was published and the results are completely open, which is why I was able to edit the limitations in. If there were concerns with the thesis, in the academic community, it's highly unlikely it would have met for publication in a Colorado psych university. Colorado's Boulder and Vail models of psych are unheralded. Some of the best research comes out of those universities. Same thing goes for psych departments in Arizona. Research the field, it may help your edits. --Pax Arcane 01:02, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for discussing it. Presumably the university publishes all the PhD theses? - but that's not the same thing as being accepted in a peer reviewed journal. But this isn't the main point. Assuming for the sake of the argument that we accept the validity of the source, what are the "facts" that are established by it? That certain opinions were expressed by members of a group of twenty individuals. Obviously a sample of this size is too small to draw any general conclusions from (even if there were no selection bias, which we don't know), and this is explicitly admitted. So if general conclusions cannot be drawn, what place does this have in an article? It's just an excuse to drag in some offensive and derogatory remarks. DaveApter (talk) 14:40, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
I disagree...it's valid because LE doesn't allow outsiders to conduct research in the way he did. It's on the waiver we all signed. YOU may find the comments offensive/derogatory, but that's just the space you've created for yourself. The limitations were noted in detail. It's valid because it's one of TWO independent research papers not funded or solicited by LE. Remembering comments from any WP:30, the thesis, like the moon landing deniers, show that even a small minority desrves inclusion. Especially in academic research. Not every thesis is published, this I can assure you. Not in that field, not from those universities. If your job here as an editor is to squelch anything negative about LE, that's a serious problem and a possible COI. I included an Israeli study that really indicated the Forum in combination with counseling had the best results, but you insisted that study not be included. I even mentioned how I thought it painted LE in a GOOD light, that it was positive. I'm not understanding the aversion for independent, non-corporate funded social science research. These studies, you can look at the raw data. With the LE-funded stuff, we get none of that, which is integral in deciding which research is believable and which research is not. In research, corporate funded studies are largely looked at as purely PR from an academic standpoint and a scientific standpoint-- especially polls in which the raw data is hidden and proprietary. I know that what I just wrote makes sense to any researcher or academian, and if doesn't to you, I can e-mail you some science reserearch texts if you want a better, objective understanding. --Pax Arcane 01:37, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Please take another look at WP:NPOV, especially the section about due weight. Wikipedia is about facts, not opinions; but that could include facts about opinions, as long as they are ones that can be shown to be held either by a notable named individual or an identifiable population. The opinions that you attempted to drag into the article here are neither: they are the opinions of a group of anonymous individuals which is too small to draw any statistical conclusions from. You are trying to have your cake and eat it - you want to include the 'fact' that 19 out of 20 interviewees expressed negative reactions to the 'recruiting methods', and justify it by adding the qualifier that it makes no claim to be representative. If it's not representative, why should it be in the article?
  • I don't see that anyone would class the remarks you quoted as anything other than derogatory, and I'm sure that most would regard comments such as "damned, constant enrollment shit" as offensive and out of place in an encyclopedia entry.
  • I don't have the slightest objection to academic studies - if you can find any that draw clear conclusions from statistically significant randomly selected samples, I will be delighted to see them summarised in the article.
  • Suggesting that my "job here as an editor is to squelch anything negative about LE" is a clear personal attack. For the record, my commitment is to have a clear, well-written, informative and balanced article. For over two years I have repeatedly tried to get a constructive debate moving on this page about how the article should be structured, what it should include and how much weight should be assigned to various aspects. I have no objection to 'negative material', being included as long as it is accurate, well-sourced, relevant, and treated with due weight. DaveApter (talk) 10:48, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
WP:RS doesn't say anything about unpublished dissertations, as far as I can see; the guideline says that things published in peer-reviewed journals are reliable, but it doesn't say that all things not published in peer-reviewed journals are not reliable, either, it simply doesn't say anything either way. For my money, I would say PhD dissertations from reputable universities are as reliable as items published in peer-reviewed journals - they have been checked and approved by scholars in the field (an examination commitee or similar). I'm not sure what weight this has, but it's generally considered perfectly appropriate to cite dissertations in scholarly work, for instance.VoluntarySlave (talk) 05:58, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks - I agree there's plenty of scope for interpretation. The main objection I have is with whether this particular dissertation actually provides access to facts (see above). DaveApter (talk) 10:48, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Read the thesis, Dave. Once you've done that, I think your concerns would be cleared up. It's published facts...what people said and the researcher who recorded it and why. I did not attack you personally. I was speaking in hyperbole. The thesis was published after its defense and...it won an award if I'm not mistaken. It is accurate, relevant, and isn't given undue weight. I quoted what the researcher recorded and quoted--Pax Arcane 13:56, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
I have not the slightest doubt that the interviewees said what they said. What you don't seem to get is that wikipedia is not interested in what a small group of people say about anything - unless that can be extrapolated to a wider generalisation, which in this case it can't on its own admission. And accusing other editors of bad faith is not excused by subsequently describing it as hyperbole. I'm taking a wikibreak now for a couple of weeks DaveApter (talk) 17:25, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not interested in LE grad's views of Landmark education, and for all I know, there's no research I can look at to find raw data backing up LE's claims of success, nor have I found anything longitudinal to back it up. I don't think yoi can speak for what Wkipedia is about, and you can't speak for all editors. I will repeat again, I was not attacking you. You have really thin skin, and maybe editing Wikipedia isn't good for you. But the point is, any WP3O by someone with no prior knowledge would support inclusion. As they did with the Israeli study you so vehemently wanted out. --Pax Arcane 23:13, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Criticism

This contains the remark: "Many are intimidated by the militaristic session." - clearly an expression of opinion, but whose? - and on what evidence?

The footnote(46) cited to support it reads:

Landmark is readily criticized for militaristic attempts to access new members; many have described the group as focused on intimidation and crisis. Indeed, landmark appeals to those who need desperate help. many people believe that they brian wash thier pacients.(sic) For example:

(and the following paragraph is a non-sequitur which does nothing to substantiate these claims - referring instead to the length of time that Landmark had operated in Germany, and the lack of emphasis on Werner Erhard's involvement). Incidentally, neither of the links given in this reference lead to data supporting the quote.

  • "Landmark is readily criticized ..." - by whom? - on what grounds? - on what evidence?
  • "many have described the group ..." - how many? - who specifically? - on the basis of what observation? - and what is their expertise?
  • "many people believe that..." same comments as above.
Statements sourced. I'm sorry you're having trouble with how wikipedia works. Stop the vadalism and observe WP-NPOV. --Pax Arcane 18:55, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
The sources provide statements of unattributed (purported) opinions by unspecified persons. These are not facts for the purposes of Wikipedia. DaveApter (talk) 18:22, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Office closures

This item seems to me to be a minor issue which might merit mention in a 500 page book on the subject, is of no significance to justify its inclusion in an article this size. Organisations of this scale do open and close branch offices from time to time - so what? The operations in France and Sweden were both minute and no doubt marginally viable. Both suffered defamatory attacks from sensationalistic journalists. DaveApter (talk) 17:23, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

WP-3O stated inclusion. We've been through this a million times. YOU'RE WRONG. STOP THE VANDALISM. --Pax Arcane 18:51, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

The references are still bad refs. They are opinion at best. The section should not be in article. Spacefarer (talk) 04:35, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

This is getting to be pathetic on your end. You're in denial. --Pax Arcane 11:45, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Spacefahrer,Please don't make general and unspecific allegations. The references are still bad refs. Which one and why ? "They are opinion at best." yes, but that is no reason to delete it in WP ;)-- Stan talk 00:34, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

BTW, Per de.wiki.org Landmark also ceased operations in Germany in 2008. However, didn't find a reliable source for it yet and won't include it. -- Stan talk 00:43, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

You'll probably have to contact the editor on the German site before the source "disappears," which is not uncommon. --Pax Arcane 00:57, 5 March 2008 (UTC)


Disappearance of archived information concerning Landmark Education

At 2156 hours on 2007-12-15 a Wikipedian changed the text:

"Published figures -- several of which the owner of the http://www.landmarkeducation.com site website subsequently rendered unavailable at some time between [[2007-03-04]] and [[2007-04-07]] per http://www.landmarkeducation.com/robots.txt -- show the following growth patterns [...]"

to read:

"Published figures show the following growth patterns [...]" -- explaining in the edit-summary: " rm as per WP:NOR"

The comment contrasting the the previous availability of archives of the Landmark Education web-site with the subsequent non-availability of the same data does not constitute "original research", but a statement of fact supported by the reference http://www.landmarkeducation.com/robots.txt, which has, as explained on the Internet Archive FAQ: http://www.archive.org/about/exclude.php, which states:

"place a robots.txt file at the top level of your site (e.g. www.yourdomain.com/robots.txt) [...] The robots.txt file will do two things: 1. It will remove all documents from your domain from the Wayback Machine. 2. It will tell us not to crawl your site in the future. To exclude the Internet Archive’s crawler (and remove documents from the Wayback Machine) while allowing all other robots to crawl your site, your robots.txt file should say: User-agent: ia_archiver Disallow: /

The removal of historical information from availability via the Internet Archive needs noting in order to fulfill the Wikipedia requirements of verifiability: interested parties have the right to realize in advance that although the editors of Wikipedia have carefully documented a verifiable published reference, the owners of the www.landmarkeducation.com site have chosen to make that reference unverifiable -- a noteworthy fact in itself, perhaps.

I accordingly propose that we restore the deleted text and expand it to explain and highlight the circumstances more fully, thus:

"Published figures -- several of which the owner of the http://www.landmarkeducation.com site website subsequently rendered unavailable at some time between [[2007-03-04]] and [[2007-04-07]] by utilising the file http://www.landmarkeducation.com/robots.txt in accordance with the provisions of the [[Internet Archive]] service FAQ as detailed at http://www.archive.org/about/exclude.php -- show the following growth patterns [...]"

-- Pedant17 (talk) 02:19, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Disappearance of information concerning Landmark Education's sales and marketing practices

At 1341 hours on 2007-12-16 a Wikipedian removed the text:

=== Sales and marketing practices === In an article [http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1101980316-138763,00.html "The Best of Est?"] published in [[Time Magazine]] on [[June 24]], [[2001]], Charlotte Faltermayer wrote: <blockquote> Critics say Landmark is an elaborate marketing game that relies heavily on volunteers. Says Tom Johnson, an "exit counselor" often summoned by concerned parents to tend to alumni: "They tire your brain; they make you vulnerable." Says critic Liz Sumerlin: "The participants end up becoming recruiters. That's the whole purpose." Psychiatrists who speak on Landmark's behalf dispute these claims. But Sumerlin says a 1993 Forum turned her fiance (now her ex) into a robot. She organized an anti-Landmark hot line and publications clearinghouse. Landmark officials made sounds to sue her. </blockquote> In [[1996]], [[Jill P. Capuzzo]] from ''[[The Philadelphia Inquirer]], Weekend'' took the Landmark Forum and reported: <blockquote> I made some eye-opening discoveries about myself and how I function in the world. [...] One of the most irritating aspects of ''The Forum'' is the hard sell to sign up future participants.<ref> Jill P. Capuzzo, ''[[The Philadelphia Inquirer]]'', [[1996]], [http://www.scooponlandmarkforum.com/Articles/philadelphia_enquirer_1.html Come On! There's A New Life Waiting Over The Weekend] </ref> </blockquote>

-- without providing any explanation.

Though discussion (as yet unconcluded) has taken place on the Talk-page concerning Scandinavian reaction to Landmark Education and concerning Landmark Edducation and religion, no reason has emerged for the deletion of a section of balanced and referenced discussion on Landmark Education's marketing. I propose we re-insert the section pending further discussion.

-- Pedant17 (talk) 01:35, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

You know, we could move the last section from the Denison thesis to the sales and marketing...making it a stronger section. Then the LE reformer's group's manifesto as well. --Pax Arcane 03:05, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Disappearance of published statistics on Landmark Education operations

At 1538 hours on 2007-12-16 a Wikipedian removed operational statistics related to Landmark Education operations for the years 2001, 2002 and 2003 from the article, noting in the edit summary "... removed unsourced data... ".

The relevant figures:

|<font size=-2>2001</font> |<font size=-2>600,000</font> |<font size=-2>60</font> |<font size=-2>21</font> |<font size=-2>Landmark Education<ref> [http://web.archive.org/web/20021005063934/www.landmarkeducation.com/display_content.jsp?top=21&mid=80&bottom=124&siteObjectID=593 Landmark Education's web-site as of [[28 November]] 2002], retrieved [[2007-03-04]]</ref></font> |---------- bgcolor=#DDEEFF |<font size=-2>2002</font> |<font size=-2>600,000</font> |<font size=-2>60</font> |<font size=-2>24</font> |<font size=-2>Landmark Education<ref> [http://web.archive.org/web/20030625104924/www.landmarkeducation.com/display_content.jsp?top=21&mid=80&bottom=124&siteObjectID=593 Landmark Education's web-site as of [[29 July]] 2003], retrieved [[2007-03-04]]</ref></font> |---------- bgcolor=#DDEEFF |<font size=-2>2003</font> |<font size=-2>600,000</font> |<font size=-2>58</font> |<font size=-2>26</font> |<font size=-2>Landmark Education<ref> [http://web.archive.org/web/20031212204155/www.landmarkeducation.com/display_content.jsp?top=21&mid=80&bottom=124&siteObjectID=593 Landmark Education's web-site as of [[10 June]] 2004], retrieved [[2007-03-04]]</ref></font>

clearly have sources (Landmark Education's published historic web-site versions), and we should restore them accordingly to give a more complete picture of the pattern of Landmark Education's corporate activities. We could add in all fairness that access to said sources has become more difficult since the owner of the http://www.landmarkeducation.com website rendered access via the Internet Archive unavailable -- see http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.landmarkeducation.com -- at some time between 2007-03-04 and 2007-04-07 by utilizing the file http://www.landmarkeducation.com/robots.txt in accordance with the provisions of the Internet Archive service FAQ as detailed at http://www.archive.org/about/exclude.php

-- Pedant17 (talk) 01:51, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I did, if I'm not mistaken. The only thing with any veracity is what TIME Magazine published. Beyond that is pure speculation and assumption. We can say that LE made the info unavailable and stick to the Time statistics, which is the preferred method of sourcing on Wikipedia. --Pax Arcane 03:09, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Much interest exists in the growth (or otherwise) of Landmark Education. Landmark Education LLC published figures which give a context to both the Time magazine figure and the subsequent actions which made the figures unavailable. In the absence of better figures and pending the redefinition of numbers by Landmark Education, let's provide the fullest possible account, along with an explanation as to why the statistics have become more difficult to verify. We cannot accept the simple removal of relevant sourced data (however questionable). -- Pedant17 (talk) 01:23, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
Then do the edits and make it so. If you're just here to discuss and not edit, I can't help ya. Cool?--Pax Arcane 23:01, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Disappearance of information on Landmark Education office-closures

At 1310 hours on 2008-12-22 a Wikipedian removed a subsection in the article which gave details of closures of Landmark Education offices in France and in Sweden, commenting in the Edit-summary: "not about legal; if have closures how about openings". If fellow-editors feel that information appears under an inappropriate rubric, they may change the headings rather than delete valuable information. If fellow-editors feel that office openings should appear in the article to balance information about branches closing, they should by all means provide properly-documented third-party accounts and sources on such openings. Such editing would grow the Web and demonstrate cooperative Wiki-collegiality. -- In the meantime let's restore the interesting information on the cessation of overt Landmark Education activities in France and in Sweden as instructive and interesting examples of the fate of the org in the face of probing media and/or suspicious governmental agencies. -- Pedant17 (talk) 01:23, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

It's back in and I'm looking for a German source for office closures there as of 2007/2008. --Pax Arcane 23:03, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Landmark Education aims its courses primarily at individuals

Is there any proof of this? Should this be worded better? I could see an argument could be made that they target individual progress, but it's done through group presentation not one on one. The current wording is unclear and if unedited, should be removed. Suggestions? Micahmedia (talk) 00:34, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Again, you have to ref LGATS (which according to "LE official literature," they are not an LGAT) and the space and dynamics of the room (Kopp, edited out after my addition). E-mail me with what you wanna try to do with your edits. --Pax Arcane 01:35, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
According to other articles on and off wikipedia, they do LGAT. See Large Group Awareness Training where est is discussed (which is where LE comes from) and see the LGAT list.
They claim they don't perform LGAT? Well, it may be significant that they say so, but that's not their place to make that judgment. It may be significant that a murderer may proclaim their own innocence, but it's no less significant if a jury finds them guilty. Both facts should be noted. Their technique fits the definition of LGAT. Micahmedia (talk) 04:45, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Users Mvemkr, Triplejumper, and Gilbertine goldmark

If you have a close connection to some of the people, places or things you have written about in the article Landmark Education, you may have a conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a conflict of interest, or where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred from the tone of the edit and the proximity of the editor to the subject, are strongly discouraged. If you have a conflict of interest, you should avoid or exercise great caution when:

  1. editing articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with;
  2. participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors;
  3. linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam);
    and you must always:
  4. avoid breaching relevant policies and guidelines, especially neutral point of view, verifiability, and autobiography.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have conflict of interest, please see Wikipedia:Business' FAQ. For more details about what constitutes a conflict of interest, please see Wikipedia:Conflict of Interest. Thank you.

    • MichaMedia and Pax-- While you may presume a conflict of interest; that is all you are doing. Do I know you, do you know me? I acknowledged I did courses years back. I have also owned and driven many Volkswagens over the years but no one would suggest I have a conflict of interest editing on that or any consumer article like that. Your citing the above policy is intended to insinuate in attempt to get others to draw conclusions that support your POV. As for the what you put in the lead of the article. It is blatant insinuation and POV pushing. There is already a criticism section where what you want in the article is already referred to.Triplejumper (talk) 14:47, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Administrative Edit Request

{{editprotected}} I request that the following paragraph be removed from the lead of the article by an administrator:

The Landmark Forums are a form of Large Group Awareness Training. Critics such as Michael Langone state clearly that Large Group Awareness Training groups are not cults, however they often use thought reform and mind control in addition to other more obviously beneficial techniques such as meditation, relaxation, and yoga. This use of thought reform and mind control is what attracts comparisons to cults.[10][11]

The issues with this paragraph are the whole basis of the most recent editorial dispute. As it is being discussed on the talk page, I am requesting that it be removed from the lead of the article for the duration of the time the article is locked. Triplejumper (talk) 21:18, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

N Not done see meta:The Wrong Version. Happy‑melon 21:19, 28 March 2008 (UTC)