Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-05-21 Landmark Education

Wikipedia Mediation Cabal
Article	Landmark Education
Status	open
Request date	Unknown
Requesting party	Unknown
Parties involved	see below
Mediator(s)	Chrislintott
Comment	Mediator accepted case, reading background

[[Category:Wikipedia Medcab active cases|Landmark Education]][[Category:Wikipedia medcab maintenance|Landmark Education]]

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

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

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

Hello Medcab

We need some help with mediating the Landmark Education article. Some editors have been removing well sourced edits from the article on the basis that consensus trumps NPOV policies [1][2][3], or that minority views cannot be presented on Wikipedia [4] I will assume good faith and for the time being state that they are just being unbelievably misguided. However, after suggestions to discuss weight, relevance, and reliablity, proponents made no attempt to make suggestions [5], and after the information was moved to the talkpage, the main proponent push was towards dismissing the information rather than offering suggestions for presentation [6].

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

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

Involved parties

• DaveApter (talk · contribs)
• Lsi john (talk · contribs)
• Spacefarer (talk · contribs)
• Sm1969 (talk · contribs)
• AJackl (talk · contribs)
• Timb66 (talk · contribs)
• Jeffrire (talk · contribs)
• Triplejumper (talk · contribs)
• EstherRice (talk · contribs)
• Pedant17 (talk · contribs)
• Ckerr (talk · contribs)
• Smee (talk · contribs)

Mediator response

Reading case now, will post initial comments soon. I hope we can quickly reach a consensus on this. It would help if someone could add a list of involved parties in the meantime. Chrislintott 22:05, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Ground rules

Please do not edit comments posted on this page, even if they are your own. It'll help me immensely if we have a full record of discussions. What I need at the minute is a clear statement of everyone's position, and I expect that you will all disagree. Posting rebutals and responses, while I know it's tempting, just makes things more confusing, although you're welcome to do so if you feel you must. I'll shortly make a list of the issues involved and then we'll deal with them seperately. Hopefully this will allow some progress instead of just continuing the arguments here. If anyone has any concerns about this, you're welcome to contact me on my talk page or by email. Chrislintott 15:29, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Comments from involved editors

Comments by DaveApter

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

And just to clarify - I welcome this mediation, I agree to participate in it and to be bound by its conclusions.DaveApter 12:11, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Comments by Lsi john

-comments in this area may be over-written or modified by the editor himself. Please do not post comments within this area. Thank you.

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

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

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

One important point in particular:

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

Thank you for your time and attention.

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

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

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

• If an editor's comments and thoughts are going to be interspersed with other editors' remarks and counter claims, then there is no point to having individual areas for each editor and we are back to the chaos we have on the article discussion.

I have no interest in wasting time with back-and-forth tit-for-tat reply-for-reply debates in the context of mediation. I appreciate that some editors feel that they simply must comment directly after another editor.. and, with all due respect, that is exactly why we have not gotten anywhere. It indicates that everyone is talking and nobody is listening.

By commenting, with a rebuttal, right after another editor, we are effectively dismissing the other editor and showing why they are wrong. That, in my opinion, is unnecessary here. Mediation is about saying what you believe, it is not about saying why another editor is wrong. We can say why the other editor is wrong by saying what we believe is right, respectfully in our own comment area. This keeps it from becoming personal and it helps keep it civilized and on-point.

If a comment can't stand on it's own merit, alone, without having to follow another editor's remark, then I submit that the comment may not be all that reasonable. And, if it can stand alone, then there is no reason to embed it in another editor's area.

That is just my opinion, but I'm stating it here because of the objections that have been raised about keeping comments separated. (back to work for me.. more later if necessary). (Also, interspersed comments makes it soooooo much harder for the mediator to get a good understanding of each editor's views).

Peace in God. Lsi john

- please respect my thoughts and do not post opposing or concurring comments within my comments. thank you. -- Lsi john

-Rebuttal or counter views - for editors who cannot word their own views in a context where they can stand on their own merit and feel they must specifically address my thoughts.

- the following comments have been relocated numerous times after repeatedly ignoring my request not to break up my remarks.

[comment re-relocated in accordance with the discussion on interspersion above] -- Pedant17 02:17, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

[comments below re-relocated after botched relocation (see below) -- as per discussion above and per the edit summary of User;CKerr: "they don't make sense if they're reordered." What a lot of meanings "good faith" has! -- Pedant17 01:38, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

The claim that "[t]he foreign language sources use the word 'sectant' which properly translates to 'sect'" has appeared more than once. If we could see texts where this word occurs (as opposed to the French-language sources which use secte[s] and the German-language sources which use Sekte[n]) we might engage in meaningful discussion as to usage, specific usage, semantic fields and their "proper" translation in each circumstance and linguistic environment. -- Pedant17 02:18, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

If a comment cannot stand alone it may or may not have reason behind it. But for brevity and context, placing a comment immediately after the text to which it refers saves space, time and hermeneutic effort -- even if that comment could (with suitable expansion and supporting material) stand on its own. -- Pedant17 02:17, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Remarks and counterclaims can aid in clarifying matters under discussion, thus making the topics for mediation more precise. Mediation (as opposed to arbitration and other forms of dispute-resolution) encourages discussion amongst the parties. Wikipedians standardly use indentation to separate out interspersed additions: see for example the talk-page guideline and its reference to threaded discussion. -- Pedant17 02:17, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

As the current editor of this page, I would like to thank User:Lsi john for graciously making this public area of cyberspace available for editing, and I look forward to productive debate carried out efficienttly and in context according to Wikipedia norms of practice (which, however, frown on over-writing or modification of any discussion material -- including one's own contributions) . -- Pedant17 01:38, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

If you do not wish to debate in the context of mediation, you may run the risk of others assuming that you lack "good faith" in regard to that mediation. Far from interspersed comments indicating a lack of listening, such responses can suggest close listening and a specific willingness to discuss individual points, immediately, and in the context of the discussion as it develops. - Pedant17 02:17, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree that commenting with a rebuttal may show where another editor has gone wrong -- and such a demonstration may aid the discussion. But interspersed comments may also indicate agreement, support, querying and/or divergent views -- in context and immediately applicable. -- I do not recognize your views on mediation as nothing more than statements of belief. The mediation process tends to bypass beliefs and concentrate on achieving agreement by negotiation and discussion. Interspersed comments can actively avoid personalization of arguments: because they have a context one need not even mention another editor's name/handle; and we do not face the distorting effects of having to summarize another Wikipedian's viewpoint elsewhere, out of context, in an environment where cross-checking as to accuracy becomes more difficult. Pedant17 02:17, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Respect for argument might persuade me to wrench interspersed comments from their natural environment; respect for thoughts does not do so. Explanatory and supplemental comments belong with the text that inspires them -- just as with opposing and concurring comments. -- Pedant17 01:38, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

The claim that "[t]he foreign language sources use the word 'sectant' which properly translates to 'sect'" has appeared more than once. If we could see texts where this word occurs (as opposed to the French-language sources which use secte[s] and the German-language sources which use Sekte[n]) we might engage in meaningful discussion as to usage, specific usage, semantic fields and their "proper" translation in each circumstance and linguistic environment. -- Pedant17 02:18, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Remarks and counterclaims can aid in clarifying matters under discussion, thus making the topics for mediation more precise. Mediation (as opposed to arbitration and other forms of dispute-resolution) encourages discussion amongst the parties. Wikipedians standardly use indentation to separate out interspersed additions: see for example the talk-page guideline and its reference to threaded discussion. -- Pedant17 02:17, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

If you do not wish to debate in the context of mediation, you may run the risk of others assuming that you lack "good faith" in regard to that mediation. Far from interspersed comments indicating a lack of listening, such responses can suggest close listening and a specific willingness to discuss individual points, immediately, and in the context of the discussion as it develops. - Pedant17 02:17, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree that commenting with a rebuttal may show where another editor has gone wrong -- and such a demonstration may aid the discussion. But interspersed comments may also indicate agreement, support, querying and/or divergent views -- in context and immediately applicable. -- I do not recognize your views on mediation as nothing more than statements of belief. The mediation process tends to bypass beliefs and concentrate on achieving agreement by negotiation and discussion. Interspersed comments can actively avoid personalization of arguments: because they have a context one need not even mention another editor's name/handle; and we do not face the distorting effects of having to summarize another Wikipedian's viewpoint elsewhere, out of context, in an environment where cross-checking as to accuracy becomes more difficult. Pedant17 02:17, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Respect for argument might persuade me to wrench interspersed comments from their natural environment; respect for thoughts does not do so. Explanatory and supplemental comments belong with the text that inspires them -- just as with opposing and concurring comments. -- Pedant17 01:38, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Remarks and counterclaims can aid in clarifying matters under discussion, thus making the topics for mediation more precise. Mediation (as opposed to arbitration and other forms of dispute-resolution) encourages discussion amongst the :: If you do not wish to debate in the context of mediation, you may run the risk of others assuming that you lack :: I agree that commenting with a rebuttal may show where another editor has gone wrong -- and such a demonstration may aid the discussion. But interspersed comments may also indicate agreement, support, querying and/or divergent views -- in context and immediately applicable. -- I do not recognize your views on mediation as nothing more :: The claim that "[t]he foreign language sources use the word 'sectant' which properly translates to 'sect'" has appeared more than once. If we could see texts where this word occurs (as opposed to the French-language sources which use secte[s] and the German-language sources which use Sekte[n]) we might engage in meaningful discussion as to usage, specific usage, semantic fields and their "proper" translation in each circumstance and linguistic environment. -:: I submit that mediators may not need or wish "to get a good understanding of each editor's views". Rather, the overall tone of the discussion and the flow and validity of argument may become paramount in achieving a mediated solution. If, however, mediators (and/or others) have an interest in precisely who holds what view, then indentation, signatures and edit histories/diffs can help sort that out. -- Pedant17 02:17, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

If a comment cannot stand alone it may or may not have reason behind it. But for brevity and context, placing a comment immediately after the text to which it refers saves space, time and hermeneutic effort -- even if that comment could (with suitable expansion and supporting material) stand on its own. -- Pedant17 02:17, 26 May 2007 (UTC)- Pedant17 02:18, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

than statements of belief. The mediation process tends to bypass beliefs and concentrate on achieving agreement by negotiation and discussion. Interspersed comments can actively avoid personalization of arguments: because they have a context one need not even mention another editor's name/handle; and we do not face the distorting effects of having to summarize another Wikipedian's viewpoint elsewhere, out of context, in an environment where cross-checking as to accuracy becomes more difficult. -- Pedant17 02:17, 26 May 2007 (UTC) parties. Wikipedians standardly use indentation to separate out interspersed additions: see for example the talk-page guideline and its reference to threaded discussion. -- Pedant17 02:17, 26 May 2007 (UTC) good faith in regard to that mediation. Far from interspersed comments indicating a lack of listening, such responses can suggest close listening and a specific willingness to discuss individual points, immediately, and in the context of the discussion as it develops.-- Pedant17 02:17, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Comments by Spacefarer

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

Comments by Sm1969

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

• Surprisingly, User:Sm1969 has framed his opinions on certain issues here without personally attacking other editors (so far), but rather by describing the issues at hand and the general ideas regarding content in dispute, and I appreciate that. Polite language makes for more constructive dialogue, overall. Smee 00:22, 22 May 2007 (UTC).
  • I don't think anyone has ever made a serious accusation that I have "attacked" anyone, so I don't know what you are surprised at, Smee. Sm1969 09:36, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
    • The comment was not directed at you specifically, more that you have bucked the general trend of some of the commentators in this Mediation so far, by speaking to what you perceive as content problems of the article, and not issues of any single editor. This is both more polite, and more constructive towards affecting a postitive change, than some of the other comments... Smee 09:40, 25 May 2007 (UTC).

Comments by AJackl

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

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

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

A notice as per WP:TPG -- [ Lsi john removed his comments, as follows: At least Alex Jackl's comments were related to the article. Lsi john 00:12, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

To clarify: I had no intention of attacking Smee or anyone else. I have re-read my remarks above and see no way that they could be misinterpreted as a personal attack. The facts are these: a)between May 2006 and March 2007, there were about 2,100 edits of the article; b) approximately 1,000 of these were made by Smee (ie he made about the same number as the other three dozen editors combined); c) many of these were immediate (and often repeated) reverts of other editors' contributions; d)he was several times reported for 3RR violations, and several times blocked for it. The relevance of all this to the current discussion is that the contested material that Jeffrire wishes to re-introduce would restore the article to its state at the point when Smee 'volunteered' to desist from editing after his March 3RR violation. DaveApter 12:11, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Comments by Timb66

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

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

I stand by my comment that "[p]articipating in Landmark Education activities does provide a bad indicator for objectivity." I draw attention to my followup: "But Wikipedia can tolerate the opinions of such people -- in this case as minorities." Landmarketeers make enough attempts in cyberspace to decry those commentators "who have not even done the Landmark Forum"; I would suggest that some distance and dispassionate observation of effects and results would thoroughly counterbalance overtly partisan editing. -- Pedant17 02:18, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

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

Comments by Jeffrire

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

Comments by Triplejumper

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

So what if many of the edits of user:Jeffrire, User:EstherRice, User:Smee and/or User:Pedant17 occur in specific subject areas? People have interests and facinations -- even Wikipedians have their areas of specialization. Interest in certain areas does not necessarily equate to "an intense POV" -- it may just as plausibly indicate a concern for accuracy and hard-fought balance. -- Notwithstanding the foregoing, my own edits do not relate overwhelmingly to LGATs and cults, though I have touched on those topics (as well as on the nastiness of Landmark Education) in my editing of 1844 different pages since 2003: compare http://tools.wikimedia.de/~interiot/cgi-bin/Tool1/wannabe_kate?username=Pedant17&site=en.wikipedia.org -- Pedant17 02:18, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Comments by Smee

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

• As I understand it, the mediation process is not intended to produce a ruling on content, but rather to establish a framework in which users of various viewpoints can collaborate constructively to improve the article, an outcome I would personally welcome. I have never made personal attacks on you, but I do see your repeated accusations of my doing so as a form of harassment. DaveApter 12:11, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

• Hello, Smee. Since you have mentioned that you are no longer editing this article, I think it is also relevant to point out that you (and other editors of this page) are actively editing the article on Landmark Education litigation. Timb66 23:33, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
  • There are content issues that you should all discuss, instead of getting bogged down by, as Ckerr puts it, making accusations about "wild-eyed Landmark propagandists or wild-eyed Landmark haters". Discuss the criticism, inclusion of such and such or not in the article, etc. Not who said what and why and how they are behaving. This is not constructive. That is what I mean. If you only want a Mediation to gripe, and throw around accusations, that is not helpful, constructive, polite, or appropriate. Smee 23:53, 24 May 2007 (UTC).

Comments by Ckerr

The term "NPOV" is of no use, since opposing sides (of course) think they have the "neutral" point of view, whereas the opposition is either wild-eyed Landmark propagandists or wild-eyed Landmark haters. Isn't it ironic that this bitter, often personal debate is so contrary to what would be recommended by Landmark?

That said, the Landmark page is better than it used to be. I would strongly urge no further elimination of critical material, but nor do I think there should be more emphasis on it. I reject the argument that the article gives unnecessary weight to a minority view, since it isn't objectively known how "minority" this view is. Speaking from personal experience, when I did the Forum last year, about half the people I spoke to felt that Landmark's marking tactics were improper, and questions on Landmark's theological implications were raised with the Forum Leader. In my view these aren't non-issues, but nor do I think there is reason to call Landmark a "cult".

Finally, I think the controversiality of this article is itself notable. Passions are running so strong the article will only be balanced when everyone is dissatisfied with it. Ckerr 04:25, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

• Thank you, Ckerr, I imagine no one will be completely happy with your comments, but you have managed to fairly describe a difficult issue, whilst also remaining tactful and polite. Most appreciated. Smee 04:27, 24 May 2007 (UTC).

• Hi Ckerr. I agree with you that the article in its current state has about the right fraction of critical material (in the past month the article has oscillated between something similar to its current state and one with about 30% more material, mostly critical). In the interests of disclosure, I should point out that Ckerr and I work in the same department and know each other slightly. Timb66 05:43, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
• Just to add that I agree 100% with what Ckerr adn Timb66 have said. I have never said that the 'controversies' should not be discussed, only that all sides should be presented fairly and given due weight. I have made several attempts to get constructive debate going about this on the talk page. One other weakness of the present state of the article is that it gives virtually no information about what Landmark actually does, why anyone would take their courses, or what they get from them. DaveApter 12:11, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

~ ~ ~

Having thought about it more, I have come to believe strongly that many of this article's issues could be solved by moving the "Controversies" section into a separate article, the way "Litigation" has. In my experience, the majority of disagreements have been over whether a certain fact was important enough to include in the main article. This problem would no longer arise in a separate article, since there would be no concern about "undue weight". I think the criticisms of Landmark are interesting and important, but they are numerous and complicated enough to make it impossible to cover them fairly in main article. Let's keep the main article focused on what Landmark is and what it does, and leave full treatment of its merits and problems for a separate article. Ckerr 09:49, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

• Wow, on a related note, just took a look at Criticism of Microsoft and the article is LONG, 58Kb... Though my general inclination is rather to oppose splitting this stuff off into its own article, if consensus is for this in the end, that would certainly be an intrguing article. There are certainly plenty of reputable citations for one... Smee 09:54, 27 May 2007 (UTC).

Comments by Pedant17

May it please the Cabal: talk of "majorities", "minorities", "significant minorities" and consensus seems inappropriate in the absence of proven figures. Talk of NPOV oft becomes confused with the concept of accuracy (and truth as each editor sees it) at the expense of balance and of a diversity of opinions. Questions as the the reliabilty of sources frequently get derailed into discussions on the overall tone of sources, or on trivial points of dispute unrelated to the immediate point. Claims of non-notability abound, with appeals to WP:Notability regardless of the fact that that guideline applies to Wikipedia articles rather than to sub-topics within articles. Complaints emerge of an article too long, countered by questioning of the forking of some material to avoid just this issue. Wild generalizations on fellow-editors' attitudes and viewpoints and work get made on the Talk-pages. Overall one gets the impression that wikilawyering techniques result in a exclusionist attitude towards any material prejudicially deemed "negative" to the perceived interests of Landmark Education LLC, a for-profit org with a "philosophical" set of offbeat attitudes and techniques which it ostensibly wishes to see spread into popular culture. Even self-damning material originating from the Landmark Education website has fallen victim to exclusionist procedures. -- Pedant17 02:18, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Seeing the revision which Pedant17 refers to has made me change my point of view. Perhaps I missed some important debate, but it seems bizarre that, among other things, an actual study done on Landmark (Dr Nedopil's) has been entirely excluded from the article.

Perhaps the best option is to create a separate article which could cover these criticisms in detail without interrupting the flow of the article (they don't fit under "Legal disputes"). I think the "Evaluations of Landmark" section could also be moved to this separate article, leaving the main article free to discuss what Landmark actually is — which, as DaveApter rightly points out, is surprisingly hard to discern from the current article.

Personally, I don't think that interesting, reputable and referenced information should be deleted from Wikipedia. A separate article will allow all relevant points to be made without cluttering the main article, and could even tame the unruly behemoth that this article has become. Ckerr 07:18, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi CKerr; If you look at the converstaions before and after the edits Pedant points at you will see the conversations that happened around theat inclusion. I owuld not mind the inclusion of Dr. Nedopil's article- if it is in proper context. What was being done is spin was being applied to it to make it seem to have different results than it actually did. I would be aligned with adding a reference/citation to it in the article. .-- Alex Jackl 04:38, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I thoroughly concur with the view that if you look at the conversations you will see the conversations. -- Pedant17 01:38, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Herr Professor Doktor Nedopil has many fans amongst Wikipedia-editors. Some like to quote his definitive statement to the effect that Landmark Education does not constitute a cult. Others find more interest in his statements on the psychological dangers of the Landmark Forum in his Psychiatrisches Gutachten über das LANDMARK-Forum of 23 March 1995. It almost reminds one of the way in which Landmark Education in France appealed for support to the psychologist Jean-Marie Abgrall, who subsequently spoke disparagingly of Landmark Education. -- Pedant17 01:38, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Separate articles will not help because we would have the same issues in that new article. The issue is that we believe the content to be non-notable, not horribly relevant, and non-encyclopedic. Also it is not that all of the content is bad it is just out of scope. It should be ten percent or so of the article... not the whole thing- the article should focus on what Landmark is and what it does in an informative manner. I think a lot of the editors involved in this would be working on that if they didn't feel the need to defend the article from what appears to us/me as vandalism or at the least POV-pushing. If you look at the entires of the people against adding all the "spinned" content we have not added "arias singing of Landmark's transcendent glory and how it will save the world"- we have been stating what Landmark says it is, what the courses are and some of the thinking behind it. That is probably what the vast majority of the article should be.. As to the "self-damning information" that Pedant17 was talking about - I just followed it up: Nothing damning about it- that is just data about participation in LE - what is the problem with that. To call that self-damning is to create smoke where there is no fire- just a weasel-wordy way to stir up controversy. Being NPOV doesn't mean you can't tell the truth about the way it is. Alex Jackl 04:38, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Separate articles would mitigate concerns with the Landmark Education article exceeding length-guidelines.See for example user:Lsi john's comments of [2007-04-29]] at 0408 hours: "Maximum length is there for a reason. Generally everything that needs to be said to describe a subject can be said within the maximum lengh limitation. Articles that exceed that limit, are generally redundant and overly wordy." And compare user:Lsi john's line of argument at 0219 hours on 2007-04-29:"This article is right at the max length for a wiki article...The number of references and footnotes is incredibly long... Is there something you would consider taking out, in order to add that reference?" -- Pedant17 01:38, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Separate articles would not necessarily suffer from identical problems of scope and content-warring -- provided editors maintain cross-references and do not attempt to duplicate material for the sake of point-scoring -- as occasionally happened after material forked into the Landmark Education and the law article (subsequently misleadingly re-named as Landmark Education litigation). -- Pedant17 01:38, 27 May 2007 (UTC).

The issue of scope may also diminish if we introduce separate articles. We can subvert demands for arbitrary percentages getting devoted to specific points of view simply by linking to separate articles -- each NPOV in content but freed from the artificial rule-sets that editors have "created" specifically for the Landmark Education entry. -- Pedant17 01:38, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I would welcome more material on "what [Landmark Education] does]. But note that the full list of courses that I added to the article has disappeared: see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Landmark_Education#Courses for the deletion-proposal by User:DaveApter and the deletion by User:Timb66. -- Pedant17 01:38, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

If the self-damning element of self-contradiction in Landmark Education's published figures on course-participation seems not self-evident then fine -- let the information stand in the article as a statistical record within the precisely defined limitations of its origins and of the suppression of its checkability. Nevertheless, someone has removed this material -- apparently on the grounds that it may mislead or lack interest -- see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Landmark_Education#Market_penetration_over_time -- Pedant17 01:38, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I also find it ironic that Pedant17 accuses some of us of personal attacks when his accusations five paragraphs above typify why we need this mediation. Alex Jackl 04:31, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I fear that I missed that particular irony, since I cannot recall accusing "some of us" of personal attacks. -- But I do find it ironic that anyone considers that my attempts to provide provable statements of fact typify a perceived "need" for mediation -- Pedant17 01:38, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Comments by EstherRice

I intend to contribute to the discussion but the inclination has been given a hard hit (not by anyone directly involved) and I'm short of time right now.ER^Talk 11:44, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Response to initial comments

OK, so I've read what you all had to say. As far as I see it, there are three seperate issues here. Firstly, whether Landmark can be described as a cult, sect or neither of these terms. Secondly, there are disputes over which criticisms of Landmark should be incorporated into the article. Thirdly, even where there is agreement that such criticism should be incorporated in the article, there is dispute as to how prominent it should be, and how much space it should take up.

We'll deal with each of these, but I'm going to defer the third dispute for now. This should be easier to deal with once we have some more concrete to stand on. Let's start with my first point.

Landmark's status

As an outside editor, it seems to me that the fact that such a lively debate is possible over whether Landmark is a cult, or a sect, or both, or neither is clear enough evidence that a definitive answer is not possible. It is also inherently non-citable, as no source is likely to be definitive. What is citable is occasions on which the organisation has or has not been described as a cult, a sect or whatever else. As a starting point for debate, I propose 1. That we need a few sentences on whether Landmark has been described as either a cult or a sect, when such descriptions have been applied and the importance of such a classification. 2. That outside of this small section, neither the word 'cult' or 'sect' are used.

Perhaps several of you should suggest a possible form of words, and then we can try and draw them together. One personal request - it would help me if you could just add comments one after the other so I can see how the debate evolves.

Dave Apter

It is certainly the case that some people have expressed an opinion that Landmark is a cult and others disagree. Whether there are any sources that meet this aspect of the WP:NPOV policy is open to question:

The reference requires an identifiable and objectively quantifiable population or, better still, a name (with the clear implication that the named individual should be a recognized authority)

I discussed the support (or lack thereof) for the suggestion that Landmark is a cult in the 'Where's the beef?' section on the talk page. As far as I can see there is no recognised authority who has unambiguously declared Landmark to be a cult (without subsequently retracting it), and also defined what they mean by that troublesome and ill-defined term. The arguable exception is the French report, so long as this is given an appropriate context (The French national obsession with "sectes"; the lack of definition, accountablility, or appeal process; the large number of clearly innocuous groups that were also listed; and the general scepticism expressed towards that now-disbanded department).

As regards the controversial issues to be discussed, I already suggested several months ago:

• Does it really produce worthwhile results?
• Is it sometimes harmful?
• Is it a rip-off, or a money making scam?

and on reflection, I'd add:

• The surprising fact that volunteer staff outnumber paid staff by a factor of over ten-to-one. DaveApter 09:58, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

sm1969

The issue of LE being a "cult" has received much attention. When publications (print matter) have used that term in the United States, they have been consistently sued by Landmark Education, and the entities making the statement have retracted (Margaret Singer, Self Magazine, et al.) Only on the Internet in the United States have entities (e.g., Rick Ross) been able to avoid liability by having an anonymous third-party make the assertion that LE is a "cult." Such retractions have also been issued in the Netherlands. No one has been a well-defined statement in an accountable medium that Landmark Education is a "cult." The situation is different in Europe, notably France, but even there there is no clear (testable!) definition of a "cult" that used.

The other controversial issues brought up by DaveApter are on-point and have been discussed back and forth for at least 1.5 years: A) whether LE produces worthwhile results B) whether LE is a scam C) why do people volunteer

A major issue is how much attention, relative to the length of the article as a whole, these controversies should receive. Sm1969 16:21, 28 May 2007 (UTC)