Talk:Landmark Worldwide

Please start new discussion topics at the bottom of the talk page per Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. Thanks!

This will not be an edit war

The block was lifted per conditions that it not be an edit war. Triplejumper, good job on the citations, but see if you can find non-corporate citations. The information I added, that Mvemkr tightened up the wording for was fine the first time. If another citation is needed, I will happily provide. Mvemker edited it so the language was neutral. Let's all stay in check from the jump. Cool? Arcana imperii Ascendo tuum 23:09, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

REMINDER

This is not a forum for general discussion of personal discussions about the subject. Any such messages will be deleted. Please limit discussion to the suggestions on how to improve the content of this article.Arcana imperii Ascendo tuum 19:44, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Removal of non-cited sources

This is probably where we need to start on editing this article. Too many "citation needed" components need to be removed in an brisk fashion. Arcana imperii Ascendo tuum 21:11, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

• In the essence of providing a solid article, it is necessary to find viable, verifiable, non-corporate information to use as citations. I don't see how this policy, used conservatively, would ever present a problem. Arcana imperii Ascendo tuum 23:09, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Removal of Governmental Mention section

I have removed this section based on that in each of the countries cited in the section, either Landmark Education was removed from subsequent lists, corrections were issued or in the case of France the list was never reviewed or updated again. Triplejumper (talk) 00:59, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. I appreciate your well-reasoned rationale. We should work together like this in the future. This is better than the way we've been doing it. A line comment by the edit just doesn't work for me or most editors on wiki, but a discussion like this on the talk page is much more acceptable. Thank you. --Pax Arcane 03:01, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

None of the reasons given justifies removing the section on "Governmental mention". If sourced information exists detailing subsequent history, that can supplement or even possibly supplant the historical information that certain governments made certain mentions at certain dates, as well attested. One keeps hearing vague generalizations about retractions and amended "lists", but such hearsay "evidence" does not suffice for determining Wikipedia content: let's put any hard evidence in the public domain. If nobody reviews or updates a document (such as the French Parliamentary Commission report) then it stands for all time as an artifact of its day and reflects the historical situation then. If revisions exist, let's hear about them in the restored section of the main article -- as information pertaining to yet another segment of the historical record. -- Pedant17 (talk) 03:56, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I was assuming Triplejumper was making statements of fact. If they were just vague statements, I disagree with the edits. I was more praising him on using the TALK page than the veracity of his edits. For ONCE, we did get a rationale from him. Quite a historic moment. "Well-reasoned" was me assuming his statements were true. Well, even Von Savage made mistakes. I apologise for my earlier support. --Pax Arcane 16:08, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

LE study in Israel

It was published in a British psych journal, published 2005. There was a control gorup, an LE group, and a combined therapy/LE group. It was a pretty solid piece of work. Any takers on editing that in? Reading the information hasn't been a problem, and neither has discussing the results, but I'm afraid I'm lacking editorial capacity to do other than quote the abstract, results, and conclusion. -- Arcana imperii Ascendo tuum (talk) 19:03, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

OK, I just added a section to include it in the framework, but I'm still finding that the wording to include it is either "too wordy" or lacks ease of read. I would appreciate it if someone would lend a hand in helping me syntheisize the paper into something that can be included here. From my interpretation, (and it goes without saying I could very well be off), there were 4 groups studied: C = Control, P = Counseling, F = Forum participants, and FP = Forum participants receiving counseling. We have a real challenge here. The data is what it is, and from what I can tell (again, I may be off), the best results were C followed by FP, with FP and P feeling the most-depressed/anxious of the four. A better way of stating this is that The C group was happier than the FP and P groups (in terms of subjective well-being). There seems to be no major significant differences between the F and P participants, but the FP group fared better because the psychotherapy/Fourm combination was possibly reinforcing a participant's perception of control. It's just a cross-sectional study, no implied causality that gives probably more questions for further research than anything else. It's fascinating...so I'm asking for someone to reach out and help me dig in. The more I read, the more I realise this would be a great NPOV addition. Pax Arcane 22:00, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

This study doesn't belong in the article for several reasons A) It is not about Landmark Education as it quotes work and references the 1970's and 80's a course called the Forum. Landmark Education began the "Landmark Forum" in 1991. B) More importantly the study lists several limitations and implications the first two of which are: (1) This study is cross-sectional, and as such cannot look at causality. (2) A sample of convenience was used, and therefore it may not be considered as representative. Triplejumper (talk) 18:08, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Didja...read the paragraph I wrote? Third to last sentence? Lemme quote it for you: It's just a cross-sectional study, no implied causality that gives probably more questions for further research than anything else. It's fascinating...so I'm asking for someone to reach out and help me dig in. The more I read, the more I realise this would be a great NPOV addition... Like, if you had even read the last few sentences before you responded with something I already stated.

TJ, guess we can count you out of the group that is helping examine the research. I took a grad class on being able to digest peer-reviewed scientific, research artcles. Give it a shot. It was less than the cost of an LE course and people really learned a lot of cool, useful stuff. We had a WP:3PO. It stays. Sorry. Limitations will be noted in the article, as I had to quote for you what I already stated that you failed to read. I need help on the other stuff. You know, if you actually read results of that article, it would give a BOOST to your org, but you'd have to read and understand the words there to grasp it. Cheers! --Pax Arcane 18:33, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Pax- I did read your paragraph. I gave my opinion as to why I think it should not be in this article. Limitations aside, it is not about Landmark Education and should not be in this article. Cheers back at ya. Triplejumper (talk) 19:27, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

It is about Landmark Education, the basic part known as 'The Forum,' for without 'The Forum,' LE would non exist. It's a cross-sectional study. Read it. You're wrong. This isn't an opinion thing, this is a fact thing. Think critically and get back to me. --Pax Arcane 01:49, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't know anything about this yet and am willing to offer services as 3rd party. See my POV page for any recusal. Lycurgus (talk) 09:19, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I have begun to burn the time committed to this matter. At this point I am having a little trouble disambiguating the "it" of contention but assume it will become clear shortly. As opinion, anything further I have to say on this matter will be posted on my talk page where I responded to one of the editors (Pax Arcane). As there appear to be multiple 3rd opinions now I don't expect to use anywhere near the max amount of time comitted for this. Lycurgus (talk) 22:49, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

You may want to reconsider User:Vassyana as a neutral 3rd Opinion, see below. --Pax Arcane 01:01, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

• • Yeah, I'm going to disregard the Vassyana comment due the mess with Jossi. I'm glad the study stayed in. It actually gives a boost to taking "The Forum" when you really read the study. And I can't see how that would be a bad thing with either side of the coin here.--Pax Arcane 15:53, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

There are enough questions about this Israeli study that I have removed it from the article. I have also put the name of the section back to its original name of "Independent study" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Triplejumper (talk • contribs) 15:33, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Spacefarer

You gonna just chop the article or discuss it? Wait, I already have your answer. You do what you want to do, wiki process be damned. --Pax Arcane 16:36, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Again, I ask you to work with others and use the TALK page. --Pax Arcane 17:10, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

For the THIRD TIME, USE THE DISCUSSION PAGE LANDROID! --Pax Arcane 17:29, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Whoops, there goes DaveApter again!

Wholesale PR edits without discusssion! Kudos! Does Spacefarer=AlexJackl=DaveApter=Jossi ? Discuss amongst yourselves! --Pax Arcane 21:52, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

First of all the above is a violation of the civility and no personal attacks policies. Please leave it out.

For the record this is the thinking behind the edits I made:

Some observers question whether and to what degree Landmark Education courses benefit participants. Others criticize the use of volunteers by Landmark Education; others highlight the connections with other groups and with Werner Erhard

I removed this because it is simply unattributable opinionating: Which observers? What do they know about it? Do they have any expertise in the matter? The reference given does not substantiate this sentence. It's doubtful that this is justifiable anywhere in the article but in any event it certainly has no place in the intro which is supposed to summarise points developed at length in the article itself.

Wikipedia thrives by recording that some people hold certain opinions. The sentences in question backed up this attributable opinionating with the example of a referenced quotation. We leave the evaluation of the expertise of the commentators (in this case endorsed by a governmental agency) to the judgment of readers. -- Previous versions of the Landmark Education article have expanded on such opinions. If the article now no longer does so, we need to restore the deleted portions -- not complain about lack of substantiation. In the meantime, we can restore this text and its supporting footnote. -- Pedant17 (talk) 01:47, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

The coursework and pedagogy of WEA evolved from est/Erhard Seminars Training, founded by Werner Erhard in 1971.

I removed this simply because it's a repetition of a point that had already been made.

Repetition can highlight important points in context. But this sentence did not even constitute repetition: the corporate descent of Landmark Education (as discussed earlier in the article) does not necessarily equate to the origins of the coursework. Given some of the corporate obfuscation that exists on this point, the sentence should stand as a valid and independent contribution to the article. -- Pedant17 (talk) 01:47, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Various sources indicated Harvard University had Landmark Education sign an agreement to stop the public distribution of this marketing case study of the Forum, carried out by two of Harvard's business-school professors.

I removed this primarily because (as already pointed out on this page and not repudiated) it has nothing whatever to do with the topic of the section "The Landmark Assisting Program". It's also a messy irrelevant addition to an over-long and meandering article. Who cares? What does this tell us? Harvard made a business study about LE which was substantially complimentary; LE (understandably)circulated it; Harvard asked them to desist on the grounds that it was created as a real-world example for use in coursework rather than a public endorsement; LE then complied with the request. What does all that contribute to an encyclopedia article?

As I wrote in this very Talk-page on 2008-01-01: 'Harry Rosenberg made a comment about "assisting". Our article quotes his comment as recorded in the Wruck study from Harvard. Because of Wikipedia's policies on verifiablity we note the degree of (un)availability of the Harvard study at or near wherever we reference it: either in the article-space or in a footnote. Just one of the many problems of accessibility of material about Landmark Education. -- Pedant17 (talk) 08:43, 1 January 2008 (UTC).' -- The connection with the topic of the section lies in the fact that we have used the case-study as part of the supporting apparatus for Rosenberg's comments on assisting. -- If the highlighting of Landmark Education's marketing infelicities seems "messy" and "irrelevant", allow me to suggest a separate subtopic or a separate article on Marketing Landmark Education. That would strengthen the article and/or provide a stable point of reference for the Wruck and Eastley study. -- Discussion of the Wruck/Eastley study adds facts to the encyclopedia. And the other fact -- that at least 5 references exist in relation to this episode -- strongly suggests that the matter has generated wider interest than a routine amicable agreement over the use of semi-academic material for commercial use. -- Pedant17 (talk) 01:47, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm tempted to revert the edits, but I don't want to get into an edit war. Anybody got any comments? DaveApter (talk) 14:35, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

DaveApter I do think that you have some good points here. In particular I agree with you about the opening paragraph and unattributable opinionating. While it it gets at something noteworthy, I don't think it should be in the opening paragraph. There are other things to say but I won't at this time.Triplejumper (talk) 20:54, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Of course you agree, TJ. You voted most of the stuff out, or edited it out along with Dave in MedCab or elsewhere. Dave, as far as civility goes, you throw that out the door when you mass-PR edit without discussing anything. You both do it, repeatedly. Your version of a discussion is getting together your LE cronies and all agreeing. There would be some stuff under controversy but you guys already got it moved to separate pages, and knowing you can't link to them in Wiki is how you all play the game. The stuff is attributable, but you edit it out. You think I was born yesterday? Show me where these controversies have not existed outside of LE, LLC and we'll see about editing them out. Use of volunteers? You guys got that moved to an LE legal section. There were labor violations in France and Texas, all documented. Association with Werner? LE has gone from distancing him to embracing him, and Erhard was controversial period. Success of LE? Nothing that anyone can measure scientifically, and nothing LE will let be measured due to disclosures signed when one does courses. Shall I continue? LE sues YouTube and loses to Havard Law and the EFF in an eeriely similar way Scientology tried to silence criticism. LE sues someone for infringing a NON-LE copyright violation. I can go on further.

Unattributed opinionating: bad -- reporting attributed opinionating: good. -- Back in March 2004 User:Eladm wrote : 'The first change is to move most of the second paragraph to the section about Criticism about Landmark. Not deleting anything. The current structure includes the negative remarks as part of the definition of Landmark. I think the correct place is in "Criticism about Landmark". Indeed it even starts with the words: "Some former participants and outside critics..."' -- But that suggestion got squashed: "First change: nope. That's the intro, which synopsises the article, and it's an important thing about Landmark." (see Talk:Landmark Education/Archive 1). What has changed? -- Nothing. The existence of criticism/doubts/negativity in relation to Landmark Education remains an important, highlightable fact, worthy of our opening paragraph. -- Pedant17 (talk)

The Havard case study was a case study that LE even has a disclaimer on their website. If you know what a case study is, you probably wouldn't reference it for anything. BUT...LE thought the case study was monumental, so much that they ordered thousands of copies after it was done to imply an endorsement by Harvard (until they were forced to sign an agreement). We can go on for days or you can accept the paragraphs where they are and consider it a fair assessment. Do you really want this to go back to MedCab? I can source the HELL out of all my statements, the ones LE hasn't gotten taken down or have shut down from websites (they have, btw). --Pax Arcane 22:50, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Would you please confine yourself to a sober discussion of improvements to the article and refrain from abusing this page to attack other editors and have a general rant. None of the above engages at all with the points I made above in justifying the edits, viz:

1 The first item is simply opinionating, not fact; furthermore the cited reference (whihc is just a statement of someone else's opinion anyway) doesn't justify the remarks.

The first item (the acknowledgement that lots of criticism has addresses lots of features of Landmark Education) records the existence of an opinion. The footnote provides a referenced and quoted "for example" from an official government publication. It establishes the link with "Werner Erhard" and demonstrates the importance of making (and hiding) that link. If you want more specific references, ask for them or supply them rather than deleting the valid along with the merely temporarily inadequate. -- Pedant17 (talk) 01:47, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

2 The second point is a repetition - isn't saying it once enough?

The discussion of the origins of the the coursework does not constitute a repetition. -- Even if it did, we can (briefly) repetitively cater for readers who skip to different sections of our article uising the miracles of hypertext. -- Pedant17 (talk) 01:47, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

3 The stuff about the Harvard study has nothing to do with the topic of the paragraph. Even in a context where it was relevant, it seems a marginal and obscure point (and not one that is particularly damaging for LE) - I can't understand why you are so attached to it.

The discussion of the availability of the Wruck and Eastley case-study explains why the diligent researcher may encounter difficulty in verifying Rosenberg's quoted statement. Without that explanatory openness, someone might even try to delete the whole shebang on the basis that the source had gone out of print or had disappeared from the public domain! -- Pedant17 (talk) 01:47, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

If you are so keen to re-instate these, will you please answer these points first. Thanks. DaveApter (talk) 18:36, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I have to consult my sources and citations. Let's give this a week or more if need be and if I can't cite sources (as I may be off), we can discuss the points further. I have multiple sources on the first item. "Some" doesn't mean all, and even if it's a minority, I stand for inclusion. The second item have a previously stated and sourced relvancy, if I'm not mistaken. The Havard case study really has to have that statement to balance it. Readers probably don't know what a case study is or the importance of it. The first and second parts are likely going to stay as I can source the seperate Landmark and Werner Erhard pages' citations. It adds history, LE finds it relavent, to the uninformed reader, it adds background. To you and I, no, it's stuff we already know, to newcomers it's the stuf they don't know they don't know...which is why I tend to be an inclusionist on Wiki. But if you and your LE compatriots understand the last sentence, you may have to just grin and bear it. There's always stuff we don't know we don't know, right? Why keep the stuff we know away from people? ;) --Pax Arcane 18:58, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I see why you agree with DaveApter, user Triplejumper

You agree because you and Jossi were the original people who hid the link to Landmark Education and the law. My memory was right! Heh. Who knew? ;) --Pax Arcane 02:03, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

This page looks at least slightly dubious

Hi. I am a part time wikipedian that feels the need to chime in on this discussion. This is what the page has right now under "criticism:"

Some observers question whether and to what degree Landmark Education courses benefit participants. Many are intimidated by the militaristic session. Others criticize the use of volunteers by Landmark Education; others highlight the connections with other groups and with Werner Erhard.[54]

Now, this is an organization that has been identified as a cult by watch-groups, and shut down in at least one major country due to continued scandal. Both of those statements I just made being cited. Yet, after tons of positive press, that's all that's in that section. Now I don't know about some of the editors that got it to this point, but I go to my encyclopedia for information. Seems like there is some very pertinent information being left out here. Is this an encyclopedia, or a place for organizations to promote themselves through citations? I question that in situations like this. Accipio Mitis Frux (talk) 22:53, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

That's all the text Landroids would approve from others' edits and other editors. What you're looking for, only 2-3 editors are honestly willing to put in. Landroids have "created the space" of no criticism, or a shell game of moving info around so nothing negative clusters in one spot, as it's "not what's so" for their magical world. And it's been edited to the bone, irregardless of reported controversy. "Controversy" is a word Landroids turn on its head constantly, possibly to "create the space" that it doesn't exist. Join, dig in, and edit if you will. Beware...Landmark's lawyers will remove webpages that contain citations leading to the citations vanishing and the "controversy" disappearing. Have you gotten the 66-page pluse package FedExed from Art Shyster yet? --Pax Arcane 05:11, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

• It's not going to be dubious anymore. Spacefarer was complaining to Jossi [1] to get a sanitized/whitewashed version of this page back up. Why Jossi? No-brainer figuring out that one. This is not likely to happen anymore. Truth prevails. --Pax Arcane 16:08, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Naming, branding and accuracy

On 2007-12-15 an 19:28 an editor changed the sentence:

Landmark Education states that over one million people have taken part in its introductory program, "The Landmark Forum" since 1991.

to read:

Landmark Education states that over one million people have taken part in its introductory program, the Landmark Forum, since 1991.

and commented in the edit-summary: 'This is the name of the course. It exists. It's a course. It doesn't need to be "in quotes."'

This sentence paraphrases the statement published by Landmark Education LLC itself and accordingly originally referred appropriately to "The Landmark Forum" in the style and format used by Landmark Education LLC at http://www.landmarkeducation.com/display_content.jsp?top=26&mid=659 (as retrieved on 2008-02-03): "The Landmark Forum". Landmark Education LLC refers to its course in this way formally and officially, even though some people have less reverence for the branding and refer to "the Forum" or "the Landmark Forum"; or do not regard it as a course at all; or do not recognize it as the sole introductory program of Landmark Education; or do not accept that it exists as a single standardized presentation, let alone recognise it as a "forum" in any accepted sense of the word. It seems appropriate for Wikipedia to use Landmark Education LLC's own style in quoting a Landmark Education LLC statement about a Landmark Education LLC offering -- even though Landmark Education LLC appears to misquote the sentence in the original Time magazine article (http://www.time.com/time/printout/0,8816,138763,00.html, retrieved 2008-02-03) on which it anchors its claim and which refers simply to "the introductory Forum". We can (and should) put back the quotation marks. -- Pedant17 (talk) 01:34, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Similarly, on 2007-12-15 at 19:29 an editor changed the sentence:

Landmark Education regards the precise content of its courses as copyrighted material, but provides a course syllabus for the "Landmark Forum" on their public website.

to read:

Landmark Education regards the precise content of its courses as copyrighted material, but provides a course syllabus for the Landmark Forum on their public website.

with the edit-summary comment "wtf", which does not provide an adequate explanation for the variation from the text of the referenced web-page -- http://www.landmarkeducation.com/display_content.jsp?top=21&mid=59&bottom=62 (retrieved 2008-02-03) -- on the Landmark Education LLC site, which makes it clear, in itself and in context ( http://www.landmarkeducation.com/landmark_forum.jsp , retrieved 2008-02-03) that Landmark Education LLC endorses the form "The Landmark Forum" -- even when the initial uppercase "T" may appear awkward and/or pretentious. We can edit the Wikipedia sentence to read accurately and expressively:

Landmark Education LLC regards the precise content of its courses as copyrighted material, but provides a course-syllabus for "The Landmark Forum" on its website.

Failing that, we may need to note, highlight and distinguish the sloppy use of brand and terminology by speaking of "the so-called Landmark Forum". -- Pedant17 (talk) 01:34, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Make it so, Number One.--Pax Arcane 04:20, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Cost of "tuition" vs fees

On 2007-12-15 at 19:33 an editor changed the phrase:

The Landmark Forum in Action Seminar, optional seminar included in the tuition-cost of the Landmark Forum

without explanation, such that it read:

The Landmark Forum in Action Seminar, optional seminar included in the tuition of the Landmark Forum

Presumably this unreferenced phrase refers to "The Landmark Forum in Action (LFIA) Series" (http://www.landmarkeducation.com/landmark_forum_in_action.jsp, retrieved 2008-02-03), also referenced somewhat confusingly as a "seminar" (http://www.landmarkeducation.com/landmark_forum_in_action.jsp, retrieved 2008-02-03), as a "program" (http://www.landmarkeducation.com/landmark_forum_in_action.jsp, retrieved 2008-02-03) and as a "course" (http://www.landmarkeducation.com/landmark_forum_in_action.jsp, retrieved 2008-02-03). The page http://www.landmarkeducation.com/landmark_forum_in_action.jsp (retrieved 2008-02-03) links to "tuition information" at http://www.landmarkeducation.com/menu.jsp?top=23&mid=278 (retrieved 2008-02-03), but this "tuition" page appears to lack details on "The Landmark Forum in Action (LFIA) Series".

The change from "tuition-cost" to "tuition" introduces ambiguity, especially to users of Commonwealth English, in which "tuition" means something like "teaching" and has no connotations of "fees" or "cost". Wikipedia, in its mission of providing clarity to international users, should use meaningful wording such as:

The Landmark Forum in Action (LFIA) Series, a group of optional seminars whose monetary costs Landmark Education LLC has bundled into the monetary costs of "The Landmark Forum"

This would resolve some of the ambiguity. -- Pedant17 (talk) 01:34, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Make the changes for clarity accordingly. Thanks for pointing this ambiguity out and proposing a solution.--Pax Arcane 04:21, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Stop the Personal Attacks

Pax Arcane- Please stop the personal attacks and name calling. If you are telling the truth about your intent to edit in the spirit of Wikipedia you are obligated to follow WP:Civil. Triplejumper (talk) 02:54, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

TJ, Look...Don't be sore at me for editing Spacefarer's vandalism. I understand civility, but I'm more inclusive, WP:IAR if it has to force people to follow editing policy and WP:DGAF with no tolerance for apathetic deletionist edits, and I will respond accordingly. The discussion page is the place where all ideas for edits should be discussed before the fact, and by balanced editors with a NPOV. And the people I've named just don't have a NPOV. I wish you guys did, but ya don't.--Pax Arcane 05:11, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Arcane, we all have our POVs, and you also have one, obviously. Having points of view does not prelude us to participate in this project. Just, that we check our POVs at the login scree and pursue the ideal of NPOV. Be nice to others, and work towards bettering the article, by welcoming new and established editors alike. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:12, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm saying I'm for using the discussion page in edits. To make any article better. I'm trying hard to find a rationale for not doing so. I think on controversial topics, it is essential. Describing it in the edit line without no prior or further discussion is just pointless, and I think you'd be inclined to agree. Otherwise, we need to talk to Jimbo about canning the discussion process altogether. --Pax Arcane 18:21, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Editors are encouraged to edit, as well as discuss. The best model, which I invite you to consider is the Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:34, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

The BRD process

1. Boldly make the desired change to the page.
2. Wait until someone reverts your change or makes another substantial edit. DO NOT revert this change!
3. If a disagreement arises, gracefully back down a bit, and explain and discuss your reasoning with the reverter and consider their different views too (don't go for discussion with too many people at once). Once you reach agreement, start the cycle again by making the agreed change.

Wash, rinse, repeat. If no one reverts after a couple of days, congratulations! You got out of the impasse and got changes done. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:35, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Landmark Courses Section

What have I gotten myself into? I added the sections for other Landmark programs because the 'curriculum for living' was previously referenced, but only one of its programs described. My entries got their facts from the Landmark Education website and were phrased to be NPOV. I took out Pax Arcane's additions because they were unsourced--Looking around, I can't find any basis for them.Gilbertine goldmark (talk) 15:10, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Why did you add stuff verbatim from the website? For a corporation, Wiki is _not_ a sales platform. Self-refering the website just makes it read like an advert.--Pax Arcane 18:01, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

No need to get all worked up. Just summarize the text, amd provide a source. And yes, a web page from an official site of the subject of this article is a valid source. See WP:SELFPUB.

≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:09, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Hm? Jossi, I removed it. It's undue advertising...the courses available are ref'd in a previous link above. Let's keep this encyclopedic. A link to the corporations "technological products" is sufficient, otherwise we may be crossing into whay wikipedia is not territory. --Pax Arcane 18:14, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

My additions were in no way verbatim additions from the website. I will re-add them with sources shortly.Gilbertine goldmark (talk) 18:55, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

This is odd--Admin Jossi says the edits I am doing are valid with a source, I put them back in with the source, and Pax Arcane just undoes them all without comment. Doesn't the Admin have a say here?Gilbertine goldmark (talk) 21:03, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't think describing the course catalogue descriptions for The Curriculum for Living is needed, especially when it is listed above and has been for some time, along with a link to LE's site describing the already listed courses. It's advertising in the case of what you added, and doesn't add anything to the article that isn't already there or has direct corportate offsite links to, Gil. Especially if you're adding how much time it takes for each course and the days of the week. Try summarizing the content and leaving it at that, or adding what little info you have on each course by expanding this list that already exists in the article. It seems easier to add your 2-3 lines of pertinent info to the list I'm talking about that's already been there for some time. --Pax Arcane 03:59, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I have put this back in the article. Including a couple sentences about the courses outlined above is not blatant advertising. It is simply saying what the purpose of 4 key courses are and evens out a section that it titled Landmark Education Courses. This slight elaboration is relevant to an article about Landmark Education. Triplejumper (talk) 15:59, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Why leave out the ILP then? I added info to that course, you have to be candidated to do it. That's a bit more noteworthy, I think. For the record, if you're sticking with the 4, just elaborate on them at the top. We can come to a compromise on that, definitely. --Pax Arcane 18:18, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

The explanatory commentaries on Landmark Education courses in the current form of the article do not always make clear the distinction between facts (hours and days of the week, for example) and opinions ( "Course X is about...") and marketing boosterism ("designed" ... "improve"...) It would improve the article to clarify in both text and referencing-material whose opinions get quoted/paraphrased. -- The current version of the article highlights a small group of Landmark Education's courses and seminars. We can remedy this selectivity by enumerating/listing all the 40-odd courses and seminars, thus giving a better overall summary picture of Landmark Education's scope and thrust. -- Pedant17 (talk) 03:00, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Kopp

I am concerned about this source: "Invisible Bodies, the Disinherited, and the Production of Space in the Landmark Forum" (PDF). Retrieved 2008-02-05.. The work , which is self-published, does not seem to be notable to be cited in a Wikipedia article, See WP:SELFPUB, and the author (a graduate student) does not seem to be notable enough either to be used as a source. (see bio)≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:46, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Cross-ref it with the Denison grad thesis. There may be some overlap. Denison may already cover what Kopp did. Would you mind taking that on? --Pax Arcane 18:10, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Cross reference? No, I cannot do that, as that would be a violation of WP:OR. Unless, that dissertation includes Kopp's self-published PDF as a source. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:14, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

No, my wording on this is bad. Look at Denison's paper. More reputable source. I think it covers what Kopp does. Read the two and compare them. I don't think this is OR, just fact-checking. --Pax Arcane 18:17, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

If Denison's grad thesis covers it, please delete Kopp's self-published article. It is not a source that can be used for reasons explained above. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:33, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

A moment to read Denison's thesis, please. This is time-consuming, and will take another read. This is requiring another read of a lengthy peer-reviewed philosophy article also to ensure accuracy. I only ask your patience and allowing me the time to read through. None of the 3 documents in question are negative, they just require extensive reading. Cool? --Pax Arcane 20:13, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

What is not cool, is your edit warring. You are violating WP:3RR, and you should know better by now. One more revert and you may get to take a break. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:49, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

WP:SELFPUB has no relevance to Kopp's sober and balanced article. WP:SELFPUB relates to "Self-published and questionable sources in articles about themselves" Kopp's article does not represent self-publishing in the conventional sense of the word, but appears as a sample of research corporately published on the University of Arizona website. Kopp's article does not appear questionable as a source: it makes it author's background clear and treats its subject with academic detachment and scholarly referencing. We use Kopp's material here not in an article about Kopp (which would constitute a publication about itself) but in a discussion of Landmark Education and (specifically) the Landmark Forum -- one of very few academic articles to address these topics in a serious and analytical manner. -- As for the notability of Kopp's article, that does not come into question. Kopp expresses a viewpoint, backed by analysis and experience, and published in a reputable academic environment. His work constiutes one of the better sources for an otherwise barely notable phenomenon of minority pop-culture interest: the Landmark Forum. We would do well to retain Kopp as a source and to cite him more frequently. -- Pedant17 (talk) 03:00, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

The Kopp article contains a professors name and a course number at the top. It appears to have been written for a class assignment. It's not clear how this constitutes "published in a reputable academic environment". Whose the publisher? Was it peer reviewed? I think ≈ jossi ≈ may have meant to cite WP:SPS which is directly relevant. Tealwarrior (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 07:07, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Ya know, for what it's worth right now, I don't care to venture what Jossi might have been thinking. I don't care what he was thinking anyway, period. He's got poor judgement. I'd rather other editors participate with their own thoughs, no disrespect. I tire easily of people speaking on behalf of others, again, no disrespect. Kopp has some valid stuff. Instead of editing it out, let's ruminate for a while. Koppp's stuff is in no way harmful to Landmark Education, offers some insight, adds depth. --Pax Arcane 15:44, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Lead

This portion of the lead: Landmark Education is a controversial organisation[8][9], often accused of being a cult.[10][11][12] is poorly written and not compatible with NPOV, as it is asserting opinions as facts. It needs to be re-written, and properly attributed ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:53, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

• • It is totally opinion and should not be in the lead at all. I removed it. Triplejumper (talk) 15:22, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

• • • The referenced sentence may contain some opinion, but it backs the expression of any such opinion by giving no less than 5 references: Herewith the full version as of 2008-02-06:

Landmark Education is a controversial organisation<ref> http://www.ex-cult.org/Groups/Landmark/landmark-cherries.dir/_XOOM/apostate/index.htm </ref><ref> http://www.landmarkeducation.com/display_content.jsp?top=26&mid=658&bottom=726 </ref>, often accused of being a cult.<ref> http://skepdic.com/landmark.html </ref><ref> http://www.rickross.com/reference/landmark/landmark17.html </ref><ref> http://www.culthelp.info/index.php?option=com_content&task=category&sectionid=8&id=73&Itemid=12 </ref>

• • • The mere existence of the references suggests the controversial nature of Landmark Education. Landmark Education's own web-site (since revised) referred itself to the controversies. The suggestion of culthood in the article-text appeared indirectly -- not presented as a fact -- and with appropriate verifiability, especially given the position of the sentence in the lead. Any opinion seeing it as "poorly written" does not justify deletion. Any suggestion that the attribution as it appeared on 2008-02-06 needs improvement may need specific elaboration -- such a sweeping statement about 5 very different sources does not justify deletion. -- Indeed, one might very plausibly suggest that controversy (espcially "cult-controversy) provides the principal grounds for the notability of Landmark Education. Let's restore this referenced material, elaborating and re-attributing as suggested, and give it even more prominence within the lead section. -- Pedant17 (talk) 03:00, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
      • Pendant17, add the lede portion back in. It's sourced. Let's move on. I have to go wipe this egg off my face. --Pax Arcane 15:46, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Houston, we have a problem

In light of this article, http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/02/06/the_cult_of_wikipedia/ , I am distancing myself from any and all suggestions and edits suggested by ≈ jossi ≈ , inclusive to the Kopp paper. Something seems quite unethical about everything I've read, and I'll let the higher ups sort it out, but I'd rather edits on this page from inception not be possibly tainted by scandal...otherwise we may have to start over from scratch. The implications of the Register article disturb me deeply. --Pax Arcane 02:23, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

• • The article is very interesting but not for the reasons you are trying to promote here. There are no conclusions to draw from the article, just insinuation. Conspiracy theories abound in the information age. (Notice how many programs there are on the History Channel about UFO's.) Conspiracy gets attention. I don't know much about Jossi except that you don't appear to like him very much. I do not have enough time to examine all of Jossi's edits but I think he makes things pretty clear here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jossi/Response#My_response_to_Cade_Metz_article_in_The_Register. I see no reason not to take him at his word and more importantly I don't see what this has to do with this article. Just in case though I am going to wear a tin foil hat for the next few weeks. Triplejumper (talk) 00:27, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
    • I'm sorry you're feeling that way. Spacefarer and you guys don't have apologist-Jossi to whine to anymore, but Spacefarer did give it a shot before the shit hit the fan.http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jossi&oldid=189184418#fellow_editor_seems_out_of_line
    • We'll just find the next person he works with that is apologetic to your cause, and we have their names and edits. Then they'll be next. Not really a whole lot you pro-Erhard/LE people can do at this point except take your licks at this point. You can't whitewash your shit-stains anymore (or rename them). --Pax Arcane 19:44, 9 February 2008 (UTC)