Talk:Landmark Worldwide/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

→

Archive 10

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

Previous discussions have been archived:

• Archive 1 (Jan 2004-16 Nov 2005)
• Archive 2 (17 Nov 2005-16 Aug 2006)
• Archive 3 (Aug 2006-Oct 2006)
• Archive 4 (Sep 2006-Oct 2006)
• Archive 5 (Oct 2006-Jan 2007)

Summary of Current State of Play

Once again this talk page has got over-long, so I have archived it. Looking through the archived pages, it’s pretty clear that the discussion has gone round in circles with the same points being made over and over again, and more time being spent on re-iterating editors’ own viewpoints than seriously working towards a consensus on the structure of the article.

At present the article is a total mess, as a result of the POV-pushing and edit-warring over the last seven months. It is also much longer than it should be.

My request is that we work together to establish a consensus on this page regarding a desirable structure for the article, and then find acceptable references to build the page in that form.

I propose that an acceptable encyclopedia article on Landmark Education would provide readers with informative content regarding:

1) Broadly what it is about: what it offers and how it delivers it; why people do the courses, and what they get from them.

2) A summary of the ‘controversies’ surrounding the operation: what are the conflicting opinions on the various areas of debate, who hold these opinions, and what is the supporting evidence.

Does anyone disagree with this as a satisfactory ‘big-picture’ overview of what the article should deal with? (Please start the discussion in a new section below to preserve the flow of this overview paragraph – thanks).

My suggestions for how these areas could be dealt with are:

What is it about?

This section of the article should address the following questions:

• What issues do Landmark courses deal with?
• What is the methodology?
• What results do participants report?
• How does it differ from conventional academic philosophy?

(again - please discuss below).

Why the controversies, and what are they about?

This section as it stands is way over-large and violates the WP:NPOV policy by giving undue weight to minority views, and by reporting opinions as though they were facts.

A “controversy” by its nature is a matter of conflicting opinions.

What are the disputed matters? I’d say they are:

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

The concerns over the Assisting Programs would be quite properly discussed under the latter two headings.

The fact that some commentators have applied adjectives such as “cult” and “brainwashing” is not in itself informative, unless we know what they mean by the words, and what evidence they draw on to justify the description. It seems to me that the majority of those expressing critical opinions on Landmark Education actually know very little about it, and quite disproportionate weight is given to uninformed speculation and hearsay.

I have replaced the compliant tag, since the article certainly hasn’t improved since Jossi placed it there; in fact it’s deteriorated substantially. DaveApter 11:29, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Discussion on the overall structure

I don't have any immediate edits but agree that this is a good overall high-level structure. Alex Jackl 05:06, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Current Revisions Discussion

Landmark Links

I have re-inserted the Landmark site references. See the bottom of TALK Archive Page 5 for the preceding conversation. This is an article about a "for-profit" organization. Linkd to that organization on an article abut it are 100% appropriate. There are only SEVEN links to a Landmark Education Site in the reference section. It is the best and most direct primary source of information about the company. I direct you to other major Wikipedia articles on Harvard University and IBM and Brown University. Please do not claim an interest in reducing the amount of links since the article is soaked in negative POV links. Please go to work on reducing them if that is an issue. (tongue only partially in cheek) Alex Jackl 16:42, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Please do not take out reasonable links hiding behind the new template that got added - this is a contentious topic. Please talk about this here and we need to strategically look at the comments. Also if you look at the external links on similar pages you will see their are not an excessive amount of links here. If you compare there are an excessive number of citations though.... As a matter of fact, I will mark the page accordingly. I did leave the template on the seocnd set of extenral links becasue as I review other simialr comparable page sin WIkipedia they do not have that many links regarding pro/con kinds of situations. Alex Jackl 19:57, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. This is a for-profit company. And the Landmark Education website itself [1] makes it particularly easy to find relevant sections of their own website. That's why they pay their webmasters the big bucks. Again, we do not need all of these external links to a for-profit company here. This violates Wikipedia:Spam#External_link_spamming. I will remove. Smee 20:58, 19 January 2007 (UTC).

I think your point of view on this is clear. We clearly both feel very strongly about this. Let's compromise: I will, for now, leave off the POV pushing mark on the citations section and you leave the External Links section alone until we resolve this here with other editors comments. I feel unusually strongly about this one and have done quite a bit of research on similar sites and this is NOT an excessive number of links to the corporation on an article about the corporation. Let's leave this for other editors to comment for a while and then we will take more action.Alex Jackl 21:17, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Other editors have commented. A neutral, uninvolved editors, User:A. B., was the one who put the templates up in the first place. I will restore until he has elaborated on this. I ask again, why have links to subsections of a for-profit company's website, if their own website has the same links on their main page??? All that this is doing is trying to push Wikipedia users to take Landmark courses and register. This is Spamming and unacceptable. Smee 21:24, 19 January 2007 (UTC).

This is an article about Landmark Education- what about that do you not get? This is not Spamming. Seven links- go do the research yourself. I am deleting the template again. Let's leave this for right now...Alex Jackl 21:39, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

What I "do not get", is why we need to link to all of the individual subpages, when Landmark Education's main webpage itself also conveniently links to all of these subpages. Can you explain reasoning behind this? Smee 21:45, 19 January 2007 (UTC).

Smee invited me to comment since I've been following some of the activity here. For the time being, I recommend both of you stop editing the article. Just leave it as it is for the time being. There is a major conflict of interest WP:COI problem to overcome since Alex Jackl appears to be involved in the situation. I won't address the content of the article itself, but in terms of the external links I propose a few steps that might help to resolve the dispute. Alex Jackl feels like the amount of links is similar to other corporate articles - so I invite him to link to some examples. At the same time, just because other articles do it doesn't mean it is appropriate. I spend much of my time editing inappropriate links added to articles. If there are separate websites to link to, it might be useful, but it is rather pointless to link to several pages under a single domain. I invite Alex Jackl to comment on why these links should be included - beyond the fact that some other articles have lots of links as well. Nposs 21:59, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

At the same time, there are way too many links in the "other" category as well. Why doesn't everybody come up with a list of sites that could go? Nposs 22:09, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Nposs What is the major conflict of interest to overcome? Can you clarify what you mean by that?

I agree we should both stop editing on that for while -as I suggested. I did link up above to the Harvard University and IBM and Brown University articles. Smee's last question of why is a good one and I will explain that when I can get back to this tomorrow afternoon. The short bottom line is that each of those links are to a major content area with direct relevance to Landmark's work. That is why it is useful to break them up.Alex Jackl 22:25, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

The WP:COI happens because you (as you state on your user talk page) are a seminar leader for the company. There are several guidelines for cases like this on the page I have linked: WP:COI. In this case, your closeness to the source poses potential financial, promotional, and campaigning problems. Nposs 22:32, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. Thank you for the clarification in this matter. Smee 22:36, 19 January 2007 (UTC).

I agree I am at risk for WP:COI but as that policy states that does not negate my ability to contribute to the article. I have been extremely up front about my POV in the matter and have been editing with a committment to build an NPOV WIkipedia article in an area in which I am an expert. I am willing to compromise on many matters and am happy to discuss all edits. My perspective, along with the potential pitfalls of WP:COI also gives me a deep understanding of the subject matter. I do want to note that I recieve absolutely no financial or compensation from Landmark Education - I partake of it as part of my committment to make a positive impact on people and society similar to my commitment to contribute here. Thank you for the clarification- it is a reasonable concern. Unfortunately - there is that risk on both sides of this fence we are trying to tear down. ALso- I am unapologetic about my stance that the article is still slanted far to the negative POV. I understand how it got there and I understand the issues. I will continue to work to keep the article fair and reasonable, and I understand that there are other editors with different viewpoints. Well, no one ever said it was boring. Talk more later! Alex Jackl 08:29, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

COMMENT ON WP:COI: - I would disagree with Alex Jackl's claim that he "recieve absolutely no financial or compensation from Landmark Education " - this is in contradiction with Federal Labor Department Investigations - and indeed Landmark Education's own assertions - that the better you do as a "volunteer", for the organization - which the United States Federal Department of Labor actually do NOT consider "volunteers" but actually to be "employees" - the better you do as a volunteer for the organization - the more people you get to pay and "register" in Landmark courses i.e. "The Landmark Forum" - the more likely you will get promoted to the influential position of "Landmark Forum Leader" which is paid. But in any event, the United States Government has ruled in several investigations that yes, all individuals that the company considers to be "volunteers", are actually "employees" and subject to claims for back wages - so this applies to be a Conflict of Interest for Alex Jackl as well. Smee 15:23, 20 January 2007 (UTC).

COMMENT ON WP:COI This is a classic example of the misinterpretation and spin that characterizes the site. Smee- you know better than this! You can't possibly still believe this after all the evidence to the contrary! Save the spin for the article - let's be straight here amongst ourselves. Let's go over it:

(1) The Labor investigations DID NOT determine that the employees were subject to "back wages". I am not going to recreate the whole thread here (we have gone ove rit so many times on these talk pages) but if you go back through the talk pages you will see there was an investigation and it was completed with a "no finding against" conclusion. The proponents of this "labor issue" have been happily ignoring the fact that the LABOR DEPARTMENT determined that there was not an issue and are trying to play junior lawyer and takes sentences and pieces out of the documents and draw their own conclusions. It is a classic example of the Negative POV slant in this article- people taking something that is nothing and trying to turn it into a mountain. Now, I know we are supposed to assume that people are playing fair (which BTW you are not with me by accussing me of COI) but it is hard for me not to interpret this as spin cdoctoring or at least you hearing only what you want to believe. BTW: This is not personal- this is about what is fact and what is original research and interpretation. The Labor thing has very very few facts (at least the US one- I am not as familiar with the whole France thing). The bottom line- the statute that the Labor department was investigating Landamrk for is one where a company FORCES PIAD EMPLOYEES to do volunteer work and then owes then back wages if this was found to be true. It was found to be not applicable. Why? The people who assist at Landamrk are NOT PAID EMPLOYEES. They recieve no wage and therefore the law DOES NOT APPLY. If you are being honest in your belief that this is not the case, then please go read the law and the documentation again in light of what I am telling you and you will this is the case. JUst think about - if that were true at least one of the 12,000 people assisting at Landamrk would be suing Landamrk to get osme money out of them. How many suits? I will tell you: zero. Why? Becasue how you have represented it is not the case. I am a little resigned, but in the interest of good faith- I ask you to set the truth not what has been spun about this so far.

(2)I make more money as the Chief Architect and CTO of my company than the highest paid Landmark Forum leader in the organization- including, I believe Harry Rosenberg, himself (though I don't know that for sure). Lanndmark Education couldn't afford me if they had to pay me. Some people who assist do aspire to be Landmark Forum Leaders- however it is the vast minority. Most of us assist as a charitable act becasue we believe in the program. PLease don't be insulting- especially when you are just spinning and not basing it on facts. 12,000 volunteers a year, approximtely 50 Landmark FOrum leaders. You do the math.

I am saying these things to ask you to be more civil and polite- and not to restrain from saying what you believe. Don't make up stories about why people do what they do- you don't know. Second, if you find me a document from the US Department of Labor that is a report on an investigation that SAYS that people who volunteer for Landmark are owed back labor I will eat my hat and concede this whole thing. We both know that it is a safe bet on my part. It is accusatory exchanges like this that make this such a hard article to work on.

Please notice that I do not asccuse you of WP:COI although I could make a case that you are affiliated with or employed by organizations with an axe to grind against Landmark. I have never brought that up because of the policy of being civil and always assuming good faith in these engagements- and because you have not disclosed that. In my world you have more of a POV bias than I do- which is saying a lot! I am what I am and my POV is very clear. However, I am also a committed Wikipedia editor with a deep interest in balanced articles. Let's stick to the facts and not play the game this way. Thanks! Alex Jackl 16:29, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Quote from Alex Jackl, above: "Second, if you find me a document from the US Department of Labor that is a report on an investigation that SAYS that people who volunteer for Landmark are owed back labor I will eat my hat and concede this whole thing. We both know that it is a safe bet on my part. It is accusatory exchanges like this that make this such a hard article to work on." There is more to come on this issue. Would you like mustard with your hat?  :) Please do not accuse me of twisting things, it is I who am interpreting the facts correctly, as you will soon see... Smee 16:35, 20 January 2007 (UTC).

Please also note that it was User:Nposs that first brought up the obvious Conflict of Interest with regards to User:AJackl, and NOT myself. I only elaborated/clarified the specifics of the Conflict of Interest. More to come. And for your information, DISCLOSURE: I am not "affiliated with or employed by organizations with an axe to grind against Landmark". I have, however, stated many times that I do not wish to discuss my personal life on Wikipedia, so I have no proof to prove a negative, but that is the case. Smee 16:39, 20 January 2007 (UTC).

It was the final comment about me not recieving finaincial compensation from Landamrk- it was clearly an interpreattion you had which is non-founded- as I explained. That comment is what took it over the edge. It was innacurate and it was not necessary. My point was that I do not call you out - do not call me out. Let's be civil about this.

Second, if you have a hat to hand me I WOULD like mustard with it, and a touch of Ketchup. Good luck - and I hope you are not going to try to recycle that Texas thing again... I do want you to know by the way that if you actually showed me somethig that was legitemate and instead of spin I owuld be happy to embrac eit. I have no illusion about Landmark being perfect or any such **ap. It is an organization run by human beings and as such is autmatically a flawed place where people do stupid things occassionally- just like any organization. I do believe this labor thing is all spin though and I haven't seen anything to make me think otherwise. Could I also have some relish with my hat! If you actually have one it might be hard to get down! :-) :-) Alex Jackl 16:49, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I did not state that you get financial compensation, merely that I disagree with your assertion that you do not. I believe that volunteers may possibly get implied financial compensation, as well as spiritual or otherwise - not to mention the fact that the United States Government thinks that you are an employee of Landmark. Therefore, you, AJackl, incidentally, could actually be entitled to perhaps thousands of dollars in backwages, if you so wished. Smee 16:57, 20 January 2007 (UTC).

Although I was originally opposed I think this converstaion is now a distriction from the work of this page to guide the content of the Landamrk Education article. I now support User:DaveApter's intention to archive this conversation. Alex Jackl 16:56, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I did not point out User:AJackl's conflict of interest initially, that was User:Nposs, a neutral and initially uninvolved editor. At any rate, it is highly inappropriate to archive the talk page in such a manner. Wikipedia talk pages are archived by date of past conversations. As this talk page was already archived until January 2007, logically we do not need to archive again until February, or later, depending on when the talk page fills up. Smee 17:00, 22 January 2007 (UTC).

It's huge and off-topic. Archive it or move it somewhere else and link it. (P.S. COI does not require a financial relationship. Any editing that potentially promotes companies/people/charities/puppy dogs/etc (with which one is associated) is a COI.) Thanks to everyone for keeping the conversation going (rather than resorting to nonproductive edit wars.) Nposs 17:03, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Again, if archived, it should be archived to Archive 5 (Oct 2006-Jan 2007), and not to a separate archive. That is not done on Wikipedia and is inappropriate. Plenty of "off-topic" conversations take place on article talk-pages, and they are archived along with everything else. Smee 17:07, 22 January 2007 (UTC).

That is fine. No problem by me. 17:08, 22 January 2007 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by AJackl (talk • contribs).

Good. We have reached a consensus. I will go ahead and archive. Smee 17:14, 22 January 2007 (UTC).

Outsiders' view of links

I hate to make sensitive changes without comment. I was just about done writing all this up right after making those changes to the External Links section ... and then my laptop battery died. Sorry if I came across as a driveby shooter. Here's what I was about to post:

There are too many links in both External Links sections. Whatever the link count in the Harvard University, IBM or Brown University articles, Landmark just needs and gets one here. Many of the other links don't meet the requirements of External Links and Reliable Sources Guidelines. Our criterion is not "useful" or "interesting" or "you've got to hear this point of view" -- it's "encyclopedic". Think "Encyclopedia Britannica" or the "New England Journal of Medicine".

If a linked to site doesn't meet the quality control standards of a newspaper or university paper, it should probably shouldn't be linked, useful or not. That's what http://dmoz.org is for -- proponents of the links that don't make our cut should get their links added to the DMOZ page for Landmark Education and then stick one or two links to DMOZ back here. Linking to DMOZ (a.k.a., the Open Directory Project) is not only allowed by the External Links Guideline, it's encouraged. (See http://dmoz.org/Health/Mental_Health/Self-Help/Products_and_Services/Landmark_Education/

• Dmoz.org: Directory of links relating to Landmark Education
• Dmoz.org: Directory of links related to opposing views of Landmark Education

There should preferably be less than 5 total links in the External Links section. See this good essay on the subject: Wikipedia:Spam Event Horizon.

There's no limit on useful, encyclopedic footnotes that meet the Reliable Sources Guideline -- in contrast to a jumble of links in an External Links section.

As for POV, our Neutral Point of View Policy has some good stuff about the subtle ways one can cherry-pick multiple individual statements, each encyclopedic to chain together an overall article that's unacceptably POV as a whole. At the same time, we've got to call it like we see it -- see Mother Teresa and Adolf Hitler for articles where points of view are not balanced in strictly 50-50 terms --A. B. ^(talk) 22:14, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

By the way, my niche here on Wikipedia (besides submarines, nuclear power and some history) is links. I go around dealing with linking issues -- mostly hard-core commercial spam. Many sites are out of compliance on links -- perhaps half our major articles. I'm not really an NPOV guy or an arbitrator, which is what I think you all need more here. I do think however that you need to come into compliance with WP:EL and WP:RS. I got dragged into a similar situation with Herbalife a while back. Most of the anti- sites had to go because they didn't meet WP:RS. What I pointed out to the anti's however was that they those sites could be used as research sources to find better links to add as refs (an anti- site might link to some government document or newspaper report). Meanwhile, I had to show the pro-Herbalife people that they could not go deleting links to reliable sources just because they were unflattering.

If competition betwen two viewpoints can be done in a collegial way, and if the two sides can compete on the basis of who is more "encyclopedic", then Wikipedia wins.

That's my two cents worth. Good luck, --A. B. ^(talk) 22:39, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Okay- I am not sure it is the best idea but I am taking your advice on this in the interest of cooperation. I will leave the corporate website links (one to Landmark Education and one to LE Bus Dev) and then point to the 2 DMOZ articles. I suggest we leave it at this for now. I am not thrilled with this solution but am willing to work on this basis. Thanks for your insight A.B.Alex Jackl 04:31, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

This article is about Landmark Education so the only External links - in keeping with the recommendations- should be to the main subject of the article and the DMOZ sites. Thanks! Alex Jackl 04:31, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

As per recommendations by neutral uninvolved editors above, 5 links is sufficient. The Rick Ross site is provided as balance. Thanks! Smee 04:32, 20 January 2007 (UTC).

Please reference WP:EL- it clearly states that an insufficient number or even NO external links is NO reason to add links. There is no need for balance. The article is already skewed in a negative to Landmark POV and this conpromise have the opposing view link directory and the general view link directory. That is the prefered mechanism for including extenral links and it is a given that alink to the page of the subject of the article will be included as per WP:EL. Please refrain from adding new links. I request other editors please speak to this. Alex Jackl 04:46, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Sigh, I suppose that if we both agree to compromise on this, then it looks like there is some consensus on the current External Links section... Smee 04:51, 20 January 2007 (UTC).

I am no more excited about it than you are, but I believe we were at an impasse. I think labeling them corporate websites and directory links is fine as well. I wish we could see more eye-to-eye on what is fair and appropriate in this article. Alex Jackl 05:07, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. As do I. As do I. Smee 05:08, 20 January 2007 (UTC).

I've been watching this conversation and I think the compromise worksMvemkr 08:13, 20 January 2007 (UTC)