Talk:Voyage Au Pays Des Nouveaux Gourous/archive2

Non compliance

I am adding to this article the {{noncompliant}} tag for these reasons:

1. Most of the cites from the video are unverified translations from the original French, and the original French not provided in the references
2. There is no official transcript of the quoted material, thus it is unverifiable.
3. The section titled "Repeated removal of film from the internet" is original research. There are no reliable sources that have published that information. Note that: "Articles may not contain any unpublished arguments, ideas, data, or theories; or any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published arguments, ideas, data, or theories that serves to advance a position."
4. There is material that has been challenged as links to copyvios, in contradiction to long-standing guidelines of WP:EL and WP:COPY
5. The article it itself may be in violation of WP:NOR in its entirety. The material chosen from the video, the quotes, etc. can be seen as specific to advance a position
6. Many of the links to the Nouvelle Observateur article, are from a partisan website ("anti-secte"), rather than linking to the original material from the Nouvelle Observateur's website. Efforts should be made to link to the original source and not to a website that is considered an unreliable source. See WP:V.
7. The "French government classification" section is also another piece or original research to advance a position: The French government classification is unrelated to this documentary. If the report was mentioned in the documentary, it could be then referenced.

≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 00:16, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh, we've got another template stuck on this article. I wonder which one will be next? I may track down an obscure one and get in there first. This isn't an attack on any individual, just a comment on a strategy being used by the Landmark faction. Give them points for keenness I supposeMerkinsmum 02:57, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Rather that attack the template, you could address the concerns presented above and argue a case for its removal. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 03:03, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Also, you may assume good faith, rather than assume that I am from the "Landmark faction" which I am not. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 03:04, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Editing problem with the above section

There is something wrong with the previous section since if you try to edit it, the material from the last two paragraphs does not come up in the editing window.

I was going to make a comment on ≈ jossi ≈'s claim not to be a Landmark dude. If you look at his web page, you will see he is in another cult. From long experience with scientology, they often use members of other cults to shill for them. Currently they have a moonie on a.r.s contributing noise. Since Landmark is a scientology offshoot, I would not be surprised at the same policy.

Incidentally, I agree that it is a well written article and should not be deleted. Keith Henson 05:39, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

"Well written article"

1. The article was commented on as a "Well written article" by two independent users: [1], [2]. This was prior to the above editor's label of "non-compliance".
2. It seems the above editor has issue with the fact that the video was in another language, and contains English subtitles. This is an extremely common occurence on television and media programs in Europe.
3. There is most likely an official transcript of the quoted material, possessed by Pieces a Conviction. However, again, the fact that no readily available English transcript exists does not in and of itself make this information unverifiable.
4. The section titled "Repeated removal of film from the internet" is most certainly not original research. This section contains several cited references which are readily available for verification by the reader. Any assumption that a position is being advanced is the POV of the editor above. The sources simply reflect a factual chronology of events.
5. Regarding: There is material that has been challenged as links to copyvios, in contradiction to long-standing guidelines of WP:EL and WP:COPY above, the above editor rightly crossed out this section, as this matter has been duly addressed and corrected. All of the external links in question to material that was never proved to be a copyright violation by any citable evidence were voluntarily removed.
6. Any specific questions regarding links to Nouvel Observateur can be corrected and addressed individually. This does not constitute non-compliance, simply a minor citation matter that can be easily fixed.
7. The "French government classification" section is not original research to advance a position: The French government classification is mentioned within the first 5 minutes of the documentary, and then discussed in detail throughout the entire documentary. The report will be referenced shortly. The material utilized currently in the article was copied from the Landmark Education article, and is not contested in that location. The first 6 lines of this subsection Landmark_Education#France have cited sources that have reached consensus and have been in place and stable.

• Yours, Smeelgova 08:26, 18 October 2006 (UTC).

Your responses are unsatisfactory. The article is still non-compliant as per the items above. I would also appreciate if you desist for labelling my edits as "advancing a POV". I do not have a POV as it pertains to Landmark. The non-compliant tag has been restored. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 13:58, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

1. English subtitles: The documentary was shown in France, without subtitles. Where are these subtitles coming from?
2. The "Repeated removal of film from the internet" is 100% original research. Here the editor is making assessment and speculations about a certain chain of events, that has not been described in a reliable source. Using words as "it is believed", for example. Other material is sources from a bulleting board, that are not considerede reliable sources in Wikipedia. And other material is the original researh of the editor, for example his/her attempt to follow a chain of events related to the removal of these videos.
3. Also note that the noncompliant tag replaced an existing POV tag, that was there long before I added the noncompliant tag

Once these issues, that are not many, are resolved, I will be happy to remove the non-compliant tag and keep the POV tag. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 14:08, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

ad 1. If a documentary is shown in an English speaking country then subtitles may have been added. I do not think that it is the duty of Wikipedia editors to trace where the subtitles come from. In the Netherlands nearly all non-Dutch movies, documentaries on TV, etc. have subtitles. The complaints about non-verifiability because it is in French seem exaggerated to me, because in practice many Wikipedians understand French. Andries 17:04, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Hello Andries and welcome to this discussion. I am only asking where the subtitles are coming from as these do not seem to have been added by the Frech producer or the TV channel. The question came up, because there is no transcript of the documentary, that could be used to provide the original French of the translated text in the footnotes, as customary. But these issues are secondary to the main concern that I have raised, that is that a large portion of the article is a description of a primary source by Wikipedia editors, and that may be construed as original research. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 17:42, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Original research of a primary source

More concerning, actually, as it relates to original research is the fact that the editors that have created this article are reporting directly about a primary source (the documentary). As such, the choice of quotes and commentary is original research of the editors of the article. For this article to be compliant, the article needs to report just basic information about what the documentary is itself, and leave it at that. If there are reports by reliable sources that describe this documentary or the controversy surrounding it, these can be used in the article, if properly attributed. For more details see WP:NOR. Wikipedia is not an investigative journalism site, or an advocay site. It is an encyclopedia that reports what secondary, reliable sources have said about a subject. It is not the role of editors to describe primary sources, in particular when the subject is controversial. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 14:33, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I do not think that it wrong to summarize certain things in a book. See e.g. The Making of a Moonie in which I summarized some parts of the book. If it is wrong then why do you think it is wrong and where is your opinion that this is wrong supported by guidelines and policies? Andries 16:58, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I am not familiar with that article, but I will take a look. Summarizing a primary source is dangerous, as the editor doing the summary is making an editorial decision of what to cite, what not to cite, in which context, etc. That is an editorial decision better left to reliable sources that have published a critique. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 17:45, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

We do it all the time. If it is dangerous then Wikipedia is dangerous. Andries 17:47, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

You may have misundertood. I mean "dangerous" as "dangerously close to violation of WP content policy". ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 17:51, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I took a look at The Making of a Moonie article and all I see is the Table of Contents (that is verifiable), a mention of what Barker wrote (with a verifiable quote from the book), and a description of a critique/praise of the book by Len Oakes. That is an excellent way to write an article on a primary source: short, concise and without OR. Compare with this article... ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 17:49, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

French report

If the French report was mentioned, please re-write the section to describe what the documentary says about it, and link to the Status_of_religious_freedom_in_France where the report is discussed. Thanks. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 03:26, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Some useful info

Although not an official guideline, you may be interested in this: Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Style guidelines. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 00:58, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

From the above:

Documentaries

Documentaries present a special case, as they present themselves as recounters of fact. Therefore criticism of content ought to be included if it is presented with reasonable documentation and if there is evidence of public awareness of the controversy. Responses to such criticism should likewise be presented on the same basis. The existence of a public controversy ought to be acknowledged whatever can be said about it; the publicity is by nature citable, and omission creates the false impression that the subject matter is uncontroversial. CIte specific critics, not just "some people have criticized".

It is not the purpose of Wikipedia to act as an investigator of claims, though if criticisms are addressed by others, they should as well be cited.

≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 01:00, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Confusing section

I removed the following very confusing section:

---

Section title: Jokingly refers to Landmark as "Cult"

And it’s useless to formulate the idea that this mumbo-jumbo clouds the thoughts/ideas, Alain Roth will not hesitate to impose his truth: "I’m the boss. So show yourselves to be trainable!" Total submission required. But the absolute weapon of Alain Roth is humor. You ask yourself if you are not in a cult? Any occasion will be good for joking on the subject. "Especially, when going to dinner, don’t forget to take off your badge. Otherwise people will think that you are in a cult!"

---

This appears to be a bad translation; it really would suffice to have the quote "Especially, when going to dinner, don’t forget to take off your badge. Otherwise people will think that you are in a cult!" somewhere in the article, with the attribution to this article. Though it would be good to have the original French, so the translation can be easily verified. -- Beland 00:37, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

• I have complied with User:Beland's suggestion above, in the article. Smeelgova 00:44, 20 October 2006 (UTC).

Removed insubstantive text

The below section reads like "Absolutely nothing happened on Tuesday, and certainly nothing at Mrs. Baker's farm. Just in case...anybody wanted to know." It does not contain any interesting information. Now if someone had actually sued, that would be worthwhile to report. It's unfair to presume that Landmark even contemplated it, and this makes it sound like they might have, without coming out and saying that. -- Beland 00:55, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

---

Section title: Video copyright claims All participants in Landmark Education courses sign an agreement that states that all program materials are copyrighted by Landmark Education.

Landmark Education has not stated any public copyright claim over the video to date, whose copyright belongs to the television network France 3 and its associated investigative journalism program Pieces a Conviction. Since the documentary aired on France 3 on May 24, 2004, Landmark Education has chosen not to sue either France 3 or Pieces a Conviction for any alleged copyright infringement. To date, there have been no lawsuits regarding the investigative journalism documentary.

It's correct that there are no known lawsuits. Both France 3 and LE could claim copyright over the entire film (France 3) and parts thereof (Landmark Education for the unpermitted videotaping of a course in progress). Just because someone does not sue, does not mean they don't have copyright. The recording industry sues a very small number of the music copyright infringers. Legal recourse is just too expensive, generally, and (my interpretation) would not have made a difference in France. Nonetheless, even at the lower evidentiary threshhold, France 3 still has copyright over the video. It's the same thing going on with YouTube and Google Video right now--people are putting up their own videos with copyrighted music in the background, and the music copyright holders can go after any of the following: A) the person who publicized the video or B) the person who downloads it or C) the entity that hosts it (if it does not take it down per "digital millenium copyright act" after having been notified to take it down). Wikipedia follows the US law. Just because the music copyright holders don't go after every instance does not mean that they don't hold copyright. Indeed, with YouTube and Google Video, the LE video was taken down with a message, "This item has been removed due to violating terms of use." Wikipedia in its copyright policy--where Wikipedia follows US law--should not be used to publicize (put links to) copyrighted material. The whole "Internet chronology" is more or less original research with the goal of telling people how to get the video. In my opinion, the whole "internet chronology" section should be redacted. Sm1969 07:09, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

• All of the citations and direct references that you had issues with were voluntarily removed. The section is now incredibly smaller than it once was. The events which occurred/are occurring on the internet regarding the video are significant, as similar to other situations where a common pattern occurs: Material is suppressed from the internet by a specific organization, and this action in turn spurs others on to promote the material simply because it was suppressed, for whatever original reasons. So the historical facts and nature of the suppression then become significant in their own right. Yours, Smeelgova 07:18, 20 October 2006 (UTC).

• • The only two places that have any mention of how to get (i.e., that it exists for the English-speaking world) it are Rick Ross and Wikipedia and a few newsgroups related to LE. This is a case of your using Wikipedia to promote this video because Wikipedia shows up high on a Google search of "landmark education". Even saying it is on the Internet is original research at this point and, as I have said before, contributory copyright infringement. Sm1969 07:58, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
    • That is simply not the case at all. I am creating an article in order to document a historical event, the repercussions and fallout of said event, and the subsequent actions of an as of yet unknown organization to suppress it from the media and the internet. I had originally provided sources for every single sentence, which you then had issue with. The section as it stands is very small and does not point the reader in any specific direction whatsoever, it merely states factual events. Smeelgova 08:02, 20 October 2006 (UTC).

---

The below section does not have any worthwhile information. Removal of copyrighted videos from hosting sites, and subsequent appearance on peer-to-peer networks is perfectly normal, even if the copyright holder does not complain. -- Beland 00:55, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

---

Section title: Internet chronology, removal On September 26, 2006, a notice was posted on the Rick Ross internet bulletin boards that the videos were available for viewing in six parts on the YouTube website. A similar notice was placed in the same location on October 1 2006, with regard to the location of the full video for download at the Internet Archive website. However, the video was removed from both companies' websites' locations on the same day, October 6, 2006. Going to the YouTube site yields the notice: "This video has been removed due to terms of use violation." The Internet Archive site also currently has a notice in place of the previously hosted video, which reads: "The item is not available due to issues with the item's content."

As of October 12, 2006, the video was available for viewing and downloading at Google Video, under the heading 2003_Inside_Landmark_Forum. As of October 16, 2006, the video had been viewed 649 times on Google Video. The video had an average rating of 4.5 stars on Google Video, based on 19 ratings. As of October 16, 2006, the Google Video location was unavailable, and instead reads: "This video is currently not available. Please try again later." As of October 12, 2006, the video was available for viewing on Dailymotion,a video-sharing company based in France. As of October 17, 2006, the video was available on eMule, a free software peer-to-peer file sharing application. As of October 17, 2006, this video was available for download on The Pirate Bay via BitTorrent.

---

Note on removal

At this time, it is currently unknown whether France 3 and Pieces a Conviction, Landmark Education, or some other entity complained simultaneously to the various hosting companies to have the videos removed. Youtube and Google Video decided to removed the video clips after Art Schreiber, General Counsel and Chairman of the Board of Directors of Landmark Education sent the organization a Digital Millenium Copyright Act notification. Pieces a Conviction and the France 3 television network have issued no complaints to date regarding the video's posting on the internet..

These claims are unreferenced, and given the controversial nature of the material, I would consider them dubious until someone can cite reliable sources. -- Beland 00:57, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Blockquoting vs. Italics

• I'm curious, why do you have some portions blockquoted and others italicized? Is this simply for style? Smeelgova 03:12, 20 October 2006 (UTC).

At least in my browser, it's very hard to tell that the blockquotes in the "Landmark Forum leaders" section are quotes, because they are not indented. All that tag does is change the font size a little. This is possibly because of the left-aligned pictures. Which are only left-aligned because of the hugantic infobox.  ::sigh:: I changed the formatting to firmly indent and italicize, which is fairly standard typography, and which makes things much more obvious. If the image layout is changed, the blockquote tag might be OK. -- Beland 04:22, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually, an even better solution would be to summarize the quotes and save direct quotation for only the most choice phrases. That would make the article much more concise, flow more smoothly, and have a prose/quote balance more like a typical Wikipedia article. -- Beland 04:26, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

cult, sect, and fr:secte

Shouldn't there be a clarification that there is no good translation of "fr:secte" that is sometimes translated as cult and sometimes as sect? Andries 21:27, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Cult template

• Cults are discussed in detail by numerous authorities within the film. Also, the listing of "Secte" by the French government was a prime piece within the film, and a reason that Landmark pulled out of France. It is appropriate and relevant. Smeelgova 02:12, 21 October 2006 (UTC).

That is as absurd as adding the cult template to the Kabbalah article, and also to the Wikipedia article as both have been labeled as a cult. This is what I said in previous communications to you: your are pusshing too hard your viewpoint in these articles. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 02:27, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Cults and parameters which define a cult are discussed in great detail by 5 different and noted experts on the subject within the film, not to mention the report Les sectes en France. I think it is your POV that I am pushing a POV too hard. Please, stop attacking me personally, and engage in a discussion about the material and content. Smeelgova 03:05, 21 October 2006 (UTC).

English subtitles

Did the French 3 channel broadcast this documentary with English subtitles? If not, where are the English subtitles from? This info is needed for WP:V. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 21:30, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

This is a good question. I will attempt to research this. I think it's safe to assume that France 3 did include the English subtitles, as this is very common in Europe, and actually many other countries outside the U.S., nevertheless, I'll look into it. Smeelgova 21:38, 21 October 2006 (UTC).

Thanks. From what I know, is very unlikely that a French TV station will have subtitles in English. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 21:59, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Just give me a little time. Smeelgova 00:38, 22 October 2006 (UTC).

Blockquote 1

The blockquote in the "Sectarian Risks report" has been put back into the body of the article. I pushed it into a footnote because the quote mostly just repeats what is said in the main text, which is that Landmark Education was listed as a cult by the French government. There's lots of extraneous, rather inflammatory material in the rest of that quote which serves to sensationalize the controversy, but which is not really all that informative. It is also poor English; all this combines to make it hard reading. I agree that it is useful to have a transcription to make verification easy for those who do not have access to the video, and it useful to have an English translation for those who do not speak French. I'm not sure where the text we have here now comes from; it really should say. In any case, this text should be in a footnote, not the body of the article. Can we move it back, or does someone have some reason why they would object to this? -- Beland 22:57, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

A different editor had requested that this quote be kept in, to back up the relevance of the Parliament Report as contextually related to the film. (lots of comments/changes to response to, phew. Wish there were more people knowledgeable RE: the film to help out here. Smeelgova 00:38, 22 October 2006 (UTC).

On second thought, the blockquote as it stands now seems to simply be a factual reading and explanation of Landmark's entry in the report. As it stands with the new issuance by the former prime minister in 2005, this should read relatively neutrally. Smeelgova 00:45, 22 October 2006 (UTC).

Solicitor Jean-Pierre Jougla

There is a long quote from this person, but the context of what they are talking about is unclear. Did he attend Landmark Education sessions and is recounting his observations? Did he watch video the station had taken of the sessions and is commenting on what he saw? -- Beland 23:04, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

He is commenting on what he saw, as part of an expert commentator panel. He is a noted attorney in France, and vice president of support group in France for victims of sectes. Smeelgova 00:36, 22 October 2006 (UTC).

Saw in person or saw on video or what? The context is unclear. -- Beland 02:46, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Also, "Did you ever want to leave the room?" - what room? -- Beland 03:00, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Here is another "expert". Speaking of brainwashing with total confidence, despite the lack of scientific support for these theories. He is a lawyer, not a sociologist or psychologist. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 03:09, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I take issue with his statements about windowless rooms and claims people are kept unaware of time passing for 3-4 days. Firstly Landmark presumably use the same sort of rooms as businesses do for conferences, and these are not uncommonly without windows. When I hold a conference over several days is my business engaged in brainwashing? Secondly we have this amazing invention called a wristwatch so that people can magically know the time without being outdoors. Thirdly, although I cannot comment on Landmark in France, I have checked out their seminars in my own country and participants were given tea breaks, lunch and supper breaks, and they were encouraged to socialise during these breaks. If this is typical then Landmark are doing a very poor job of brainwashing.

I do not support or oppose Landmark, although I do not agree with the way they respond to their critics - legal threats are not appropriate. I do think some people are so obsessed with calling them a cult that they are making a fuss about thing that in any other context would be considered harmless. In many ways your local old church is more of a cult. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.30.79.194 (talk • contribs)

Roth

The article seems somewhat contradictory on whether or not he appears in the documentary. What's up with that? -- Beland 23:25, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

He appears in the documentary for most of the time. Smeelgova 00:36, 22 October 2006 (UTC).

Then why does the article say that the documentary explained that they wanted to talk with him, but ended up speaking with a U.S. spokeswoman instead? -- Beland 02:58, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Image cleanup

The graphic used by the infobox has some ugly artifacts because it is being up-converted from a very low resolution copy. This could be fixed by getting a higher-resolution image. -- Beland 23:28, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Give me a bit of time, I will replace the image with a different screenshot. Smeelgova 00:35, 22 October 2006 (UTC).

For the moment I don't know if there's a way to resize the current image within the infobox to make it appear smaller??? Smeelgova 05:36, 22 October 2006 (UTC).

Mona Vasquez

Her blockquote is also very confusing. At first she's talking about Scientology, then Landmark. Was she a Landmark participant, or is she merely commenting on video supplied by France 3? -- Beland 23:31, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

She is an author and past Scientology participant, who commented on the program about the similarities in jargon between the two groups. Smeelgova 00:35, 22 October 2006 (UTC).

Right, that much is apparent from the article, but it doesn't answer my question. -- Beland 02:45, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

What I read is that she was invited to comment to make a parallel between scientology and Landmark. There are several "ex" people that have made their "exiting" (or apostasy, depending who you ask) a business, by writing books and becoming sudden experts. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 03:06, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but was she glued to video clips that the producers were showing her, or that Landmark was showing her? -- Beland 03:17, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Lujan

His blockquote is also context-free. What are the childhood fears that are being discussed? Whose are they? What is "the notion of the subject"? Is this a bad translation or technical jargon or just unclear language? -- Beland 03:15, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

It is a mess... We would bne much better if someone could provide context and sumamrize their viewpoints rather than quote them. As it reads now, it is just propaganda that only those making it understand what is all about. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 03:20, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps you are both right. Have you viewed the video? This might give you some context with which to converse and paraphrase the quotes better. Smeelgova 04:46, 22 October 2006 (UTC).

No. I have not. That is why is always better to use secondary sources where possible, rather than summarize a primary source which this one is. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 05:08, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

True, I'm just making a suggestion on the talk page, not a caveat for all readers of the article page. Might be a good idea for editors to view it, to create a context, but readers needn't view it. You are correct on that one. We should modify the contents somewhat to provide a better context for the (assumed ignorant) readers' ease of understanding. Smeelgova 05:12, 22 October 2006 (UTC).

Jossi, may be you can study the subject in this and other article before making comments, questions, and edits etc. I think you are causing contributors unnecessary work by your behavior. Andries 21:03, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Wikilinks in quoted text

Please note that adding wikiliks to quoted text is not an accepted practice. Also note that it is enough to link once to a specific article. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 03:18, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Jossi, the MOS does indeed state that an article should only be linked to on its first occurrence, as a general rule. However, I've never heard of anything like the other thing that you state, that "adding wikilinks to quoted text is not an accepted practice". Can you please tell us where you find that prohibition? -- Antaeus Feldspar 19:45, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

It is not a prohibition, Antaeus, but common sense. When quoting a person, we should leave the quote alone. The quoted person did not intend that his/her words be hyperlinked to something the person did not have previous notice of, or that the person may object to; as the original quote did not contain such link. If there is such "prohibition", it would be along the lines, "don't mess up with quoted text, just present it verbatim." ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 19:57, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't see how there's much difference between a hyperlinked version of a text and an annotated edition, such as have been prepared by some of the most respected scholars and published by some of the most respected presses for decades.[3] I'm afraid I just don't see why it is perfectly acceptable practice in the academic world to insert a footnote in, say, A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court, explaining what the "chromo" is that Twain refers to, and yet "common sense" that quoted text in Wikipedia must never be hyperlinked, even simple nouns like "guru" and "witness". Is it possible that someone might hyperlink in a bad way -- link to an article that does not reflect the sense of the original? Yes, that is possible. But that is an argument against bad annotation, not against annotation. -- Antaeus Feldspar 21:21, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Exactly, Antaeus. But as WP editors are not "some of the most respected scholars", and we are warned not to engage in OR. When we quotes scholars quoting others, we may include wikilinks, though, as these would be verifiable. In the example in question is excellent: an editor wikilinked "witness", hardly what a scholar would do. And if the scholar wanted to provide an annotation, it will have proper reasons, not just do it for the heck of it. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 21:54, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I really can't agree with your argument. Wikipedia does prohibit original research, but it does not prohibit source-based research, and it does not prohibit -- to use a term you brought into the discussion -- common sense. Your proposed de facto blanket ban on wikilinks in quoted text would prohibit all three, and Wikipedia would suffer as a result, while the harms you claim are either theoretical or, if manifest, rather doubtful (why, exactly, would providing a pointer to information about "witness", when the quoted text requires knowledge of what a witness is to be meaningful, be "hardly what a scholar would do"?) I've considered your argument but I think we have to treat this as we treat the very process of editing Wikipedia in the first place: deal with the errors if and when errors are made, not prohibit the practice altogether because errors might be made. -- Antaeus Feldspar 00:23, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I see your point, Antaeus, but I still think that it is not appropriate to wikilink within quoted text. May I suggest we place a question at the Village pump, to seek other editors' input? ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 00:28, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Good idea. I've submitted something at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Wikilinking within quotations. -- Antaeus Feldspar 04:33, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style#Wikilinks_in_quoted_text ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 12:00, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Atrocity story

• Adding "atrocity story" to the See Also section, would be equivalent to adding "puff piece" to movies that I thought were not professionally done, this is in essence a way of labeling the article negatively just the way that a category would. I will remove it. Yours, Smeelgova 20:37, 22 October 2006 (UTC).

The Atrocity story article is as pertinet as the article on cults as it relates to this article. It is a scholarly viewpoint that is discussed, in particular about journalism covering the subject of "cults". ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 20:59, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Alright, fine, but I just hope the random reader coming along does not think that it was put there as a "label" to this film. Smeelgova 21:10, 22 October 2006 (UTC).

Locations of French Video

What is the point of even mentioning that the French video has made it onto the Internet, albeit in two different forms? It was not released by France 3 (who has copyright on it) or by Landmark Education (who also holds copyright over substantial portions). Sm1969 06:21, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

There has already been an AfD discussing your feelings. The result was Keep. So most people think there is a point. Landmark have made a point of it, by attempting to censor it. And they only have copyright on the film in their minds.Merkinsmum 14:47, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Location of Schreiber Quote

I moved the Schreiber quote to the front for several reasons. We don't have an official transcript of this anywhere. France 3 removed the transcript as noted in the statement of Art Schreiber. Thus, what we have is an unauthorized translation of some of the tapes, together with selective quotes from it, along with an assertion by Art Schreiber that the broadcast was factually false and defamatory. For those reasons, I think the Art Schreiber quote needs to be up top to put the reader on notice. Sm1969 07:44, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

It actually does seem very confusing when it is not in chronological order. Several other editors have commented on this. Everything else in the article conforms to chronological order. This section should not be the exception simply to suit your POV and put the reader on notice. Smeelgova 07:50, 1 November 2006 (UTC).

Greetings! Are you back editing again? The reader should be "put on notice" because we have several defects with the source upon which it is based as noted by administrator Jossi above and we have a statement that the underlying source is factually false and defamatory. I'll re-add the non-compliant tag that administrator Jossi had. Sm1969 07:57, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for being kind and greeting me. I am not sure if I am back editing again. I have received many kind comments from users on my talk page, which is pretty much all I'm using my talk page for these days. Right now I'm just commenting on talk pages for the moment. I am still not sure whether I am waiting for all of the hurtful and depressing personal attacks to blow over, or if I'm going to leave Wikipedia. As stated above, I think the article should be organized chronologically. You can debate the other issues separately, but it goes to ease of organization primarily, and really is not related to other issues. But this seems to be getting to be a back and forth at the moment. Why don't we leave this one for now, take a break, and see if other editors will comment here on the talk page in this section with their opinions? Yours, Smeelgova 08:03, 1 November 2006 (UTC).

Why the non-compliant tag

Please explain where and why this article is non-compliant in actionable points. Thanks. Andries 18:15, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I removed the tag and obvious OR. The article needs to summarize the content of the documentary rather than provide quotes. See Bowling for Columbine as a good example of an article about a doumentary. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 22:00, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Post Chronicle: Unreliable Source

The Post Chronicle™ is honored to receive the work of writers, whether a greenhorn or old hand, for inclusion on our website. We encourage thoughtful submissions and new ideas, and welcome subjects or areas of interest covering a wide array of topics.

We will nationally syndicate your articles and your work will appear in all major Internet search engines as well as in major news aggregators, such as Google News, Topix, Lycos, and many other news aggregators.

These are unpaid, yet rewarding opportunities. Writers may regularly submit their work on a variety of subjects to gain exposure for themselves as experts in their fields or to refer employers to professionally published examples of their writing to obtain positions as full-time, freelance, or syndicated columnists. Writers can write about almost anything, including hobbies, opinion, sports, travel, politics, or entertainment. Sm1969 06:19, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

[(unreliable source - do not use) www.postchronicle.com/submit.shtml Post Chronicle: Unreliable Source]

That is their policy on submissions, and does not go to the reliability of The Post Chronicle itself. The Post Chronicle - New media, breaking news, sports, entertainment news, reviews & opinion on Washington, the nation, and the world. Also, check out its Alexa rating, ranked 16,984 of all sites ranked. This is clearly a highly circulated source of news media. Smeelgova 06:31, 4 November 2006 (UTC).

It goes to the reliability of what is posted on the PostChronicle. The fact that something has wide circulation is irrelevant. It's basicly saying that they do nothing to vet the journalistic integrity of their writers. The writer here is Rick Ross, subject of the article The Unchecked World of the Internet and as noted in the other post by the retired Oregon Supreme Court Justice:

The courts aren't helping matters. For example, Landmark Education, an international training and development company that presents The Landmark Forum, dropped its lawsuit in New Jersey against Rick Ross, a self-professed "cult expert" who has built a career and reputation by quoting people's opinions on his Web site. Landmark Education terminated its lawsuit when, in an unrelated case, a New Jersey court significantly limited the kind of Internet behavior it would consider damages for. Court decisions like that make it even more difficult for companies to protect themselves against misinformation and false accusations.

Ross, who claims he's an expert on cults, religions and any organization he deems potentially harmful, should be held to a higher standard - not a lesser one. Rick Ross is a convicted felon with no degree of any kind. He says so on his own web site. His lack of professional qualifications doesn't stop Ross from freely labeling credible organizations in the personal development area "worthless" and "faked." While Ross acknowledges that Landmark Education is definitely not a cult, he nevertheless smears the company through innuendo. Ross also attacks John Gray, author of "Men are From Mars, Women are From Venus," the Mormon Church and the practice of yoga.

Whether or not you endorse Gray or yoga, the law should protect their rights and demand journalistic standards and accountability.

It's high time to fill the gap in a system that allows defamation in the blogosphere to go unchecked. The harm can be wide-ranging and devastating. Until the law catches up with technology, innocent parties have little or no protection in the volatile world of cyberspace. Retired Oregon Supreme Court Justice Fadeley Sm1969 06:45, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

That is the opinion of one individual. The fact that he happens to be a judge is irrelevant. He is from a jurisdiction wholly separate from that of anything relevant to Rick Ross or this article. Smeelgova 06:56, 4 November 2006 (UTC).

Having been a judge his entire life, he clearly understands libel law and the tradeoffs involved. State libel laws are very similar, and the issue he is addressing is a conflict between state libel law and federal law (Communication Decency Act, Section 230). He is an even better example than all the other commentators because he has nothing to do with either Landmark Education or Rick Ross and because offers experience from the side of the judiciary--not the plaintiff and not the defendant. He is the quintessential example of different and expert point of view. As a Supreme Court justice for Oregon, he is interpreting federal law (Communications Decency Act, Section 230) and is in a higher position than the New Jersey Superior Court which made its ruling which protected the anonymous critics and the editor that moderated what to publish. What the US needs is a French "right of reply" law as most European countries have.

Sm1969 07:11, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

The following statement is factually false and defamatory, and as noted from the Oregon Supreme Court justice above, journalists (and Wikipedia) should be held to a higher standard; republishing factually false and defamatory quotes is still defamatory.

In 2005, the Nouvel Observateur news magazine gave this assessment of the back-and-forth in the documentary:

[Translated:] The broadcast of Elise Lucet denounces Landmark Education’s fiscal embezzlements, the abusive use of an army of volunteers (benevolents) and carries [with it] the existence of prosecutions for "abuse of weakness and mental manipulations" into a murder case. The blow is fatal. A few days later, the organization stages a special evening from which Alain Roth has strangely disappeared. Specially arrived from New York, Sophie McLean, the spokesperson for Landmark International, responds to interrogations of assistance, split between unrest and and solidarity. Countering the accusations of France 3, she distributes to us a denial/disclaimer that carefully avoids the more sensible/delicate points of reporting. Why such determination by/of the news media? Because: "Landmark Education proposes a "leading edge" pedagogy and, as such, it is more succeptible to be improperly understood compare to others."

• The Nouvel Observateur is clearly a reputable and widely circulated notable source in France. Please explain, point by point, what you feel to be factually false. Please explain, point by point, what you feel to be defamatory. Yours, Smeelgova 22:20, 4 November 2006 (UTC).

The assertion that Landmark Education "fiscal embezzled" meets the standards for the tort of libel:

1) It is of and concerning Landmark Education

2) It is an assertion of fact, capable of being proven true or false, not an opinion

3) It is derogatory and understood to be derogatory by the average reader

4) Further, the reader of this article would be lead to believe that Landmark Education embezzled money (a crime, capable of being proven true or false)

Beyond that, taken in the context of the rest of this article, the English language reader would be lead to believe that Landmark Education embezzled money in France; hence, it is factually false and defamatory to Landmark Education in the United States. LE stated in its right of reply that A) Landmark Education France had been operating at a financial loss even before the broadcast, B) that the actual revenues were less than 590,000 euro, not 1.5 million euro. I think you can make the same case with the murder assertion and the insinuation that Landmark Education somehow contributed to that. Their basis for saying this was solely an estimate and now it gets translated into embezzlement; of course, there is zero evidence of civil or criminal charges against LE. It is not responsible journalism to say that or to repeat it.

The Ross quote cited above is much more in the direction of opinion, not an assertion of fact, and is much more likely to be classified as free speech. However, it is extremely biased and the reader is not put on notice how biased it is. The woman herself recognized publically that the experience was difficult but very insightful. Sm1969 02:13, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

• I believe that this is all a big misunderstanding in the translation of the French, Nouvel Observateur text. I have altered the syntax within the translated piece, to clarify. Smeelgova 02:41, 5 November 2006 (UTC).

The translation still has problems. I am not sure what they are referring to since LE responded that it A) operated at a financial loss in France, B) had highest revenues of 590,000 euros where C) France 3's editor estimated revenues at 1.5 million euros per year. Could this statement be referring to those insinuations? Sm1969 03:44, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

The Post Chronicle is, quite frankly, a poster child for what we should not accept as a source. It is at best one step above a press release service -- it does not stand behind the claims made by its writers, and does not claim to. It should not be accepted as a source, and anyone tempted to accept it as a source should consider that anyone on the other side of whatever issue they care about can get their own opinions published on the very same site and then cite the Post Chronicle as a source. -- Antaeus Feldspar 01:25, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

• I have removed the quote from The Post Chronicle. Yours, Smeelgova 02:39, 5 November 2006 (UTC).

Direct Quotes Moved to Talk Page

Administrator Jossi advised us to describe the video, not quote from it because we are doing the selection of quotes. I've started moving them to the talk page. Sm1969 02:39, 7 November 2006 (UTC) He states:

“ First I'd like to go back to your question, "Did you ever want to leave the room?" No. They were simply in a state that made it impossible to leave. From the beginning you saw the brainwashing set in motion, through things that seem harmless. For example, confining people for 3 or 4 days in a room with no windows. No sense of time passing. No bearings... That's where you get into totalitarian methods...It completely breaks a person down, while preventing most people from realizing it. But brainwashing is just that: it happens without the victim knowing it. ”

Mona Vasquez quote:

“ Seven years I didn't see go by. But it's important to point out that the follower doesn't realize he's in a cult. If he did, he'd run the other way...To answer you, I was glued to the video clips. I was a little uncomfortable because I heard all the terminology from Scientology. There was a whiteboard at the beginning with exactly the same words that [Ron] Hubbard would use, the founder of Scientology. I worked in Denmark at the parent organization of Europe. So I was at the heart of Scientology. So I know the terminology very well, and all of it's the same.

.

”

Host: Jean-Pierre Brard, you are deputy mayor of Montreuil. You were vice-president of the investigating committee on cults in the French National Assembly. As we heard Landmark Education says that you classified them as a cult, without having investigated it, what is your response?

Brard: It's very simple. Clearly, there's a guru who destabilizes people to enslave them, to make them subservient, which has been said by witnesses. You can also see that they make you relinquish critical thought, and break the person down so that they can pick up the pieces. You can also see that there's a network of money. This hasn't been mentioned yet: The ultimate goal is to press its power and clean out the students' wallets. And by using the students, to attempt to earn more. So, there are the criterion of domination, a network of money, subordination and brainwashing. So it's a cult.

• Though I have respect for User:Jossi's opinion, merely citing his opinions simply because he is classified as an Administrator does not give editors the right to summarily remove material from the article page. I have voluntarily shortened the quoted sections, twice. They now accurately reflect the responses of the various commentators to questions posed to them by members of the Pieces a Conviction staff.
• As to changing the label from documentary to broadcast, documentaries often use special features and audio effects, as evidenced by the article Bowling for Columbine, which is clearly labeled as a documentary. Please do not make sweeping changes again before discussing them on the talk page. I had thought the various editors were coming to a consensus on this, the article had been stable for a short while. Yours, Smeelgova 03:23, 7 November 2006 (UTC).

Welcome back, Smeelgova. You are right, my status as an admin has no bearing in this article. But my status as an editor does. The article needs to summarize the content of the documentary, rather than use extensive quotes as per the current version. You may want to study other articles about documentaries to guide you in working on this one. See Category:Documentaries ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 03:32, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you on this, and that is why I have voluntarily shortened the quoted sections. Thank you for welcoming me back. I didn't mean to single you out, it just seemed that the other editor in question was using your name in the edit history to justify his vast changes to the article. I will go ahead and look at some documentary articles. Yours, Smeelgova 03:35, 7 November 2006 (UTC).

I cite administrator Jossi because my prior experience with you is that you don't take my arguments seriously. We have had arguments now on 1) copyright infringement/contributory copyright infringement, 2) reliability of sources, 3) notability, and on and on. Sm1969 03:42, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Some examples:

• The God Who Wasn't There
• Gay Muslims

≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 03:37, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Recurring Problems with this Article

Hi Smeelgova,

there are several recurring problems with this article.

1) We have taken out some but not all of the factually false and defamatory information. I assert that it is capable of being proven true or false that LE's terminology overlaps with Scientology. I have never heard anyone cite an example. Can you cite any examples?

2) Administrator Jossi noted that you should not quote so extensively from the film because you are doing the selections.

3) Most seriously, in violation of NPOV, you keep moving all the adverse content up front without interleaving LE's response.

4) The original French language transcript is not available, so we have no way of checking the transcript. Furthermore, in LE's reply, they refer as did the Novelle article you cited, to fiscal embezzlements. The versions of the video I saw had nothing about this; thus, I assert we are only seeing an excerpt and that the real broadcast was longer than 60 minutes.

5) The addition of extensive sound effects (among other things) make this more entertainment than investigative journalism. You appear to be the one classifying it as a documentary or investigative journalism. The fact the France 3 pulled the rebroadcast and pulled the transcript should put you on notice.

Sm1969 03:35, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

1. Mona Vasquez's opinion is just that, her opinion. This information was virtually the only comment that she made whilst on the program. And stating her opinion that similarities exist between the jargon used by Landmark Education and Scientology does not seem to be something negative, just something that is her observation after spending seven years in Scientology, and then observing the jargon from Landmark Education.
2. For three times now, I have drastically shortened the amount of direct quotation utilized in the article from the film.
3. It is most possible that the original documentary was longer than 65 minutes.
4. The "addition of extensive sound effects (among other things)" most certainly does not exclude this film from the category of investigative journalism. In fact, virtually all television investigative journalism programs utilize sound effects and other effects.
5. I am curious, where are you getting the information that you state France 3 pulled the rebroadcast? Smeelgova 04:05, 7 November 2006 (UTC).

The quotes you are quoting are her statements that "the language is all the same." That is not a statement of opinion, but an assertion of fact that can be proven true or false. I'm quite confident that LE regards (from court cases and other times it has contested such comparisons) the statement to be factually false and defamatory. There are three kinds of statements:

A) factual (assertions of fact) that can be proven true or false B) mixed fact and opinion C) pure opinion (that can not be proven true or false)

Mona's statement can certainly be proven true or false, and the average person would take being likened to Scientology as derogatory. I'm asking you: what are the terms from LE that are the same as Scientology, that unambiguously show up only in Scientology and then in LE? Sm1969 04:22, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I have removed the part of the quote you objected to "the language is all the same." Further, my own personal opinions aside, I believe that the Church of Scientology would object to your statement that the average person would take being likened to Scientology as derogatory. Smeelgova 04:56, 7 November 2006 (UTC).

The test for libel isn't whether the Church of Scientogy would object, but rather the intended audience, whether it would find such a comment derogatory. The fact that you insist on getting it in is prima facie evidence that it is derogatory. :) An example where Art Schreiber forced the issue legally regarding the comparison with Scientology is the Martin Lell case that we have discuessed before. I'll try to find you the exact quote. Sm1969 05:09, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I would be most interested to see this quote from Art Schreiber, particularly since the German court ruled against Landmark Education in this case. I do not think that anything that any individual editor does can be evidence of anything in this particular matter. Please stop referring to my specific actions, and instead lets address the content, we seem to be doing pretty well with this. I do not think that a court would rule that associating one organization with Scientology is derogatory, simply a comparison. Smeelgova 05:23, 7 November 2006 (UTC).

I gave you the Art Schreiber quotes below. Many retractions we can verify because they are in the court cases at Rick Ross. The court rules against LE in the case in that it stated that "brainwashing" was a matter of opinion and not an assertion of fact, so there were no grounds for a libel case or blocking "brainwashing" from being in the subtitle of the book. In the US, "brainwashing" is an assertion of fact, capable of being proven true or false per court holdings cited at the Rick Ross "Institute." The assertion that the language of LE and Scientology is "all the same" per Mona Vazques is *easily* capable of being proven true or false. Sm1969 05:44, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps, and I have removed that section of the quote as you had suggested above. I am attempting to compromise with you on this and remain civil. Smeelgova 05:47, 7 November 2006 (UTC).

• The pulling of the transcript is per Art Schreiber in the subpoena. The pulling of the rebroadcast is per message boards, which is why I have not cited it in the article and am looking for a reference. It's a logical conclusion that, if they pulled the transcript, they would also have pulled a rebroadcast. Sm1969 04:37, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm curious, do you know of examples where Landmark has objected to comparing its jargon to that of Scientology? I don't see how this would be a problem. Smeelgova 04:51, 7 November 2006 (UTC).

Here are some statements by Art Schreiber re LE and Scientology: http://www.stelling.nl/landmark/schreib1.htm

Landmark Education and its programs. Your Site has links to several Sites which contain false statements regarding Mr. Erhard. To provide you with the accurate facts, I am enclosing the following documents and providing the following information:

1. In an interview on June 15, 1997 on SWF TV in Germany, Mr. Lell stated that Landmark Education and The Landmark Forum were not a sect or psycho-group and Landmark Education has no connection to Scientology.

(a) Materials conceing Mr. Erhard. (b) As stated in the TIME Magazine article which is enclosed under B, above, the allegations against Mr. Erhard regarding family and income tax matters were false. (c) The Correction published earlier this month in Elsevier Magazine.

(d) Mr. Erhard was never a member of the Church of Scientology. More than 30 years ago, he took 2 Scientology courses as well as over 50 other courses offered by many different organizations as part of a program of self education on various disciplines. These included courses on Gestalt Therapy and Eastern philosophy.

4. Landmark Education has no connection or association with Scientology. This is confirmed by the following documents which are enclosed: (a) Correction published in FACTS Magazine, which is enclosed under B, above. (b) Retraction broadcast on Fox Television Station WTTG in Washington, D.C.

Sm1969 05:23, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

1. Please stop removing the entire section from Mona Vasquez, we are in an ongoing discussion here on the talk page. Smeelgova 05:27, 7 November 2006 (UTC).
2. Thank you for providing the above quote from Art Schreiber. It is unfortunate that we cannot readily verify that any of the above retractions took place, or to what specific nature of comparison Schreiber had an objection to. Smeelgova 05:29, 7 November 2006 (UTC).
3. Also, Schreiber had objected to alleged connections between Scientology and Landmark Education, not to someone drawing comparisons between the jargon used in both organizations. Smeelgova 05:31, 7 November 2006 (UTC).

You are Wikilawyering at best. The letter to the Internet Archive by Art Schreiber states, "they are replete with libelous statements [factually false and defamatory] which are severely damaging to individuals that have been inaccurately portrayed without their consent and to Landmark Education." Given that LE has obtained so many retractions on the Scientology issue *and* that you are not naming examples of similarity in vocabulary which similarity is from Scientology to LE *and* that Mona's statements are capable of being proven true or false, I think they need to go on grounds of libel: being factually false and defamatory. Sm1969 05:37, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I resent the jargon term "Wikilawyering", and the fact is, it could be claimed that we both are "Wikilawyering". The fact is, purely comparing the jargon between the two organizations is her opinion, not fact. And if you wish to continue making legal threats, please stop editing Wikipedia, or stop making the threats. Smeelgova 05:40, 7 November 2006 (UTC).

Oh, I just love you Smeelgova. No, the issue with Mona Vasques is that, per your quote, she said the language is "all the same" and that is a statement capable of being proven true or false. You can count the number of terms from Scientology that are the same as in LE. Count means enumerate as in "1" then "2" and then "3" etc. You can count the number of terms from LE. Count means enumerate as in "1" then "2" and then "3." You then compare numbers and come up with a statement: true or false. In the legal sense, Mona's statement that it is "all the same" is capable of being proven true or false, and we don't go to Mona for the test. The precise language she is an assertion of fact, not opinion. You have put out several thousand edits on LE and yet you yourself can't seem to name any terminology that is the same! The purpose of Wikipedia, as an encyclopedia, is to EDUCATE people, to give them FACTUAL information, not to leave the English-language reader with the FALSE impression that there is substantial if not "all-the-same" similarity in the language of LE and Scientology.

Finally, regarding legal threats: 1) I am *NOT* a lawyer, 2) I do not work for LE and have never worked for LE, 3) I have zero capacity to take legal action against you and you are well aware of this, 4) Art Schreiber has signed the letters and subpoenas that you have referenced with his assertion that he finds the video to be replete with libelous and defamatory statements and you, Smeelgova, are well aware of this. I will not challenge some of the other statements by experts, even though they are not balanced per NPOV. If the core essence of Mona's communication is provably false, Mona needs to go! I am being rigorous with you about Wikipedia's policy on the tort of libel: factually false and defamatory information. Sm1969 06:02, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

1. Oh, I just love you Smeelgova. - Please do not use language like this, I find this sarcastic language to be offensive.
2. Again, I am trying to compromise with you.
3. I have removed the particular part of the quote that you objected to.
4. I have altered the paraphrasing to state that this is her opinion. Smeelgova 06:06, 7 November 2006 (UTC).

Mona's still got major problems.

1) You removed the qualifications of both Norbert Nedopil and Raymond Fowler, but insist on have minute and irrelevant details of Mona's experience detailed. 2) The reader is still lead to believe that there are quantitative similarities between the jargon of LE and Scientology, which we could be proven true or false. Further, the reader, per Mona's statement is lead to believe that LE is a cult, which is libelous in the US and the reader is not put on notice of this. 3) Mona's statement should be struck outright. We'll work on Mona first and then continue through the rest of this article. 4) If we're in the game of selective quoting people and citing their qualifications, we absolutely must cite those of Raymond Folwer and Norbert Nedopil. Sm1969 06:20, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

1. I have voluntarily put back in the qualifications of the two individuals you stated above.
2. I have again, adjusted the Mona Vasquez paragraph to state that this is her opinion.
3. I am attempting to compromise with you, surely you must see the number of edits that I have done which take into account your suggestions.
4. I am trying to remain civil in my discourse and language, I would request that you do the same, and try to avoid ad hominem attacks and statements such as mentioned above.
5. I request that you clarify what you meant by "Oh, I just love you Smeelgova.", and apologize for this sarcastic comment. Smeelgova 06:39, 7 November 2006 (UTC).

The problem with the "opinion" is that is an assertion of fact and your present quotation of her is: "She stated: "I was a little uncomfortable because I heard all the terminology from Scientology. There was a whiteboard at the beginning with exactly the same words that [L. Ron] Hubbard would use, the founder of Scientology." I don't think there is ANYTHING similar or notably similar between the language of LE and Scientology. I believe her statement is capable of being proven false, and the fact that you and so many others claim to have studied LE for so long and can't site examples of what she might be referring to is my evidence, beyond Art Schreiber saying the video was replete with libelous (factually false and defamatory) statements. I'm not allowed, Smeelgova, to insinuate that you committed murder (which is capable of being proven true or false), espcially when I am asserting competence in the domain--like saying I am a police detective for a living--as Mona is asserting to be competent in the domains that got her onto this television program. It's the exact same thing that Judge Fadeley was saying, when a person is asserting expertise, they should be to a higher standard, not a lesser one. There is factually no substance to what Mona is saying--what she is saying is capable of being proven false. There is no viable quotation of Mona and Mona is irrelevant to all the accusations and insinuations made in the broadcast.

Can we get Mona and your selective quotations of her off of here now? Sm1969 07:48, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

1. Will you acknowledge that I voluntarily have been taking many of your requests into consideration, and inputting them into my edits?
2. Mona Vasquez stating that she was uncomfortable about something is her opinion.
3. I resent your very strange analogy of using murder as an example.
4. I resent your direct reference to me, as opposed to debating the content directly in this manner.
5. Again, whether it can be proven true or false or not is irrelevant, this is her opinion, it was why she was brought on the program, and she is stating her emotional feelings about the situation. Smeelgova 08:00, 7 November 2006 (UTC).

The "I just love you" was a sigh, no offense intended. Sm1969 07:48, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Offense was taken, and I would appreciate an apology. Smeelgova 07:57, 7 November 2006 (UTC).

I apologize that you took offense at my sigh expression. Sm1969 08:20, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

We still have all of the problems I cited with Mona. Do you have even one (1) example of a term of LE from Scientology? Sm1969

Again, Mona Vasquez is stating her opinion here, as she clearly states how she "I was a little uncomfortable" She is clearly not voicing facts, but her emotional feelings on the issue. Smeelgova 08:24, 7 November 2006 (UTC).

Here is the statement that is factually false and defamatory: stated: "I was a little uncomfortable because I heard all the terminology from Scientology. There was a whiteboard at the beginning with exactly the same words that [L. Ron] Hubbard would use, the founder of Scientology." She emphasized this further, stating: "..I know the terminology very well..", referring to that of Scientology[9]

Did the whiteboard have exactly or even *ANY* of the same words as Landmark Education? Can you, Smeelgova, cite *ANY* examples? I am saying the woman is either blatently lying or does not know what she is talking about. This statement is factually false and defamatory. It is capable of being proven false. Sm1969 08:41, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

1. First of all, as state above by your very quote, this is her emotional opinion, she is not attempting to assert a fact, but state how she feels.
2. Secondly, it is very likely that some of the words on her whiteboard from Scientology were the same words and meanings used in The Forum. If this is so, it would most definitely not be defamatory. Smeelgova 08:47, 7 November 2006 (UTC).

No, it is *not* likely, particularly given all the retractions. The language she is speaking is precise and capable of being proven true or false. I'm saying she is either blatently lying or that she does not know what she is talking about. Being "uncomfortable" is an opinion (a statement of opinion), but the rest of that language is an assertion of fact. Sm1969 08:52, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Good, so we can acknowledge that this is her opinion on the subject, a subject which makes her uncomfortable. Smeelgova 08:54, 7 November 2006 (UTC).

By the way, the Fowler quote I gave was directed at the French government in 2004. It is precisely part of the chronology. May 2004 the broadcast, thereafter the Fowler quote to the French government in the right to reply, thereafter 2005, the French governments invalidation of the report. Sm1969 08:55, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

The "right of reply" that you speak of was sent to France 3, as acknowledged by yourself, and not the French government. Unless, of course, you have a source that can prove otherwise. However the language in the "right of reply" seemed pretty cut and dry to that effect. Smeelgova 08:57, 7 November 2006 (UTC).

I'm sorry, your assertion is simply untrue, upon further investigation of the "report" which actually looks more like a personal letter, the report is dated November 30, 1999. Therefore, there can be no way that this was directed at the French government in 2004. Unless you have a source that specifically says this. Smeelgova 09:01, 7 November 2006 (UTC).

There are two separate entities: 1) The 1999 report and 2) the right-to-reply with its translation. The right to reply, not the original report, has the statement by Raymond Fowler directed at the French government and was released, obviously, after the broadcast. The correct chronology is:

A) 1995: French government committee places LE on list of sects

B) 1999: Fowler issues report

C) May 24, 2004: France 3 broadcast

D) later in 2004: LE's right to reply, with Fowler making the statement about "once the French government looks at the issue..."

E) 2005, defunct French committee repudiated by Prime Minister

Sm1969 09:16, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

1. OK, but how is Schreiber's reply at all relevant to the Prime Minister's statement? The reply was still sent to France 3, and not to the French government. Unless there are sources that say that it was sent to the French government?
2. Further, the Prime Minister's statement was not law, but simply that, a statement or a guide/suggestion.
3. Further, his statement dealt with the entire report, and not simply Landmark Education's cult status.
4. Therefore, it is hard to believe that one letter which was not sent to the government regarding one organization of many that appeared on the list had bearing on the Prime Minister's decision to issue his statement. Smeelgova 09:19, 7 November 2006 (UTC).

France 3 was forced to publish the statement (by law) which is the right to reply--the same audience got to hear it. I suspect the Prime Minister had the legal effect of repudiating the report. In certain areas, the words that come out of the Prime Minister's mouth or pen, are, in fact, law. I know that LE had been working with the French government for a while (as evidenced by the other presentation you cited), but can not prove that LE caused the repudiation of the even-then-defunct committee. I am simply giving the chronology of events. This whole article is an attempt to smear LE with innuendo the way Rick Ross does, as noted by Oregon Supreme Court Justice Fadeley.

Well, that is most certainly your POV and you are most welcome to have an opinion on the matter. I have taken care to attempt to compromise to many of your suggestions, and back up assertions with citations in the proper format. I'm sorry, but I can't recall at the moment, what evidence do you have that Landmark Education was at one point in time working with the French government? Information pertaining to Landmark's legal right of reply seems to belong in the section Legal right of reply. The article actually does follow chronological order in this manner. Smeelgova 09:30, 7 November 2006 (UTC).

There was a presentation LE did (LE International) www.miviludes.gouv.fr/article.php3?id_article=78 in opposition to being placed on the list of cults. Sm1969 09:36, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for this tidbit of information. This appears to be a document with some brief data on Landmark Education, as assembled by MIVILUDES. I am not certain exactly what it says, but it does seem to touch on their concerns regarding the number of volunteer workers, and the "emotional abuse" (their words) taking place in the coursework. Smeelgova 09:43, 7 November 2006 (UTC).

Actually, this does not seem to be a work created by Landmark Education, but actually created by MIVILUDES, it seems their interest was piqued by the documentary. Smeelgova 09:45, 7 November 2006 (UTC).

I noted that you had an MBA on your prior user talk page. Were you a contract negotiator in your career? I feel like you take the most extreme positions, and then when I fight to raise the flag on Iwo Jima, I should acknowledge you for compromising. In other words, if "0" is a balanced article and "-100" is purely against LE and "+100" is purely for LE, I have to fight to get back to 0, and you want to be acknowledged all the way down. Somewhere, I have a career and can't spend my life on this, so I give in around -50. That said, Mona is just plain wrong, egregiously, tortiously wrong. Sm1969 09:46, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I acknowledge that you have your own POV, and opinions and feelings on this matter. As stated before, I am trying to compromise with you, and not engage in ad hominem attacks, and maintain civility. I would personally request that you stop your current practice of attempting to analyze me directly, and instead focus on content debate. I truly do not want to get into my particular motivations or lack thereof, and my personal life. Thank you for understanding this and thank you in advance for trying to get back to a more polite attitude towards me. Smeelgova 09:52, 7 November 2006 (UTC).

The following has been removed for being factually false and defamatory.

Mona Vasquez

Host/Moderator
Elise Lucet discussing similarities between the jargon of Landmark Education and that of Scientology with ex-Scientologist and author, Mona Vasquez.
part 5 of 6
in documentary.

Mona Vasquez wrote the book: Satan Created the Cult: Memoirs of an escapee. A member of Scientology for seven years, she succeeded in winning back 60,000 Euro from the organization through staging a hunger strike at Scientology's Paris, France headquarters. She appears in the documentary discussing what she sees as similarities and differences between Scientology and Landmark Education.

The program's host asked Mona Vasquez why she spent seven years with Scientology. She replied that "..it's important to point out that the follower doesn't realize he's in a cult." She further commented that she observed similarities between the jargon utilized by Scientology and Landmark Education, stating "I was a little uncomfortable because I heard all the terminology from Scientology. There was a whiteboard at the beginning with exactly the same words that [L. Ron] Hubbard would use, the founder of Scientology." She emphasized this further, stating: "..I know the terminology very well..", referring to that of Scientology

Persistent Problems: NPOV, Libel, Verifiability, Self-selection of quotes

01. Mona's quotes re the Scientology jargon being exactly the same as LE's are factually false and defamatory. She is either lying or does not know what she is talking about. 02. The PostChronicle is still referenced as a source. 03. LE's responses are not interleaved, but are pushed to the end, in violation of NPOV. 04. The Abgrall quote is not refuted in-line. 05. The term "cult" is a triable question of fact (not an opinion) and has been repudiated in both the United States and the Netherlands. The reader could be left with that impression and should be put on notice. 06. LE's assertion is of operating at a loss is not placed opposite Jean-Pierre Brard's quote regarding the "network of money." 07. We still don't have the original French-language transcript, so we're relying on someone else's translation. 08. LE is responding to accusations not made, so we only have a selection of the entire video, which was likely longer than 60 minutes. 09. The quotes that are still here are self-selected; more benign quotes could have been self-selected, such as Jougla's assertion that LE is based on the philosophical concept that we can teach people to be authentic. Rather, all the quotes are critical, in some cases arguably defamatory, particularly Monas. 10. LE's experts are not given the same length to explain their positions.

It goes on and on. Sm1969 10:02, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

1. As stated above, Mona Vasquez's comments are her own opinion.
   1. -> The language of Mona's opinion is an assertion of fact--capable of being proven true or false--masquerading as an opinion. It is factually false and defamatory.Sm1969 10:27, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
2. I have voluntarily removed The Post Chronicle quote.
3. Landmark's responses are in the appropriate place, labeled Landmark Education's reply.
   1. -> No, LE's responses are delayed to the end. They should be in-lined with the assertions of the other authors to balance the article, not delayed to the end.
4. The reader's impression is taken care of with the former Prime Minister's 2005 comments. This is not the place to go into a detailed discussion of the legality of the word "cult". This information is best left to the article cult, and the reader is referenced there in the See Also section.
   1. -> No, the reader's impression is not adequately taken care of in that the reader could come away with the impression that LE is a cult. This is not to be deferred elsewhere if you want to avoid a defamatory article. This is the same kind of innuendo that Rick Ross is known for.
5. Other than Landmark's own assertion, we are given no financial statements, or proof of any kind of their actual financial operating loss or profit when they had operations in France.
   1. -> That's right--but they are entitled to their statement opposite an assertion to the contrary and the reader can decide.
6. These are likely actual subtitles from Europe, however it would be preferable to have a transcript, and when one becomes available we can deal with this.
   1. -> No, I lived in Europe (Germany). Most videos do not have added subtitles in English.
7. The quotes have been shortened, and shortened, and shortened, numerous times, at the suggestion of various editors. I have done this voluntarily.
   1. -> Yes, you volunteered after being prodded and prodded and prodded, but you still have not self-selected favorable quotes, like Jougla's statement that LE rests on the fundamental philosophical concept that LE can teach people to be authentic.
8. Landmark's experts are given significant length within the Landmark Education's reply section. The reader is also referred to the actual reply document, as well as to Art Schreiber's statements in various locations. Smeelgova 10:13, 7 November 2006 (UTC).
   1. -> Yes, delaying LE's response to the end is in violation of NPOV, and I will get you a quote for that.

Sm1969 10:27, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

1. The fact that you used the language "masquerading as an opinion" suggests that you feel that Mona Vasquez feels that she is simply asserting her own personal opinion.
   1. By "masquerading as an opinion" I am referring to the fact that what she stated *is* capable of being proven true or false, and you are interpreting that as a statement of opinion. The notion that "all the language is the same" is an assertion of fact. I am asserting she is lying or she does not know what she is talking about. Given Schreiber's comments about libel, this is a prime example of something that should be removed.
2. The article is currently in a chronological format, in this manner, Landmark Education's assertions are in the proper location.
   1. The chronological order is what creates the problem. The responses to the self-selected quotes should be interleaved.
3. I have no idea what the reader's opinion of Landmark Education will be after reading this article, and please do not compare this to Rick Ross or any other individual. You may do that on that article's talk page if you wish. However, as stated above, the place for detailed analysis of definitions is on the pages of those respective articles, like the article cult. The reader is clearly given the Prime Minister's 2005 statement on the matter.
   1. This is all about wikipedia's policy on libel. As Jossi pointed out to you, you seem to be unconscious of how things occur to you and Jossi advised you to go to others and have them critique your editing.
4. You acknowldege that other than Landmark's assertion we have no proof of anything regarding their financial status in France. Again, this is presented in chronological order, in the order in which they presented their "reply" to France 3.
   1. Neither does Brard have any proof of his assertions. They should just be counterbalanced. No side has produced verifiable physical evidence.
5. I acknowledge that it would be better to have a transcript to work with.
   1. Great, we agree.
6. Per your request I have added the section of the quote from Jean-Pierre Jougla that you desired. Smeelgova 10:44, 7 November 2006 (UTC).
7. Landmark's response is not being "delayed to the end", it is placed in the proper chronological format. Similarly, Landmark's improper use of DMCA subpoenas is not placed at the top of the article, because that is not the order in which these events took place. Smeelgova 10:35, 7 November 2006 (UTC).
   1. Chronological format--forward--is just as bad as reverse. Why don't we start with the events and track backwards so all of LE's right-to-reply responses come first? Sm1969 10:52, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

1. This is bordering on ridiculous, clearly an earliest to latest chronological order makes the most sense.
2. Your counterbalancing is provided in the appropriate place. If we start moving everything around, it will become extremely difficult to visualize the chain of events.
3. As stated above, the proper place for a lengthy discussion of cults is in the cult article. Here elaboration is only relevant with respect to the parliamentary commission, and a brief reference to the more detailed article, which is given.
4. Again, I have voluntarily heard your suggestion and inputted the Jougla quote that you requested. Smeelgova 11:01, 7 November 2006 (UTC).

• NOTE: Please do not respond to my commentary with your points directly below mine, this is very confusing to me and I'm sure is extremely confusing to other editors. Thanks. Smeelgova 11:02, 7 November 2006 (UTC).