Talk:Landmark Education litigation

Rick Ross Suit Edit Suggestions

I am suggesting taking out the line from Section "6." of the Lawsuits section regarding Landmark withdrawing its suit against RIck Ross. The line was "avoiding paying legal expenses of the opposing counsel". I want to take it out (I actually took it out and reverted because I didn't want to start an edit war- wanted to discuss first) because it is inherently a POV line. If a pro-Landmark perosn had written that sentence it could have said "because Landmark knew it couldn't win the suit, despite knowing Ross was in the wrong" Both statements might be the perception on both sides and both would argue it is accurate. Therefore we should stick to the facts.

Some might argue that Landmark did NOT pay legal expenses for opposing counsel (I don't know either way by the way- I am making no assertions of fact) therefore this is a factual addition. But although it may be true it is a debating trick- say a small fact that leaves the listener with a negative or positive impression yet defend it because it is indeed factual. Much money was spent (I am sure) on both sides of this suit- both sides made decisions that cost them money and saved them money and that avoided expenses. That is irrelevent in the context of an encyclopedia article on Landmark Education.

Also, it states: "In response to this serious threat to the free speech and privacy rights of the anonymous users of this website, the internet civil liberties group, the [Electronic Frontier Foundation] with the support of [Harvard Law School]’s [Berkman Center for Internet & Society], sought to participate in the case as amicus curiae, in order to argue against such intrusive discovery tactics."

What follows after this - which is a quote from the Electronic Frontier Foundation- is fine. But this sentence is blantantly POV. From an NPOV perspective that sentence presumes a great deal: "serious threat to free speech and privacy rights" "against such intrusive discovery tactics". Clearly and obviously this drama-laden language needs to be made a little more objective to say the least.

The truth is this article is littered with examples like this that IMO should be addressed... but one or two things at a time.

Alex Jackl 14:23, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Edit Ideas

First of all to Alex Jackl: thank you SO MUCH for acting so politely with regard to making your specific points above. With regard to your proposed edits, here is what I would suggest:

1. Rick Ross Suit -
   Landmark did not pay legal expenses for opposing counsel.
   I believe this would sound very NPOV, and the fact of the matter is that they withdrew their own lawsuit with prejudice, so it is quite likely that they could have been asked to pay legal expenses. This seems to be a way to edit the current language and yet hopefully come to a compromise on this relatively small point.

Landmark intentionally withdrew the suit WITH PREJUDICE to AVOID paying the legal fees of the opposing side. One of the court documents talks about this. Skolnik did, in fact, demand legal fees from Landmark, over $100,000. LE gave its side of the story (the change in case law, Donato versus Moldow) and Rick Ross gave his side of the story (discovery to get names of critics). Sm1969 06:56, 2 October 2006 (UTC) Sm1969 06:54, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

1. amicus curiae -
   The internet civil liberties group, the Electronic Frontier Foundation with the support of Harvard Law School’s Berkman Center for Internet & Society, sought to participate in the case as amicus curiae, in order to argue against Landmark Education's legal discovery actions.
   This would change your presumed POV perspective of this sentence to a statement of fact.This text cannot be edited, because it is a blockquoted citation from Introduction to the Landmark Education litigation archive, by attorneys Peter L. Skolnik & Michael A. Norwick.
2. New information found on the minutiae of the term legal prejudice, over at article:
   Prejudice (law)
   Yours, Smeelgova 21:34, 30 September 2006 (UTC).

6. Rick Ross Institute (2004)

User Smeelgova could you explain the revert you did to my editing. I made the following edits:

1. Removed: to avoid paying legal expenses of the opposing counsel. The reason being, none of the reference sites, or a general search gave costs as a reason for Landmark withdrawing from the case.
2. Added: claimed this was to avoid discovery. The reason I added this was that this was the only the reason that was claimed as to why Landmark withdrew the case.

• Mark1800 22:31, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Please see Wikipedia articles:

1. Prejudice (law) - Which directly explains the notion of to avoid paying legal expenses of the opposing counsel, also
2. Discovery (law).

I have implemented your edit suggestion , number 2 above. Yours, Smeelgova 23:46, 7 October 2006 (UTC).

• • IF Prejudice (law) is to avoid costs, then why are you explaining it twice. It's like saying "car, automobile" say it once. Also Prejudice (law) is not just to avoid costs, it is used for other things as well, including avoiding Discovery (law) which is what is claimed. Also you avoided claimed. We don't know if it is true. We have to state it as a claim. We could also claim that the reason Landmark ended the case with Prejudice was because they worked out that it would cost too much to force the Rick Ross Institute to devulge the names of the anonomous posters or that they recieved new legal advise that they were not going to win. We don't know and to presume otherwise is factually incorrect.
  • Mark1800 06:37, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

• • I reread all the source documents. It is now clear the following happened

1. June 2004: Landmark launches case
2. January 2005: A similar case establishes a legal precident.
3. April 2005: Landmark files for dismissal, the legal reason for bringing the case to court is no longer valid.

• • All the discussion over the reasons as to why Landmark filed for dissmissal are clear. The law changed.

• • Mark1800 07:58, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

• User Smeelgova there is a requirement in Reliable sources section that The burden of evidence lies with the editor who has made the edit in question I have provided the evidence as to the reason for the edit I made. Could you please provide any evidence as to why you say the revert you made is factually accurate and cited information before you make any more changes to this section.
• Mark1800 13:04, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

• Sources:

1. Landmark Education Withdraws Lawsuit Against Critic, December 21, 2005, PRNewswire, United Business Media, San Francisco.
2. Introduction to the Landmark Education litigation archive, Peter L. Skolnik, Michael A. Norwick, Lowenstein Sandler PC, Roseland, New Jersey, February 2006.
3. Tech Law Advisor, caselaw, 2005, RE: Communications Decency Act, New Jersey
4. Landmark Education Withdraws Lawsuit Against Critic, December 21, 2005, PRNewswire, United Business Media, San Francisco.

Smeelgova 17:23, 8 October 2006 (UTC).

• To address each item

1. Does not claim that cost was the reason from the case being withdrawn, it says what I said, Change in law was the reason.
2. The site is the plaintif, and thus has a POV, however it should be noted that again cost is not the reason the case was withdrawn. Again they say the change in law was the reason Landmark withdrew the case.
3. This site doesn't even mention Landmark Education, it does however mention the change in law that Landmark said was the reason they were withdrawing the case.
4. Again, this site (same as 1.) does not claim that cost was the reason from the case being withdrawn, it says what I said, Change in law was the reason.

I am again going to remove the factually incorrect information, as per my original edits. I also ask that Smeelgova does not make any more changes to this section without providing Reliable sources

• Mark1800 22:44, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

• Smeelgova could you explain why you have broken the 3 edits/revert rule? Could you also please provide any evidence as to why the version you keep reverting to is factual. I have provided evidence that it is unfactual.
• Mark1800 01:39, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
• It is the previous editor, not myself, who has broken the 3 edits revert rule. Factual information was restored in proper citation/sourced/referenced format. Yours, Smeelgova 01:43, 9 October 2006 (UTC).

• As I have noted above and another editor has noted below, your revert is factually incorrect. As to who broke what, have you checked the history file?
• Mark1800 02:10, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

• Mark1800 has lodged a WP:AN/3RR about Landmark_Education#6. Rick Ross Institute (2004) regarding Smeelgova. Mark1800 00:44, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Please place comments on WP:AN/3RR about Landmark_Education#6. Rick Ross Institute (2004) here

Interestingly User:Smeelgova has placed a counter claim on the Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RR. I am unclear if my initial edit counts. Anyone know? Mark1800 06:11, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

• Result: User:Smeelgova had a 8 hr block placed, on all edits on all of Wikipedia. I note this was not my intention, I had assumed User:Smeelgova would only have have been banned from this page or section. Mark1800 02:02, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Continuation of Discussion

User:Smeelgova, My request is that we do not edit the section in question until we either come to a concensus or we obtain mediation on it. Could you please indicate you agreement or disagreement. Mark1800 (I'm ok with the spelling corrections, please feel free to do that at any time. I suck at spelling)

• I agrees to abide by the above request. Mark1800 02:34, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

The paragraph in question.
In December 2005, Landmark Education withdrew the lawsuit with prejudice, avoiding paying legal expenses of the opposing counsel and legal discovery of trade secrets, on the grounds that a material change in caselaw regarding statements made on the Internet occurred in January 2005. Landmark Education issued a press release on the matter. The Rick Ross Institute responded.

Case presented by Mark1800

1. The paragraph is covered, completely, by the first sentence of this section. In April 2005, Landmark Education filed to dismiss its own lawsuit with prejudice on the grounds that a material change in caselaw regarding statements made on the Internet occurred in January 2005; see Donato v. Moldow, 374 N.J. Super. 475 (N.J. App. Div. 2005), which held an operator of an online bulletin board not liable for defamatory statements posted by others on his bulletin board, unless he made a "material substantive contribution" to the defamatory material.
2. User:Smeelgova added the section regarding legal discovery of trade secrets only after User:Mark1800 had pointed out this was the claim of the Rick Ross Institute (RRI). User:Smeelgova did not include any reference that this was a claim, and when evidence was provided that this claim was false, it was ignored.
3. Both the claims of avoiding paying legal expenses of the opposing counsel and legal discovery of trade secrets are claims that have no factual reference. An understanding of legal process will provide that cases are often brought, and then dropped, when one side discovers evidence that they will not win. Often, if the judge thinks the case was a deliberate attack, then the case will be closed without prejudice save as to costs, so as to allow the agreived party to recover costs. It is noted, that in this case, that was not the case.
4. Why I believe this whole paragraph should be removed? It has been covered completely elsewhere in the section. It is not NPOV and is also unfactual.

Response

In December 2005, Landmark Education withdrew the lawsuit with prejudice, on the grounds that a material change in caselaw regarding statements made on the Internet occurred in January 2005. Rick Ross' attorneys had been trying to obtain legal discovery of trade secrets prior to the case's withdrawal. The Rick Ross Institute [1] to a press release from Landmark on the issue.

1. Took out claim of avoiding paying legal expenses of the opposing counsel
2. Changed the syntax of legal discovery of trade secrets to
   Rick Ross' attorneys had been trying to obtain legal discovery of trade secrets prior to the case's withdrawal. - now statement is factually accurate. Will back up with sources.
3. The section is now appropriate as a summary of the piece, and is an NPOV simple statement of the chronological facts. Yours, Smeelgova 02:49, 12 October 2006 (UTC).

Request I'm fine with what you have written, I have an opinion that it is slighty POV slanted, however I'm aware that is my opinion.

• I do have a request that you move it up into the first paragraph. It could look like this
  

In April 2005, Landmark Education filed to dismiss its own lawsuit with prejudice on the grounds that a material change in caselaw regarding statements made on the Internet occurred in January 2005; see Donato v. Moldow, 374 N.J. Super. 475 (N.J. App. Div. 2005), which held an operator of an online bulletin board not liable for defamatory statements posted by others on his bulletin board, unless he made a "material substantive contribution" to the defamatory material. At the time of withdrawl Rick Ross' attorneys had been trying to obtain legal discovery of trade secrets, and they claimed this was the reason for the withdrawl.[2]

• If you do, please remove the last paragaph. Do not add what I've sugested to the top paragraph and leave the last paragraph

Per above:
I'm fine with what you have written, I have an opinion that it is slighty POV slanted, however I'm aware that is my opinion. Thank you for acknowledging your POV. I as well acknowledge that I have an opinion that it is slighty POV slanted. Thank you for also saying that you are fine with what I have written. It seems that we have reached a consensus, sigh, awesome. I personally think that as a concise section, this brief piece works where it is at the moment. Yours, Smeelgova 03:28, 12 October 2006 (UTC).

• OkMark1800 03:47, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

This sections now appears to be link building to me. I think the references are quite redundant. Spacefarer 12:02, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Withdrawl of Case Against Rick Ross

Landmark Education could have requested withdraw either WITH PREJUDICE or WITHOUT PREJUDICE (meaning it could be refiled). When withdrawn without prejudice, it could be refiled, and the defense would have been justified in seeking compensation, because they might have to defend again. The judge agreed that Landmark Education had brought the suit in good faith, and the last six months were an unsuccessful effort of Rick Ross to keep the case alive on grounds Landmark had not brought the case in good faith. The judge further agree that the change in internet case law (Donato versus Moldow) was a valid reason for withdrawing the case. The avoidance of discovery is the opinion of Rick Ross and his lawyers, but both Landmark and the judge are on the same side. This section needs to be better written to reflect this.

• but both Landmark and the judge are on the same side. This is entirely not the case, I would respond, but I have no idea who wrote or when the above comment was written. The fact that material was cut and pasted from Landmark Education's talk page makes this page very hard to read/understand/follow the flow. Smeelgova 19:38, 22 October 2006 (UTC).

Removed Art Schreiber paragraph

I removed this paragraph for the following reasons:

• It appears to be outdated: he states that only one person has sued Landmark, and then this page goes on to list three. (Which then makes the statement that by now 600,000 people have done Landmark misleading at best.)
• It's POV: why preface a section on legal disputes with a statement by the lawyer for one side?
• It's not necessary: the page is about Landmark's legal disputes; the entries speak for themselves, and there's no need for commentary on how many there are. Ckerr 08:44, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Quote on Rick Ross Case by Oregon Supreme Court Justice Edward Fadeley

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.

Sm1969 06:00, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

I didn't realize this was a commentary on the case itself, I will put it back in, just give me a moment please. Smeelgova 06:24, 4 November 2006 (UTC).

Here is a better source reference URL Findlaw: The Unchecked World of the Internet Sm1969 07:23, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

• I removed the lower paragraph of this quote. It is an attack on Rick Ross, and is not relevant to the actual case, whereas the first paragraph could be considered relevant. As it had stood previously, the blockquote was itself almost a third the size of that entire section.
• Also, interesting info on first Google hit on Edward Fadeley, it seems he's coming up on Disciplinary Review charges before the Oregon State Bar on 01/03/2007. Smeelgova 09:41, 10 November 2006 (UTC).

It is absolutely relevant to the actual case. It shows how far in the wrong direction that Internet law has gone in not protecting individuals/corporations from libel on the Internet and that you can't take your sources seriously. The comments on Ross directly are that he should be held to a higher standard and that he has no qualifications and is misprepresenting himself and that the law lets him get away with it. This is a perfectly valid, well-substantiated third-party opinion. Sm1969 07:54, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, and I agree with you. However, it is not necessary to post two paragraphs from the press release issued by the judge. The one paragraph directly talking about the case itself is sufficient. Smeelgova 08:11, 11 November 2006 (UTC).

I think it is as important for people to see the full detail of that as it is for people to see the long list of historical material people keep attaching to Landmark's article. We need to be consitant. We either show contraint on both sides or we need to make sure it is balanced. It is best for the WIkipedia community using this article for all sides to show contraint. Alex Jackl 06:54, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

As stated above, the lower portion of this quote has zero relevance to the case itself. Smeelgova 06:01, 23 November 2006 (UTC).

It is totally relevant, in that the central conflict of the case was between Internet law and state tort (libel) law. Judge Fadeley is showing how bad it gets--you can have zero credentials as Rick Ross does and that, in portraying himself as an expert, he should be held to a higher standard, not a lesser one. I'll contact the administrators about getting this in. Sm1969 06:09, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with the discussion of the case itself. It is a personal attack on Rick Ross. Furthermore, this page should be restricted to source material on the cases themselves, and not opinions of outsiders on those cases, unless directly related to the case. If opinion were allowed to enter into the fray on each case, the article would be way too long. Smeelgova 06:14, 23 November 2006 (UTC).

Yes, so is the lawsuit a personal attack on Rick Ross. Article subjects have zero protection as editors do from personal attacks, unless they are not notable. This is immediately relevant to the case. He has to identify Rick Ross' lack of credentials, even though he represents himself as an expert. The fact that he is a convicted felon to boot just shows how out of touch the law is on the Internet in Judge Fadeley's opinion. Sm1969 08:24, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

The principle of equality before the law -- even for felons convicted in non-Internet cases -- does not apply here? -- Pedant17 01:28, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

POV language

That being said I made minor edits taking some POV spin off the article talking about Landmark's legal actions as threats and manuevers. That is very pointed language. A pro-Landmark POV person might have said "defended itself against outrageous accusations" or some such equally POV statement. Let's use neutral language... Alex Jackl 06:53, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree, and have used some new language about Landmark's propensity to write cease and desist letters. Smeelgova 08:55, 22 November 2006 (UTC).

You think LE writes a lot--compare the record industry or any industry whose primary business is intellectual property. Sm1969 08:22, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Lawyers thrive on threats and maneuvers. We have no need to get mealy-mouthed about this. The paragraph in which these words appeared read:

Landmark Education, whose Chairman Art Schreiber also acts as the organization's General Counsel, has a history of making legal threats and demands, not all of which end in courtroom litigation (for some of those, see Landmark Education litigation. And given the organization's reputation, other parties have also resorted to legalistic maneuvers when their beliefs bring them into conflict with Landmark Education.

I composed that paragraph with some care, intending to stress in a balanced manner that both Landmark Education and its legal opponents participate in legal activity, and attempting to summarize the reason for such legal bitterness as discussed later in the article. I could just as accurately and with just as much NPOV have used words like "legal posturing" and "legal machinations" to describe the antics of both sides in these legal shenanigans. -- Pedant17 01:28, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

One reason that the text should not go it blockquote is that you (Pedant17) wrote it. My understanding of blockquote is that it is for when you are quoting someone else.

I used a blockquote to reproduce clearly in a discussion-page a now-superceded non-blockquoted portion of a former version of the article. I regard blockquoting as a tool for quoting -- whoever wrote the original, and provided the quoted text with an introductory remark to make the origin clear. -- Pedant17 01:58, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

The second part is your personal characterization, and it is not written in a neutral tone. Sm1969 02:06, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

The second part of what? From where to where? -- Few statements about law or about Landmark Education use a neutral "tone". Hence the need for balance and even-handedness, as exhibited in my original paragraph as quoted above. (If anything, I erred on the side of letting Landmark Education off the hook while emphasizing the behavior of its opposition.) -- Pedant17 01:58, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Inclusion of rest of Fadeley quote against Rick Ross / Landmark Education

Smeelgova objects to the inclusion of the rest of this quote. Smeelgova first stated that it was a personal attack on Rick Ross. The Wikipedia policy on personal attacks is from editor-to-editor, not article-subject to article-subject. Smeelgova then objected to it not being relevant to Landmark Education. On the contrary, I believe it is precisely on point. What is Smeelgova's latest objection? The quote follows. Sm1969 04:00, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

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.

I do not appreciate your personal inferences and references to me and my arguments. I wish that instead you would stick to the content at hand. As to the quote, it has nothing in particular to do with the case itself. Thanks. Smeelgova 07:58, 26 November 2006 (UTC).

Ok, but I think I have to note that some specific objection has been raised on including it. An opponent of inclusion has argued that the statement has nothing to do with the RickRoss versus LE case. I disagree. Judge Fadeley is noting the problems that arise because of the current law and the court interpretations of that law, which is exactly the same thing the California Supreme Court noted. The problems arising from current case law interpretation is that, in ordinary libel cases, someone who is asserting expertise (as Rick Ross is) would be held to a higher account, e.g., written media or an expert in written media. I think all of this content is totally on point and permissible. It addresses both Rick Ross and Landmark Education directly. Sm1969 08:16, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, this part of the quote addresses Landmark Education and Rick Ross, but does not directly address any of the issues in the case itself - as the other part of the quote does. Thanks. Smeelgova 08:17, 26 November 2006 (UTC).

Both halves of the quote are relevant. The second half is exemplifying how bad the problem is--i.e., that Rick Ross truly has zero qualifications, is a convicted felon, and insinuates LE is a cult while, at the same time, stating that LE is not a cult. The second half of the quote is critical to the pungency of Judge Fadeley's point. Sm1969 08:20, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I fail to see the relevance of conviction for felony to the case in point. I also do not see that the subject of this article includes as a legitimate topic the pungency of the former judge's comments. That said, inclusion of such quotations provides good and typical examples of the vicious ad hominem and extra-legal attacks launched in this debate. - Pedant17 01:28, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

On the contrary, Judge Fadeley is showing how RR is A) not being held to a higher standard as he would be in print media for asserting his expertise and B) that RR is misrepresenting his qualifications having "no degree of any kind." Third, he is showing that Rick Ross himself says he is not a cult, when all of the innuendo that RR puts out says that LE is a cult. You would have to read the case to see that. Sm1969 02:42, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Great. But none of those things are relevant to the actual case itself, and might be more appropriate for other articles, but not an article focuses specifically on the litigation. Thanks. Smeelgova 19:39, 10 December 2006 (UTC).

Merger of legal pages

There appears to be some sort of fork of this page at Landmark Education and the law. Someone asked to speedy it as an attack page, but I'm concerned there may be edit history/information present that needs to be retained. The page has existed in some form or another for about two weeks. -- nae'blis 20:23, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Forking history

The two pages currently appearing as Landmark Education and the law and as Landmark Education litigation first originated as a single fork from the Landmark Education article following some complaints that that article had become too long. On 21 October 2006 I set up the forked material as an article and carefully named it Landmark Education and the law in an attempt to allow it to cover both specific cases of litigation as well as non-court-case legal activities undertaken by both Landmark Education (the corporation) and other parties.

On 20 November 2006 User:Jossi renamed the article from Landmark Education and the law to Landmark Education litigation, commenting "more appropriate name for comments". As a result, this left no home for non-litigation law-oriented material as inappropriate to the new title. Accordingly on 22 November 2006 I resurrected the Landmark Education and the law article from its status as a redirection and archived/edited there such (not insubstantial) material as related to legal but non-litigated events and trends.

I have no objection to (re-)merging the two articles, so long as we do not lose relevant edits relating to the broader field of Landmark Education's interactions with legal goings-on. However, I would point out that each separate article has a substantial body of text and that each has attracted some spirited editing. If they continue a separate existence, of course, each article should link to the other.

Neither article appears to me to constitute an "attack page" -- each one details (as a matter of record) documented actions undertaken by various parties within the legal systems of the world. Attacks (such as those on Rick Ross) appear in the context of such legal maneuverings.

-- Pedant17 01:28, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I characterized it as an attack page per their definition, i.e., that it was created to attack or disparage its subject. The tone is totally not neutral. Sm1969 02:10, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

As the Wikipedian who set up the Landmark Education and the law page and then re-forked the Landmark Education and the law page from what had become the Landmark Education litigation page, I can declare that I did not set out to attack or disparage the subjects of law or litigation in relation to their use by or against Landmark Education, but attempted to provide homes for materials relating to these topics outside the context of over-large or of overly-precisely defined existing articles. The provided definition of an "attack page" does not apply. -- Pedant17 01:58, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Merge

Completed the merge and copyedited the resulting article, including removal of editorializing and OR commentary, as well as NPOVng the tone as per tags on the merged article. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:16, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Quotefarm

• Please give me a chance and I will work on the quotefarm issue. Thanks. Smeelgova 02:29, 29 December 2006 (UTC).

Germany

• How is this info POV at all? It looks like User:Pedant17 did a very good job with the citations. Smeelgova 06:56, 9 January 2007 (UTC).

Cited Material Being POV

Cited Material can certainly be POV! :-) You pick what you cite. If you fill an article with citations of all of the negative aspects of a converstaion and ignore the positive ones that is one way. Another way is if you pick citations by and from people that have extremely strong POV on a subject and fill an article with thos eand you will have created POV.

The change I made to the Berlin piece was to clarify some non-clear wording that left an impression that was opposite from the truth. The word "this" that I changed nmad eit clear that the Berlin Senate was no longer considering Landamrk a cult while the current version erroneously leaves the reader with a different impression. I will make the change back without deleting any of the citations and am happy to discuss it on this page. Alex Jackl 14:32, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

OK, well let us see what changes you want to make specifically, and then discuss. But please don't revert, but make a new set of changes to the existing article. And please do not remove cited material, but rather add more of what you feel would be adequate clarification. Thanks. Smeelgova 14:36, 9 January 2007 (UTC).

I cannot see where the Berlin Senate report does not consider Landmark Education a cult. The report published in December 1997 clearly bears in its title (and in its URL) the word Sekten (Cults) and discusses its overall subject-matter in relation to this term and its various uses. Note too that the report does not list or classify cults as distinct from non-cults. Its [translated] table of contents uses the following classifications:

7 Selected Providers

7.1 Groups with a Christian background [5 cases]

7.2 Groups with a pagan background [2 cases]

7.3 Groups with a Hindusm background [4 cases]

7.4 Providers of Life-Assistance [7 cases, including Landmark Education, Art Reade, Scientology, and the Natale Institute]

7.5 Occultism/Satanism

7.6 So-called Multi-Level Marketers

Thus in a report on "cults", however carefully presented (with interrogation-marks) and legalistically worded (with sogenannte ("so-called")), Landmark Education falls into the largest grouping of individually listed examples of the cult phenomenon.

Where then does the Berlin Senate report "no longer consider" Landmark education a cult?

-- Pedant17 01:58, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Re-forking

Now that we have a merged article containing the former article Landmark Education litigation and the former article Landmark Education and the law and now that the size of our combined article has reached a size of 58 Kb and attracts warnings/suggestions concerning splitting per Wikipedia:Article size and now that the current title of the article (Landmark Education litigation) does not adequately cover the non-litigation elements in the article -- perhaps we should consider how we might best split this article again. -- Pedant17 01:58, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

For related articles to compare, Scientology and the legal system, and Scientology versus the internet. Smeelgova 04:22, 13 January 2007 (UTC).

Removal of Labor Law Section

The title of this article is Landmark Education Litigation. These Labor investigations do not have anything to do with litigation. Also, I question the notability of the investigationsTriplejumper 13:40, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

• Whole swathes of the article are now being removed with zero discussion, and also lots of citations have also been removed. However, as I do not wish to get into a big conflict over this, I'm going to take a break from this article and see how it develops over time. The information that was removed from this article, is already available in enough formats in other public domain locations... Have fun editing the article... Smee 22:36, 2 June 2007 (UTC).

OR

I have removed the following line. I believe that by 'collecting' the list of sources and presenting them as a 'list of coverage', we are doing original research. Its a technicality, but still OR. If those sources had something specific to say which adds value, then they SHOULD be included with proper citations. But simply listing a block of sources that covered it, is original research unless a secondary source has done this and we can 'cite' them as saying it first.

The newly re-filed court case, and subsequent transfer to Oklahoma City received coverage in the Tulsa World,

on KSWO News, in the Bartlesville Examiner Enterprise, as well as on KFDA News in Amarillo, Texas and on KTEN News in Ada, Oklahoma .

Peace.Lsi john 14:55, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Major Conflict of Interest

Most recent version is promoting a law firm that is a litigant in the article. Louislouislewee 15:13, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Formatting problems

I have run into formatting issues at the bottom of the article. I was unable to add information without sections becoming linked together even with the ==Headings== added. The formatting is not behaving normally. At the moment, I have lost the section about Rick Ross.Triplejumper 22:35, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Then revert it until you get it figured out. Arcana imperii Ascendo tuum 05:34, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Deletion?

Is there any real justification for including this article? Surely it would only be called for if there were an exceptionally large amount of litigation involving this company? Does anyone suggest that sixteen cases in sixteen years for a company with a million customers is even worthy of mention, much less an entire article? DaveApter (talk) 17:09, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I've looked at your "contribution" history...and it seems you've devoted a significant amount to deletion of articles you, AJackl, Triplejumper, Ftord, and Saladdays seem to think are unimportant...and are all EST/LE related. I say it's just PR on the part of "volunteer" employees, but I implore you to prove me wrong. Arcana imperii Ascendo tuum (talk) 04:38, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

My first reaction was to ignore that as being unworthy of response, but I think I really must flag up the gross factual innacuracies here:

• Comments in deletion debates are a small proportion of my edits.
• Many - I think the majority - of the articles whose deletion I voted for have nothing whatsoever to do with Landmark, EST, or Erhard. Very few indeed of the reminder have any direct connection with Landmark per se, mostly they were personal attack pieces on individuals whose only claim to notability was some acquaintance with Werner Erhard.

The whole tone of your comments is at least bordering on being a Personal Attack. Please cut it out. DaveApter (talk) 10:17, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

In addition, at one point you said 100 petitioners on the Reformer's group wasn't worth mention, you're flip-flopping on that, and you say a million customers. Were they paying and where's the information to verify that "million"? Arcana imperii Ascendo tuum (talk) 04:41, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't recall saying it wasn't worth a mention - I'm just pointing out that getting 0.01% of customers to sign a petition doesn't amount to evidence of a serious customer satisfaction problem.

The figure of a million comes from Landmark's own announcements - presumably they know how many customers they have? (and, yes, they might be lying - if you're saying that they'd do themselves a favour by getting a CPA to certify the numbers I'd agree). Any cursory examination of the operation shows that it has to be somewhere in that ballpark. Are you disputing this? On what basis? DaveApter (talk) 10:17, 27 November 2007 (UTC)