Talk:Voyage Au Pays Des Nouveaux Gourous/archive2

This page is an current talk page .

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 Note that: "Articles may not contain any unpublished arguments, ideas, data, or theories; or any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published arguments, ideas, data, or theories that serves to advance a position."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: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)

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: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#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

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)

If the French report was mentioned, please re-write the section to describe what the documentary says about it, and link to the

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

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!"^[1]

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).

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

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^[3]. 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^[4]." 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^[5]."

As of

At this time, it is currently unknown whether

Pieces a Conviction and the France 3 television network have issued no complaints to date regarding the video's posting on the internet.^{[citation needed}

].

[Translated:] The broadcast of

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." [9]

• 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 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).

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:

Mona Vasquez quote:

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.^[12]

• Though I have respect for
  Pieces a Conviction
  staff.
• As to changing the label from
  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)

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

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).