Jump to content

Talk:Landmark Worldwide

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Sm1969 (talk | contribs) at 02:59, 1 April 2007 (→Request Deletion of Section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Enterprise

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

Summary of Current State of Play

Once again this discussion has grown extensively, and once again there has been disappointingly little progress towards consensus.

I have archived the page, and kept the 'Summary' section, which I still hope will provide a basis for an improved article.

I have also copied over the currently active discussion from the last few days to preserve continuity. DaveApter 14:19, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

1) Broadly what it is about: what it offers and how it delivers it; why people do the courses, and what they get from them.
2) A summary of the ‘controversies’ surrounding the operation: what are the conflicting opinions on the various areas of debate, who hold these opinions, and what is the supporting evidence.

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

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

What is it about?

This section of the article should address the following questions:

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

(again - please discuss below).

Why the controversies, and what are they about?

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

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

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

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

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

The fact that some commentators have applied adjectives such as “cult” and “brainwashing” is not in itself informative, unless we know what they mean by the words, and what evidence they draw on to justify the description. It seems to me that the majority of those expressing critical opinions on Landmark Education actually know very little about it, and quite disproportionate weight is given to uninformed speculation and hearsay. DaveApter 11:29, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Caltechdoc 18:56, 22 March 2007 (UTC): I am a relatively new editor and am fascinated by the controversy generated by the Landmark Education article. As a research scientist interested in using Wikipedia as a resource, it is a bit disconcerting that so much controversy shows up around some topics. It takes only a moment of analysis to see that one particular editor, "Smee", has an axe to grind, and dedicates a fair amount of his/her day to grinding it. The questions about Landmark Education are valid - but the data is obscured by this particular editor. I have myself taken a number of "growth programs" and done a degree of research into them. The Landmark programs are clearly among the best by several measures - size of operations, number of participants, and numerous reports by participants of positive results, as well a variety of scholarly research papers completed (I have read several, from USC and from Harvard). Landmark is clearly not a cult, does not use brainwashing, and is a fine program that focuses on making a difference in people's lives. My sense is that the rate of negative outcomes is low, likely commensurate with the rate in any academic program (Caltech for example has a noticible rate of psychological trauma among its students - does this make Caltech a dangerous cult, or a danger to society? Caltech is clearly one of the finest scientific institutions on the planet.)[reply]

My sense is that if "Smee" is not allowed to alter the Landmark Education site for some period, the controversy would settle and we would converge on a balanced and useful article.

Intro Paragraph

Lets- I quote from WP:LEAD:

When writing a lead section about ideas and concepts (such as "truth"), it can be helpful to introduce the topic as follows:

1. Context - describing the category or field in which the idea belongs. 2. Characterization - what the term refers to as used in the given context. 3. Explanation - deeper meaning and background. 4. Compare and contrast - how it relates to other topics, if appropriate.

5. Criticism - include criticism if there has been significant, notable criticism.

It also states that for larger articles (30,000 words plus) the length should be a maximum of 3 to 4 paragraphs. The first part of the current intor describes what we are talking about, the second describes some history and its predecessors, the third explains what it does and how that fits with some of its other sibling/subsidiary entities, and the fourth addresses criticisms.

There is a large contingent of us (see above discussions) that think the intro is already overly leaning towards talking about the far past too much and think MOST of the criticism stuff is pretty non-notable and minority POV driven. The fact is this intro was gotten to voer weeks and weeks of patient effort by editors to keep it balanced. I think we should move very carefully to not disturb that. WIkipedia does say be bold but I suspect others will be bold back and that leads to edit wars. Lets take the consensus route.Alex Jackl 04:36, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV rationale for minor changes to the Labor stuff

There are two things: 1. There is a POV statement that the courts have "sometimes sided" with Landmark. That is a misleading statement - in NO case have the courts gone against Landmark with regard to the cult stuff. It is one of the reasons many editors consider this to be non-notable. Therefore I think this whole section needs to be radically reduced but as a stop gap at least acknowledging that the courts have never ruled AGAINST Landmark will hold that space. 2. The DOL has not ruled on anything. You can check court records and the DOL website. It is an investigator, an employee, that made whatever conclusions they made and then took no further action and no legal proceedings resulted. This is just a fix of an obvious misdirection in the text (intentional or otherwise).

These are I think the minorest changes to make this slightly less skewed. Please let me know if there is any question about this. Thanks! Alex Jackl 01:56, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

      • What do you mean "factually inaccurate"? What evidence do you have for that? You have done a LOT of research Smee on Landmark's litigation - if you can't find it, you don't want to bring it up. This is classic unethical debating tactics. "Well you can't prove it is not , so let's imply that it is". No - how about let's not mention it at all! That is more in keeping with an encyclopedia. You are breaking WP:OR all the time - none of this stuff is notable but you are weaving a story together by emphasizing small non-notable pieces and making them seem more than they are. This labor thing is a PERFECT example- two investigations in 16 years -both of which ended up in no action (With regard to volunteers which is what this is about- there was some minor clean up Landmark had to do regarding tracking two employee's hours and stuff like that). Can you say so non-notable as to put one to sleep - give me a break!

The DOL has made NO NADA NIENTE rulings against Landmark Education - there has been no court cases, legal action, or evidence of wrong doing. You have NO proof. It is all in your imagination. The two action reports make some recommendations and than are labeled as "NO Further Action". Case closed. This is such a waste of our precious time even to talk about this. I suggesting we remove the Labor dispute section entirely or at least reduce it to a paragraph befitting its notability. I think Smee and I have made our positions clear on this. Other editors? Alex Jackl 02:28, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I request that you stop trying to turn any strongly worded challenge of your stance into a personal attack. I request you stop misusing policies as an accusatory weapon against people in debates. I DO apologize if I offended you - CERTAINLY not my intent. However I do have strong objections and strong concerns about some of the content we are talking about- which I am not even sure YOU put in. I have not changed it since the last reversion and I have not accused you of any wrong-doing- which by the way you do with some regularity which, by the way, IS a breach of WP:NPA. This is not about you- this about the content and having an article that Wikipedia would be proud of. We aren't there yet with this article, and we have a ways to go. That is why I have asked for other editors to chime in and I will step back a little bit. I request you do the same. We have managed compromise in a civil fashion before I am confident we can do it again. Alex Jackl 05:06, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Too many citations to unreliable Corporate Web site

  • Landmark Education's Web site is designed to be a publicity advertisement for their coursework, pure and simple. As per the tag, as many citations as possible to Landmark Education's for-profit Corporate Web site should be removed and replace with more reputable and reliable secondary sourced citations, especially in the case where Landmark is excerpting portions of data and not giving the whole picture about academic studies and the like. Thanks. Smee 19:12, 19 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Wow! This is really over the top. Ummm.. this is an article about a corporation. The primary source of information IS the corporate website. It should be checked and should be treated knowing it is the corporation talking about itself, but you are not clear on the policies. Checkout any three corporate web pages and you will find NUMEROUS references to the corporate website. Frankly, it doesn't even count as self-publishing. Alex Jackl 06:15, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Compare usage of exact same template in similar article Scientology. Smee 06:17, 20 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]
I do not watch the Scientology site and am not that interested in 20th century religions. How about we check out all the other business es using corporate sites. 1. It is not publicity advertisement only- it is a working site. One can look up courses, access services, even register. 2. It doesn't matter it is the official site of the corporation. It acts as the web presence for that corporate entity. If you decide to put it on Scientology, go ahead. I don't know what the people tracking that site will say or have said or even it should be there - it might. I just don't know. What I do know is that template clearly doesn't belong here. What I also find annoying is sneaking little changes in like the charter "claims" vs. "states" which was gone over and consensus was reached. *shrug* I am going to try to move on again but I was pulled in by the inappropriate template. Alex Jackl 06:35, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is not publicity advertisement only- it is a working site. This is simply untrue. The purpose of the site is to convince more people to take the coursework, thus more money for the for-profit, privately owned corporation, thus it is blatant advertising, which is not allowed on Wikipedia, especially when citing research and alleged statistics. Thanks. Smee 06:40, 20 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]
I got your unsupported opinion about that. I don't have a problem with your thinking that, just don't pass it off as fact. Compare the Landmark Website to some comparative web sites and you will see that it is more operational than most, and has lots of information for clients of the organization. Shocking given that it is the OFFICIAL web site of the organization. And- good god- a for-profit company has marketing material on its website! I have NEVER seen that before! Now THAT is notable. Puh-leese! (just for the record and humor-impaired that was sarcasm, intended to underline how much the Landmark website is mis-characterized here. ) Alex Jackl 06:57, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Opinion vs. Fact, good. What is the main purpose of the Web site, and in fact of the company? To create as much profit for the owners, whoever they are, as possible. Thus the Web site would be designed to do this. Thus it is not a reputable and certainly not a neutral source for anything. Thanks. Smee 07:00, 20 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]
This is like a train wreck- I keep having to watch even though I know I shouldn't. Just so were clear according to your logic EVERY website except those put up by non-profit agencies are NOT REPUTABLE and not a NEUTRAL SOURCE? I just wanted you to be clear about the logical hole you are hurtling towards. Now- by the way - I DO AGREE about the "neutral source" bit. LE's website is not neutral about LE. Nor does it pretend to be. If there were some controversial issue you wouldn't want to rely solely on LE's stance on the matter (though that would be relevant and of interest as per Wikipedia policy) anymore than you would want to trust a source like one of Rick Ross' web of websites on the matter given his legal and obvious POV against Landmark. Both are not neutral though Landmark is a better source say about what its values are, for instance.
An example of a place where this shows up is the reference to the charter in the beginning of the article. You keep insisting on changing the verb associated to the charter to "claims". As in, the charter "claims". You clearly don't understand what a corporate chater is. A chart is a declaration- like the Declaration of INdependance. It states as a declaration what it stands for. Landmark doesn't "claim " that - it is a statement- a declaration. Yet you insist on keep changing it back to "claims". Why? I can't help but think you are trying to wage a PR war to make LE look a particular way. I am not accusing- I am merely stating what seems obvious and asking the question: What's the problem here? Alex Jackl 07:14, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you continue to violate the policy of WP:NPA - comment on content, not contributors, we are not going to get anywhere here. Thanks. Smee 07:17, 20 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Personally I agree that fewer corporate links would be preferable - but I also think that the article ought to have more descriptive content on what the courses are about and how they work (see below). DaveApter 14:27, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please discuss changes on talk page instead of mass reverting my work. In addition to editing I added much material w/ sourced citations. Thanks. Smee 18:00, 20 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]
I am more than happy to discuss matters here, and have been making an honest effort to get a constructive discussion going with a view to reaching a consensus on an article structure that will be acceptable to editors with widely differing viewpoints. It seems to me that you simply take rhetorical standpoints or simply ignore arguments which do not fit your POV, rather than engaging in the discussion. You are also very ready to accuse other editors of personal attacks. The edits you added and which have been reverted, have almost all been discussed on this page ad nauseam.
For example, you reverted AJackl's correction of the neutral (and accurate) "states" with the spun weasel word "claims" (against WP:NPOV) without even bothering to answer the point he made in the paragraph above. DaveApter 18:44, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, I have restored this change by AJackl, as requested. Please keep your comments to content, not contributors, thanks. I am refraining from commenting on what I would perceive as your obvious bias, which I would imagine you could see would appear to others on the other side. I have not done this, please do keep your comments to content. Thanks. Smee 18:48, 20 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Specific suggestions for improving the article

The article is far too long, much of the material is repetitive, and extensive coverage is devoted to minority opinions, and issues of only very marginal significance are expounded at great length. There is frequent obfuscation between matters of opinion and matters of fact. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by DaveApter (talk • contribs).(nb this was not an unsigned comment, it was the start of an extended section signed by me at the end - and the same goes for all the spurious 'unsigned' flags which were inserted by user:Smee in the next dozen or so paragraphs - DaveApter 08:58, 22 March 2007 (UTC))[reply]

  • The frequent changes to this article have also repeatedly violated the "Neutral Point of View" policy of Wikipedia. Clearly, an agenda is being forwarded in the process. Wikipedia is not an editorial page. Simplyfabulous 15:38, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

After reviewing several other entries about various corporations, I believe this article could benefit from a standard format, and removing a lot of the "deadwood". The format that appears regularly, and appears to work well, is something like this:

  • introduction, basically what the company does.
  • how they do what they do, their particular market segment or products, etc
  • more detail, sometimes a history, or new products
  • evaluation of the company from outside sources, controversies, court cases or judgments.

Some examples you can see of this format in good use are Starbucks, IBM, H & R Block, DeVry University, and Best Buy.

The principal of undue weight to controversies has been severely violated in this article. When printed out, fully a third of the pages deal with investigations that ended with nothing found and no charges, lawsuits that were withdrawn, and then a range of controversies. I suggest this range of topics be reduced to maybe 5%, 10% tops, as this would represent more than the actual amount of this company's customers and interactions that could possibly be controversial.

For any that feel that more space is needed to illustrate an egregious wrong, I suggest employing the Wiki principal of letting the facts speak for themselves. An excellent example of this is the "Criticism" section of Best Buys entry [1], which by it's sheer conciseness hits you right between the eyes. Louislouislewee 04:44, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I took some time to look back over the history of the article, the version in early May 2006 appeared to be generally balanced in viewpoint and encylopedic in tone and had been stable for many months. At that point there seemed to be a concerted campaign to introduce extensive coverage of negative propaganda and to remove significant informative sections and the whole thing has suffered from an extended edit war over the last 9 months. Perhaps the version of that time would make a better starting point than the present one?Mvemkr 23:26, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure. This article took so much damage from the edit warring and the POV editing form minority-view editors that it is tempting to take such an extreme route but as I look around there seems- for the first time in a long, long time a dialog about content and not just POV warring. It is GREAT! I have to admit I am concerned about maintaining this atmosphere if a sock-puppet of the editor in question or perhaps one of his allies comes back and tries to hijack the article again. But, welcome to Wikipedia, right? I am excited by what appears to be an influx of reasonable editors. I think a lot of willing editors to this article where cared away by the edit warring. I really hope my defense of the article did not contribute to any of that! All that rambling aside I believe we should- even though he and I don't always agree- follow DaveApter's path of discussing each section of the article in its own lights and then removing or changing as appropriate and we can be informed by past and more balanced versions of the article. Does this make sense to the other editors, or is their a consensus that we should restore an older version? I don't care so long as the balance and NPOV of the article remains intact I wholly will go with the consensus. Alex Jackl 13:43, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Methodology

More information than the single paragraph would be useful.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by DaveApter (talk • contribs).(It was not unsigned - see above DaveApter 08:58, 22 March 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Courses

The exhaustive list of course titles is not particularly informative. More helpful would be to have summarised headings for the various categories of courses offered, followed by a brief descriptive paragraph.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by DaveApter (talk • contribs).(It was not unsigned - see above DaveApter 08:58, 22 March 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Labor Practices

I would agree that the surprising fact that significant numbers of individuals give their time to work in a for-profit corporation is worthy of some discussion, but the present treatment is an attempt to propagate and exaggerate marginal and uninformed opinions on the issue.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by DaveApter (talk • contribs).(It was not unsigned - see above DaveApter 08:58, 22 March 2007 (UTC))[reply]

  1. There is no need to devote pages of discussion to the DoL investigations. It is neither unusual or noteworthy that a corporation of this size should have 2 or 3 investigations over a 16 year period, and the fact that they concluded that no action was to be taken makes the matter even less significant. At least one of the investigations was in response to a delibarately mischievous complaint by a detractor of the company who had never participated in any of their courses, much less ever been a volunteer worker.
  2. The only people who assist are those who choose to do so, and this represents a small proportion of the total number of LE’s customers (around 1% in any given year).
  3. Those who assist overwhelmingly report satisfaction with the experience, both in terms of the benefits of the training they receive and can apply to other areas of life, and in terms of the satisfaction of contributing to the course participants.
  4. Nobody is profiting from the work of the volunteers (apart of course from the customers who get very cheap courses): the company’s shareholders are all employess of the company who pay themselves no dividends and receive only their modest salaries for the work done.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by DaveApter (talk • contribs).(It was not unsigned - see above DaveApter 08:58, 22 March 2007 (UTC))[reply]
  • All of these claims above are unsubstantiated. It is highly unusual for a small for-profit, privately owned company to undergo this many investigations from the United States Federal Department of Labor. And we truly have no idea how many shares are owned by which individuals, and therefore cannot know exactly how much these shareholders are profiting off of these unpaid laborers. Smee 18:32, 20 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]
    • I don't understand what you mean by unsubstantiated - all those assertions are simply factual: we do know the number of shareholders because it is an employee-owned company, so it will be equal to the number of employees. This is in any case irrelevant because they do not "profit" from the work of the assistants, because any surplus is used to make the courses more widely available. And what data do you have for the assessment that it is "highly unusual" for a company with 50 offices to have 3 DoL investigations over a 16 year period? I have no basis for comparison, but it strikes me as a very small number and a totally unremarkable fact. DaveApter 08:58, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ditto. There seems to be overwhelming consensus that this is non-notable and should never even made it into the article. This is a single-editor issue who had some particualr axe to grind. It should be eliminated. Alex Jackl 13:34, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Request to Have Labor Dispute Removed

I am proposing that the entire labor dispute section be removed as non-notable spin representing a minority view. There seems to be agreement by all the editors but the one editor with the aforementioned minority view. Other editors? Alex Jackl 19:56, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

{{editprotected}} I have unprotected the page. CMummert · talk 02:34, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Controversies

This section is almost entirely comprised of over-long treatments of minority opinions promoted by ill-informed or deliberately malicious commentators. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by DaveApter (talk • contribs). (It was not unsigned - see above DaveApter 08:58, 22 March 2007 (UTC))[reply]

  • This is POV. The citations all are sourced to reputable material/individuals. Please do not attack nor classify these sources in this manner. Thanks. Smee 18:33, 20 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]
    • Whether or not the sources you cite meet wikipedia's criteria is a legitimate an important matter to discuss. Many of the ones you use are opinion pieces, or highly partisan.DaveApter 08:58, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • RE: unsigned, I was merely clarifying who had said what for other readers, and did not want to put your actual name there. Please do not read into things. What you resist, persists. Thanks. Smee 18:53, 20 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

The underlying issue here is compliance with the undue weight provision in the Neutral Point of View policy:

NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a verifiable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each. Now an important qualification: Articles that compare views need not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and may not include tiny-minority views at all (by example, the article on the Earth only very briefly refers to the Flat Earth theory, a view of a distinct minority). We should not attempt to represent a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserved as much attention as a majority view, and views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views. To give undue weight to a significant-minority view, or to include a tiny-minority view, might be misleading as to the shape of the dispute. Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation among experts on the subject, or among the concerned parties. This applies not only to article text, but to images, external links, categories, and all other material as well. Undue weight applies to more than just viewpoints. Just as giving undue weight to a viewpoint is not neutral, so is giving undue weight to other verifiable and sourced statements. An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. Note that undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements.

Many of the critical sources are partisan, many have no expertise in the subject, many of them have little if any actual knowledge of Landmark's procedures, many of them are self-interested and self-promotional, and numerically they insignificant in relation to the numbers of reputable commentators who are of the opposing view. I urge everyone to work constructively towards a consensus on this page. DaveApter 14:39, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Wikipedia's policy requires a Neutral Point of View" and no original research or poorly substantiated references. The length of this article and the content of the sections is a testament to violations of all 3 of these policies. Wikipedia is not a "soapbox", but rather a "People's Open-Sourced Encyclopedia". I request this article and the editors return to managing the page from those policies, standards and ideals. Simplyfabulous 15:38, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the NPOV principal of undue weight. As I wrote above, when I printed out the article, it consumed 24 pages. Pages 11-19 (8 pages, or one-third) were about investigations that ended with nothing found wrong, lawsuits that were later withdrawn, or a range of amazing controversies. Not only should this entire category be cut down to it's proper proportion (say, 5-10% of total), but the NPOV principal of letting the facts speak for themselves operate as it should.

I would also suggest that the editors, and particularly Smee, refrain from the nasty back-and-forth editing over minor points. For an example of a controversy that is being worked through in a collegial manner, I can recommend something I've been working on behind the scenes trying to resolve: Pacific Crest Trail. This is a case where a physical fact (the height of a mountain pass), not an opinion, cannot be agreed to. However, the editors are willing to accept a reasonable middle ground for now, and we are working to find a way to get a more accurate answer published. Louislouislewee 05:06, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The "cult" issue

This merits at most a couple of sentences. There is much discussion and accusation on bulletin boards etc, but almost no identifiable informed authoritative figures have made this claim. On the other hand many eminent psychiatrists, clerics etc are on the record stating the converse. The most cursory examination reveals that LE fails to meet the generally accepted criteria for being a cult – in fact in most respects it is the opposite! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by DaveApter (talk • contribs).(It was not unsigned - see above DaveApter 14:39, 21 March 2007 (UTC))[reply]

  • Actually, no. The fact that this has been discussed by noted academics, and classified as such by the Federal Sovereign Governments of multiple countries - to the affect that Landmark Education had to completely shut down all operations in multiple countries - is highly notable for a for-profit, privately owned company. Smee 18:36, 20 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]
    • I think the consensus is that is not a cult. The Gov't references are irregular, meaning some have Landmark as a "sect" not a cult and some don't depending on the year. Also in looking at the wiki cult_checklist article, Landmark does not fit these criteria.Mvemkr 23:30, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • This WP:OR thought is my POV and cannot be entered on my account only, but by several accounts including my own direct experience with "est", familial experience with LE and contemporary opinions from Tony Robbins adherents it matches the cult_checklist article on several lists. Shirley Harrison's and two more on a casual look. It *is* highly aberrant among many "sects" that it was banished, but that does depend on the culture of the countries too.Zortyl 06:30, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Zortyl, I can't tell if you are agreeing or disagreeing. I do have a caution though- one of the big minority views that caused the protection of the article is that "est" and Landmark Education are the same. They are certainly not... at least as far as I can tell from talking to people who have done both. Because Landmark licensed Werner Erhard's technology (BTW: that IS a notable fact!) and some of the people involved in est like Werner's brother and sister and some of the est Trainers are also involved in this the two get collapsed by the "Werner Erhard's ghost is running the corporation behind the scenes" crowd. I also don't understand the Tony Robbins reference. I think there does need to be a section on this in the article by the way- just it should be a paragraph or two. Remember: although so.me bureaucrats and some journalists have called the company a cult NO US court has ever upheld that. Not once. ANd any journal article that straight up said "LE is a cult" has retracted. It is so non-notable and so a throwback to the whole "est" controversies that it merits at best two paragraphs. Alex Jackl 14:04, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It does lead to an interesting question.. how do we in Wikipedia discuss the "merit" of a citation? I mean there are a lot of Internet articles about people asserting that the world will end when the Popcorn god crossed the tenth dimension and take all the true believers to the concession stand in the sky You might get ten links of detailed physics jargon and explanations about the path of ascension up the movie aisle. That doesn't mean even ONE of those belongs on the physics page of Wikipedia or on a cosmology page. I mean that is one of the things that happened in this article - it got drenched by POV, fringish references to journalism articles and books and references that said almost nothing but were given great weight. I mean- for instance- one of the references was to a book discussing the elements of a cult and there was a quote that had nothing to do with Landmark Education and the reference was justified robotically as a "valid, published source" by Wikipedia's policies. I know this problem is not unique to this article... can any editors give me a good reference to where this is talked about in Wikipedia? I am clear this isn't appropriate to this page Alex Jackl 14:04, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Zortyl's comments

Thanks Zortyl, for your contribution to the debate. I don't really understand what you mean in saying that Landmark meets Shirly harrison's criteria for being a cult: here are her tests, and my comments:

* A powerful leader who claims divinity or a special mission entrusted to him/her from above;

Doesn't apply - there is no overall leader of Landmark, it is run by an executive board which is elected annually by the shareholders, who are also the employees of the company. And certainly no-one claims divinity!

* Revealed scriptures or doctrine;

Doesn't apply - there is no doctrine or belief system, merely a set of philosophical conjectures which customers are invited to "try out and see whether they work".

* Deceptive recruitment;

Doesn't apply - prospects are invited to presentations where they find out about what goes on and what results people get, and can ask any questions they like, and then choose whether to register into a course or not. Not only that but they can choose to leave a few hours into any course and get their money back (actually two opportunities to do that in the case of the Landmark Forum).

* Totalitarianism and alienation of members from their families and/or friends;

Doesn't apply - on the contrary, many customers re-build relationships with friends and family members from whom they had become estranged.

* The use of indoctrination, by sophisticated mind-control techniques, based on the concept that once you can make a person behave the way you want, then you can make him/her believe what you want;

Doesn't apply - although many critics claim this, without much data to back it up!.

* Slave labour - that is, the use of members on fundraising or missionary activities for little or no pay to line the leader's pockets;

Doesn't apply - certainly people do assist at Landmark event (but only those who want to - about 1% of customers in any given year), but no-one's pockets are being lined (except for the customers who get the courses at much cheaper prices than they would otherwise be).

* Misuse of funds and the accumulation of wealth for personal or political purposes at the expense of members;

Doesn't apply - the modest operating profits are re-invested into the business and not distributed to the shareholders.

* Exclusivity - "we are right and everyone else is wrong".

Doesn't apply - no-one is asked to believe anything. DaveApter 17:38, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Brainwashing accusations

The same as above, but more so – this is a completely absurd accusation, which does not merit even inclusion in a serious encyclopedia article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by DaveApter (talk • contribs).(It was not unsigned - see above DaveApter 14:39, 21 March 2007 (UTC))[reply]

  • It is a very serious issue that has been brought forth by legal cases, into the public domain, as well as by experts and participants, and should be described as such. Smee 18:37, 20 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Austrian Classification

It is completely ridiculous to devote aboout a page to this issue. We have no idea what the criteria are the the compiler of the report used. It is a report about the tolerance of the Austrian government towards minority groups, not about the characteristics of the groups themselves, and LE has never had an operation in Austria anyway. The whole section should come out. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by DaveApter (talk • contribs).(It was not unsigned - see above DaveApter 14:39, 21 March 2007 (UTC))[reply]

  • The fact that the for-profit, privately owned company was classified by the government of Austria as a "sect" in their country, in multiple reports, year after year, is highly unusual for a for-profit, privately owned company, and should be noted as such. Smee 18:38, 20 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]
It is also notable that Landmark was dropped in 2006 from that report. Notice how little weight that was given. All POV pushing trying to get a single POV justified. Alex Jackl 14:06, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Scientology

This is merely a blatant attempt to smear LE using guilt by association. There is no connection between LE and Scientlology and there never has been. No authoritative source have ever produced a convincing argument that there is. Most of the utterances on the subject are from armchair commentators who have no knowledge of Landmark. The whole section is inappropriate and should be removed. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by DaveApter (talk • contribs).(It was not unsigned - see above DaveApter 14:39, 21 March 2007 (UTC))[reply]

  • All of the material is heavily sourced to reputable citations. The fact that noted academics continue to write about the similarities between Scientology methodology and Landmark Education coursework, over 10 years since the "founding" of this for-profit, privately owned company, is extremely notable and highly unusual. Clearly these authors and new religious movement/cult scholars have a differing opinion on this issue than the editor above. Smee 18:39, 20 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

The only reason to even have something about Scientology in the article is to insinuate something sinister. If we are simply drawing a comparison bewteen two courses, then why has no one put Tony Robbins, Dale Carnegie, or Dr. Phil in this article? You can find noted and reputable sources that will make those comparisons to Landmark as well. Accusations are a dime a dozen in this day of modern spin. Insinuation of danger with an intention to scare people into beleiving something has been used since the begining of civilization. Senator Joseph McCarthy, when it came to accusing half of Hollywood of being comunists and calling them up infront of the HUAC really looked convincing at the time. For that matter so did Colin Powell when he went infront of the UN Security Council making the case for WMD's. I think the only basis for having a scientology section in this article is an attempt to fabricate a reality that is simply not there. By the way, today is the 4th anniversay of the begining of the War in Iraq. Lets be cautious about this.Triplejumper 20:03, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Cautious about what? And if you can find as many reputable citations comparing Landmark to Tony Robbins, Dale Carnegie, or Dr. Phil, we should add them to the article, yes. Smee 20:05, 20 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Actually no DON'T DO THAT- Wikipedia is not supposed to be a link farm- as a matter of fact it is against policy. The Scientology connection is bogus. As far as I can tell the ONE connection is that the guy founded the organization from which Landmark bought their initial IP took some courses with Scientology at LATEST -->36<-- years ago and may or may not have used some of their material in a course he created and that was retired 21 years ago. That is your big notable link right? I am just checking. The links to TOny Robbins and Dr. Phil and such are far more recent but also just as not notable. You are pressing an EXTREMELY minority viewpoint. Even your own citations - when the issue is directly addressed have the SME's saying "NO- there is no link between Landmark and Scientology". The best you can muster is sensational journalism articles trying to drum up some sales. As Triplejumper said in this day and age of spin accusations are a dime a dozen. You just believe something and are desperately trying to wedge the facts to make your minority viewpoint more than it is. This is not a personal attack- I am rigorously commenting on innaccurate and weaselly-worded sections of the article trying to push a POV and prove something. I have nothing against you and have had pleasant exchanges with you! Alex Jackl 03:49, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Refusing to engage in a discussion of content and pretending that this about you is the same IMO as merely opining in the article. I take it from your refusal to talk about content and insisting that this is about contributors to mean you have no answer to this and are acknowledging the points made by others as accurate. You are the one making this about contributors and not about content. RESPOND to questions about the content. Also I request you review WP:NPA and STOP accusing me of personal attacks against you. YOU are not YOUR opinion. Just because I disagree with your opinion and what you are writing does not mean I am attacking you. I also recommend you WP:UNDUE - it may enlighten you as to why you are hearing so much frustration about your edits. Alex Jackl 04:24, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • This is all blatent innuendo with no common thread and no specifics, excepting the Bavarian report which is not a comparison of LE and Scientology, but an evaluation of criteria. Sm1969 04:54, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is probably obvious, based on the above discourse, but I agree with Triplejumper and Sm1969. I believe that the Scientology links should be entirely eliminated from the article. I in no way question whether Werner Erhard did take some Scientology courses in the far past (late 60s) and did have run ins with them (late 80s?) but that is probably (just my opinion) exaggerated as well. We should certainly keep some reference to Werner Erhardt in the article and then people interested in him can get more information there. Alex Jackl 13:30, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This section doesn't make a coherent statement and its purpose appears to be to associate LE and Scientology without asserting any concrete association. It reads like a collection of random sentences which contain the words Landmark Education and Scientology. The quotes don't draw any direct connections between the two organizations which would entail actions by LE (the subject of the article), but cite the most indirect actions of others who "compare", "suggest", and "reference". Further, the Bavarian Study quote is uninterpretable to this native speaker of English. I concur that the section should be removed. Tealwarrior 23:09, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Request Deletion of Section

The disposition of this section is also overwhelmingly aligned on by the editors. I am proposing that the entire Scientology section is removed as a non-notable, minority-viewpoint, POV content. Alex Jackl 21:01, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

{{editprotected}} I have unprotected the page. Everyone may edit, but please bear in mind to discuss before reverting whenever possible. CMummert · talk 02:34, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks CMummert! In the spirit of their request could some of the other editors chime in on this section... Alex Jackl 12:13, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Scientology section is a random collection of unrelated statements, all negative, and all relatively vague. It should be deleted. Sm1969 02:59, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Loaded language

This whole section is essentially uninformed speculation, which is actually inaccurate and should be removed.DaveApter 14:19, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • This is clearly not "uninformed speculation", as every single sentence is highly sourced to a reputable secondary source. It is extremely unusual for a for-profit, privately owned company to be analyzed in this manner utilizing this methodology, and should be noted as such. Thanks. Smee 18:40, 20 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]
You say "it is highly unusual for a for-profit, privately owned company to be analyzed in this manner using this methodology". Thank you for your unsupported opinion. Now- what methodology? What analysis? In what manner? You keep making these grandiose statements, utilizing weasel words. and insuating things without saying exactly what you mean. Please explain what the above sentence means. Thanks! Alex Jackl 03:39, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please see all of the heavily sourced citations in this subsection. That is what I am referring to here. Smee 03:53, 21 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]
I have reviewed them and find no manner of analysis or methodology. Random citations that mention vocabulary or "loaded language" or some reporter who is not a subject matter expert repeating something she read off the internet- not what I would call a reputable source! do not a cogent argument make. Please explain how these references actually prove anything. Thanks! Alex Jackl 04:27, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see no "loaded language" and the content is sourced. Please refrain from removing sourced content. If there have been various sources making the comparison between LE and SC then it does belong in the article. Sfacets 04:57, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let us consider this in the age of spin: Language and its dynamic definitions and appeal are the nature of all public teachings and marketing techniques. Movements fracture and join due to wording and terminology. Religions schism because of it. What makes that surprising or unimportant to all those here? Religions and Philosophies and (their word) mental "Technologies" ARE their terminology. Theology isn't an example? This isn't a new type of scrubbing brush they're selling, virtuous or malevolent.

Regardless... if they are revolutionary or they are regressive and hackneyed, their use of terminology in teaching is an essential aspect of their definition.Zortyl 06:43, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Religious Implications

I don't think this section is needed. For anyone in any religion there are "religious implications" to countless things. For an Orthodox Jew a door knob has religious implications on Saturdays. For a conservative muslim woman a hug has religious implications. For any number of Christian denominations, listening to the radio has religious implications. It may be notworthy that people from various religions have opinions about Landmark Education, but the section as it is currently written seems to imply that there is a religious status to Landmark makes no more sense than saying that a doornob has a religious status. Triplejumper 21:38, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my comment above about compliance with the WP:NPOV undue weight policies. DaveApter 14:39, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]


On the article there are references to outside sources that are bad links, 7, 15, 17, 31, and 42. They all go to pages that do no contain the cited content. Triplejumper 23:20, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When possible link to original content

There are a number of citations to news articles that could just as easily to to oringal sources, but instead go to a third party page. For example references 2, 47, 75, and 76 are listed as articles but the links go to Rickross.com. This does not seem nescessary when the articles cites are already available at their original sources. Triplejumper 23:20, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed- this is Wikipedia policy anyway.. this is just a given. Those links were put in to link farm Rick Ross's sites not because they were the original source. That is a no-brainer change once the site becomes unprotected. Alex Jackl 13:47, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

empty language

Here is how the article begins:

Landmark Education LLC (LE) offers training and development programs in over 20 countries. An employee-owned, private company, it has its headquarters in San Francisco, California. Its introductory course has the name The Landmark Forum.
Landmark Education purchased the intellectual property of Werner Erhard and Associates, a successor to the controversial Est Training, and since its founding in 1991 has developed other courses.
Landmark Education aims its courses primarily at individuals. Its subsidiary Landmark Education Business Development (LEBD) markets and delivers training and consulting to organizations. Landmark Education's subsidiary Tekniko Licensing Corporation licenses Landmark Education's "technology" to management-consulting firms.
Some critics question (for example) whether and to what degree Landmark Education courses benefit participants. Others criticise the use of volunteers by Landmark Education and examine the origins of the organization (est/WEA etc).

I am a native speaker of English, and I learned absolutely nothing from reading this passage. It would seem that the attempt at NPOV, combined with Landmark's own vagueness about itself, have produced a document that never actually says what Landmark is. What does this company do? I still have no idea.

I am not surprised to encounter empty corporatese from the company PR department ("to empower and enable people and organizations to generate and fulfill new possibilities. We create and provide programs, services, and paradigms that produce extraordinary results for our customers."), but Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. I don't think it's unreasonable to insist that an encyclopedia article tell you, in its first paragraph, what the subject of the article is. -leigh (φθόγγος) 06:05, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

leigh, Perhaps I can provide some background on that- that intro is the best we could do given some hostile POV editing . We had some better content about Landmark's actual commitment. Though don't be too quick to dismiss the above. One of the things that people don't get is that it is part of Landmark's core offerings to empower and people and organizations to generate and fulfill new possibilities. Whether they always succeed at that is another question but that is certainly in the design!
However- there is a lot of information there... you now know it is a "training and development" company that offers programs. You know it is international and in 20 countries. I agree that the historical stuff is a little fluffy and unnecessary but that is a result of compromise. I would recommend we add "in ontology into the description to give a little more direction on what kind of training and development. WHat do you think? Alex Jackl 19:49, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"personal training and development" also makes sense in the lead or the lead could tell a little more detail about what kind of training and development landmark education offers. Sm1969 01:01, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Market penetration over time

This section looks like a re-hash of an old argument in the talk pages: See: "Majority opinions and minority opinions" from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Landmark_Education/Archive_2 and the later deletion of a similar section in: "Operational statistics section"

The argument previously was that participation in LE programs is stagnent or waning, but the contributor hasn't come out and said that here, and instead provides evidence that this might be the case leaving such a conclusion to a reader. I thought the previous counter argument was pretty clear that the figures were not regularly updated on the LE website. Citing them as such seems misleading. I think this section should be removed again, and added if some consensus is reached on the talk page. Tealwarrior 00:14, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

situation in germany

"Landmark Education sued for correction and, on May 14, 1997, the Berlin court (Volksgericht 27A)..."

the last "volksgericht" in germany existed in the 1920's in bavaria. i suggest the author should verify their source. believe me, there is no such court in berlin. i'm sorry i can't correct it, since i could not even find any other court decision concerning landmark in berlin in 1997. 87.162.75.156 00:55, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Landmark_Worldwide&oldid=119404999"