Talk:Landmark Worldwide

I smell copyright violation. And if it isn't, PLEASE edit so that it doesn't spread across the whole page. -- Zoe

The Landmark Forum is regularly presented in Japan, Israel, and India. It has also been conducted in Mexico, Romania, Jamacia, South Africa, and Philippines, among others. I think it is a mistake to say that it is only presented in "Western oriented" countries. Avrio

Is this an advertisement? RickK 05:13 29 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Rick,

I did not write the page but in its present form I believe that it is fairly neutral, and certainly does not paint Landmark in the same light that the company shines upon itself on its web site and in its promotional matierals. Certainly not an ad. As for the bit about western countries, I don't think it adds much to the article and believe that text to the effect "..many countries worldwide" would serve. Kat 03:16 30 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Modifications in main page:
1. external link to landmark's official site was already available. hence removed from the text body.
2. removed over-emphasis of some terms that used quotes.
3. general grammatical corrections. word-of-mouth is Adjective, word of mouth is Noun
4. enabled link for book with ISBN number
Jay 21:43, 12 Aug 2003 (UTC)

When did LEC change its name to Landmark Education Limited Liability Company (LELLC) ? The official website still says LEC. Pls provide the source of this info. Jay 18:29, Aug 24, 2003 (UTC)

To the point, I find the article about Landmark far from being objective. To me, it seems very anti-Forum. So, I am going to suggest some changes, and if there are no objections, within a week. I will commit them. I am not sure I have managed to absorb the entire wiki guidelines but I trust you will correct me if I'm doing something wrong.

The first change is to move most of the second paragraph to the section about Criticism about Landmark. Not deleting anything. The current structure includes the negative remarks as part of the definition of Landmark. I think the correct place is in "Criticism about Landmark". Indeed it even starts with the words: "Some former participants and outside critics..."

Second, as to the claim that Landmark opposes psychoanalysis, I have never heard of this. I haven't found anything about this on their web site, and psychoanalysis was not mentioned in the course. On what is this observation based? This is something I think should be deleted.

eladm 11:22, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)

First change: nope. That's the intro, which synopsises the article, and it's an important thing about Landmark.

Second change: I've no idea either. You can check through the page history to see who added it. That would be a good idea before blithely deleting it - David Gerard 23:46, Mar 28, 2004 (UTC)

David, the psychoanalysis addition was done in the "Revision as of 01:47, 20 Oct 2002, by user 203.97.97.130". What am I to do with this information? Is there a way to email that person, and ask him, just using the IP? What is customary in this situation? eladm 7:45, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)

They may or may not be there at all after a couple of years ... I suppose if no-one comes up with evidence for Landmark opposing psychoanalysis in the meantime. - David Gerard 11:06, Mar 29, 2004 (UTC)

Meanwhile, another suggestion, that the list of countries be removed. I agree with Kat (whose comment is somewhere near the beginning of this page). The list of countries is of little value. If each country had a different Landmark forum page then perhaps we could link to that, and that would make sense, but this is not the case. Furthermore, the list of countries in which Landmark Forum offers courses is likely to change across time, and this is likely to make this page outdated. IMO, removing the list of countries would comply with the guideline: avoid statements that will date quickly. Instead this could be replaced with a text such as: "Landmark courses are offered in more than 20 countries". This statement is less prone to become outdated.

Another suggestion. I am sorry that I am not following the wiki recommendation to be bold in updating pages, but I feel that if I do, then my words will be deleted. In fact, I suggest this page be added to the list of controversial issues, and that the steps suggested in that link (such as adding a warning to the page) be followed, to warn people of this.

Finally, I suggest the word "cult" in the second paragraph of the article to be removed since it appears in the list of words to avoid. eladm 23:34, Mar 30, 2004 (MET)

I was the one who added the countries list. This was to counter statements in the then existing article which said something like Landmark forum takes place in "western-oriented" countries. So I thought if I added the countries list, there will be no room for controversy, and people can decide for themselves what "orientation" these countries have.

I agree with you that as each country does not have its own forum page, it makes no sense to provide links for them. Hence let the links be removed, but let the list stay in plain text. I don't agree with the will-be-outdated-soon theory as the list talks about the past. " Landmark Forums have taken place ..."

I appreciate the fact that you're discussing before making the changes. I've been on wikipedia for 8 months and am no fan of the "be bold" policy myself. Jay 04:12, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)

On the use of the word 'cult': its usage here, in the sociological sense (and speaking of cult-like characteristics) is entirely in accordance with Wikipedia:Words to avoid. I will add references if needed - David Gerard 12:45, Mar 31, 2004 (UTC)

Jay, "have taken place" indeed doesn't outdate. I hadn't notice it.

David, could you please add references? From what I understand from the guidelines of words to avoid, the sociological sense defines cults as religions, with high tension with society. But Landmark forum is not a religion at all. Furthermore, what kind of tension are you talking about exactly?

I noticed that some additions have been made to the page, but who is 203.147.0.42? eladm 16:30, Mar 31, 2004 (MET)

---

Since several days have passed, I have moved ahead, and finally actually did some changes to the page. I unlinked the country names, removed the reference to landmark as anti-psychology, and since several days have passed, I also have removed references to Landmark being a cult. On this matter I also want to refer you to links such as this letter or this one, just to make a point that this matter is highly disputed, and why. To me, the main problem is that the word "cult" is not precise, yet has an extremely negative perception (this is why Wikipedia recommends it should not be used). For example, I could easily say that Wikipedia is cult-like since it has a single Guru ( Jimbo Wales ) who managed to get numerous people to do work for him, without pay.

Anyway, we can go back to that, but I want to move on. The next thing I want to talk about is Scientology. Does anybody know of a practice which is unique to Scientology and has been picked up by Landmark? This is very strange to me. To me they seem unrelated. Indeed perhaps Erhard was a member, but that in itself doesn't imply that Scientology and Landmark have anything in common. Especially since the technology of Landmark has been revised several times since Erhard's time.

The article claims that Landmark and Scientology use the same terms, for example: at cause, clearing, complete, source, upset. From my participation in Landmark's course, as far as I recall, only the words "clearing" and "complete" have any special meaning. The meaning of the word "clearing" in Landmark is taken from existential thought, and not scientology. Search for the word "clearing" in the following text about Heidegger to Sartre. Interpreting Heidegger is not easy, but essentially, as far as I can understand, clearing is a space of possibility ( using a metaphore of a clearing in a forest ). In Scientolgy the "State of clear" is a form of awareness. As far as I can tell, these are two totally different meanings.

But what is really important is the practices and beliefs each organization holds. Again, Landmark and Scientology are incomparible. Scientology is a religion. A religion claims to know the truth, without any real proof. My understanding is that Landmark doesn't claim what it teaches is the one true way. It just claims its teachings are practical.

I suggest another change. In contrast to what the article says, the curriculum of Landmark goes through a revision every several years. When I took the courses, around 2001, they had just switched to a new technology, and when I talked to older graduates, we had communication difficulties when using the terms of Landmark. I think that saying that Landmark is still teaching Erahd's technology is inaccurate. We could say that it stems from Erhards teachings, but it has changed significantly.

One signficant change is that the courses become much less humiliating. For example, in Est people were not allowed to go to the toilets during lectures, and participants were humiliated (this is perhaps where Fernando Flores infulence comes from in Est), but in Landmark it isn't so.

If you go to the pages about est in wikipedia, you see that the material on Landmark was simply copied from there (for example, former infulences). The current Landmark article does not account for the changes which have been taking place for more than a decade since Erhard's involvement. So this is my second suggestion: to put in the correct influences. Heidegger is definitely in. Also Richard Rorty and probably Sartre. I have to do some more research to find others.

--eladm 19:51, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Multi Level Marketing

I have read the definition of Multi-level marketing. I think one of the main points of MLM is that there are Independent Business Owners (IBO) who associate with a parent company. The IBO expect to earn a profit. They are in it for the money. However, the participants in Landmark forum, do not expect to get any financial gain from bringing others to Landmark. I think it is far more accurate to classify the marketing strategy of Landmark forum as Word_of_mouth. So, again, this is another change I would like to introduce.

Landmark doesn't use advertisement or direct marketing. These require mass media like TV or newspapers, or (for direct marketing) email, telephone calls, or regular mail which is not based on personal aquaintance.

Participants of Landmark forum only invite family and friends to "introduction to landmark" meetings. They do so, not to earn a profit, but because they think the courses are good. Thats why I think word of mouth is more accurate. --eladm 7 Apr 2004

Can User:Pedant17 clarify on what a "Western-oriented country" means ? Jay 18:04, 11 Apr 2004 (UTC)

User:Pedant17, I see you have reintroduced the term "cult-like". as far as I understand, the mechanism for solving disputes on wikipedia is by attributing different points of view to the people that stated these views. However, to my understanding, even this has limits. Suppose that a statement (which is attributed to someone else) is proved to be false. What is the logic of including it in an article? Even though the fact that somebody stated this (false) statement is a fact, this adds little value to an article. Especially in an encyclopedia which is supposed to focus on the facts.

I don't claim I have actually proved that Landmark is not a cult. I just want to understand what is considered appropriate and inappropriate to include in a statement which is attributed to somebody else.

--eladm 17:54, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)

To continue this line of thought, the reason why the word cult is discouraged according to wikipedia guidelines, is that the way it is commonly used does not have a well defined meaning. Although there is a well-defined meaning, it is rarly used. When you say "cult-like" what meaning are you using? This should be explained in the article. Even if you attribute this to other people ( to who exactly? ) it should have a clear and reasonable meaning. The word "cult-like" is meaningless. I can take almost any group of people, and find some kind of cult-like feature and claim that the group is cult-like.

In other words, an encyclopedia is about conveying facts. Even if you attribute statements to others, these statements should themselves strive to say something factual, with a clear meaning.

Meanwhile I would also like to add that in my participation in Landmark forum I have not encoutered any practice of hypnotism. I also don't agree that Landmark does brainwashing or even parasitism, but that is more difficult to prove, again since the definitions of these terms is not clear. That landmark doesn't do hypnotism is very clear cut. Such false claims abound throughout the article and make me question the knowledge of the original writer.

Actually, there are very little facts throughout the article. Most of the article is speculations, accusations, suggestions and false facts. Since when does an encyclopedia make suggestions? Why does an an encyclopedia make speculations? An encyclopedia should stick to the facts and try to avoid biased interpretations.

I think there is some basic misunderstanding here for what an encyclopdia article should be.

--eladm 07:02, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not shrink from or censor snarl-words. Part of any thorough discussion of Landmark should face up to the fact that many people see the outfit as a cult. I don't believe Wikipedia has ever claimed that identification. But as Dave Gerard has stated, even the mere claim constitutes "an important thing about Landmark".

The precise definition of "cult' in this context seems irrelevant. The fact remains: numerous people snarl at or praise this outfit. Readers of an encyclopaedia article deserve to realise this fact.

I grant that this article mentions more than mere "facts". Wikipedia also discusses religions, ideologies and world-views, The NPOV policy can help us in these controversial waters. Pedant17 06:19, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Pedant17, I have seen you have reversed other things I have raised here, besides cults. If you look above, I have raised issues such as Scientology, and hypnotism. You didn't comment on this page when I discussed them, and now you reverse them without discussion or even explanation. I don't understand, what is the point of me talking about anything at all if whatever I do is revsersed regardless of my attempts to discuss them? You could have suggested evidence which explains why the suggestions I made are wrong. Lets start with that.

I think this kind of behavior, reversing without discussion, even when discussion is initiated, is disruptive. If people don't feel that their discussion matters, then they will stop discussing, and basically we end up in edit wars. I don't plan to start or participate in an edit war, but I think that Pedant's behavior is the kind of behavior that is likely to trigger them. --eladm 07:37, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Pedant had responded in the above discussion. Perhaps you missed that out. Jay 09:56, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I don't think I missed his response. But Pedant reversed a lot of things which his response does not address. Just for example, the references about scientology, but there is a lot more, which he didn't explain. --eladm 10:06, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)

French notes

New stuff from 81.66.166.84: "However, many other writings say the contrary, and various facts tend to prove that many Landmark forum participants end up with serious psychological disorders."

I commented this out (didn't delete it) because a statement like that in a contentious article like this will need solid references. If you have some to hand, that would be excellent for the article - it needs more references.

Also, if you want to write an article on the Interministerial Mission for Awareness against Sectarian Risks, that would be very useful as well :-) - David Gerard 19:15, May 25, 2004 (UTC)

Intro rewrite

DG: Where from here ?

Thanks DG for pointing out policy on header. Reading articles and such later on, I'm not comfortable that the opening section is a balance of what is actually about Landmark Education, and what is about related organisations. As est etc are all linked, I can't see how it's accurate to have the header as it has been. There's lots of opinions, which doesn't answer the question "What is Landmark Education ?". I'll revert to a diff version and start from there.

NU (need to register account)

The present intro is indeed edit-war soup ... it needs a serious clarification - David Gerard 12:04, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Thanks DG. Mind if I have a go, on the basis of your feedback. Think would be best to revert to pre-Pendant17 changes, as that was cleaner. Changes introduced gossip into pro section, rather than against section. Personal experience of LE is that MLM is inaccurate, and perhaps we need a new phrase, such as "Personal interest referrals" (any better idea's as a wordsmith ??).

Thinking back to the edit of mine you reverted... what did and didn't work for you about what I wrote, as far as policy on Heading goes ? Thanks NU 23:32, 5 Oct 2004.

Advertisement

Multi Level Marketing

French notes

Intro rewrite