![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
![]() | This
edit request to
Landmark Worldwide has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
This is a cult and we came here to edit the page to say so. Request that we can update the page. Thank you. JoltAsResearch ( talk) 02:21, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
Dave Apter, this edit was unwise (and led to the protection). The piece may be "flippant", in your words, but that statement is hardly personal opinion and you know it: some evidence is given. Whether that's enough to warrant inclusion here is another matter, but this does not make you look good, esp. since you are obviously neutering a highly critical piece by making it a source only for the most innocent of statements (in note 7). Drmies ( talk) 21:15, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
Drmies: I don't quite understand that. It is undoubtedly true that Werner Erhard had no formal training in psychology - but he also had no formal training in geology. At that point in the article the ONLY reason to include that statement if it is meant to imply something negative about Werner Erhard and his qualifications to start the business. The statement itself contains only facts but you and I both know that which facts you choose to include completely change the communication. Is this an encyclopedia article on Landmark or is it an attack piece on Werner Erhard? That is the question. The relevance of Werner Erhard's educational background when founding a company 20 years before Landmark existed is really REALLY hard to explain as a relvant part of this article. I thin kthat stuff probbaly doesn't belong in Wikipedia at all but if it does it certainly shouldn't be here but in a Werner Erhard article.
HJ MItchell: I appreciate you locking the page, although it is in pretty bad shape. I would love to see some neutral parties look at this and help us sort out the design of this page. There is a lot of POV editing going on and I, while interested, do not want to engage in edit wars or revert chains with people. By the way Thanks, Alex Jackl ( talk) 22:09, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
I consolidated the regligion stuff into one public perception and criticism section. The religion stuff in the lead give too much weight to a what I think is a fringe view that a company can be a religion. Elmmapleoakpine ( talk) 00:12, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
I must admit to being a bit baffled by the fact that John Carter seems to be simultaneously asserting two incompatible propositions. On the one hand he tells us that the phrase New Religious Movement is a technical term which doesn't necessarily require organisations so classified to be "religious" in any way that speakers of English would understand the word. On the other hand he wants the fact that some scholars have categorised Landmark as a NRM to justify the statement "Landmark's programs have been categorized by some scholars and others as religious or quasi-religious in nature." Which is it? DaveApter ( talk) 18:07, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
For those of you who have followed this program, I have fought to get an overdose of what one might call negative material out of here, but to remove the whole NRM thing altogether, an appellation confirmed by plenty of high-quality sources, is not acceptable. And that means it should be in the lead as well. Any claims of UNDUE should be met in other ways than removal from lead and article; anyone claiming "undue" can look at earlier versions of the article, like this one or this one; look in particular for the sourcing. The current version isn't so bad, but if we want to get picky, "while some researchers question that categorization as well" might be undue, since the sourcing (in note 53) is unclear--it's not clear which of the three sources goes with the "Others, such as Chryssides..." comment or with the parenthetic statement questioning their categorization. The next full paragraph, with statements from Observer and HuffPo, might well be called "undue" given the status of peer-reviewed books vs. first-person newspaper articles (the first one isn't even cited). So if there's anything unbalanced, it's not on the side of those who call it an NRM. Drmies ( talk) 19:01, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
@ Nwlaw63, A few comments:
With kind regards, Theobald Tiger ( talk) 09:30, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
A religion or religion like group can be incorporated, or structured various ways. http://www.npr.org/2014/04/01/282496855/can-a-television-network-be-a-church-the-irs-says-yes Legacypac ( talk) 01:12, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
I've now bought a copy of the Encyclopedia of New Religions edited by Partridge (2004 edition from Lion Publishing), and had a look at the entry for “Landmark Forum(est)”, a one page essay written by Elizabeth Puttick. It's generally accurate on points of fact, apart from a few details such as having the date of Landmark's foundation as 1985 rather than 1991.
The first thing I noticed is that, whereas Puttick is given as the source for the sentence: “Landmark has denied that it is a religion, cult or sect”, that is not actually what she says. Her text is:
Subtle but important difference; firstly she doesn't mention the word "cult" at all; secondly the substituted word deny in this context is a breach of the WP:SAY guideline:
Several other passages caught my eye:
Point #2 above is significant in view of the section on the HPM a few pages earlier (also written by Puttick):
It's also worth noting that this final section of the book - on "Modern Western Cultures" - contains discussions on a variety of groupings which wouldn't normally be viewed as "Religious" in any normal sense of the word. For instance Feminism; football fandom; celebrity worship (eg Princess Diana); Psychedelic spirituality; and Neuro Linguistic Programming. The same applies to many of the other books and papers cited. So it is clear that academics who study this field have an eclectic range of interests, and the discussion or mention of a group in this context does not necessarily imply that it is regarded as Religious, or even that it is considered to be a NRM.
So what this reference establishes is that (in the view of this authority):
All of these points are also confirmed in a number of other references, and should be made clear in the article. DaveApter ( talk) 11:09, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
I have been trying to stay out of this but the rancor and the inaccurate statements keep piling up. It doesn't help that some editors keep using language like "offensive contention" and categorizing an entire line of (accurate) thought as a "ridiculous marketing contention". Not to put too fine a point on it these are all just weasel words to try and legitimize a fringe-theory that has no basis in citation or reality. I will use the same numbering model as above to reference the points made. There are many issues but I will focus on the ones that I believe to be obvious: Alex Jackl ( talk) 16:48, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
Theobald Tiger's quote from the Lockwood paper above clearly shows that she can't even be relied on to get simple statements of demonstrable fact right. It's not remotely true that "Landmark claims that it is not a derivation of Werner Erhard's original program". On the contrary their website clearly states"Based on a methodology and ideas originally developed by Werner Erhard, Landmark has evolved its unique breakthrough methodology through years of continuous research and development.", and similar statements have been on the company website for at least the last twelve years. No-one is trying to suggest that est or Erhard should not be mentioned in this article, only that the comments should be accurate, proportionate and relevant. DaveApter ( talk) 15:21, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
The protracted discussion in the section above seems to be going round in circles. Let's focus on what we can agree on:
So far as I am aware, there is no dispute about the broad accuracy any of the above, and no suggestion that these points should be excluded from the article. I think they always have been mentioned in one form or another.
The accusation that Landmark has misrepresented Erhard's legacy (or as TT puts it "lied") is demonstrably unfounded. As noted above, the connection is clearly stated on their current website; and as TT's own 2002 version from the Wayback Machine shows, it was clearly stated then. They may not go out of their way to labour the connection, but who says they are under any obligation to do so?
Actually it is a monumental irrelevance - almost no-one cares who designed the program 30 years ago from which the current course eventually evolved. Nor do they care what was the tax structure of his companies ten years before that. Or what profession he followed another ten years further back still. Nor do they care how much he is or isn't involved in running the company (as the guy is 80 years old now, I'd be surprised if he was very active in anything). It's not surprising that Landmark don't give it prominence, as prospective customers are only concerned with whether the course is likely to deliver the promised benefits and to be worth their time and money. In fact very few people under the age of 55 have even heard of either Erhard or est. Of people who do recognise the name, few have strong feelings about him, and even fewer share the intense antagonism and hostility which is demonstrated by some editors here. DaveApter ( talk) 12:24, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
Long posts create longer responses and even longer discussion threads that go round and round in circles. Even the points that everyone supposedly agrees on need to be broken down into small components and discussed and agreed upon individually. When an agreement is reached on one minor point, then move on to the next minor point. Consensus needs to be built and that means, going slowly step by step and standing on the shoulders of prior agreements and compromises, however small they may be. This approach is slow and laborious but it is the only way (in my opinion) that an article and a group discussion like this will make any progress. Peace! -- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:05, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
Landmark is a Ponzi scheme to discipline the working class and profit off of their vulnerability. The "Criticism" section is in reality a defense of Landmark — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:7:8500:982:D184:8B97:800F:74A6 ( talk) 21:27, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
Closed as Opposed - At face value, I suppose one could presume the result is due to commenters saying (among other things) that it is unnecessary to add biographical info concerning Werner Erhard, as apparently, per this page, he or one of his businesses/organisations "merely" licensed "stuff" to Landmark Worldwide (the latter being the topic of this page). The broader issue though, from doing some reading of several (semi-)related discussions, including the arbcase noted at the top of this page, appears to be the ongoing contention concerning the merging of various pages and/or the content thereof, such as Erhard Seminars Training, Werner Erhard and Associates, Landmark Worldwide, etc., for several various reasons. Currently, my reading of past recent discussions is that there as yet is apparently no consensus to merge, so we're left with the pages as they are. So with that in mind, this is closed as Opposed to add to this particular page. And to (hopefully) prevent next steps of editwarring, I will remove other personal biographical info of Werner Erhard (but not of his businesses/organisations), from this page as well. This should not be considered any sort of precedent for any other pages, as it may (or may not) be appropriate to add such info on other pages. Please feel free to positively discuss the appropriateness of the inclusion of such biographical info to this page in the future. - jc37 21:35, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
Is it appropriate to include this remark: "Erhard had no formal training in psychology or psychiatry and had previously been a successful salesman"? DaveApter ( talk) 01:29, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
The problems we face here are not restricted to Landmark; similar issues arise in the Wikipedia articles on a wide range of contemporary social phenomena. Examples that come to mind are Transcendental Meditation, Silva Mind Control, Neuro Linguistic Programming, Anthony Robbins (none of which I have much detailed knowledge of, or any strong opinions about). It is clear from the recurrent battles in all these areas that these topics face difficulties that simply do not arise with articles on subjects within well established academic disciplines such as Physics, Biology or History.
The source of these difficulties is threefold:
The 30 pages of archived talk bear witness to this, with about half the comments claiming that the article is too biased in favour of Landmark and the other half arguing that it is too biased against it. The same ground is argued over and over again, with newly arriving editors re-inserting and removing material that had been agreed over in the past.
An additional complication is that there is a considerable amount of comment in circulation which is uninformed, inaccurate, biased, and sometimes vindictive or malicious. This has in many cases been widely propagated (unattributed and often anonymous) through channels such as internet forums, bulletin boards, blogs, and unmoderated (or moderated to further a partisan agenda) web pages such as anti-cult movement sites. A further complication is that journalists and even academics sometimes use material from such sources as background, or even quote them directly, thus providing an appearance of reliability to claims that were of dubious provenance.
It is ironic that there is a definite symmetry between the opposing viewpoints - all parties stridently claim that they are the ones upholding WP:NPOV and countering the blatant advocasy of the others.
On the other hand it does seem that a majority of those arguing for a more favourable treatment are people with first-hand experience of the subject in question, whereas those arguing for a more critical treatment have in many cases acquired their preconceptions at second hand.
At the outset, the page appears to have been written by advocates who regarded Wikipedia as an extension of the unmoderated bulletin boards. It was created and substantially edited from anonymous IP accounts and was blatantly biased, and devoid of refs or citations as this version from 31st March 2004 illustrates.
During the Arbitration case, I did put forward a suggestion that topics such as this may benefit from some specific guidelines Arbitration/Requests/Case/Landmark_Worldwide/Workshop#Guidelines_needed_for_"Contemporary_social_phenomena". Although there was nothing done in this regard at that time, I still think it may be helpful. DaveApter ( talk) 11:12, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
The serious points I raised above are still not being resolved: see the discussion of the misrepresentation of sources below. DaveApter ( talk) 06:19, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Landmark Worldwide has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Per the consensus established at this RfC [7], I request removal of the sentence: "Erhard had no formal training in psychology or psychiatry and had previously been a successful salesman" DaveApter ( talk) 10:44, 3 April 2015 (UTC) DaveApter ( talk) 10:44, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
With
this diff,
203.2.218.145 (
talk ·
contribs ·
WHOIS) changed the context of Hill's quote to put the phrase in the voice of a course participant (rather than her own). The full quote from
the article is: 'This course has transformed me. And the funny thing is, I didn't know I even had it in me to transform,' he smiled.The Landmark Forum is not magic. It is not scary or insidious. It is, in fact, simple common sense delivered in an environment of startling intensity.
Since the quoted portion ends before "he smiled", and the following paragraph continues on about the intensity, is seems that the IP is incorrect. Another set of eyes? Thanks,
Tgeairn (
talk)
16:50, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
The contentious statement in the lead "Landmark's programs have been categorized by some scholars and others as religious or quasi-religious in nature" is an inaccurate paraphrase of the sentences to which it relates within the body of the article.
The references cited fail to substantiate those body statements themselves: "Some scholars have categorized Landmark and its predecessor organizations as new age, self religion or a new religious movement. Other observers have noted relationships between the training programs and a spiritual experience, including a lack of religious elements in the programs and the compatibility of the programs with existing religions. Others, such as Chryssides, classify Landmark as either quasi-religious or secular with some elements of religion (although various scholars have disputed this characterization)".
There are no sources which support the assertion "...many of the company's customers deny such characterizations...". There is no evidence that the company's customers discuss its alleged religious characteristics, or that they would find such a suggestion as anything other than bizarre.
What these references do say is summarised below:
"Any movement that offers in some way to provide answers to some of the ultimate questions about 'meaning' and 'the purpose of life'... would be included in this broad understanding of the term 'NRM'... To illustrate... among the better-known NRMs are... the Landmark Forum."
"Meanwhile, other commentators such as Tipton (1984) and Foss and Larkin (1976, 1979) detect a tendency for post-countercultural religious movements such as Erhard Seminars Training (now the Landmark Forum) to recombine instrumentalism and expressivism in ways that could help their participants to fit into the routines of mainstream social life."
"Werner Erhard [has] confidence that the state of the entire world would improve if a sufficient number of people became sufficiently energetic and disciplined about thier spiritual practice." Nothing to indicate why he attributes this belief to Erhard, which is not indicated in other references. And he got the name of the corporation wrong.
“The Forum and/or est, whose origins are in the United States (Tipton 1982) holds to the belief that the self itself is god.” Unclear why he is able to assert that est or Landmark "hold to [this] belief", for which there appears to be no evidence whatsoever.
"And the founder of est (the highly influential seminar training established by Erhard in 1971) observes that 'Of all the disciplines that I studied, Zen was the essential one"..."With reference to est, what is offered is 'a sixty hour educational experience which allows people to realize their potential to transform their lives'."
"[Mentions Landmark in a list]... These organizations are sometimes classified sociologically as new religions, though they tend to describe themselves in secular terms. Most of these trainings do not focus on spirituality directly..."
"The Landmark Forum is a direct descendant, with substantial changes, of est (Erhard Seminars Training). est was one of the most succesful manifestations of the human potential movement"
"...There are undertones of Eastern philosophies, particularly in the aim of looking at the familiar in new ways, but participants emphasisze goals of success and self-improvement rather than spirituality."
Earlier in the book Puttick had written: "The human potential movement (HPM)... is not in itself a religion, new or otherwise, but a psychological philosophy and framework, including a set of values that have made it one of the most significant and influential forces in modern Western society."
"A well-known example of spiritual management trainings..." No indication of how he arrived at the opinion that it is either "spiritual" or a "management training". And he got the name of the corporation wrong.
Perhaps we should work towards a form of words that more accurately reflects what the sources say? DaveApter ( talk) 12:00, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
It is becoming increasingly clear in the discussion above that the current wording in the article is either a misunderstanding of the sources, or a deliberate distortion of what they say to synthesize an account which is in accordance with the editor's own point of view.
I propose that the current wording:
should be replaced with:
Furthermore, the segment ... and "freely threatens or pursues lawsuits against those who call it [a cult]".[54] is a non-sequitur to anything said in the academic sources and should be deleted. DaveApter ( talk) 16:15, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
"Some scholars have categorized Landmark's predecessor organizations as part of the Human potential movement,(Puttick 2004) which is described by some under the broadly-defined term " New Religious Movements"(Barker 1989)(Barker 1996). Landmark's position is that it is purely an educational corporation without religious implications of any kind.(Puttick 2004")Thoughts? -- Tgeairn ( talk) 21:46, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
Made a minor page to the article in restoring the word "roleplayers" to "authorities" (which is what it was originally) in talking about religious leaders. I think that might have been a mistake actually as it makes no sense in context. Alex Jackl ( talk) 13:45, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
The name on the infobox should be the actual registered company name "Landmark Worldwide Holdings International, Inc." (founded June 22, 1987). If there are various doing business as names, they should be listed somehow inside the infobox.
By the way, there is at least one other surviving Landmark entity, "Landmark Education Capital Management Corporation" (C1996186), and no reference supporting which entity "Landmark Education Corporation" merged into. That information could be obtained by a detailed request to the California Secretary of State, but isn't available at the (broken) links in the article. AndroidCat ( talk) 22:00, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
OK, I have now obtained a copy of Chryssides 'Exploring New Religions', and his section on Landmark does not remotely substantiate the sentence: "Others, such as Chryssides, classify Landmark as either quasi-religious or secular with some elements of religion." He does not mention the term "quasi-religious" at all. On the contrary, the thrust of his remarks is to dismiss the suggestions made by various other commentators that it might be classified as religious. Some of his comments:
In view of this, I will amend the passages accordingly. DaveApter ( talk) 14:08, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I did notice that sentence; however, taking the entire 11 page section as a whole it is clear that the general thrust is that he is saying that est is not a religion in any usual sense of the word, that Landmark is even less so, and that the reasons some people give for regarding it as such are somewhat suspect. I think the wording of my recent edits is fair and accurate, but would be happy to discuss any other proposals. DaveApter ( talk) 14:05, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
Sometime last year the summary of the content of the Landmark Forum was changed from a bulleted list - which I thought worked quite well - to a text paragraph which seems less clear. Any thoughts on this? Also, I think there are a few inaccuracies, for example talking about 'tenets' where it would be more accurate to say something like 'suggestions put forward for consideration'. DaveApter ( talk) 10:02, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
The California Secretary of State site http://kepler.sos.ca.gov/ for entity number C1197599 shows Date Filed: 06/22/1987 "The date of formation of a California (domestic) business entity". (The site no longer allows direct links to records.) That date is definitive. As a primary source, no interpretation should be made, but any secondary sources that disagree with it have some 'plaing to do as they are incorrect. AndroidCat ( talk) 23:39, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
I don't know what you mean by "what existed in the article already". It was you who added the erroneous reg no C1197599, and changed the corporation name and foundation date to incorrect ones, and linked to an irrelevant CSoS document on July 1st. This whole discussion seems to me to be a storm in a teacup. DaveApter ( talk) 10:23, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
That section of the article has been tagged since January as containing irrelevant material and giving undue weight to marginal issues. Since no-one has argued here against those tags, perhaps it is time to trim out some of the cruft especially that relating to events well before the founding of this company? DaveApter ( talk) 13:50, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
The 'Background' and 'Incorporation' subsections still contain many repetitions of points that already have been made in the main part of the 'History' section, plus some details of dubious relevance. I will condense this. DaveApter ( talk) 16:07, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
The reference for the final sentence in this subsection linked to a search page at amazines.com which was completely irrelevant to this topic. The preceding convoluted sentences in the subsection about various companies and people seem to have no relevance at all to the subject of this article. And - rather oddly - the whole section 'Current operations' give no account at all of the firm's main business activities of putting on seminars and training programs! DaveApter ( talk) 09:58, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
Surely the treatment of this item is out of all proportion? I'm not sure whether one highly biased French television program eleven years ago even merits a mention. Even if it does, I can't see the justification of giving it its own subsection and nearly as much space as the total of all the previous eight opinions - positive and negative - in the rest of the 'Public reception and criticism' section. The Undue Weight and Relevance tags have been in place there for over a month now without response. DaveApter ( talk) 10:33, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 3 external links on
Landmark Worldwide. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the — cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 07:20, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
I've got another possible addition to the Concepts section. "Possibilities" is something Landmark talks a lot about, so a line or two about how they use it seems right here. How about something like this (sourced to Zaffron):
Thoughts? Nwlaw63 ( talk) 14:25, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
I found a citation source for a quote in the section "Public reception and criticism", but I don't know how properly to format it. I did look at the templates. If a more experienced editor would please add this, I'd appreciate it. Here's the Wikipedia passage:
>>The chairman of Föreningen Rädda individen, a support organization for those affected by cults and destructive movements, told Dagens Nyheter that his opinion was that Landmark was "one of the most dangerous sects in Sweden".<<
Here's the source URL dated June 3, 2002: http://www.dn.se/arkiv/nyheter/kursforetaget-landmark-kursen-ledde-till-psykos
Last paragraph:
>>Den svenska organisationen för anhöriga till sektmedlemmar, Föreningen Rädda individen (FRI), anser att Landmark är en av landets farligaste sekter och får varje år cirka 1 500 rådgivningssamtal från anhöriga till Landmarkdeltagare.<<
Google Translate result:
The Swedish organization for relatives of cult members, the Society Save the individual (FRI), believes that Landmark is one of the most dangerous sects and receive each year about 1500 counseling calls from relatives to Landmark Participants.
N.b. "Sect" in many European languages has the connotation of "cult", e.g., sektmedlemmar = cult members. Scandiescot ( talk) 02:05, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
Googling after the most recent deletion (have a habit of doing that as arguably biased edits need checking) I came across a blog post (non WP:RS) that suggests similarities between the Silk Road & Landmark charters. Nothing WP:RS to add with minimal media coverage but worth noting here for possible future use. AnonNep ( talk) 15:28, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
This article is starkly sanitised given the Landmark Forum is akin to Scientology (in fact it's creator had a tussle with Scientology and ended up fleeing to Europe after Scientology began a campaign exposing him as a child molester) and I understand that clearly the organisation itself has a financial interest in keeping it's article sanitised, however this is Wikipedia, surely we can enforce NPOV realistic addressing of the organisation enough to be able to address the fact that it's a pseudoscientific cult in it's lede? 121.211.33.244 ( talk) 04:00, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
The "facts" you give about Landmark’s ‘founder’ (it was really founded by current employees) are untrue, and, as far as I know, no reliable sources have ever discussed Landmark in terms of pseudoscience. The above note on the Silk Road being somehow correlated to Landmark is just spurious.
The cult charge has been argued ad infinitum and it’s clear that, in Wikipedia terms, the cult accusations are a minority view that’s not supported by the vast majority of reliable sources, and as such, don’t need more coverage in the article than is already in there.
On the other hand, there are sections of the article which look they could use some fleshing out. The Influence and Impact section is two sentences long. There’s probably more we could add to this. Alex Jackl ( talk) 17:10, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
I've got another possible addition to the Concepts section. "Possibilities" is something Landmark talks a lot about, so a line or two about how they use it seems right here. How about something like this (sourced to Zaffron):
Thoughts? Nwlaw63 ( talk) 14:25, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
This section has just been archived, but the issues it raised do not seem to have been resolved, so I have re-inserted it. DaveApter ( talk) 17:57, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
I've removed a few sources that are clearly unreliable, and two sentences where I was unable to find a reliable source to verify the content. Clearly, websites like 'I Love Possibility blog' or the 'Religion News blog' aren't anywhere close to Wikipedia's definition of a reliable source. Nwlaw63 ( talk) 15:26, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
I tagged the article last year for Neutrality and Primary Sources. Since that time, there have been more than 275 revisions made by over 60 editors. While there are still gaps in our coverage (noted elsewhere on this Talk page), in general the article has stabilized on a version that relies less on primary sources and is presented in a much more neutral manner. Therefore, I am removing the article tags. -- Tgeairn ( talk) 01:18, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
I have reverted the silly addition of a few days ago saying that Landmark offered courses "for humans". Who else would they be offered for - chimpanzees? DaveApter ( talk) 16:34, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
I've been looking at the source added to the reception and criticism section, and it strongly rebuts Lockwood. It seems to be more evidence for Lockwood and Heelas as a minority view. That paragraph is kind of a mish mash anyway - at some point here it should probably be cleaned up and made more reflective of what most sources are saying. Nwlaw63 ( talk) 00:12, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
This makes sense to me. I will check in tomorrow to see if anyone has any other thoughts. Alex Jackl ( talk) 18:09, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 2 external links on
Landmark Worldwide. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the
|checked=
to true
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 03:41, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
A couple of things on references. One or two of them still look like they're not working and should be fixed. Also, there was some talk a while back about putting the reference section back in a standard format - these are a bit hard to follow. I may look into what it would take to do this. Nwlaw63 ( talk) 22:34, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
The info box says there are 525+ employees - I don't see this actually indicated anywhere by the source - maybe I'm missing it. Not sure if this should be kept. Nwlaw63 ( talk) 13:31, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
It seems curious to me that we still have a citation needed on the corporate name. This is straightforward to determine even though the name has changed over time. I recall this was discussed a while ago, and then resolved, but the citation remains. Alex Jackl ( talk) 16:12, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
Similarly, there is a 'citation needed' tag on the foundation date: surely this is a well-established matter of public record? DaveApter ( talk) 15:23, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
There seem to be several problems with this paragraph:
Since nobody has either provided references or disputed my observations, I am removing these two sentences now. DaveApter ( talk) 15:47, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Landmark Worldwide. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 08:29, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Landmark Worldwide. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.landmarkworldwide.com/the-landmark-forum/landmark-forum-course-detailWhen you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 17:25, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
I reverted back to the stable version of the page before an anonymous user put in edits that appear to be designed to add their own opinion and not reflective of the sources. Please explain here! Alex Jackl ( talk) 06:46, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
I am restoring (with slight changes) the material removed by TropicAces. He is correct that one of the references fails to substantiate the claim, but the other does so clearly. The Handbook of Knowledge-Based Coaching states: "Of the many disciplines that have influenced the development of coaching, aside from humanistic psychology, the teachings found in est and later Landmark Education (see www.landmarkeducation.com) may be the most influential." I have removed the irrelevant ref, and added another which states "Werner Erhard has been described as the second most important influencer of all time," and also describes how a former Landmark staff member was a major player in establishing the coaching profession. DaveApter ( talk) 11:26, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
I have removed the image gallery, which had nothing whatsoever to do with the topic of this article. DaveApter ( talk) 16:49, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
I noticed that some of the references in the "Landmark Forum" paragraphs have had quotes embedded in them that have a very negative POV. I will take a look at that over the next few weeks to see if it is accurate or if it needs to be tweaked. Any thoughts? Alex Jackl ( talk) 15:55, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
I just noticed the insertion referring to 'Ponzi' that had been inserted into the article on December 17th. This strikes me as having been cherry-picked for its negative connotations, and is not representative of the general tone the Time article from which it was drawn, and reads rather oddly. DaveApter ( talk) 17:39, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
Pinging DaveApter:
1. I am the author of this change. Please ping me back in future, for a faster reply.
2. The article as before (and now, after your revert) strikes me as cherry-picking the sources for their positive connotations, and is thus not representative of the general tone the referenced articles. It also reads rather oddly, looking as a WP:POV and even WP:COI piece.
I am restoring this quote from the already existing source. Now, that I looked at other related RS-es, I will also add other facts quoted there, for balance.
-> Please continue to seek consensus (via WP:3O maybe?) and let us all strive for WP:NPOV. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zezen ( talk • contribs)
@ Zezen: We can certainly agree that it is desirable for the article to comply with WP:NPOV policies, but it does not seem to me that your edits achieve that. Is the comment you added from the Time article a fact or an opinion? Obviously the latter. The undue weight guideline states that it is ok to include 'facts about opinions' as long as they are notable opinions from established experts. Was the writer an expert in the field of personal development courses? Actually, the sentence isn't even a well-formed opinion, more a throwaway rhetorical flourish. What does it even mean to "have enough of a Ponzi taste..."? The term Ponzi scheme has a well-defined meaning, and there are no reliable sources anywhere suggesting that Landmark bears any resemblance to such operations. As for WP:3O, this is for resolving conflicts that have become deadlocked after exhausting discussion on the Talk page, and we seem to be a long way from that here. DaveApter ( talk) 11:21, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
@ DaveApter: Your arguments are sound. Let us then remove the Time quote altogether, leaving only the quoted opinions of experts. Please also do as you seem fit here to arrive at NPOV, as I will have little time to curate this and other articles in the weeks to come. Zezen ( talk) 12:23, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
A new editor came in and made a whole series of negative POV edits on February 26, 2019. I reverted to the last stable version from three days ago. This article has achieved some degree of stability and agreement. Please discuss changes here if possible. Thank you very much! Alex Jackl ( talk) 17:00, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
I removed a draft motion that was added. I removed it as per WP: Relevance. An actual court decision might be relevant but that certainly didn't seem to be. Happy to discuss if anyone thinks otherwise. Alex Jackl ( talk) 15:41, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
I'm going to highlight a few of the deadlinks in the article, mostly from Landmark-provided sources. Would be great if someone could find active links. Also, I see there are 31 archived pages in here, so this question has come up - are Landmark-provided sources RS? Bangabandhu ( talk) 04:30, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
Identifying and using independent sources (also called third-party sources) helps editors build non-promotional articles that fairly portray the subject, without undue attention to the subject's own views.
Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. This means that we publish the opinions only of reliable authors, and not the opinions of Wikipedians who have read and interpreted primary source material for themselves.--- Avatar317 (talk) 05:45, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
I have reverted the removal of sales figures based on primary sources. Including sales numbers of private (and public) companies is standard practice, as one can see by looking at the articles here on many other privately held companies. By definition these figures are going to come from primary sources, which can be used in a limited way for basic facts such as these. Furthermore, the way these are worded, "landmark reported" and "the company reported" make it perfectly clear that the information is coming from the company itself.
I do note this information is fairly old - at some point I'll see if I can find more recent numbers. Nwlaw63 ( talk) 17:46, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
"Independent sources are a necessary foundation for any article. Although Wikipedia is not paper, it is also not a dumping ground for any and all information that readers consider important or useful. For the sake of neutrality, Wikipedia cannot rely upon any editor's opinion about what topics are important. Everything in Wikipedia must be verified in reliable sources, including statements about what subjects are important and why. To verify that a subject is important, only a source that is independent of the subject can provide a reliable evaluation. A source too close to the subject will always believe that the subject is important enough to warrant detailed coverage, and relying exclusively upon this source will present a conflict of interest and a threat to a neutral encyclopedia."
I noticed someone added a sub-header in the article on the French video. That is inconsistent with the rest of the article and provides that with a lot of emphasis- that topic has been hashed through and de-emphasized in this article many times before. I would suggest removing the sub-header if no one objects. Alex Jackl ( talk) 16:49, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
I changed the sub-head "Scientists' views" to "Academics' opinions", and it was promptly reverted. I would contend that the original version is not only misleading but inaccurate. The writers in almost all of the references are sociologists, and so would more accurately be described as academics than as scientists. The only one who is a scientist - Charles Watson - is mentioned as a result of a one line quotation in a lifestyle article in an Australian tabloid. Incidentally, his remark was made in support of Landmark, which is not at all clear to a reader of this paragraph. And why is views preferable to opinions? It seems to have been chosen to provide a spurious air of objectivity and authority, as contrasted with the mere "opinions" of reporters, in the sub-head of the paragraph below. DaveApter ( talk) 17:40, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
Reverted to last edit today (May 13) from vandalism in lead paragraph. Alex Jackl ( talk) 03:21, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
An anonymous editor added an inappropriate assertion to the lead, cited to a Mother Jones article. Apart from the fact that the statement is clearly one of opinion, not fact, and that the writer of the article has no notable expertise in the subject, it is clearly not justified to editorialise that ""To date...continues to..." based on a reference which is eleven years old. It would be appropriate to discuss changes on this talk page before making controversial edits to an article such as this, which has reached a stable consensus after a contentious history. DaveApter ( talk) 15:16, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
I haven't looked at this page in a long while and I see some questionable stuff has been added. Particularly the Australian references seem like some talking about the accounting blog about training expenses of a single company and has no relevance to a Wikipedia article on Landmark Worldwide. My organization also questioned whether we should spend money on a Project Management training and decided not to because our key Project Manager was sick. What does that mean about the Project Management training- NOTHING. I suggest we remove it. Alex Jackl ( talk) 15:48, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
I see that there has been a PR Tag at the heading for some time. I don't see that at all - I can't see any signs of sensationalism, and it certainly doesn't read like a press release. It seems more like a mixture of objective facts and critical comment. Also there's an tag suggesting that additional references would be desirable. That seems odd bearing in mind that there are 71 cited footnotes and a long list of additional references. Can anyone suggest the improvements they'd like to see to satisfy the concerns implied by these tags? DaveApter ( talk) 10:15, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
vitalityis an extraordinary and extremely ambiguous claim, and so it would need both context and a strong source. The entire article has this problem, so the tag is still appropriate. Grayfell ( talk) 03:25, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
Does anyone mind if I create a section on methods or technology used within the forum? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dabrams13 ( talk • contribs) 16:43, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
I'd like to add that this section on their teaching methods still reads as a puff piece, it doesn't contain any information on the fact that they use behaviour modification methods and coercive control techniques that many reports (many articles on Rick Ross website and this entry on Ney vs Landmark: https://en-academic.com/dic.nsf/enwiki/11816406) have shown are extremely dangerous how can I flag this or edit without it then all getting edited out as happened last time? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Albert8879 ( talk • contribs) 19:51, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
I have to say I agree that this page still sounds very much like a puff piece. I am a survivor of their 'training' (2009-2014), training which left me with a lifetime of trauma and PTSD and who has had to swallow whole their propaganda in training course after course. So believe me when I say that quite a bit of this Wiki entry reads like one of their promotional booklets in uncritically and basically saying that is transformational personal development training that has been used and endorsed by orgs such as Reebok, PandaExpress, LuluLemon etc.
With no mention of the fact that they use dangerous behavior modification tools and thought reform techniques like NLP, encounter and attack therapy (which includes long sessions of verbal abuse of participants who've often just shared very vulnerable details of their life such as abuse, bullying, troubled relationships etc etc) and guided regression exercises without knowing consent from participants and without any trained licensed mental health professional present.
As I really think we need to add more balance and in line with the policy which states: 'that does not stop us from describing the majority views as such and using the words of reliable sources to present strong criticisms. Fairly explaining the arguments against a pseudoscientific theory or verifiably describing the moral repugnance that people feel toward a notion is fully permitted by NPOV.'
As at the moment someone looking at this Wiki entry would think that this is just a personal development company that offers transformational training to change your relationship to the present and future etc etc. Yes there is some criticism but it's buried and not enough to counter-balance the uncritical reproduction of what Landmark says they are about.
When this training in actual fact has lead to people's: severe depression, anxiety psychosis, psychiatric hospitalisation, triggered suicide, depersonalisation syndrome, PTSD and implants in people a loyal evangelical attitude to Landmark which means they try to convert everyone around them and literally cannot see Landmark in a critical way (other than it can be a bit too intense on sales etc). See: https://en-academic.com/dic.nsf/enwiki/11816406, https://www.win.tue.nl/~aeb/secul/landmark/landmark6.html, https://www.philosophyforlife.org/blog/attack-therapy-and-the-landmark-forum, https://culteducation.com/group/1020-landmark-education/12497-mind-game-courses-aimed-at-public-sector-workers.html, https://forum.culteducation.com/read.php?4,76435,76546)
The only thing I can think of is to quote/cite from Rick Ross's book Cults Inside Out ( https://cultsinsideout.com/) as counter-arguments to what Landmark claims to do/be about in their content, with details on the behaviour modification techniques that Landmark uses fro example. As I guess that would count as a verifiable source?
There are also a few media articles but not many because mostly the media have has been really biased in reporting on Landmark for example not talking to survivors and only talking to people who are uncritical whilst only referring in a few lines to criticisms, or else Landmark has many articles taken down and journalists also fear lawsuits so remove references to it being a cult for example. There's some articles in Mother Jones and have quoted some above.
But don't know if they would be counted as too dated as some are from the 90s and I don't know if it matters that the text is not on the original print publication but hosted on different blogs/Rick Ross' website as the publication may be out of print or the articles taken down from the original website.
Rick Ross also did a podcast The Unmistakable Creative ( https://play.acast.com/s/the-unmistakable-creative-podcast/thecultofpersonaldevelopment-deprogrammingwithrickalanross) about Landmark but I'm not sure if that would be considered verifiable.
If I could get some advice on this would be much appreciated.
I would like to add a section on the history of litigation as I think it's important to show readers the facts of Landmarks' long history of using lawsuits against critics, similar to Scientology. This could also help add to NPOV in understanding the lack of mainstream critical reporting, acting as a counter-balance to the reporters section which only shows positive commentary.
See: https://culteducation.com/group/1020-landmark-education/12303-landmark-education.html#Litigation, https://culteducation.com/group/1020-landmark-education/12390-introduction-to-the-landmark-education-litigation-archive.html, https://www.dmlp.org/threats/landmark-education-llc-v-ross#node-legal-threat-full-group-description and https://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Controversial_development_training_cited_in_religious_discrimination_lawsuits.
Please let me know if this is possible?
Please sign and date your comments on talk pages; you can do this by typing four tilde ~ characters. I suggest you review Wikipedia's relevant policies, especially what Wikipedia is not and undue weight. I am very sorry to hear that you personally are unhappy with the experience that you had in participating in a number of Landmark courses, but Wikipedia is not a forum for venting your dissatisfactions. If you look at the history of this article, you will see that all of the issues you mention have been entertained at some point in the past and that the consensus of editors was that they were either inadequately verified by reliable sources or expressions of opinions by non-notable individuals. Rick Ross's site is not regarded as a reliable source for example, as has been concluded in discussions on a large variety of topics. As far as I am aware, Landmark has not been involved in litigation for more than ten or fifteen years, and the fact that they took action in several cases in the distant past where they felt that they had been slandered or libelled is adequately covered in the article. The case you mention of Stephanie Ney related to an event before Landmark was even founded, and the court concluded that she had not established that she had been harmed by her participation in a course held by a predecessor organisation. DaveApter ( talk) 19:20, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
The 'update needed' tag added without comment in June 2021 presumably refers to the change to online delivery of courses due to covid restrictions. I have added a couple of sentences about that, and removed the tag. DaveApter ( talk) 09:57, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
Whatever NPOV is; this ain't it. Wikipedia is not censored, we should describe weird cults as weird cults. Plenty of criticism online, but none seems to be mentioned in the article? Polygnotus ( talk) 04:39, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
Tag removed as this has been rehashed on these pages over and over again. Please review the history on this talk page and then discuss what issues you might have here before tagging the main page. Thank you so much! There are plenty of contributors who would be happy to engage on any questions you might have. Alex Jackl ( talk) 17:21, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
https://www.win.tue.nl/~aeb/secul/landmark/landmark.html lists a bunch of sources including https://skepdic.com/landmark.html Polygnotus ( talk) 18:11, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
https://www.eff.org/nl/deeplinks/2006/11/landmark-forums-internet-censorship-campaign-goes-down-under An "internet censorship campaign" Polygnotus ( talk) 18:14, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
https://culteducation.com/group/1020-landmark-education/12434-a-landmark-encounter.html
I just removed this paragraph:
Organizations including Nasa, Apple, Microsoft, GlaxoSmithKline, Reebok, and Panda Express have employees who have participated in Landmark's programs through its corporate division, Vanto Group.<ref>{{cite web |url= https://books.google.com/books?id=h6MpAQAAIAAJ |title= The Believer, issues 1-4 |year= 2003 |publisher= McSweeney's Pub., LLC |page= 24 |access-date= August 3, 2021 |quote= Today, CEOs in companies including Reebok and Microsoft are fluent in the Landmark Forum teachings and its jargon. }}</ref>{{ r | Spears_2017-03-30 }}<ref>{{harvnb|Alford|2010}}: "Though Landmark is viewed by some as an incubator for overly assertive or blissed-out automatons who bear a strange predilection for the phrase “got it,” the eight-time Oscar-winning composer Alan Menken, the Boston Philharmonic conductor Benjamin Zander and Paul Fireman, the former Reebok chief executive, are all Landmark graduates, as are employees of Exxon Mobil, JPMorgan Chase, NASA and the Pentagon, who have been coached by the company’s consulting firm, the Vanto Group."</ref>
Note the wording, they "have employees who have participated". This is clear promotional content. Should we add to the McDonalds article that nearly all American Fortune 500 CEOs have eaten in a McDonalds at least once? Should we attribute their success, or that of their company, to that? JPMorgan Chase had 250.355 employees in 2022. Polygnotus ( talk) 10:43, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
I almost removed this content myself. It's bland PR. If reliable sources explain why these particular names are significant, summarize those sources. Otherwise this was just name-dropping. As with so much of the article, these sources were being wasted on tedious filler. The article in The Believer, for example, is available online and says a lot more than just 'well-known corporations have used this':
As I've said before, the article gives the impression that someone wanted to add promotional tidbits, and then hunted around looking for sources to support that perspective. This is not a neutral approach. Grayfell ( talk) 22:34, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
![]() | This
edit request to
Landmark Worldwide has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
This is a cult and we came here to edit the page to say so. Request that we can update the page. Thank you. JoltAsResearch ( talk) 02:21, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
Dave Apter, this edit was unwise (and led to the protection). The piece may be "flippant", in your words, but that statement is hardly personal opinion and you know it: some evidence is given. Whether that's enough to warrant inclusion here is another matter, but this does not make you look good, esp. since you are obviously neutering a highly critical piece by making it a source only for the most innocent of statements (in note 7). Drmies ( talk) 21:15, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
Drmies: I don't quite understand that. It is undoubtedly true that Werner Erhard had no formal training in psychology - but he also had no formal training in geology. At that point in the article the ONLY reason to include that statement if it is meant to imply something negative about Werner Erhard and his qualifications to start the business. The statement itself contains only facts but you and I both know that which facts you choose to include completely change the communication. Is this an encyclopedia article on Landmark or is it an attack piece on Werner Erhard? That is the question. The relevance of Werner Erhard's educational background when founding a company 20 years before Landmark existed is really REALLY hard to explain as a relvant part of this article. I thin kthat stuff probbaly doesn't belong in Wikipedia at all but if it does it certainly shouldn't be here but in a Werner Erhard article.
HJ MItchell: I appreciate you locking the page, although it is in pretty bad shape. I would love to see some neutral parties look at this and help us sort out the design of this page. There is a lot of POV editing going on and I, while interested, do not want to engage in edit wars or revert chains with people. By the way Thanks, Alex Jackl ( talk) 22:09, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
I consolidated the regligion stuff into one public perception and criticism section. The religion stuff in the lead give too much weight to a what I think is a fringe view that a company can be a religion. Elmmapleoakpine ( talk) 00:12, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
I must admit to being a bit baffled by the fact that John Carter seems to be simultaneously asserting two incompatible propositions. On the one hand he tells us that the phrase New Religious Movement is a technical term which doesn't necessarily require organisations so classified to be "religious" in any way that speakers of English would understand the word. On the other hand he wants the fact that some scholars have categorised Landmark as a NRM to justify the statement "Landmark's programs have been categorized by some scholars and others as religious or quasi-religious in nature." Which is it? DaveApter ( talk) 18:07, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
For those of you who have followed this program, I have fought to get an overdose of what one might call negative material out of here, but to remove the whole NRM thing altogether, an appellation confirmed by plenty of high-quality sources, is not acceptable. And that means it should be in the lead as well. Any claims of UNDUE should be met in other ways than removal from lead and article; anyone claiming "undue" can look at earlier versions of the article, like this one or this one; look in particular for the sourcing. The current version isn't so bad, but if we want to get picky, "while some researchers question that categorization as well" might be undue, since the sourcing (in note 53) is unclear--it's not clear which of the three sources goes with the "Others, such as Chryssides..." comment or with the parenthetic statement questioning their categorization. The next full paragraph, with statements from Observer and HuffPo, might well be called "undue" given the status of peer-reviewed books vs. first-person newspaper articles (the first one isn't even cited). So if there's anything unbalanced, it's not on the side of those who call it an NRM. Drmies ( talk) 19:01, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
@ Nwlaw63, A few comments:
With kind regards, Theobald Tiger ( talk) 09:30, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
A religion or religion like group can be incorporated, or structured various ways. http://www.npr.org/2014/04/01/282496855/can-a-television-network-be-a-church-the-irs-says-yes Legacypac ( talk) 01:12, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
I've now bought a copy of the Encyclopedia of New Religions edited by Partridge (2004 edition from Lion Publishing), and had a look at the entry for “Landmark Forum(est)”, a one page essay written by Elizabeth Puttick. It's generally accurate on points of fact, apart from a few details such as having the date of Landmark's foundation as 1985 rather than 1991.
The first thing I noticed is that, whereas Puttick is given as the source for the sentence: “Landmark has denied that it is a religion, cult or sect”, that is not actually what she says. Her text is:
Subtle but important difference; firstly she doesn't mention the word "cult" at all; secondly the substituted word deny in this context is a breach of the WP:SAY guideline:
Several other passages caught my eye:
Point #2 above is significant in view of the section on the HPM a few pages earlier (also written by Puttick):
It's also worth noting that this final section of the book - on "Modern Western Cultures" - contains discussions on a variety of groupings which wouldn't normally be viewed as "Religious" in any normal sense of the word. For instance Feminism; football fandom; celebrity worship (eg Princess Diana); Psychedelic spirituality; and Neuro Linguistic Programming. The same applies to many of the other books and papers cited. So it is clear that academics who study this field have an eclectic range of interests, and the discussion or mention of a group in this context does not necessarily imply that it is regarded as Religious, or even that it is considered to be a NRM.
So what this reference establishes is that (in the view of this authority):
All of these points are also confirmed in a number of other references, and should be made clear in the article. DaveApter ( talk) 11:09, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
I have been trying to stay out of this but the rancor and the inaccurate statements keep piling up. It doesn't help that some editors keep using language like "offensive contention" and categorizing an entire line of (accurate) thought as a "ridiculous marketing contention". Not to put too fine a point on it these are all just weasel words to try and legitimize a fringe-theory that has no basis in citation or reality. I will use the same numbering model as above to reference the points made. There are many issues but I will focus on the ones that I believe to be obvious: Alex Jackl ( talk) 16:48, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
Theobald Tiger's quote from the Lockwood paper above clearly shows that she can't even be relied on to get simple statements of demonstrable fact right. It's not remotely true that "Landmark claims that it is not a derivation of Werner Erhard's original program". On the contrary their website clearly states"Based on a methodology and ideas originally developed by Werner Erhard, Landmark has evolved its unique breakthrough methodology through years of continuous research and development.", and similar statements have been on the company website for at least the last twelve years. No-one is trying to suggest that est or Erhard should not be mentioned in this article, only that the comments should be accurate, proportionate and relevant. DaveApter ( talk) 15:21, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
The protracted discussion in the section above seems to be going round in circles. Let's focus on what we can agree on:
So far as I am aware, there is no dispute about the broad accuracy any of the above, and no suggestion that these points should be excluded from the article. I think they always have been mentioned in one form or another.
The accusation that Landmark has misrepresented Erhard's legacy (or as TT puts it "lied") is demonstrably unfounded. As noted above, the connection is clearly stated on their current website; and as TT's own 2002 version from the Wayback Machine shows, it was clearly stated then. They may not go out of their way to labour the connection, but who says they are under any obligation to do so?
Actually it is a monumental irrelevance - almost no-one cares who designed the program 30 years ago from which the current course eventually evolved. Nor do they care what was the tax structure of his companies ten years before that. Or what profession he followed another ten years further back still. Nor do they care how much he is or isn't involved in running the company (as the guy is 80 years old now, I'd be surprised if he was very active in anything). It's not surprising that Landmark don't give it prominence, as prospective customers are only concerned with whether the course is likely to deliver the promised benefits and to be worth their time and money. In fact very few people under the age of 55 have even heard of either Erhard or est. Of people who do recognise the name, few have strong feelings about him, and even fewer share the intense antagonism and hostility which is demonstrated by some editors here. DaveApter ( talk) 12:24, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
Long posts create longer responses and even longer discussion threads that go round and round in circles. Even the points that everyone supposedly agrees on need to be broken down into small components and discussed and agreed upon individually. When an agreement is reached on one minor point, then move on to the next minor point. Consensus needs to be built and that means, going slowly step by step and standing on the shoulders of prior agreements and compromises, however small they may be. This approach is slow and laborious but it is the only way (in my opinion) that an article and a group discussion like this will make any progress. Peace! -- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:05, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
Landmark is a Ponzi scheme to discipline the working class and profit off of their vulnerability. The "Criticism" section is in reality a defense of Landmark — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:7:8500:982:D184:8B97:800F:74A6 ( talk) 21:27, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
Closed as Opposed - At face value, I suppose one could presume the result is due to commenters saying (among other things) that it is unnecessary to add biographical info concerning Werner Erhard, as apparently, per this page, he or one of his businesses/organisations "merely" licensed "stuff" to Landmark Worldwide (the latter being the topic of this page). The broader issue though, from doing some reading of several (semi-)related discussions, including the arbcase noted at the top of this page, appears to be the ongoing contention concerning the merging of various pages and/or the content thereof, such as Erhard Seminars Training, Werner Erhard and Associates, Landmark Worldwide, etc., for several various reasons. Currently, my reading of past recent discussions is that there as yet is apparently no consensus to merge, so we're left with the pages as they are. So with that in mind, this is closed as Opposed to add to this particular page. And to (hopefully) prevent next steps of editwarring, I will remove other personal biographical info of Werner Erhard (but not of his businesses/organisations), from this page as well. This should not be considered any sort of precedent for any other pages, as it may (or may not) be appropriate to add such info on other pages. Please feel free to positively discuss the appropriateness of the inclusion of such biographical info to this page in the future. - jc37 21:35, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
Is it appropriate to include this remark: "Erhard had no formal training in psychology or psychiatry and had previously been a successful salesman"? DaveApter ( talk) 01:29, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
The problems we face here are not restricted to Landmark; similar issues arise in the Wikipedia articles on a wide range of contemporary social phenomena. Examples that come to mind are Transcendental Meditation, Silva Mind Control, Neuro Linguistic Programming, Anthony Robbins (none of which I have much detailed knowledge of, or any strong opinions about). It is clear from the recurrent battles in all these areas that these topics face difficulties that simply do not arise with articles on subjects within well established academic disciplines such as Physics, Biology or History.
The source of these difficulties is threefold:
The 30 pages of archived talk bear witness to this, with about half the comments claiming that the article is too biased in favour of Landmark and the other half arguing that it is too biased against it. The same ground is argued over and over again, with newly arriving editors re-inserting and removing material that had been agreed over in the past.
An additional complication is that there is a considerable amount of comment in circulation which is uninformed, inaccurate, biased, and sometimes vindictive or malicious. This has in many cases been widely propagated (unattributed and often anonymous) through channels such as internet forums, bulletin boards, blogs, and unmoderated (or moderated to further a partisan agenda) web pages such as anti-cult movement sites. A further complication is that journalists and even academics sometimes use material from such sources as background, or even quote them directly, thus providing an appearance of reliability to claims that were of dubious provenance.
It is ironic that there is a definite symmetry between the opposing viewpoints - all parties stridently claim that they are the ones upholding WP:NPOV and countering the blatant advocasy of the others.
On the other hand it does seem that a majority of those arguing for a more favourable treatment are people with first-hand experience of the subject in question, whereas those arguing for a more critical treatment have in many cases acquired their preconceptions at second hand.
At the outset, the page appears to have been written by advocates who regarded Wikipedia as an extension of the unmoderated bulletin boards. It was created and substantially edited from anonymous IP accounts and was blatantly biased, and devoid of refs or citations as this version from 31st March 2004 illustrates.
During the Arbitration case, I did put forward a suggestion that topics such as this may benefit from some specific guidelines Arbitration/Requests/Case/Landmark_Worldwide/Workshop#Guidelines_needed_for_"Contemporary_social_phenomena". Although there was nothing done in this regard at that time, I still think it may be helpful. DaveApter ( talk) 11:12, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
The serious points I raised above are still not being resolved: see the discussion of the misrepresentation of sources below. DaveApter ( talk) 06:19, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Landmark Worldwide has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Per the consensus established at this RfC [7], I request removal of the sentence: "Erhard had no formal training in psychology or psychiatry and had previously been a successful salesman" DaveApter ( talk) 10:44, 3 April 2015 (UTC) DaveApter ( talk) 10:44, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
With
this diff,
203.2.218.145 (
talk ·
contribs ·
WHOIS) changed the context of Hill's quote to put the phrase in the voice of a course participant (rather than her own). The full quote from
the article is: 'This course has transformed me. And the funny thing is, I didn't know I even had it in me to transform,' he smiled.The Landmark Forum is not magic. It is not scary or insidious. It is, in fact, simple common sense delivered in an environment of startling intensity.
Since the quoted portion ends before "he smiled", and the following paragraph continues on about the intensity, is seems that the IP is incorrect. Another set of eyes? Thanks,
Tgeairn (
talk)
16:50, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
The contentious statement in the lead "Landmark's programs have been categorized by some scholars and others as religious or quasi-religious in nature" is an inaccurate paraphrase of the sentences to which it relates within the body of the article.
The references cited fail to substantiate those body statements themselves: "Some scholars have categorized Landmark and its predecessor organizations as new age, self religion or a new religious movement. Other observers have noted relationships between the training programs and a spiritual experience, including a lack of religious elements in the programs and the compatibility of the programs with existing religions. Others, such as Chryssides, classify Landmark as either quasi-religious or secular with some elements of religion (although various scholars have disputed this characterization)".
There are no sources which support the assertion "...many of the company's customers deny such characterizations...". There is no evidence that the company's customers discuss its alleged religious characteristics, or that they would find such a suggestion as anything other than bizarre.
What these references do say is summarised below:
"Any movement that offers in some way to provide answers to some of the ultimate questions about 'meaning' and 'the purpose of life'... would be included in this broad understanding of the term 'NRM'... To illustrate... among the better-known NRMs are... the Landmark Forum."
"Meanwhile, other commentators such as Tipton (1984) and Foss and Larkin (1976, 1979) detect a tendency for post-countercultural religious movements such as Erhard Seminars Training (now the Landmark Forum) to recombine instrumentalism and expressivism in ways that could help their participants to fit into the routines of mainstream social life."
"Werner Erhard [has] confidence that the state of the entire world would improve if a sufficient number of people became sufficiently energetic and disciplined about thier spiritual practice." Nothing to indicate why he attributes this belief to Erhard, which is not indicated in other references. And he got the name of the corporation wrong.
“The Forum and/or est, whose origins are in the United States (Tipton 1982) holds to the belief that the self itself is god.” Unclear why he is able to assert that est or Landmark "hold to [this] belief", for which there appears to be no evidence whatsoever.
"And the founder of est (the highly influential seminar training established by Erhard in 1971) observes that 'Of all the disciplines that I studied, Zen was the essential one"..."With reference to est, what is offered is 'a sixty hour educational experience which allows people to realize their potential to transform their lives'."
"[Mentions Landmark in a list]... These organizations are sometimes classified sociologically as new religions, though they tend to describe themselves in secular terms. Most of these trainings do not focus on spirituality directly..."
"The Landmark Forum is a direct descendant, with substantial changes, of est (Erhard Seminars Training). est was one of the most succesful manifestations of the human potential movement"
"...There are undertones of Eastern philosophies, particularly in the aim of looking at the familiar in new ways, but participants emphasisze goals of success and self-improvement rather than spirituality."
Earlier in the book Puttick had written: "The human potential movement (HPM)... is not in itself a religion, new or otherwise, but a psychological philosophy and framework, including a set of values that have made it one of the most significant and influential forces in modern Western society."
"A well-known example of spiritual management trainings..." No indication of how he arrived at the opinion that it is either "spiritual" or a "management training". And he got the name of the corporation wrong.
Perhaps we should work towards a form of words that more accurately reflects what the sources say? DaveApter ( talk) 12:00, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
It is becoming increasingly clear in the discussion above that the current wording in the article is either a misunderstanding of the sources, or a deliberate distortion of what they say to synthesize an account which is in accordance with the editor's own point of view.
I propose that the current wording:
should be replaced with:
Furthermore, the segment ... and "freely threatens or pursues lawsuits against those who call it [a cult]".[54] is a non-sequitur to anything said in the academic sources and should be deleted. DaveApter ( talk) 16:15, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
"Some scholars have categorized Landmark's predecessor organizations as part of the Human potential movement,(Puttick 2004) which is described by some under the broadly-defined term " New Religious Movements"(Barker 1989)(Barker 1996). Landmark's position is that it is purely an educational corporation without religious implications of any kind.(Puttick 2004")Thoughts? -- Tgeairn ( talk) 21:46, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
Made a minor page to the article in restoring the word "roleplayers" to "authorities" (which is what it was originally) in talking about religious leaders. I think that might have been a mistake actually as it makes no sense in context. Alex Jackl ( talk) 13:45, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
The name on the infobox should be the actual registered company name "Landmark Worldwide Holdings International, Inc." (founded June 22, 1987). If there are various doing business as names, they should be listed somehow inside the infobox.
By the way, there is at least one other surviving Landmark entity, "Landmark Education Capital Management Corporation" (C1996186), and no reference supporting which entity "Landmark Education Corporation" merged into. That information could be obtained by a detailed request to the California Secretary of State, but isn't available at the (broken) links in the article. AndroidCat ( talk) 22:00, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
OK, I have now obtained a copy of Chryssides 'Exploring New Religions', and his section on Landmark does not remotely substantiate the sentence: "Others, such as Chryssides, classify Landmark as either quasi-religious or secular with some elements of religion." He does not mention the term "quasi-religious" at all. On the contrary, the thrust of his remarks is to dismiss the suggestions made by various other commentators that it might be classified as religious. Some of his comments:
In view of this, I will amend the passages accordingly. DaveApter ( talk) 14:08, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I did notice that sentence; however, taking the entire 11 page section as a whole it is clear that the general thrust is that he is saying that est is not a religion in any usual sense of the word, that Landmark is even less so, and that the reasons some people give for regarding it as such are somewhat suspect. I think the wording of my recent edits is fair and accurate, but would be happy to discuss any other proposals. DaveApter ( talk) 14:05, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
Sometime last year the summary of the content of the Landmark Forum was changed from a bulleted list - which I thought worked quite well - to a text paragraph which seems less clear. Any thoughts on this? Also, I think there are a few inaccuracies, for example talking about 'tenets' where it would be more accurate to say something like 'suggestions put forward for consideration'. DaveApter ( talk) 10:02, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
The California Secretary of State site http://kepler.sos.ca.gov/ for entity number C1197599 shows Date Filed: 06/22/1987 "The date of formation of a California (domestic) business entity". (The site no longer allows direct links to records.) That date is definitive. As a primary source, no interpretation should be made, but any secondary sources that disagree with it have some 'plaing to do as they are incorrect. AndroidCat ( talk) 23:39, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
I don't know what you mean by "what existed in the article already". It was you who added the erroneous reg no C1197599, and changed the corporation name and foundation date to incorrect ones, and linked to an irrelevant CSoS document on July 1st. This whole discussion seems to me to be a storm in a teacup. DaveApter ( talk) 10:23, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
That section of the article has been tagged since January as containing irrelevant material and giving undue weight to marginal issues. Since no-one has argued here against those tags, perhaps it is time to trim out some of the cruft especially that relating to events well before the founding of this company? DaveApter ( talk) 13:50, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
The 'Background' and 'Incorporation' subsections still contain many repetitions of points that already have been made in the main part of the 'History' section, plus some details of dubious relevance. I will condense this. DaveApter ( talk) 16:07, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
The reference for the final sentence in this subsection linked to a search page at amazines.com which was completely irrelevant to this topic. The preceding convoluted sentences in the subsection about various companies and people seem to have no relevance at all to the subject of this article. And - rather oddly - the whole section 'Current operations' give no account at all of the firm's main business activities of putting on seminars and training programs! DaveApter ( talk) 09:58, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
Surely the treatment of this item is out of all proportion? I'm not sure whether one highly biased French television program eleven years ago even merits a mention. Even if it does, I can't see the justification of giving it its own subsection and nearly as much space as the total of all the previous eight opinions - positive and negative - in the rest of the 'Public reception and criticism' section. The Undue Weight and Relevance tags have been in place there for over a month now without response. DaveApter ( talk) 10:33, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 3 external links on
Landmark Worldwide. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the — cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 07:20, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
I've got another possible addition to the Concepts section. "Possibilities" is something Landmark talks a lot about, so a line or two about how they use it seems right here. How about something like this (sourced to Zaffron):
Thoughts? Nwlaw63 ( talk) 14:25, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
I found a citation source for a quote in the section "Public reception and criticism", but I don't know how properly to format it. I did look at the templates. If a more experienced editor would please add this, I'd appreciate it. Here's the Wikipedia passage:
>>The chairman of Föreningen Rädda individen, a support organization for those affected by cults and destructive movements, told Dagens Nyheter that his opinion was that Landmark was "one of the most dangerous sects in Sweden".<<
Here's the source URL dated June 3, 2002: http://www.dn.se/arkiv/nyheter/kursforetaget-landmark-kursen-ledde-till-psykos
Last paragraph:
>>Den svenska organisationen för anhöriga till sektmedlemmar, Föreningen Rädda individen (FRI), anser att Landmark är en av landets farligaste sekter och får varje år cirka 1 500 rådgivningssamtal från anhöriga till Landmarkdeltagare.<<
Google Translate result:
The Swedish organization for relatives of cult members, the Society Save the individual (FRI), believes that Landmark is one of the most dangerous sects and receive each year about 1500 counseling calls from relatives to Landmark Participants.
N.b. "Sect" in many European languages has the connotation of "cult", e.g., sektmedlemmar = cult members. Scandiescot ( talk) 02:05, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
Googling after the most recent deletion (have a habit of doing that as arguably biased edits need checking) I came across a blog post (non WP:RS) that suggests similarities between the Silk Road & Landmark charters. Nothing WP:RS to add with minimal media coverage but worth noting here for possible future use. AnonNep ( talk) 15:28, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
This article is starkly sanitised given the Landmark Forum is akin to Scientology (in fact it's creator had a tussle with Scientology and ended up fleeing to Europe after Scientology began a campaign exposing him as a child molester) and I understand that clearly the organisation itself has a financial interest in keeping it's article sanitised, however this is Wikipedia, surely we can enforce NPOV realistic addressing of the organisation enough to be able to address the fact that it's a pseudoscientific cult in it's lede? 121.211.33.244 ( talk) 04:00, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
The "facts" you give about Landmark’s ‘founder’ (it was really founded by current employees) are untrue, and, as far as I know, no reliable sources have ever discussed Landmark in terms of pseudoscience. The above note on the Silk Road being somehow correlated to Landmark is just spurious.
The cult charge has been argued ad infinitum and it’s clear that, in Wikipedia terms, the cult accusations are a minority view that’s not supported by the vast majority of reliable sources, and as such, don’t need more coverage in the article than is already in there.
On the other hand, there are sections of the article which look they could use some fleshing out. The Influence and Impact section is two sentences long. There’s probably more we could add to this. Alex Jackl ( talk) 17:10, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
I've got another possible addition to the Concepts section. "Possibilities" is something Landmark talks a lot about, so a line or two about how they use it seems right here. How about something like this (sourced to Zaffron):
Thoughts? Nwlaw63 ( talk) 14:25, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
This section has just been archived, but the issues it raised do not seem to have been resolved, so I have re-inserted it. DaveApter ( talk) 17:57, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
I've removed a few sources that are clearly unreliable, and two sentences where I was unable to find a reliable source to verify the content. Clearly, websites like 'I Love Possibility blog' or the 'Religion News blog' aren't anywhere close to Wikipedia's definition of a reliable source. Nwlaw63 ( talk) 15:26, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
I tagged the article last year for Neutrality and Primary Sources. Since that time, there have been more than 275 revisions made by over 60 editors. While there are still gaps in our coverage (noted elsewhere on this Talk page), in general the article has stabilized on a version that relies less on primary sources and is presented in a much more neutral manner. Therefore, I am removing the article tags. -- Tgeairn ( talk) 01:18, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
I have reverted the silly addition of a few days ago saying that Landmark offered courses "for humans". Who else would they be offered for - chimpanzees? DaveApter ( talk) 16:34, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
I've been looking at the source added to the reception and criticism section, and it strongly rebuts Lockwood. It seems to be more evidence for Lockwood and Heelas as a minority view. That paragraph is kind of a mish mash anyway - at some point here it should probably be cleaned up and made more reflective of what most sources are saying. Nwlaw63 ( talk) 00:12, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
This makes sense to me. I will check in tomorrow to see if anyone has any other thoughts. Alex Jackl ( talk) 18:09, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 2 external links on
Landmark Worldwide. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the
|checked=
to true
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 03:41, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
A couple of things on references. One or two of them still look like they're not working and should be fixed. Also, there was some talk a while back about putting the reference section back in a standard format - these are a bit hard to follow. I may look into what it would take to do this. Nwlaw63 ( talk) 22:34, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
The info box says there are 525+ employees - I don't see this actually indicated anywhere by the source - maybe I'm missing it. Not sure if this should be kept. Nwlaw63 ( talk) 13:31, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
It seems curious to me that we still have a citation needed on the corporate name. This is straightforward to determine even though the name has changed over time. I recall this was discussed a while ago, and then resolved, but the citation remains. Alex Jackl ( talk) 16:12, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
Similarly, there is a 'citation needed' tag on the foundation date: surely this is a well-established matter of public record? DaveApter ( talk) 15:23, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
There seem to be several problems with this paragraph:
Since nobody has either provided references or disputed my observations, I am removing these two sentences now. DaveApter ( talk) 15:47, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Landmark Worldwide. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 08:29, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Landmark Worldwide. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.landmarkworldwide.com/the-landmark-forum/landmark-forum-course-detailWhen you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 17:25, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
I reverted back to the stable version of the page before an anonymous user put in edits that appear to be designed to add their own opinion and not reflective of the sources. Please explain here! Alex Jackl ( talk) 06:46, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
I am restoring (with slight changes) the material removed by TropicAces. He is correct that one of the references fails to substantiate the claim, but the other does so clearly. The Handbook of Knowledge-Based Coaching states: "Of the many disciplines that have influenced the development of coaching, aside from humanistic psychology, the teachings found in est and later Landmark Education (see www.landmarkeducation.com) may be the most influential." I have removed the irrelevant ref, and added another which states "Werner Erhard has been described as the second most important influencer of all time," and also describes how a former Landmark staff member was a major player in establishing the coaching profession. DaveApter ( talk) 11:26, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
I have removed the image gallery, which had nothing whatsoever to do with the topic of this article. DaveApter ( talk) 16:49, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
I noticed that some of the references in the "Landmark Forum" paragraphs have had quotes embedded in them that have a very negative POV. I will take a look at that over the next few weeks to see if it is accurate or if it needs to be tweaked. Any thoughts? Alex Jackl ( talk) 15:55, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
I just noticed the insertion referring to 'Ponzi' that had been inserted into the article on December 17th. This strikes me as having been cherry-picked for its negative connotations, and is not representative of the general tone the Time article from which it was drawn, and reads rather oddly. DaveApter ( talk) 17:39, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
Pinging DaveApter:
1. I am the author of this change. Please ping me back in future, for a faster reply.
2. The article as before (and now, after your revert) strikes me as cherry-picking the sources for their positive connotations, and is thus not representative of the general tone the referenced articles. It also reads rather oddly, looking as a WP:POV and even WP:COI piece.
I am restoring this quote from the already existing source. Now, that I looked at other related RS-es, I will also add other facts quoted there, for balance.
-> Please continue to seek consensus (via WP:3O maybe?) and let us all strive for WP:NPOV. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zezen ( talk • contribs)
@ Zezen: We can certainly agree that it is desirable for the article to comply with WP:NPOV policies, but it does not seem to me that your edits achieve that. Is the comment you added from the Time article a fact or an opinion? Obviously the latter. The undue weight guideline states that it is ok to include 'facts about opinions' as long as they are notable opinions from established experts. Was the writer an expert in the field of personal development courses? Actually, the sentence isn't even a well-formed opinion, more a throwaway rhetorical flourish. What does it even mean to "have enough of a Ponzi taste..."? The term Ponzi scheme has a well-defined meaning, and there are no reliable sources anywhere suggesting that Landmark bears any resemblance to such operations. As for WP:3O, this is for resolving conflicts that have become deadlocked after exhausting discussion on the Talk page, and we seem to be a long way from that here. DaveApter ( talk) 11:21, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
@ DaveApter: Your arguments are sound. Let us then remove the Time quote altogether, leaving only the quoted opinions of experts. Please also do as you seem fit here to arrive at NPOV, as I will have little time to curate this and other articles in the weeks to come. Zezen ( talk) 12:23, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
A new editor came in and made a whole series of negative POV edits on February 26, 2019. I reverted to the last stable version from three days ago. This article has achieved some degree of stability and agreement. Please discuss changes here if possible. Thank you very much! Alex Jackl ( talk) 17:00, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
I removed a draft motion that was added. I removed it as per WP: Relevance. An actual court decision might be relevant but that certainly didn't seem to be. Happy to discuss if anyone thinks otherwise. Alex Jackl ( talk) 15:41, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
I'm going to highlight a few of the deadlinks in the article, mostly from Landmark-provided sources. Would be great if someone could find active links. Also, I see there are 31 archived pages in here, so this question has come up - are Landmark-provided sources RS? Bangabandhu ( talk) 04:30, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
Identifying and using independent sources (also called third-party sources) helps editors build non-promotional articles that fairly portray the subject, without undue attention to the subject's own views.
Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. This means that we publish the opinions only of reliable authors, and not the opinions of Wikipedians who have read and interpreted primary source material for themselves.--- Avatar317 (talk) 05:45, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
I have reverted the removal of sales figures based on primary sources. Including sales numbers of private (and public) companies is standard practice, as one can see by looking at the articles here on many other privately held companies. By definition these figures are going to come from primary sources, which can be used in a limited way for basic facts such as these. Furthermore, the way these are worded, "landmark reported" and "the company reported" make it perfectly clear that the information is coming from the company itself.
I do note this information is fairly old - at some point I'll see if I can find more recent numbers. Nwlaw63 ( talk) 17:46, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
"Independent sources are a necessary foundation for any article. Although Wikipedia is not paper, it is also not a dumping ground for any and all information that readers consider important or useful. For the sake of neutrality, Wikipedia cannot rely upon any editor's opinion about what topics are important. Everything in Wikipedia must be verified in reliable sources, including statements about what subjects are important and why. To verify that a subject is important, only a source that is independent of the subject can provide a reliable evaluation. A source too close to the subject will always believe that the subject is important enough to warrant detailed coverage, and relying exclusively upon this source will present a conflict of interest and a threat to a neutral encyclopedia."
I noticed someone added a sub-header in the article on the French video. That is inconsistent with the rest of the article and provides that with a lot of emphasis- that topic has been hashed through and de-emphasized in this article many times before. I would suggest removing the sub-header if no one objects. Alex Jackl ( talk) 16:49, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
I changed the sub-head "Scientists' views" to "Academics' opinions", and it was promptly reverted. I would contend that the original version is not only misleading but inaccurate. The writers in almost all of the references are sociologists, and so would more accurately be described as academics than as scientists. The only one who is a scientist - Charles Watson - is mentioned as a result of a one line quotation in a lifestyle article in an Australian tabloid. Incidentally, his remark was made in support of Landmark, which is not at all clear to a reader of this paragraph. And why is views preferable to opinions? It seems to have been chosen to provide a spurious air of objectivity and authority, as contrasted with the mere "opinions" of reporters, in the sub-head of the paragraph below. DaveApter ( talk) 17:40, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
Reverted to last edit today (May 13) from vandalism in lead paragraph. Alex Jackl ( talk) 03:21, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
An anonymous editor added an inappropriate assertion to the lead, cited to a Mother Jones article. Apart from the fact that the statement is clearly one of opinion, not fact, and that the writer of the article has no notable expertise in the subject, it is clearly not justified to editorialise that ""To date...continues to..." based on a reference which is eleven years old. It would be appropriate to discuss changes on this talk page before making controversial edits to an article such as this, which has reached a stable consensus after a contentious history. DaveApter ( talk) 15:16, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
I haven't looked at this page in a long while and I see some questionable stuff has been added. Particularly the Australian references seem like some talking about the accounting blog about training expenses of a single company and has no relevance to a Wikipedia article on Landmark Worldwide. My organization also questioned whether we should spend money on a Project Management training and decided not to because our key Project Manager was sick. What does that mean about the Project Management training- NOTHING. I suggest we remove it. Alex Jackl ( talk) 15:48, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
I see that there has been a PR Tag at the heading for some time. I don't see that at all - I can't see any signs of sensationalism, and it certainly doesn't read like a press release. It seems more like a mixture of objective facts and critical comment. Also there's an tag suggesting that additional references would be desirable. That seems odd bearing in mind that there are 71 cited footnotes and a long list of additional references. Can anyone suggest the improvements they'd like to see to satisfy the concerns implied by these tags? DaveApter ( talk) 10:15, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
vitalityis an extraordinary and extremely ambiguous claim, and so it would need both context and a strong source. The entire article has this problem, so the tag is still appropriate. Grayfell ( talk) 03:25, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
Does anyone mind if I create a section on methods or technology used within the forum? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dabrams13 ( talk • contribs) 16:43, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
I'd like to add that this section on their teaching methods still reads as a puff piece, it doesn't contain any information on the fact that they use behaviour modification methods and coercive control techniques that many reports (many articles on Rick Ross website and this entry on Ney vs Landmark: https://en-academic.com/dic.nsf/enwiki/11816406) have shown are extremely dangerous how can I flag this or edit without it then all getting edited out as happened last time? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Albert8879 ( talk • contribs) 19:51, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
I have to say I agree that this page still sounds very much like a puff piece. I am a survivor of their 'training' (2009-2014), training which left me with a lifetime of trauma and PTSD and who has had to swallow whole their propaganda in training course after course. So believe me when I say that quite a bit of this Wiki entry reads like one of their promotional booklets in uncritically and basically saying that is transformational personal development training that has been used and endorsed by orgs such as Reebok, PandaExpress, LuluLemon etc.
With no mention of the fact that they use dangerous behavior modification tools and thought reform techniques like NLP, encounter and attack therapy (which includes long sessions of verbal abuse of participants who've often just shared very vulnerable details of their life such as abuse, bullying, troubled relationships etc etc) and guided regression exercises without knowing consent from participants and without any trained licensed mental health professional present.
As I really think we need to add more balance and in line with the policy which states: 'that does not stop us from describing the majority views as such and using the words of reliable sources to present strong criticisms. Fairly explaining the arguments against a pseudoscientific theory or verifiably describing the moral repugnance that people feel toward a notion is fully permitted by NPOV.'
As at the moment someone looking at this Wiki entry would think that this is just a personal development company that offers transformational training to change your relationship to the present and future etc etc. Yes there is some criticism but it's buried and not enough to counter-balance the uncritical reproduction of what Landmark says they are about.
When this training in actual fact has lead to people's: severe depression, anxiety psychosis, psychiatric hospitalisation, triggered suicide, depersonalisation syndrome, PTSD and implants in people a loyal evangelical attitude to Landmark which means they try to convert everyone around them and literally cannot see Landmark in a critical way (other than it can be a bit too intense on sales etc). See: https://en-academic.com/dic.nsf/enwiki/11816406, https://www.win.tue.nl/~aeb/secul/landmark/landmark6.html, https://www.philosophyforlife.org/blog/attack-therapy-and-the-landmark-forum, https://culteducation.com/group/1020-landmark-education/12497-mind-game-courses-aimed-at-public-sector-workers.html, https://forum.culteducation.com/read.php?4,76435,76546)
The only thing I can think of is to quote/cite from Rick Ross's book Cults Inside Out ( https://cultsinsideout.com/) as counter-arguments to what Landmark claims to do/be about in their content, with details on the behaviour modification techniques that Landmark uses fro example. As I guess that would count as a verifiable source?
There are also a few media articles but not many because mostly the media have has been really biased in reporting on Landmark for example not talking to survivors and only talking to people who are uncritical whilst only referring in a few lines to criticisms, or else Landmark has many articles taken down and journalists also fear lawsuits so remove references to it being a cult for example. There's some articles in Mother Jones and have quoted some above.
But don't know if they would be counted as too dated as some are from the 90s and I don't know if it matters that the text is not on the original print publication but hosted on different blogs/Rick Ross' website as the publication may be out of print or the articles taken down from the original website.
Rick Ross also did a podcast The Unmistakable Creative ( https://play.acast.com/s/the-unmistakable-creative-podcast/thecultofpersonaldevelopment-deprogrammingwithrickalanross) about Landmark but I'm not sure if that would be considered verifiable.
If I could get some advice on this would be much appreciated.
I would like to add a section on the history of litigation as I think it's important to show readers the facts of Landmarks' long history of using lawsuits against critics, similar to Scientology. This could also help add to NPOV in understanding the lack of mainstream critical reporting, acting as a counter-balance to the reporters section which only shows positive commentary.
See: https://culteducation.com/group/1020-landmark-education/12303-landmark-education.html#Litigation, https://culteducation.com/group/1020-landmark-education/12390-introduction-to-the-landmark-education-litigation-archive.html, https://www.dmlp.org/threats/landmark-education-llc-v-ross#node-legal-threat-full-group-description and https://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Controversial_development_training_cited_in_religious_discrimination_lawsuits.
Please let me know if this is possible?
Please sign and date your comments on talk pages; you can do this by typing four tilde ~ characters. I suggest you review Wikipedia's relevant policies, especially what Wikipedia is not and undue weight. I am very sorry to hear that you personally are unhappy with the experience that you had in participating in a number of Landmark courses, but Wikipedia is not a forum for venting your dissatisfactions. If you look at the history of this article, you will see that all of the issues you mention have been entertained at some point in the past and that the consensus of editors was that they were either inadequately verified by reliable sources or expressions of opinions by non-notable individuals. Rick Ross's site is not regarded as a reliable source for example, as has been concluded in discussions on a large variety of topics. As far as I am aware, Landmark has not been involved in litigation for more than ten or fifteen years, and the fact that they took action in several cases in the distant past where they felt that they had been slandered or libelled is adequately covered in the article. The case you mention of Stephanie Ney related to an event before Landmark was even founded, and the court concluded that she had not established that she had been harmed by her participation in a course held by a predecessor organisation. DaveApter ( talk) 19:20, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
The 'update needed' tag added without comment in June 2021 presumably refers to the change to online delivery of courses due to covid restrictions. I have added a couple of sentences about that, and removed the tag. DaveApter ( talk) 09:57, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
Whatever NPOV is; this ain't it. Wikipedia is not censored, we should describe weird cults as weird cults. Plenty of criticism online, but none seems to be mentioned in the article? Polygnotus ( talk) 04:39, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
Tag removed as this has been rehashed on these pages over and over again. Please review the history on this talk page and then discuss what issues you might have here before tagging the main page. Thank you so much! There are plenty of contributors who would be happy to engage on any questions you might have. Alex Jackl ( talk) 17:21, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
https://www.win.tue.nl/~aeb/secul/landmark/landmark.html lists a bunch of sources including https://skepdic.com/landmark.html Polygnotus ( talk) 18:11, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
https://www.eff.org/nl/deeplinks/2006/11/landmark-forums-internet-censorship-campaign-goes-down-under An "internet censorship campaign" Polygnotus ( talk) 18:14, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
https://culteducation.com/group/1020-landmark-education/12434-a-landmark-encounter.html
I just removed this paragraph:
Organizations including Nasa, Apple, Microsoft, GlaxoSmithKline, Reebok, and Panda Express have employees who have participated in Landmark's programs through its corporate division, Vanto Group.<ref>{{cite web |url= https://books.google.com/books?id=h6MpAQAAIAAJ |title= The Believer, issues 1-4 |year= 2003 |publisher= McSweeney's Pub., LLC |page= 24 |access-date= August 3, 2021 |quote= Today, CEOs in companies including Reebok and Microsoft are fluent in the Landmark Forum teachings and its jargon. }}</ref>{{ r | Spears_2017-03-30 }}<ref>{{harvnb|Alford|2010}}: "Though Landmark is viewed by some as an incubator for overly assertive or blissed-out automatons who bear a strange predilection for the phrase “got it,” the eight-time Oscar-winning composer Alan Menken, the Boston Philharmonic conductor Benjamin Zander and Paul Fireman, the former Reebok chief executive, are all Landmark graduates, as are employees of Exxon Mobil, JPMorgan Chase, NASA and the Pentagon, who have been coached by the company’s consulting firm, the Vanto Group."</ref>
Note the wording, they "have employees who have participated". This is clear promotional content. Should we add to the McDonalds article that nearly all American Fortune 500 CEOs have eaten in a McDonalds at least once? Should we attribute their success, or that of their company, to that? JPMorgan Chase had 250.355 employees in 2022. Polygnotus ( talk) 10:43, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
I almost removed this content myself. It's bland PR. If reliable sources explain why these particular names are significant, summarize those sources. Otherwise this was just name-dropping. As with so much of the article, these sources were being wasted on tedious filler. The article in The Believer, for example, is available online and says a lot more than just 'well-known corporations have used this':
As I've said before, the article gives the impression that someone wanted to add promotional tidbits, and then hunted around looking for sources to support that perspective. This is not a neutral approach. Grayfell ( talk) 22:34, 28 October 2023 (UTC)