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.

DO NOT EDIT OR POST REPLIES TO THIS PAGE. THIS PAGE IS AN ARCHIVE.

This archive page covers approximately the dates between DATE and 16 November 2005.

Post replies to the main talk page, copying or summarizing the section you are replying to if necessary.

Please add new archivals to Talk:Landmark Education/Archive02. (See Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page.) Thank you. FuelWagon 01:54, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Opening comments

Please feel free to engage in discussion about the edits you make or what people do with yours . Even... "Boo hoo, someone reverted my edits" is fine.

Beginners. Welcome. I was one only a mere few weeks ago. It's a fast learning curve and great fun. "Common issues" will help get you started. Be bold and adventurous in your edits.

Notes to users

While being bold, please make your edits relevant and documented. If you make a large scale edit without comment, then expect it to be reverted.

After exhibiting boldness, consider how much information you may have censored. If you make a small-scale or medium-scale edit without merit, then expect a thousand eyes to enhance it. - Pedant17 01:40, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Common issues

copied from User talk:63.172.9.25

To 63.172.9.25 / 69.91.15.70, you may wish to check out Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, particularly our strict Neutral point of view (NPOV} policy.

The changes you've made to this page do not conform to this policy, hence they are getting reverted. Please don't overwrite the changes but make use of this Talk-page to discuss the changes you wish to make. Jay 04:51, 23 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I smell copyright violation. And if it isn't, PLEASE edit so that it doesn't spread across the whole page. -- Zoe (date: 2003?)

Are email groups and forums useful links

Among links there are some forums and such which change on a rapid basis. While presenting links to the opposing views, are they really useful, given their transient nature ?

If no one disagrees, I'll drop the forums and email group links from the page. What might be better would be some newspaper articles..?

Many sites change dynamically, just like Wikipedia. Links to views, whatever their attitude, have the possibility of proving really useful, especially given their ongoing up-to-date nature and their often extensive archives. I would welcome also links to any newspapaper articles which reflect thorough investigative journalism and which seem likely to remain on-line for the forseeable future. - Pedant17 01:40, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

There is no way an article about Landmark Education can be neutral, because to describe the organization you will inevitably write in a style that subconsciously confirms your either positive or negative views on landmark. I think controversial articles like these should either be splitted in two- one for supporters and one for detractors, or otherwise not be published in a "neutral" encyclopedia at all.

"...because to describe the organization you will inevitably write in a style that subconsciously confirms your either positive or negative view on landmark." Perhaps true... however, only the author of the article can really state what intentions they had in writing the article. We can only guess. Also, issues don't often break down into for/against. You might have to write three articles or four or infinity, know what I mean? Oddly, though, the negative links have somehow dissapeared. Hmmm, I wonder how that happened or who made it happen.

Pedant17 and NU comments

Pedant17, you know that much of what you write is POV and will get removed.

NU here. Msg to Pedant17, and others interested. Recent edits seem to be a mix of correctly pedantic improvements, with additional material and changes appearing to be of an axe-grinding and negatively biased nature. When making changes can you please:

Make link and text changes seperate from material changes.

Comment your changes as to why you say it is appropriate and furthers understanding.

What you miss out on is that there are people on the internet that do not share our opinions, and have direct experience of a training programme. Your edits are risking this page becoming the subject of an edit war. Can you please state what it is you are trying to achieve. Perhaps you could take on leaving things alone for a few months and seeing what other people can reach agreement on ? To state my position. I did the Landmark Forum 4 years ago, and still find it of enduring value. My family originally shared many concerns that people bring up, as have my friends. Needless to say... I now have a background interest in what I got value from being accurately and fairly represented in the world. I don't think that the material on the internet does justice to the current training programmes (which HAVE been revised... not "allegedly revised"). NU 23:07 UTC 17 Oct 04

Hi "NU": nice to meet you. I trust you have already started to enjoy the heady pedantry of writing an encyclopedia.

In this topic, any changes may look like material changes: I enjoy practising boldness in updating.

I've noticed a certain amount of polarization on this subject: fortunately we have NPOV guidelines to help us in such matters and dampen down edit wars.

Returning to this page from time to time, I find the general tenor and the things on which people *appear* to have agreed very encouraging.

You seem to believe that someone has revised Landmark's programs: others insist that very little of substance has changed. Until such time as we have details within the article (who changed what?; when?; when did such changes take effect? ...) I'll restore the comment on "alleged revision" of programs - as a shorthand NPOV record of the dispute.

Pedant17 10:21, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Neale (NU) here. Thanks for your guidance. Really helpful and I'm enjoying being part of writing a great encyclopedia.

I think splitting the sections has helped dampen things down, and what I'll look to do now is back up some of the "alledged" stuff that I know has happened with factual information.

With allegations, should we start filtering them out if they are not backed up, as there are 6 billion people who could add their heresay ? (is my spelling correct?!)

Many thanks. Neale 18:22 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

IMO, one-off allegations need not linger. But widespread allegations have an information-value of their own, and deserve comment or reporting. Like speculation, they may never receive irrefutable proof.

Pedant17 23:52, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Why has User:Maveric149 removed an entry of Steve Zaffron ? Jay 06:50, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)

First, I admit, I am a Forum graduate. No, I am not the person who changed this page previously. Actually, its my first time I've changed anything in the wiki.

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

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

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

eladm 11:22, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Multi Level Marketing

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

French notes

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

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

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

Intro rewrite

DG: Where from here ?

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

NU (need to register account)

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

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

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

Criticism in the 'Responses to Criticisms'

Please keep this straight; editing "Responses to Criticisms"-section using critical language is not the place. Use the "Criticisms of Landmark Education"-section to critisice Landmark Education.

The sub-section of "Criticisms of LE" has long harbored rebuttals... Perhaps we can restructure the "Pro and Con" section to avoid repetition and contrast the reported views on a more point-by-point basis. All in the interests of keeping matters straight. - Pedant17 01:40, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Good idea Pendant17. Someone also insist on adding loaded language into the "Response to Critisism" turning it, in fact, into critisism!!? Please use the actual 'Critisism'-section into your complaints and let answeres to critisims be actual answeres to critisism, not the other way around. For example, I have no critisims about LEC, so I don't edit that section, I let that be as what people feel and preceive.

Purported cult

This material is from the article List of purported cults, which we are paring down to a pure list. Editors here can best evaluate its statements and decide how to integrate it into this article. Thanks, -Willmcw 21:02, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)

Landmark Education

Satisfied participants characterize Landmark, a derivative of est, as "just a business". Others, less charitably inclined towards the company, suggest that brainwashing might account for devotees' fanatical devotion to unpaid recruitment for Landmark seminars. The sometimes controversial reputation of founding guru (formerly known as "The Source") Werner Erhard often muddies debate on the alleged merits of Landmark's innovative (or psycho-babble) "technology".

POV

When I tried to un POV this very POV article I got reverted. hence the NPOV tag. This article must not promote Landmark, or imply they are better or more accurate than their critics, nor must the article be used in any way to promote Landmark, SqueakBox 15:20, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)

Funny that, I have been on the point of putting a NPOV warning on this page for some time. I dispute that your edits are Neutral - on the contrary, I would say that they introduce a definite bias. They also put forward matters of opinion as though they were points of fact and arbitrarily suppress statements which legitimately indicate the range of attitudes. User:DaveApter (left by SB).

Please can you sign your comments here with a ~~~~. Can you give specific examples, as I think your edits are POV and therefore we need to sort out the conflict on the talk page. I will do the same. At least we are agreed there is a dispute, SqueakBox 17:04, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)

Why POV?

This They also include journalists (some initially sceptical), some psychologists, and religious leaders. Many supporters who enter the public debate are prepared to do so on the record, and to put their personal and professional reputations on the line describes the supporters in a very positive light. Some initially sceptical implies the POV that people convert, leaving their former scepticism behind. Here meanwhile Many detractors freely admit that they have no personal experience of Landmark's courses, and also include some who do but did not find them useful. the detractors are put in a negative light. The whole thing implies that the critics don't know what they are talking about, and some who were sceptical finally found out what it is really like, and they think it is great. This They claim that those who have done the course in its entirety and remain critical amount to a tiny proportion, well under one percent. They also point out that, since most of the detractors make their comments anonymously, the claims are often difficult to verify slags off the detractors and minimizes their number repeatedly. Pure POV, especially given the controversial nature of Landmark. to me this is all so much Landmark propaganda. Supporters of Landmark Education characterise the organisation as a straightforward business selling highly effective training courses empowering their course-participants to reach their full potential in all areas of life. Detractors disparage these claims, which they see as subjective and unprovable, despite a wealth of personal accounts describing detailed and specific measurable results, such as increased earnings, weight loss, sporting and artistic accomplishments, and charitable fund-raising (in addition to more subjective results such as "greater enjoyment of life" or "improved relationships"). is pure propaganda, disparaging the claims of the detractors while confirming the claims of the supporters, SqueakBox 17:15, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)

Hi Squeakebox. first of all, apologies for not signing my last comment - it was just an oversight. My commitment is to have this page be an objective and neutral factual account of the issues as befits an encyclopedia. From my observations over the past year it seems that detractors of Landmark have continually been trying to hijack it to propagate their own agenda. Much of what is posted here seems to me to be factually innacurate, or purely subjective, or unattributed, or some combination of these. I appreciate that there are differing opinions, and what I have tried to do is to accurately portray what protagonists on both sides say, so as to give an account of the debate. My understanding of this is that it is 100% in line with the NPOV policies. You edits on the other hand appear to me to have undermined the structure which reported alternately one side then the other by interspersing critical comments into the reports of supporters' positions (without making it clear whether this an opinion or a purported fact).

My position, by the way is that I did the Landmark Forum 3 years ago and found it useful. Many of my friends have done it too, and all except one would say the same. I'm not currently doing any Landmark courses or assisting agreements. I don't see myself as trying to promote it or propagandise for it, but I do want to see it portrayed fairly and accurately (including a frank account of some of its shortcomings). What's your experience and point of view?

As to your specific points: They also include journalists (some initially sceptical), .... This carries none of the implications you ascribe. It is a statement of fact. And it is true. Some supporters are journalists. Some of these were initially sceptical, and they did conclude in the course of their investigations that the scepticism was unfounded e.g. uk_news/story/0,6903,1106927,00.html | Amelia Hill, Observer, London, 14 December 2003. Also Vanora Bennett, The Times, London, 15th July 2000. The relevance of this is that they were not already Landmark supporters writing an article as a whitewash job.

Many supporters who enter the public debate are prepared to do so on the record, and to put their personal and professional reputations on the line Again it's a matter of fact. I'll put up a list of examples over the next day or so. I think it's relevant. Whether it put's them 'in a positive light' is for the reader to decide.

I suggest you re-read the things you described as pure propaganda, and look at them as a report of the conversation.

I'm out of time for now - I'll add more tomorrow. Thanks for entering the debate. DaveApter 20:38, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Further comments:

You say: "This They claim that those who have done the course in its entirety and remain critical amount to a tiny proportion, well under one percent. They also point out that, since most of the detractors make their comments anonymously, the claims are often difficult to verify slags off the detractors and minimizes their number repeatedly. Pure POV, especially given the controversial nature of Landmark. to me this is all so much Landmark propaganda. "

I disagree. First of all it's a statement about what supporters say, and an accurate one. Entirely within the NPOV guidelines. Why are you happy to have the article include comments from detractors and exclude those from supporters? Secondly there is the issue of whether the reported claim is itself accurate. Personally I believe it is. Over 750,000 have done the Forum, and I think you'd be hard pushed to find 7,500 of them who want to kick up a fuss about it. Also my own experience indicates that, by the end of a Landmark Forum, the majority express satisfaction and perhaps one or two complain. And with regard to anonymity - the claim is either true or false, and it looks true to me: if you trawl through the anti-Landmark sites, forums and blogs, I think you will indeed find far more anonymous contributins than signed ones. And this does make it problematic to confirm or refute the accusations.

Finally I disagree that the last-quoted passage is " disparaging the claims of the detractors while confirming the claims of the supporters". It is intended as a brief succinct summary of the positions of both sides, and I believe that as such it is accurate. What is it that you are objecting to? Landmark graduates do report specific results including those quoted, and detractors do disparage them as subjetive and unprovable. (btw that latter phrase was originally inserted by a detractor). DaveApter 12:14, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I have attended a Landmark guest evening, and have seen friends who got involved, including one person who attributed it to a clear, marked improved in parental relationships. I hadn't thought of it for years till someone yesterday mentioned it is still going strong in the town in which I used to live, and where I saw it. My POV is I don't like the Landmark approach. The description of the forums give me the creeps, especially the long hours and strong demands that Landmark make on people. Having said that I have done over 7,000 edits here in 8 months over a large spread of articles, and I am much more interested in the Wikipedia encyclopedia than I am in Landmark. And I do find the article depressingly POV, SqueakBox 23:54, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)

New edits

The prominent employees section seemed unnecessary, and the external link to LE being a legally constituted organisation seemed inappropriate, SqueakBox 17:39, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)

Balanced but empty

This is one of the most well-balanced articles at Wikipedia. It could be the poster child for NPOV.

But it's a bastard child. It doesn't tell me anything about Landmark. The only thing I know about it now, after having read the article, is that there are a whole series of charges and rebuttals about how they lure people into this meaningless mumbo-jumbo and get others to do it too.

I would trim this down to a stub, because it's all skin and bones and no meat. What are the specific lessons learned at this time-consuming and presumably costly seminars? -- Uncle Ed (talk) 02:57, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)

One of the reasons you can't find any specific results that customers get from the Landmark courses is that every time anyone puts specific examples in, someone else removes them with an accusation that they are 'propaganda'. (e.g. Look in the History to see the minor edit war of the last week). In summary, the courses are investigations into the ways in which we all make decisions in response to the experiences we had in the past. These decisions then place constraints on how we perceive the world and the people around us. All this probably seems pretty obvious and would justify your characterisation as 'meaningless mumbo-jumbo' if it stopped there. But it doesn't. In identifying and taking responsibility for these decisions (rather than blaming factors beyond their control - other people, circumstances etc) course participants discover a freedom to act in ways which were previously unimaginable. The results are as varied as the individuals who get them. They range from the trivial (e.g. tidiness, punctuality, personal organisation) to the cataclysmic (e.g. reconciliation with an estranged divorced partner, starting a business which goes on to make millions).

You can find plenty of personal accounts by following the links at the bottom of the article, or by searching "landmark forum results" on Google.

Regarding "presumably costly" - cheap or expensive is in the eye of the beholder, but Landmark courses are at the very bottom of the price spectrum for training courses of any kind, especially "personal development" ones. e.g. the Landmark Forum costs £295 (UK prices - broadly similar in other developed countries, and about a quarter of these in developing countries) for 40-45 hours of tuition, or under £5 per hour (under £3 per hour for anyone who takes the free 10-session seminar series which is offered to all participants). The more advanced courses are even cheaper pro-rata.DaveApter 11:13, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Ed, I would argue that it is NPOV because I got rid of the pro POV stance and left it much more neutral. I think it is very hard to get a grip on Landmark because of the generally contentless nature of their courses. Actually I should change my above statement as I did spend an afternoon investigating Landmark on the internet a year ago, and one of the major criticism was that the courses and Landmark lack content. There clearly have been people in the past coming from the same anti Landmark POV as myself contributing in the past, but the article had become, in my opinion, POV towards Landmark by the time I read the article 2 days back, and before I edited. My commitment is to NPOV, which means reflecting both sides of the argument equally, and NOT in any way implying either side is right; I felt the pro Landmark argument was given greater weight but I have fixed that.

The price depends on your point of view. It is fairly expensive by non-corporate standards, but more to the point people who can ill afford to pay are pressured into taking the course by others who promise a "life transforming" experience. I know this happens, indeed it was hearing about such shennanigans (from an individual) that has brought me here, SqueakBox 14:56, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)

SB, you wrote:

In summary, the courses are investigations into the ways in which we all make decisions in response to the experiences we had in the past. These decisions then place constraints on how we perceive the world and the people around us. All this probably seems pretty obvious ~~and would justify your characterisation as 'meaningless mumbo-jumbo' if it stopped there. But it doesn't.~~ In identifying and taking responsibility for these decisions (rather than blaming factors beyond their control - other people, circumstances etc) course participants discover a freedom to act in ways which were previously unimaginable. The results are as varied as the individuals who get them. They range from the trivial (e.g. tidiness, punctuality, personal organisation) to the cataclysmic (e.g. reconciliation with an estranged divorced partner, starting a business which goes on to make millions).

I would like to add that to the article. I don't think anyone will revert, if the edit is made by someone who is new to this article. -- Uncle Ed (talk) 01:45, Jun 27, 2005 (UTC)

Not the strikeout parts, of course. -- Uncle Ed (talk) 01:48, Jun 27, 2005 (UTC)

Minutiae no more

Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Under Operation: The statement “aids in maintaining the minutiae of an environment” is out of date. This was the case with EST and to a lesser extent WEA but those days have long passed. Also, to imply that attention to small details is of negligible importance is an opinion or judgement and not a statement of fact? Gary C 29 June 2005 08:38 (UTC)

Here's the whole section you're referring to:

Participants in LE's Assisting Program ("graduates" of the Landmark Forum) aid in maintaining the minutiae of an environment that fosters acceptable group-based behavior and participation - what Landmark Education terms "getting" Landmark's technology. (See Kopp's academic analysis of the Landmark Forum milieu for an analysis of the delivery-setup and of the importance of control of the perceived environment.)

So you are saying that the participants in the Assisting Program do not provide aid in running seminars? Did they ever in the LE's history (setting aside EST and WEA)? Just trying to get this clear. Thanks, -Willmcw June 29, 2005 08:47 (UTC)

While they do assist in running seminars as well as leading them providing aid in runnning seminars is one thing, to "aid in maintaining the minutiae of an environment that fosters acceptable group-based behavior and participation" is something else. In the days of EST we were very meticulous; hours were spent lining up chairs and the pencils/papers underneath them. It is just not that way anymore. I find this article to be quite factual in many many areas, yet there is distinctly negative tone that pops up here and there. Where does "fosters acceptable group-based behavior" come from? It sounds a little controlling hence negative to me. I can only imagine that the writer(s) are people who either have not participated in the programs or are incomplete about something, which is fine, the NPOV warning fits well. Thanks for asking, -Gary C 1 July 2005 06:22 (UTC)

I just attempted a cleanup towards NPOV, got halfway through when I realized how deeply biased it is. Perhaps it is better left in its POV state given the condition prior editors have placed it in? -Gary C 1 July 2005 07:26 (UTC)

OK, so I've actually coughed up the dough and gone to one of these. I can't remember what all I signed at the time, but if I were them, I'd have made me sign something that said I won't give away the details of their course. So I'll simply assume I did that and instead report on what happened to me that weekend:

I was recruited by a friend and told that I needed to go to this course. One of those "this will change your life" sorts of conversations that set my teeth on edge and made me wonder how fast I could learn counter-interrogation techniques, but I rolled with it and signed up. $400 later I was $400 poorer and standing around outside a nondescript building outside of Boston.
I think I actually started on Friday night, but if so, it was mercifully brief, and I don't remember much of that.
I had to be there fairly early Saturday, and when I got there, there was a fair amount of waiting. The chairs seemed comfortable enough once I sat down, but at various times I had to get up. It seems there's always one more form to fill out, and the number of times I was pressured to sign up for the "Advanced Course" is a detail I lost track of....
I noticed that every time we had a break, we would all be moved out of the room. A friend who went trhough it after me noticed that every time he came back in, they would have moved the chairs a bit closer together. Interesting item, that.
I watched a lot of people get up and pour their hearts out. I heard some very, very disturbing stories from people who I'm pretty certain were not planted (though some of them might have been).
By the time they let me out at night I was exausted. 2.5 days of this seemed an impossible task. But on top of it there was "homework", which I did only half-heartedly. It occured to me, though, that the homework in question was of the sort that was likely to turn into logn conversations with loved ones for many of the participants. I could only imagine that most of the people the next day would be sleep deprived.
On the second day the food-related pattern seemed to become clearer. I was getting in early, so I was eating early and meal breaks were spread out to ensure that at the time that "big revelations" were given out, everyone's stomachs were growling. Thankfully I knew something of the technique that this mapped to, and was able to stay detatched, even while everyone else was reacting to low blood sugar like a revelation.
The "big deal" was at the end of the second day. It was minor, and while I won't divulge teh big truth they deliver, I will say that you can find it in any casual read of a book on 19th century existentialism. A comraderie had developed between a reporter and I. I'd gotten a ride home from him, and he was there because a co-worker had told him it would be a good idea. We came to roughly the same conclusions about the big revelations they had. Simple pop psycology with environmental and blood-sugar inducement to make it seem exciting and important.
Other than that the only thing we could really think of to say about it was that it was a weekend jam-packed full of more advertising for the "Advanced Course" than you could shake a stick at. They harped on it over and over, and made it sound like I was a failure in life for not signing up on the spot!
We returned a day or two later in the evening. It was a sort of "feel good" get-together where people talked about how much better they felt in the day or two since the bulk of the course. Our "sponsors" were invited to attend, and they, along with the instructors pushed everyone to sign up for the "Advanced Course" all over again.

Well, that's about it. I hope my "what I did on my Landmark weekend" recap has been helpful in sorting out the cruft from the facts. Enjoy, folks! -Harmil 01:45, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Minor Changes

Just changed a few lines in the criticisms section. The undue stress on "most of whom have not participated" only needs stating ONCE - repetitive statement is a clear attempt at bias. I also added that many detractors are friends/family members who have a negative reaction to people attending. Please note this is common knowledge - and does not necessarily reflect badly on Landmark. The aggressive marketing of the course and the frequent behavioural changes of participants (positive or negative depending how you see it) can often be disruptive to those around attendees. Once again this is not a judgement either way - people can draw their own conclusions as to whether negative reactions are warranted are not - but an acknowledgement of the most common 'word of mouth' detraction is required for a balanced perspective. Anecdotally, I am aware of more people who have had relationship issues with an attendee than I know attendees - around 20 to 6 ratio. Bearing in mind that the 20 also know others, that is a significant 'word of mouth' detraction that is borne up by a quick google search. Also removed/edited a few spelling and grammar mistakes.

203.134.146.118 5 July 2005 03:12 (UTC)datreus

I removed the word "Independent" from the independent studies section and changed the title to "Studies of Landmark Performance" because for the Yankelovich study, the survey and analysis methodology are proprietary to Landmark, indicating that the study cannot be independent, and the USC study is cited via the Landmark website, no independent confirmation is available. BTW, kudos to folks on the NPOV nature of the article, I am impressed! 8th of July, 2005

Restructuring this entry

Maybe we should set a structure to the controversial areas as we keep making and reverting changes. The format of a restructured article could be:

A) Facts with attributions written in a narrow language B) References to course content C) Areas of controversy C1) Area of controversy: religion C1a) Assertion (250 words) C1b) Response (250 words)

C2) Area of controversy: registration

For each of the C1, C2, C3, ..., we could limit each side to 250 words (or some other agreed-upon number).

Regarding Restructuring

This article may indeed be a good candidate for restructuring. One of the issues with the massive focus on the areas of controversy in these articles is that it blows that aspect of Landmark's programs way out of proportion. It is an old debating technique of creating "two sides" to an argument that really isn't about those two sides.

As well- some of the editors keep sprinkling the word "alleged" around like it was going out of style. ALmost none of the use sof "alleged " in this article are accurate- most are statement of belief that the porganization and supporters of the organization have- there is nothing "alleged" about it.

There a very ANTI-Landmark POV in these articles and I very much question the neutrality of them. I will take a cut over the next week at some of the changes I think should be made to balance it out a little. Primarily by taking some of the excessive weight painte to the contraversy in this supposedly "neutral " article.

I will do my best to manage my POV in doing this.

========

Sm1969: I agree with you that there is a very anti-LE POV in these articles, but we are sort of at the point where everything has a point and rebuttal, so we are quite NPOV in that respect. Of the 800,000 customers from 1991 to 2005, the vast majority (as reported in LE's surveys) do report it to have a very high rate of customer satisfaction, and there is probably no other for-profit company on the planet any volunteers, let alone a near 10-to-1 ratio. Every time we try to eliminate the two-sides, someone keeps adding the stuff in; I can either revert the stuff or put up a rebuttal.

The last day or so has seen the "recruitment" and "member" language pop up again. In just about every other context in the English language, these terms imply an ongoing relationship, other than A) just attending a course for a defined period of time or B) assisting for defined period of time, which is why "recruitment" and "member" are inaccurate words.

I think there should be a section on language "cult versus customer satisfaction" and "recruitment versus word of mouth marketing" and then deal with the two sides from there.

Others have said that the article gives little about course content. The two best places for that that are official LE positions are: 1) the Contemporary Philosophy article and 2) the Course Syllabus. You could put in some of the news articles as immediate references.

The use of the word "allegedly" is just plain wrong. Most of the supporters/customers do hold these positions.

=============

Thanks Sm1969. I appreciate all of that... I am just not certain as to the best path to putting in things I see are more correct and not adding to the fireworks. :-) I will look at it again.

This is Kopp

Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

To my surprise, I just found on this Wikipedia listing a link to a paper I wrote concerning the role the production of space has on the transformation of the participants of the Landmark Forum. I'm very curious if someone who has participated in LE has read my paper and is willing to give me feedback on it. Please feel free to email me: kopp@email.arizona.edu. 68.0.168.8 06:24, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Can we agree on some guidelines?

Latest comment: 18 years ago14 comments3 people in discussion

Pedant17 has been back littering the article with negative insinuations, innuendoes and opinions baldly stated as facts. Can we agree on some conventions to preserve the NPOV policies on this page? For a start I suggest:

Restrict accounts of opinion and debate to the 'Critique' section, and leave other sections for factual statements.
Avoid repetition of the same point all over the article.
Having characterised the 'supporters' and 'detractors' (without assuming either group is "right"), use a consistent terminology. Avoid phrases like "Some observers" (-which observers? -stated where? -on what evidence? -substantiated how?) or "a proportion of participants" (-what proportion: 50%? 10%? 0.001%? -how do we know?) - which are often used to give a spurious sense of objectivity to hearsay, rumour or gossip.
Avoid over-use of "scare quotes".
Avoid sprinkling the article with 'allegedly' and repeated qualifying phrases. These are frequently used either to cast doubt on unexceptional statements just because an editor happens to dislike them, or to excuse the bald statement of an unattributed and unverifiable claim. If something is alleged, please say who alleged it, and where, and when, and on what grounds.

I believe that by adhering to policies such as this, we could have an article worthy of Wikipedia, in spite of the range of opinions about the subject.

Finally, I invite pedant17 to declare his own point of view on Landmark, and the experiences or investigations which led him to form it. (I have already done this for myself above). DaveApter 09:49, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

It saddens me to find my periodic attempts to bring some balance and NPOV to the "Landmark Education" article characterized as "littering the article with negative insinuations, innuendoes and opinions baldly stated as facts". But in response to your suggestions:

It seems like a good idea to cluster reports of opinions and debates in the "Critique" section. So few statements about Landmark Education remain uncontroversial, though: difficulties could arise even in presenting the baldest sumnmary.
Repetition often appears to arise where seemingly innocuous claims and terminology crop up anywhere in the article, yet demand explanation, questioning or rebuttal. This problem resembles the previous problem.
"Supporters" vs "detractors" expresses matters far too simplistically. We can do better in reflecting multiple different shades of opinion. (Some "supporters" would support far-reaching reform of Landmark Education; not all "detractors" want either to ignore the org or to fight to drive it into the sea.) The term "detractors" has a somewhat pejorative (and hence POV) tinge. - I recognise some of the potential problems inherent in phrases such as "some observers" or "a proportion of participants", but I find these much preferable to "it is said that" or "many/most state...". Such statements cannot always attain to the pseudo-respectability accorded to statistics from Landmark-commissioned surveys, but they can express a degree of accuracy in their very formulation.
The use of so-called "scare quotes" (a POV-formulation, I suspect) merely reflects the contention, repeatedly stated in many versions of the article, that Landmark Education's use of the English language (and subsequently, many of its graduates' use of the English language) can appear somewhat idiosyncratic, to say the least. I believe that we can provide a service to casual readers of the Wikipedia Encyclopedia by highlighting such usage.
The use of phrasing such as "allegedly" and "so-called" merely shows that apparently innocuous statements have another side. In short-hand form, they draw attention to the NPOV we aim for in the article. Without them, we would need to repeatedly and drearily write sentences like "Landmark Education states that..., whereas on the other hand third parties suggest that...". And without such qualification, the article runs the risk of becoming a mere mouthpiece for a pro-Landmark POV, a collection of quotes from and references to Landmark Education web-pages. - Pedant17 04:40, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks Pedant17 for the prompt response. First of all, I'm sorry your are saddened by my characterisation of your edits. I have no wish to insult you, and for what it is worth I too am saddened by the occasional similar descriptions of my attempts to restore some balance and NPOV to the article. Secondly I note that your response conspicuously omits a reply to my invitation for you to state your POV on Landmark, and the experiences or information that led to it. Why the reluctance? I do think it is relevant.

My reaction to the specific points in your answer:

I feel you are exagerating the difficulties in finding factual statements.
The avoidance of repetition is simply a matter of discipline. There is no need to have broadly similar points made about the use of unpaid volunteers or the presumed significance of the precision of the chair spacing three or four times in different places in the article.
I agree that there is a spectrum of opinion within both supporters and detractors, and also that many supporters do have some misgivings about certain aspects of the enterprise (I actually draw attention to this in my edit today). I would assume this to be obvious. I disagree that "detractors" carries a pejorative overtone, and could be happy with other terms. "Critics" might do, but then the difficulty is that it would imply that supporters do not criticise, which is certainly untrue. My main point is that your formulations often leave an impression of authority or objectivity which is not actually substantiated.
No problem apout using quotes where a word is being used in a specialised way (eg "technology"), but many places where you and others keep inserting them this doesn't apply. '...the results they get...'is perfectly ordinary English usage. (Incidentally, the specialised use as in 'I get it' is not very different from the way it is used in the context of getting a joke, an artistic convention, or a mathematical theorem) "Completed" can have a specialised meaning, but you had put quotes where it was used in the ordinary sense of "done in full". The sprinkling of these through the article leaves readers with the (possibly unintended) impression that there is something suspect about the assertions.
I have two problems with your use of "allegedly". One is that you seem to think that you can stick it in front of a critical comment and that this somehow absolves you of having to justify the comment or cite some sources for it. The other is that you often insert it into sentences in such a way that it leaves the impression that there is something suspect about the claim. If you don't think a sentence is accurate, why not say so and provide some evidence? DaveApter 16:42, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Guidelines discussion 22 October 2005

Hi DaveApter:

I noticed and brushed aside your curious interest in my (bitter and prolonged) exposure to Landmark. Discussing that really would become an exercise in point-of-view - an unsuitable activity within the Wikipedia environment, I suggest. I wouldn't expect contributors to the moon article to have visited Luna, either.

You seem to assume that your own POV does not intrude into your contributions. My objection to many of the changes you repeatedly make is that you try to cloak the arguments of Landmark's detractors with an appearance of objectivity. One example is re-naming the 'Generally critical opinions..' title as 'Varied opinions...' Why not be straight about the fact that most of those sites make no pretence of neutrality? Rick Ross for instance blocks or deletes any contributions which are not critical, or which attempt to debate the negative comments.DaveApter 12:15, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Re the difficulty in finding factual statements: let's just take one sentence from the current section on Operation: "The courses are investigations into the ways in which human beings make decisions in response to their experiences in the past; and how these decisions then place constraints on how they perceives [sic] the world and the people around them." The expository style looks factual and measured. But the content makes assumptions and emphases that call for questioning, discussion, elaboration and countering.

So please tell us what assumptions you think it makes, then discuss and question them. Your edit did none of that - it just mangled the sentence. And I repeat - that sentence was originally written by me on this discusion page and -- Uncle Ed (a respected warrior for NPOV) suggested that it be put into the actual article (see above 'balanced but empty').DaveApter 12:15, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Re avoiding repetition: I agree that discipline would help here. But given Landmark Education's method of employing meaning-laden jargon in innocuous-looking phrasing, such usages call for responses as and when they occur, especially in what has become a fairly lengthy article. Where POV creeps in, it requires countering.

Re spectrum of opinion: The OED has a fine definition of "detractor": One who detracts from another's merit or reputation by uttering things to his prejudice; a person given to detraction; a defamer, traducer, calumniator, slanderer. - Somehow that sounds fairly derogatory and pejorative to me. - "Skeptics" seems like a useful term. I personally fancy a word like "landmarcocynic". - I think we agree in wanting more detailed justification and substantiation of each of the various points of view in each case. That should emerge with time, provided the individual assertions survive the deleting processes long enough to collect references. Pro-Landmark claims, of course, need just as much substantiation.

I would say that you either have justification for a comment or you don't - if you do, surely you can indicate the sources when you insert it?

Re quoted jargon: Landmark Education uses jargon that DOES resemble eveyday usage. But that doesn't make it non-jargon; not does it mean we can sloppily ignore it. Landmark Education and its acolytes use the phrase "complete[d] the forum" as a set sequence of words, and it implies to the initiated a plethora of connotations about becoming "complete with" something/someone. A non-biased article needs to signal this idiosycrasy in some way: the quotes provide a shorthand way of doing this, or at least of signalling that something extra has occurred. Once again, extra explanation (possibly even repetitions) may ensue.

I agree that an explanation of jargon terms, and an indication of when the word is being used in an unorthodox sense, would be useful. "Completed" does sometimes have a specialised meaning within Landmark dialog, and sometimes is used in the everyday sense of "done in full". I don't think the word is used in its specialised sense anywhere in the article. Similarly you put quotes round "participants" where it just means "one who has participated" etc etc. This is not particularly damaging, but it adds to obscurity and makes the article ponderous. DaveApter 12:15, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Re the use of "alleged[ly]": My use of "alleged[ly]" may seem random, but I can assure you that I calculate its effect. I agree that more backup for the claims thus made seems desirable. But every time? We do have in the article references to sources such a Usenet's alt.fan.landmark which provide at least some generic referencing. We can look on "allegedly" as a place-holder for future refinement.

I didn't say they were random, I said they are inappropriate. You ignore the point I made above: you seem to imagine that you can throw out any accusation under the sun and it make it ok by adding "allegedly". Elsewhere, you want to be able to cast doubt on statements made by others by sticking "allegedly" into them. Usenet discussion boards don't strike me as a reliable source of attributable, verifiable, accurate information. DaveApter 12:15, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Re "the pseudo-respectability accorded to statistics from Landmark-commissioned surveys". - We need not confuse marketing literature with thorough research: even in the presence of numerical statistics. As the main article states, the Landmark Education website quotes statistics without always giving full details as to the time-periods, selection, methodology or even authorship of its surveys. These deficiencies make them sound like exit-polls of the self-selecting satisfied - but we do not have data to confirm or to disprove that. - Pedant17 01:41, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that organisations such as Harris Interactive, DYG, the University of Southern California, the Talent Foundation and Harvard Business School are prepared to serve up massaged survey results because Landmark Education wants them to? If you have alternative estimates, please say what they are and where they come from. Of course there is a degree of uncertainty about any sampled survey. Perhaps the proportion of people who do Landmark courses and are highly satisfied with the result is not quite as high as LE claims, and perhaps the proportion who emerge unsatisfied is not quite as small. But it's clear to me that the former outnumber the latter by a very large margin. Do you seriously contest that? If so, on what basis? btw, being highly satisfied with the results of the courses is not at all the same thing as being totally uncritical of every aspect of LE's conduct. Many supporters do have complaints - the difference is that they communicate them to Landmark staff or course leaders rather than griping about them on newsgroups DaveApter 12:15, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

=

Agreed, DaveApter, we do need to agree on some guidelines. Pedant17 has vandalized this article several times now. I don't have objection to what he says, but 1) it is extremely POV, 2) it is totally unstructured (reintroducing repetitive content) and 3) done in a way that allows for no rebuttal. The only option is to revert as I have personally done several times now.

The structure of this article should be something like the following:

1) Opening, with minor historical data and an overview of the article structure (and why we have evolved to this new structure) 2) History and Quantitative Data (with rebuttal) 3) Landmark Education's case for value (with rebuttal) 4) Arguments made by detractors (with rebuttal) 5) Closing discussion

Without the structure, we are going around in circles. I myself am a supporter, but added to your list of arguments made by detractors. Detractors (to some degree) really do say those things, but each should get a rebuttal. Sm1969 14:22, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

I submit that any vandalization of this article has come from editors (generally not logged in) who have repeatedly deleted material with no or minimal explanation. - The size to which the article has grown sometimes makes it difficult to avoid repetition, despite any fine theoretical structure. I have commented above on the spillover of opinions into the sections intended as more factual; I suggest that historical accounts and quantitative data also need rebutting/questioning. - Sm1969: I cannot see how you cannot rebut my contributions. Please rebut, even if you need to change the structure of the article (which each of us can boldly do - it has happened in the past), rather than reverting. - I cannot imagine a "Closing discussion" of any content other than the expression of POV. - Pedant17 04:40, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Ok, I take it in good faith that you are willing to work on having this be an an effective encyclopedia entry. The edits you make are huge, though. The material that is deleted betweeen your major edits (which seem to be every three weeks) is probably not even the size of your edits; that's just the size of your edits. What seems to get deleted, if I can correctly recall: 1) the backgrounds of certain est trainers and Mind Dynamics, Holiday Magic et al, 2) the French and the assistants. What else? I guess we can add the Holiday Magic et al to a 20th point of critique: the backgrounds of certain est trainers (who subsquently became Landmark Forum leaders).

DaveApter asked about what your background is re LE. From things you have written (specifically about being harangued and such having happened to a degree that would discourage a guest from finding out about the Landmark Forum), I speculate you have family members who have been talking to you about the Landmark Forum for several years and that it has driven you crazy. Sm1969 19:12, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

What do you mean by "an effective encyclopedia entry"? - I aim for comprehensiveness, accuracy and balance. "Effective" may have POV overtones.

We certainly have scope for adding extra "critique" points: go for it. I may extend the list myself in my next edit.

Your story about my presumed craziness and its causes in the recruitment so-called game hardly does justice to my long-standing and ongoing study of the Landmark Education world. But let it serve as a good object-lesson against the perils of speculating. - Pedant17 01:41, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

By "effective" I mean within the NPOV guideliness. I'm clear, in your mind, this should be called (Landmark "Education") or (Landmark allegedly "Education"), but I'd rather suspend use of quotes and simply attribute positions to one side or another. Comprehensiveness, accuracy and balance are wonderful. I would appreciate smaller edits by you on a more frequent basis. I took ownership of it being speculation (based on your statements about being harangued" in one of your comments) because I drove my father nuts for years (my interpretation). The points of critique need to be separated into the major areas to avoid repetition, possibly something like this (but not necessarily in this order and all with rebuttal): 1) results, 2) marketing practices, 3) operations (e.g., assistants working for a for profit), 4) course content, 5) company history, 6) litigation. There is a threshhold of materiality for certain items (as directed in the NPOV guideliness) that probably should not even be included in the encyclopedia entry (e.g., psychotherapeutic and using unqualified practitioners) which is really rare criticism versus the jargon spouting robots (which is easily an order of magnitude more frequent). You could, of course, answer in more detail regarding your "long-standing and ongoing study of Landmark Education." When did you start studying it and what has you so interested in it? Sm1969 05:21, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Charity Fundraising Estimates

The basis for the estimate of 'millions of dollars' being raised for charity by projects carried out on Landmark Self-expression and Leadership Program is as follows:

Landmark states that over 30,000 have done this course (and this is consistent with the published shedule of courses and the typical size);
Program Leaders report that charity fundraising is a popular choice of project and that typically over 10% select this option.
If we assume an average figure raised of $1,000 per project, this would yield a total of 3,000 x $1,000 = $3m.

$3m is definitely 'millions' but this is almost certainly an under-estimate, as all the numbers above are chosen to err on the conservative side. In particular, few of the fund-raising projects yield less than $1,000, many produce several thousand and some raise tens of thousands. The real total is likely to be an order of magnitude larger than this. DaveApter 11:49, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

On what basis might one assume an "average figure" of $1000 per SELP "project"? - Pedant17 01:41, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

It's based on an informal survey I carried out last year. This involved observing two SELPs (one of which I participated in) and interviewing five SELP leaders who between them had led twelve programs to a total of over 570 participants. The aggreagate of their estimates of the money raised per project in each of these bands was as follows: 00-$100: 12%, $100-$1000: 9%, $1000-$5000: 53%, $5000-20,000: 24%, over $20,000: 2%. The average of these comes to about $5,400, so I thought a fifth of that was a safe conservative estimate even given the small size of the sample and the unscientific methodology. Do you have information to suggest any alternative figure? DaveApter 13:52, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

I did the SELP myself 2 years ago and find these numbers very hard to believe. Many projects fail. Quite a few people drop out. Some people end up with debts! Many don't even attempt to raise money. - Cruisader 14:09, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't see that my observations are particularly incompatible with yours. On my figures, 90% of course participants did projects not involving charity fundraising. Furthermore, 12% of the ones who did, "failed" or dropped out of the program (probably most in the '0-$100' range were in fact $0 raised). And a further 9% performed poorly. Also your estimate is based on a "sample" of one Program (as recalled from two years ago) rather than my fourteen. Courses vary quite widely, depending on the experience and effectiveness of the instructor and the dynamics of the group.DaveApter 10:19, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Free Advertising

I used to work for Landmark, at their HQ, and this "encyclopedia" article appears to be little more than a lengthy advertisement for Landmark's services and products; neutrality? None here. I don't yet have the supporting data, but someone needs to further address the litigious nature of the company, and the Rosenberg/Erhard connection. And while not a cult, per se, they do act in a peculiarly "culty" way, and seem to live in their own universe (all in all, they're pretty harmless, as far as ideologies go).

-pterantula

Response re Free Advertising and Litigation

Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hi Pterantula,

The encyclopedia entry requires attributions and references. For example, the studies of the "effects of Landmark Education" is from the third-party surveys. If, instead, the encyclopedia entry were to have customer testimonials instead, they could be struck on grounds they are not verifiable. (We've gone around in circles on that many times as well.)

As well, the 20 points of critique are all against Landmark Education (with rebuttals in many cases).

As for litigation, I am aware of five outbound cases:

Pre-emptive warning

1) Traci Hukill "The Est of Friends" (1998, pre-emptive warning, no suit filed)

Actual litigation, outbound

Elle Magazine (1998, LE achieved no result)
Cynthia Kisser (1997, LE won retraction)
Margaret Singer (1997, LE won retraction)
Rick Ross (2005, LE cancelled suit for product disparagement)
German Volksgericht (LE successfully sued to block characterisation as a promulagator of a "world view")
German court re Martin Lell and "Brainwashing" in the title of the book, where the court held that "brainwashing" was a matter of interpretation/opinion, not an assertion of fact. As such, the court ruled that it was free speech, not the tort of defamation.

There are about three inbound cases (against LE) in 14 years since 1991:

Stefanie Ney (court ruled in LE's favor)
Been versus Weed (2002; 10 claims, 3 settled (LE may have paid $0), 7 dropped; LE was a cross-defendent)
Tracy Neff (1997, sexual harrassment, settled out of court; LE lacked a "sexual harrassment" policy at the time and got pulled in on this)

Does anyone have anything more than this from LE's inception in 1991 (14 years ago)? Litigation regarding "est" should be on the "est" page. For a company with $70 million in revenue and over 800,000 customers of the Landmark Forum, this is a tiny amount of litigation.

Finally, the Erhard/Rosenberg connection is documented in two places: 1) one noting that Werner has family, consulting and royalty ties and 2) under "Management" noting that Harry and Joan are Werner's brother and sister, respectively. I believe the royalties have reached their financial cap as well.

Sm1969 16:55, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Another Response

Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Your complaint flags up yet again the massive difficulty of pleasing everybody. Supporters are convinced that the entry has an anti-Landmark bias, and opponents are equally convinced that it is biased in favour. The article contains about five screens-full of more-or-less factual assertions and over nine of discussion of accusations levelled by Landmark opponents, yet it occurs to you as an "advertisement". I'm also baffled by your inability to provide concrete information to articulate your misgivings, especially if you really were a Landmark staff member at any time.

The two specific points you raise seem to me to be complete non-issues. The point about litigation has been answered above, and I couldn't care less how much influence Werner Erhard has or doesn't have. What I care about is whether the courses deliver worthwile tangible results for the time and money that they cost. Everyone I know who has actually met Erhard says he is a great guy, and they are all people whose judgement I would trust.DaveApter 11:36, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Revert of massive anonymous edit (18:17, 6 November 2005)

I am reverting this massive edit. We have gone over these points several times now in the discussion. Please make small edits and cite references. The DYG estimates were referenced, as was the survey methodology. Add the critique to the 20 points of critique against LE as this allows for integrated rebuttal and the substantiation required by hyperlink. Sm1969 00:03, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

newbie

just saw a message from DaveApter 09:50, 14 October 2005 (UTC) on Improv's page requesting help with a problematic article. is there a brief summary of issues? FuelWagon 02:09, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Why is Landmark hotly debated- a possible answer

I've taken the landmark course - there's nothing unworldly about it. It is true that mental headcases should not attend this forum. Primarily, this is because all 6 billion of us on the planet who are of sound body and mind have a belief system of some sort, which isn't substantiated by neither fact nor some scientific idea. Landmark's methodology is entirely playing with your belief and emotional system rather than the factual or scientific-based systems. More on this has been written at http://www.arachnoid.com/levels/index.html. If you read this, you might stand a chance of understanding why their methodology is hottly debated.

Thanks for that link - I just had a look at it and it's a great analysis. However it's my opinion that you are 100% wide of the mark when you locate Landmark's work in the feelings and beliefs levels. I would say that, on the contrary, it enables you to distinguish where your feelings and beliefs had been determining your view of the world (but you couldn't know that - these had just been occurring to you as "reality"). There's a fascinating discussion in the Advanced Course, starting with a quote from Einstein's 1938 essay Evolution of Physics - "Physical theories are free creations of the humand mind and not, however it may seem, uniquely determined by the external world..." DaveApter 14:39, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Here's the full quote from Einstein: "Physical concepts are free creations of the human mind, and are not, however it may seem, uniquely determined by the external world. In our endeavour to understand reality we are somewhat like a man trying to understand the mechanism of a closed watch. He sees the face and the moving hands, even hears it ticking, but he has no way of opening the case. If he is ingenious he may form some picture of the mechanism which could be responsible for all the things he observes, but he may never be quite sure his picture is the only one which could explain his observations. He will never be able to compare his picture with the real mechanism and he cannot even imagine the possibility of the meaning of such a comparison."

Couple of things - 1) drop the AC course pitch - I'm not going to make LE richer anytime soon, 2) Articles used on the LE site are modified instead of being shown in their authentic form as were written by the author. If you would like examples of this, I'll gladly provide it. When I attended the forum, I heard words like 'authenticity' being mentioned once too often - modifying news articles to make yourself look good is either all too human or all too treachearous on LE's behalf. AnonDude 05:41, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

As to your comment about beliefs and feelings determining my worldview - you are incorrect, sir - I never had any prior beliefs nor did I ever consider myself an emotional being. Quite contrary actually, most of the opposite sex has considered me a prick and crude. ;) Nice try though - you've advanced beyond what I can see. AnonDude 06:14, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

The LE web site notes that they are excerpts and explicitly states so WHERE they are excerpts and not full articles. In some cases, the other content was unrelated and in some cases unfavorable. Many businesses would give you excerpts. Yes, LE is controversial. There is no doubt about that. Just about any article ever written on LE is going to have controversy in it. As long as they note they are excerpts, where they are excerpts, I don't see anything disingenuous about it. Rick Ross, on the other hand, is not taking a statistical sample, but selecting mostly adverse articles. Journalists are paid to write about controversy. That's what sells. Go look at the front page of CNN and see how much controversy and negativity are used to generate interest. I think I could dump study after study on you about this in journalism. (There is even the saying, "Bad news makes good print.") Sm1969 07:05, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Here's a fun link in that spirit: http://publications.mediapost.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=Articles.showArticleHomePage&art_aid=34980 .

and another one... http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=1174220&page=1

As to your comment about beliefs and feelings determining my worldview - you are incorrect, sir - I never had any prior beliefs nor did I ever consider myself an emotional being. Quite contrary actually, most of the opposite sex has considered me a prick and crude. ;) Nice try though - you've advanced beyond what I can see. AnonDude 06:14, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Having been a customer for 13 years and many courses, I would say 80% of LE is about distinguishing the impact of language on a person's reality (at personal, societal, and global levels), and about 20% in recognizing the impact of patterns in the physical universe. Thus, I think what DaveApter says is more accurate; it deals with language and reality versus feelings and emotions. Now, feelings and emotions are correlated with language. These ideas are well discussed in philosophy, lingustics, neuroscience, et al. The people who said the earth was flat had a real fear when they set sail across the ocean that they would fall of the edge. The saying the earth is flat gave the emotion of fear when approaching the edge and the action of not going away from shore (for however long it did). The saying "Iraq has weapons of mass destruction" gave the fear and anger the action attack Iraq. Another example, AnonDude, there are people in several countries who want to kill you (and me) for that's who they know Americans to be. They grew up with certain language about how Americans are, and they will take action commensurate therewith, given the chance. They are quite convinced of this to the degree that people strapping explosives to themselves and blowing up cars is a daily occurrence. Thus, I would say that about 80% of LE is about:

REALITY -> LANGUAGE -> ACTION -> RESULT.

New possibilities in language create new realities, giving rise to new actions and results. It does not matter, above, whether that description of reality in language is accurate: from the flat earth to the weapons of mass destruction to the American's as infidels in the holy land. That language is that person's reality. That society's language is their reality. Another 20% (high end) of LE is about patterns in the physical universe, recognizing them and changing them. The physical environment gives the stimulus to which you respond with language. Alter the language and environment and you can get dramatically different results. I think DaveApter's disagreement with you was not a "sales pitch" but an evidentiary rebuttal from someone who has had more courses and more perspective. (That's just a different interpretation, an alternative to hearing it as a sales pitch.) Sm1969 07:05, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

I think your axiom above is a bit out of order - more apropos would be REALITY=LANGUAGE->ACTION->RESULT. Тhe physical reality (or God?) existed and enveloped us long before we were born on this planet. Landmark is, indeed, all about language and the powerful effects it can have on your state of mind. I do not believe the course tells us that language _alters_ reality - it alters your _interpretation_ of the physical realities that surround you. Physical events are the only ones that alter physical reality (whether caused by your action/inaction or other entities' action/inaction). In other words - just because you were taught stupid things like "an apple a day keeps the doctor away" or more delicate stupidities like "the sun causes skin cancer" (which has yet to be proven), does not mean that such declarations ever became true in any sense of the words, nor is there any indication that they ever will be true (or a 'reality' of any sort), however you like to slice or dice those words/statements/declarations for whatever they are worth regardless of how these myths/things appear (or do not appear) to you. Watching what I say has also become another prominent trait of mine after the forum... There's no arguing the point that 80% of Landmark is entirely about language use and effects. In that sense, it's probably priceless. In the physical sense, it's worthless - because you didn't get to watch Bono of U2 on your flashy new video iPod that you could hold in your hands as your latest fetish.

Agreed, I flipped the statement for you regarding language and reality. (I consider it a typo.)

To speak to DaveApter's point - I don't really care to know that my reality could be interpreted by many different people as a different reality. Nor do I particularly care to find out from any advanced course of Landmark's or whomever, all of which I do not comprehend. Landmark will not provide explanations to anything in the realm of "I do not know" - colleges and universities do that very well. Landmark just defines your blind spot, the essence of what you miss to see and realize, precisely because you are so wrapped up and warped into what you know/don't know. They can provide nothing of value to me beyond what I've heard in their even most basis course. Different interpretations - maybe. Will I have missed out on something? I doubt that. This is one aspect that I find puzzling - why do people who have taken their basic forum keep searching for something, long after the forum? I find it quite disingenuous that they have to take your money to let you in on their definitions of reality. As a matter of fact, this was one of my questions after researching the forum prior to taking it on their signup form - why , if you promise to do such a good thing for your students, do you have to charge for such things? Why? Because the bottom line - in the reality in which we live called capitalism - they are a for-profit company. Do I think there's something wrong with trying to hook people into your paradigm for the purposes of extracting more of their hard-earned dollar? No - there's nothing inherently wrong with that, but what bugs me in the slightest is that people who've taken the forum tend to lose themselves in the alternate realities (or call them whatever the heck you like) they sought out in the forum. This is the "hard-sell" part that has got my pants in a knot..... Now, on the other hand if there were to offer the entire Basic->AC->SELP for $400 - which would come out to probably a week's worth of classes, which means less money for them, I can understand. Or better yet, do it for free, just like you ask all those who volunteer for you free of charge to do so at their own volition... The numerous quotes from various people are nothing more than a veiled attempt at advancing their own agenda - which is to make money. And since I'm quite tightass-ed, they'll have to pay me to go to their other courses rather than the other way around ... AnonDude 23:58, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Landmark Education's margins have been estimated before around 10% to 20% (high end). There are still expenses, even with people volunteering labor; it's not all volunteer. The leases, hotel rooms, paid staff and world headquarters are all paid. Better said, I am aware of no analysis that indicates a higher margin. So, if the Curriculum for Living costs around $1000, it would be around $800 without the margin as a pure non-profit. It's kind of like the open-source community, where even in the greater projects, you have to have coordinated centralization that is paid for, and where companies like IBM donate to it, they still expect a return on investment somewhere in the equation. It's partially donated labor and partially paid labor. If all of the labor were paid for, costs would be a lot higher. If the marketing were not done by customers, costs would be a lot higher. In fact, the standard marketing (advertisements, etc.) has shown itself not to be cost effective as people do not find it credible or relevant (but they do in the percentages cited above after attending the courses) without personal marketing. Such is the nature of blind spots (as you point out). The existence of LE in all the foreign countries was brought about by existing customers, for instance. It's a unique business model. By the surveys cited herein, somewhere around 94% to 95% find the courses to worth the time and money. Sm1969 00:32, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Much of this is debating the concept of Landmark Education, rather than debating the issues around the article. Arguing for or against Landmark Education isn't really the point of wikipedia. That's the point of other websites, blogs, and whatnot. The point here is simply to write an article that reports that reports the various views of Landmark Education in a way that satisfies NPOV policy and all the other policies of wikipedia. Are there any views from notable sources that are unreported? Is there anything that will improve the article? FuelWagon 23:47, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree with you and apologize for continuing the distraction; I got hooked. This conversation is totally off-topic as it was a general user's experience, not brought into the article on the basis on any given single point for discussion. That said, several significant points of controversy are not addressed in the present article which were moved off into the Talk page below: 1) psychological consequences versus post hoc reasoning, 2) is LE religous or not, 3) does it cause favorable results or not for customers, 4) are assistants volunteering for a for-profit being exploited or not, 5) the whole cult or not controversy (which should be separated into all the points and testimony so rendered), 6) brainwashing or powerful customer value, 7) Werner Erhard: still an influence or not. All of these also need to be quantified and sourced. If you can, it would be great if you created a second talk page and moved 90% of what's on the present talk page off to that and just gave a reference URL at the beginning. I read your profile regarding objectivity and persistance with the Terri Schiavo case. I think that case is going to be small compared to the controversy surrounding LE.

I would appreciate 1) having the Talk page moved off to a second page, 2) a warning near the top of the article which calls attention itself that THIS ARTICLE IS IN THE PROCESS OF RESTRUCTURING, 3) retaining the areas above or the areas listed below as points of controversy on the new "primary talk page" so we can start with a clean slate. I'll give you sources for pro and con for all these quotes; then we will move towards quantification and possible assessment of undue weight or restructuring from the bifurcated to the interleaved format. Sm1969 01:01, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

One thing I'd like to make clear above all - Landmark will not physically do anything to you. Landmark will also not do anything mentally to you that you have not experienced before. They will play with your emotions and beliefs - for which there's no 100% scientific basis of their existence even (look up "emotion" or "feelings" on wikipedia to see that it is another hottly debated topic) - and the rest is up to you on how you will interpret whatever is said in there.

You may find people calling it a cult - and I will tell you that I've seen Macintosh/Apple users get more fanatical about that platform than I ever heard anyone about the forum. You may find people calling it a mentally disturbing experience - to those, all I have to say - go to sites like rotten.com - I've seen far more disturbing things there than anywhere else. Or go and try arguing with your father or mother about their belief system - I find that not only counter-productive, disturbing but also an extremely fatiguing experience as well.

If you were never good at making distinctions between concepts in life, whether they are mathematical or social or otherwise - you will find the forum troubling - because if there's one thing you may "get out" of it, is distinguisihng between different things in life, whether it be at school or what not.

Why is this so? Why is saying "fu*k" considered "offensive"? Any 'scientific' basis for that reasoning? Or why is "cheating" on your wife morally reprehensible? Because someone, somewhere, at some point in the past said so. Just like your mother said "Because I said so", when you didn't get your way and you got all bitchy and pouty.

Same with the forum. They declare these "truths" to you, tell you things, but tell them to you in some ontological way. If there is one thing that's truly scientific to the forum - it is their approach - it is _extremely_ controlled, VERY WELL structured, and follows a particular pattern which I recognize in other people who were able to evaluate it in a similar fashiong as I was. As a software engineer with some 10+ years of experience, I found it marvellous as how such discipline can be attained in a simple 3 day process and the powerful effects this can have on us - which is inevitable- unless you are made of something other than flesh....

No one really stays impervious to what they hear in it - whether it be framed discussions by previous members or discussions by the instructor. The powerful notion of authority is depicted by the instructor's elevated position on the movie director's chair - and I couldn't but help draw analogies (or distinctions if you like that word) between what I was seeing there and what is in real life - at least, this is my interpretation of it, so I hope you find it valuable- but in real life, you also have the director's chair and someone sitting in it, telling you what you should or should not believe in, telling you what is "True" and what is "Not true", what is "real" and what is "not real", etc etc etc. In early childhood, the chair is occupied by your mother and father, if you were lucky to have them (many have not been so lucky as you might know) - and from them you learn of the _acceptance_ they preach in the course, the 'love' that you find so warm and fuzzy from those that were the conduit to your life into this world.... Later in life it is your teachers who take the place in that director's chair - they "beat" it into you about science, social norms, customs, history, etc. And finally, once you're done with your booze drinking, getting laid, fraternizing etc in college - the chair's finally filled in by your poointy-haired, micromanaging boss who gives you a shitty review, and then he redefines the reality for you according to the company's doctrine and dogma.

In this sense - life, your life, has almost always at any instance been filled with authority figures - and this precious "freedom" you think you are enjoying as opposed to someone locked up in Alcatraz, may not be all that is cracked up to be.... One could conceivably argue that life in prison is more 'free', in the sense that you do not need to worry about many of the things (other than the roll-calls, and limitations of moving about in space) that would be your daily routine in life. You could read books, and keep enlightening yourself while in jail, like you never probably could when you were outside because you were too damn busy running your life, doing your job, cheating on your spouse, bringing the bacon home, making your boss look good because it makes you look good too when review times come, etc.

Of course, if you started out in prison, or you were in prison most of your life, then this point would be sort of moot - but hopefully, you won't interpret what I'm saying in the most extreme sense.

I actually went to rickross.com's website right before and right after I took the forum - I have this nagging habit of trying to look up things before I buy them, it was the same with Landmark. I had a colleague tell me about it at work, and he said some stuff to me which sounded ... well, _enlightning_ to say the least, and gave credit to the forum (partially) for being able to verbalize these things. That's what hooked me - because I am an inquisitive spirit, I like to try new things and I have a firm belief that whatever doesn't kill me can only make me stronger - so I signed up for it. I won't deny that there was points in time after the forum where I kept thinking to myself - well, I wasted 400 dollars on this thing - and for what? To hear mostly stuff that I already knew - but delivered in a package that I hadn't seen before, with a lot of pizzazz, a lot of structure, a lot of authority (more so than you are used to seeing in a 3 day span, believe me), and in a very controlled manner. Then I felt duped.

Then again, I felt not duped, because just prior to the forum, I had wasted 500 dollars on a reverse osmosis system that didn't work, and I couldn't get my moneys back.... And I was convinced based on numerous site reviews that it would work.

So where does that leave me? What is it that I should think "happened" at the forum, or in real life? I loved drawing parallels between the forum and my real life (prior to the forum) - and reveled in the fact that I could see many that applied to myself. And believe me - I am an arrogant son of a bitch, whom thinks of himself as infallible or perfect in a lot of ways - primarily because I've mostly had a good life, good grades at school, fortunate to be with many women (which I admit has gotten to my head more than it should've), gifted in a lot of ways.... So, did I waste money? More so than I've wasted on a bunch of other crap I never even used or threw away?

The self-referential, ontological nature of the entire forum presents a major hurdle to me in trying to define what the experience of it was. I'm not talking about the science behind the forum - I"m talking about what I "felt" during the forum - and that is as individualistic as it's going to get. I'm sure I could be trained to do the same thing to others, if they choose to train me - and I must admit, the kind of trippy things people said about themselves in there made me want to do that, ask the instructor if I could be taught about their methodology..... I found it appealing and powerful in fact. To this day too...

Another thing you 'get out' of it is - words are powerful. What you say - will elicit all kinds of "emotional responses" in others. This goes in stark contrast that "talk is cheap". Talk is only cheap - until you have to pay a lawyer to do just that on your behalf - _talk_, so he/she can save your ass. I think lawyers may find the forum enjoyable too...

The overall message in the end is - don't be too hard on yourself about what you went through in life - it is how it is. Accept it, and move on. PRobablu the most important message they are trying to send is - integrity. SOcieties, countries, people without integrity - fall apart. This is why the United States is the best place I've ever seen and lived in - because a whole lot more people, at least the controlling/voting 5-15% of the population have integrity. And eversince I knew of myself - I have never said something without following it through with an action. If I promise something - I follow through. Maybe that is another thing I found out about myself or why people gravitate toward me in life... Because I don't betray their trust - I earn it by having an integrity.

The final aspect in the forum that was emphasizes is sharing, or as they label it 'enrolling' others into your own ideas. How to do that? Well, $hit - Hollywood is pretty good at it. So is Apple/Macintosh with their die-hard fanatic followers :). Yes, they "pressured" people into signing up for more courses. But do you really need any more? After seeing what you have seen in the basic course - it is doubtful that you will extract more in their advanced course. At least I dont think I would. The only thing extracted would be the additional few hundred bux out of my wallet for their time and so that they could get richer. Well, I'd like to do that myself :).... So no, I won't sign up for any 'advanced' course.

Although, the overall experience of the whole thing was quite revealing and reflective on oneself. This is how it was for me. And for a few of my friends who went to it as well (and never took their advanced course either).

It's definitely good stuff - for those who can handle criticism and can handle innuendos :) - because that is what you will be hearing mostly about yourself the first couple of days. They don't outright say it to your face - "you're jerks" - but they insinuate it in a hundred different ways. Perhaps this is why some people walked out. Or some got up and friggin argued with the powerful authority figure. The difference was - people think they could argue with this dude because they forked over 400 dollars. And there was a chance to get your 400 back - but at the beginning of the forum - which is kind of stupid when you think about it, because the sense of closure wasn't there - you didnt "get" what you came out to "get" by the first day..... However, the instructors are very good at a technique that I'd like to label - mental aikido. They know you are basing your responses to what you hear mostly based on 1) emotions, 2) beliefs, rather than science or fact - and for them, I do not know if they do this in some prescribed way that they are taught of, or they just have generally good knowledge of humans/psychology - it is very easy to subvert what your arguing points are, "use them against you" in a sense, to get to the root, or the possible root of your bitchiness and/or complaint.... This technique is a _wonderful_ technique that I have employed on many a women I've met in my life, when they've expressed concerns about our relationship or where it is headed as well as a tool for achieving my end - which is to get laid and possibly fall in love. You may call me a hypocrite or an abuser - but most people are like this too - me included - why am I like this? Because I had an experience of where that trust that I placed in someone was betrayed. Or at least I felt betrayed. Then I became the user and abuser that I am, and kept serving up stories to people of what they wanted to hear, so long as I get at my end/purpose.....

The forum - is like real life. Except packed in 3 damn days, a rush course in something that takes others a lifetime to accumulate. Is that mentally disturbing to some? Cult-like to others? Wasteful of their money to the stingy assed of us? You bet. That's how they make their money - by fully exploiting and screwing with your belief and emotional system/state - and then telling you - don't blame us for it - we're just like you :).

It's the goof of all times :) - but it works. They _got_ their 400 dollars, you got your /whatever/ you want to call it :) - and they're done with your ass. Now, can you do the same to someone else? Or can you use the experience to aid yourself elsewhere in life? You bet. If you're smart. And not afraid of every damn thing (E.g. Al Qaeda or a nuclear attack of the united states, that Bush would like you to think is imminent because of the muslim population in the mid-east :).

If you're of sane body and mind - and you are an intelligent being - or others have told you that you are and you've actually done something with your life and you want to expand more - take this. If you're some coked up bitch, or an idiot who is angry at the world in principle - don't take it. You may end up suing them.

I can talk more, but in principle, this is what the forum is, or was for me.

original research

Does any of this have sources? Or did a bunch of editors just make it up?

The value and validity of the course content, or the manner in which the courses are conducted This includes suggestions that the courses:

are meaningless, trivial, or comprise a simplistic amalgam of derivative material; appeal to the irrational, or require people to suspend their critical faculties; include religous, evangelical, or mystical elements; effectively function as psychotherapeutic sessions, but using unqualified practitioners; are conducted in an aggressive and humiliating manner. 2. The methods of marketing and promoting the courses This includes suggestions that Landmark Education:

utilises and encourages aggressive "hard-sell" tactics to promote its courses; resembles in some way a multi-level-marketing or a pyramid-selling scheme; seduces its customers into an endless sequence of ever more demanding and expensive courses; 3. Alleged consequences This includes suggestions that Landmark Education:

is a "cult", or appears "cult-like"; employs "brainwashing" or "hypnotism"; has caused mental instability in some participants. 4. Questions of ethics, and the interests of customers This includes suggestions that Landmark Education:

comprises a callous money-making scam, preying on the credulous; encourages nihilistic and/or amoral and/or solipsistic and/or selfish characteristics; exploits those who assist in its operations; uses the threat of litigation to supress legitimate debate on its methods and results. 5. Comments about history, and personality issues This includes suggestions that:

Landmark Education continues to function as did "est" and that it has not changed since it replaced the "est training"; Werner Erhard remains in effective control or exercises influence beyond what Landmark Education publically admits to.

Anytime a highly biased term like "cult" appears, it should be reported from a source and a URL should be provided for verification. Who says it's a cult? Who says its "brainwashing"?

Also, NPOV says to report views "in proportion", so it would help if the number of critics were quantified somehow.

Any statements presented as fact but are obviously going to be disputed by supporters of the topic, must report the disputed piece as someone's poitn of view, not as fact, i.e. the statement "Werner Erhard remains in effective control or exercises influence beyond what Landmark Education publically admits to" admits that Landmark disputes the first half of the sentence. This should be rewritten to say "John Smith states that Werener Erhard remains in control of Landmark Education. Landmark Education states that he isn't." (Or whatever Landmark does state. FuelWagon 16:47, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Response re Original Research

Latest comment: 18 years ago11 comments2 people in discussion

1) The assertions of "cult" (where Landmark Education forced a retraction) are documented in the Margaret Singer retraction, the URL for which is in the article. Landmark Education has also obtained retractions of the use of the word "cult" in the Netherlands. Historically, Landmark Education has always won (either at trial or by retraction) statements describing it or its programs as a "cult." (The Netherlands references from Art Schreiber, general counsel at Landmark Education, are included in the rebuttal to Martin Lell. That URL also notes several other retractions LE obtained in the US and Europe.) Sm1969 19:47, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Any instance of the word "cult" in the article should have a URL beside it to verify in what context it is being used. The word "cult" is too biased to leave in the article in unsourced form, or in a laundry list of accusations. It is POV and it could also be an issue with defamation. Any occurrence of the word "cult" that does not have a URL near it should be deleted. FuelWagon 16:12, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

2) The statements of Werner being in control beyond what Landmark Education publically admits to are only made by Walter Pulaski in the Time Magazine article from 1997, also referenced in the article. Rick Ross intimates it by juxtaposing the terms Werner Erhard, Landmark Education, est and The Forum together. At one time in recent history, LE's web site did state that Werner was used from time to time for consulting arrangements. Mark Kamin (director of media relations) has also noted in statements that LE considers him a friend. The fact sheet referenced in the article also notes that the programs are now based on the work of Werner Erhard. Here is the full quote from the 1997 Time article:

Landmark alumnus Walter Plywaski, a Colorado electronics engineer who took on the company after his daughter ran up a $3,000 tab on courses, thinks Erhard is still pulling the strings. Says he: "Erhard is like the Cheshire Cat. He has gone away, but the smile is there, hanging over everything." Rosenberg says his brother is not and never has been involved in Landmark. Steven Pressman, author of a scathing 1993 biography of Erhard, calls that slick corporate maneuvering: "They've gotten out of the yoke of Werner because he became their worst p.r. man. But it's one of the greatest success stories in mass marketing." Sm1969 19:47, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Then the article should report the source of the connection between Erhardt and Landmark as being Time Magazine 1997 and Rick Ross. URL's should be provided. Otherwise, the allegation of connection is unfounded and should be removed. FuelWagon 16:12, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

3) We have always had difficulty substantiating the frequency of criticism. From the only third party surveys cited in the article, we know that 94% to 95% find the Landmark Forum to be worth the time and money and to have lasting value. (Detractors question the survey methodology.) Almost 50% of the words in this article are about Controversy, which is obviously blowing things out of proportion per the NPOV policy as you state. However, in another context of Google searches on "landmark education" this Wikipedia article is serving as a DESCRIPTION of what the controversy is about, and Google is the main way people are going to find out about Landmark Education beyond word of mouth.Sm1969 19:47, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

the only sources we can quote or refer to are "notable sources". Personal complaints on someone's personal website or blog do not count and cannot be reported in wikipedia. Nor should they count towards figuring out "undue weight". A poll by a reputable source may be used to determine customer dissatisfaction. But without some notable source, it is original research. FuelWagon 16:12, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Finally, if you go back and look at the history of this Wikipedia article on Landmark Education, it previously lacked the Critique section and was a veritable free for all, a "forum where anyone could share with no ground rules" which forum was not moving the inquiry forward. (This encyclopedia article is an evolving inquiry.) Now, when someone thinks they are having original thoughts, they most likely will see that it is already covered in the Critique. Substantiations and rebuttals are welcome within the Critique. Sm1969 19:45, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Criticism should be reported in any article where notable criticism exists. And it should be reported in proportion to the number of critics. If there was no criticism section before, then it's an improvement that there is a criticism section now. However, criticism cannot simply be the views and opinions of the editors themselves. Criticism, especially the more biased criticism, should be attributed to a source "Time magazine reported blah" with a URL to verify accuracy. FuelWagon 16:12, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

CORE ISSUE AND RECOMMENDATION Therewith we have arrived at our core issue: 50% of the article is on controversy, yet about 95% of the customers find the Landmark Forum to be worth the time and money and of lasting value. If we reduce the structure regarding Critique, people keep adding stuff back in. My recommendation is that we A) keep the Critique section with all its points even though I agree that it blows the controversy out of proportion, B) follow the other NPOV guidelines (attribution) and try to make estimates of frequency. Saying 94% to 95% find it worth the time and money is mutually exclusive with much of the points made in the Critique. The 94% to 95% should be articulated early in the Critique and then "reverse referenced" in each of the Critique sections where that is an effective refutation. Sm1969 19:47, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

I think the first thing would be to source all the criticism: rewrite all criticism in the form of who reported the critcism, who said it, when they said it, and a URL to verify that they actually did say it. "Time magazine reported blah" or "Rick Ross said blah". Once that's established, it becomes easier to see if criticism is out of proportion or not. FuelWagon 16:12, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Ok, we will move the article in the direction of your responses. Thanks FuelWagon. Sm1969 17:04, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks

Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Thanks, FuelWagon, for your input. I would welcome any attention you can give the article. The background is that a year or so ago it was an unabashed soapbox for anti-Landmark POV postings. There was a clumsy attempt by pro-Landmark editors to make wholesale revisions which were (justifiably) shot down as failing to conform to the NPOV policy, and reverted. I and others have made gradual changes in an attempt to produce a genuinely informative NPOV article. Periodically there are (what appear to me to be) blatant wide-ranging anti-Landmark edits - notably by Pedant17 and SqueakBox, and several anonymous contributors. I have made my own point of view explicit earlier in this discussion page.

In response to your question above ("Does any of this have sources? Or did a bunch of editors just make it up?") - the short answer is that for the most part "it is just made up". I did most of the work of collating the accusations previously posted onto the article into that summary. I look at that paragraph as a report of 'what the opponents say' forming part of an account of the "controversy", rather than as purported statements of fact. The "sources" - such as they are - are usenet groups, forums, blogs, and personal web-pages as referenced in the "generally critical" links section.

My best estimate of the numbers involved:

Customers of Landmark Education: over 800,000. (a matter of record)
Of those, the ones who were, on balance, "satisfied": well over 700,000. (scale the above by the survey results)
Of the customers, the ones who were moved to post complaints or negative accounts on the internet, or elsewhere: a few hundred, or maybe a few thousand. (personal estimate based on trawls through the links)
Non-customers posting critical comments on the basis of hearsay, rumour or speculation: maybe a few thousand. (likewise)
Journalists and other commentators publishing critical accounts: maybe a few dozen.

I'm open to hearing estimates anyone else has, or any rigorous studies...DaveApter 09:58, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

two examples of criticism

I've included two examples of criticism that I believe follow NPOV policy properly. You can read them here. Note specific names and dates, who said what, when, and where. URL's are provided to verify any claims. Ney is "notable" here not because she is was a participant, but because she filed a lawsuit. When reporting a lawsuit, the opposing view should be reported, as well as the court's decision, giving a total of three points of view about the case. In this example, I left out LE's point of view because it seemed to be redundant by the fact that the court found in their favor anyway. Anyway, these are two specific pieces of criticism that fit NPOV policy. If anyone has more criticisms like this, please put them at the top of the critique section. If any patterns emerge, we can create subsections to group them together, but until now, two critiques are not enough to warrant subsections. FuelWagon 23:09, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

It goes beyond that. The court found that, not only did Landmark Education NOT have successor liability. It also found that courts will not substantiate claims of causality without physical evidence, i.e., that the Landmark Forum physically did something to her. The exact language is, "Claims for purely emotional distress are "not favored in the law." Ruth v. Fletcher, 237 Va. 366, 377 S.E.2d 412, 415 (1989). Courts are reluctant to embrace such claims, because they require difficult questions of proof and causation, and fraudulent emotional injuries can be difficult to detect.

Like other states, Virginia has attempted to cabin the universe of emotional- distress claims by requiring the plaintiff to show some accompanying physical injury. The plaintiff must prove that the "physical injury was the natural result of fright or shock proximately caused by the defendant's negligence."

This is one person in 350,000 who has filed such a lawsuit at the time. The second was the Been versus Weed case. The assertion of causality here is post hoc reasoning.

Sm1969 23:23, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

The bit about the law not favoring suits based on purely emotional distress could be added in its own paragrah. Then we have two legal paragraphs that might go under a subsection titled "Lawsuits" or something. Is the Been versus Weed case related to landmark? or is it related to the emotional distress decision? Are there any other lawsuits specifically against Landmark that we could report? FuelWagon 23:31, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

In 14 years since 1991, there have been three cases against Landmark Education, which could be grouped unter a title "Inbound Litigation": 1) Stephanie Ney, 2) Tracy Neff (sexual harrassment, where LE lacked a sexual harrassment policy at the time), 3) Been versus Weed with LE as a cross-defendent. For 14 years in business with over 800,000 customers and $70 million in revenue, this is a tiny amount of inbound litigation, and thus, one could claim it is undue weight to report this. (Every other company with so much in customers and revenue likely has a lot more inbound litigation.) The Ney and Been verus Weed cases could also be grouped into the category under the category "Psychological Consequences or Post Hoc Reasoning." Been versus Weed is on the Rick Ross web site, but it has been updated at the court's web site in Oklahoma.

There have been a number of "outbound cases" of litigation from LE all for defamation (cult, sect) or product disparagement, most of which resulted in retractions or judgements in LE's favor. Sm1969 23:39, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

I think I would actually rather report 3 specific lawsuits as being the totality of lawsuits by customers against LE, give a quick paragraph for each, and let the reader decide whether it is undue weight or not. The alternative would be that anti-LE editors will either state that editors are trying to "bury" the truth, or they'll try to put in blanket statements about rampant psychological damage without sources and without numbers. Specific cases with specific names and the specific results, as long as each case can be summed in a single paragraph, should be short enough to avoid overdoing it, but still have the information to satisfy critics. (I reserve the right to change this opinion when I see the final article, but that's where I'm at now). FuelWagon 23:48, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Been versus Weed is rather complicated. Here is the URL for the court transcript. All claims are dismissed at this point, but you need to read down to the end to see that. You also need to read all three articles in parallel to understand this. Jason Weed was just released.

http://www.oscn.net/applications/oscn/GetCaseInformation.asp?number=CJ-2003-2541&db=Tulsa&submitted=true

http://www2.ktul.com/news/stories/1005/267858.html

http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2004/11/03-5100.htm

(Both the procecution and the defense in this case dismissed Landmark Education (the "exhaustive self-awareness seminar" as the source of the problem.) At the hearing, Dr. Pope testified that Weed had a brief psychotic disorder with "prominent manic features." (Id. at 95, 106) In Dr. Pope's opinion, Weed's previous steroid use and participation in an exhaustive self-awareness program the week prior to the shooting could be ruled out as causes of the psychotic break, leaving only "very rare possibilities" as the triggering factors. Sm1969 00:03, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

The Federal Bureau of Investigation notes that the murder rate per 100,000 was 5.5 in 2004. http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius_04/offenses_reported/violent_crime/index.html

With only these two cases, the reader would likely be lead awry. Since there have been 850,000 customers of Landmark Education, there should be (850,000/100,000) * 5.5 = 46.75 murders committed by Landmark Education's customers. The fact that there have been zero is proof that Landmark Education prevents murder. This is why we need the comment on post hoc reasoning. Sm1969 01:43, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

If both prosecution and defense dismissed Landmark, then it probably isn't relevant enough to even mention. as for the murder rate "proving" landmark prevents murder, that's original research unless you can find a notable source who says "landmark prevents murder". FuelWagon 02:11, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

This was the prosecution and the defence in the government hearing, not the civil suit. Again, though, I think you are right that this does not deserve mentioning because neither side makes this contention. The wrongful death part of the case was settled, but it is not clear whether Landmark paid anything. Furthermore, the defendent (Jason Weed) does meet all of the elements of the tort of wrongful death.

If either of these two cases are entered in the article (even though favorably adjudicated to Landmark), it should then also be noted that these are the only two in 850,000 customers. Then there is that sexual harrassment lawsuit that was settled out of court (not a customer lawsuit). In my mind, this too must be assessed in the context of the number of sexual harrassment lawsuits that could be expected in a company with a) 14 years operating experience, 850,000 customers an $70 million in revenue. There is no admission of guilt and there was no trial. It was settled out of court. Sm1969 02:40, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Note also regarding the Ney case that this was an appeal that was denied. There was a trial in the case, and Landmark won because she did not prove proximate physical causality (which is what the appeals court upheld). Later on in the article, the Stephanie Ney case is discussed with the Art Schreiber quote (general counsel of Landmark Education). Sm1969 03:06, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Major Re-Structure 15th November 2005

Latest comment: 18 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Following the input from FuelWagon, I have re-structured the Critique section, and renamed it 'controversies'. I have moved the two example paragraphs edited by FuelWagon into what I see as more logical locations within this new structure.

I have commented out, but not deleted, the rest of the subsection previously named 'Specific areas of Controversy' as much of it is hearsay or opinion. I suggest that parts of it may be salvageable once cleaned up and given appropriate references, and moved into the appropriate place in the new structure. DaveApter 15:19, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

I've moved all the unsourced criticism to the talk page it is pasted below. I've also moved the embedded notes here as well. FuelWagon 15:28, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

top level subsection

As indicated, the organisation has attracted passionately expressed comments, both for and against. Participants in debates on the pros and cons of Landmark Education appeal to authority-figures with widely differing viewpoints: psychologists, clergy, politicians and journalists have all spoken for and against to varying degrees.

Who supports and who opposes Landmark Education?

Supporters of Landmark Education are mostly people who have completed one or more of its courses and who found the results beneficial. The supporting group also includes many acquaintances of course participants who perceive positive behavioral changes, such as - for example - improved sensitivity, generosity or productivity.

Detractors generally fall into one or more of the following categories:

customers who did not find experience worthwhile (a very small proportion of the total, according to Landmark Education and its supporters);
people who have attended introductions or guest events and remained unconvinced;
some acquaintances of Landmark customers who were discomforted by their zeal and enthusiasm; and
commentators such as some journalists, self-styled "cult-experts", and fundamentalist religious believers

Both pro and anti groups cite a wealth of personal anecdotal accounts describing detailed and specific results to back up their claims.

Detractors make claims which generally fall into one or more of these five areas:

The value and validity of the course content, or the manner in which the courses are conducted
The methods of marketing and promoting the courses
Alleged consequences
Customer Lawsuits (Two)
Questions of ethics, and the interests of customers
Comments about history, and personality issues

Most observers, whatever their point of view would probably agree on the following points:

Of those who take Landmark Education courses, some like them and find them useful, and others do not;
Some acquaintances of Landmark customers feel discomfort with the behavioural changes exhibited, whereas others find them impressive;
Many of those who take the Landmark Forum subsequently do one or more further Landmark Education courses;
Many of those who take Landmark courses express great enthusiasm for Landmark Education, and recommend participation to their friends and to members of their families;
Course leaders do promote other Landmark offerings, and do encourage participants to bring guests.

But different parties draw strikingly different conclusions from these observations:

Similarly, detractors focus on cases where friends of course participants express doubts and/or criticism, and ignore the (much larger in the estimation of supporters) number who find graduates - for example - more relaxed, confident, generous or productive than formerly.
Whereas supporters see the willingness to enrol in further courses as evidence that participants experienced worthwhile results and expect similar benefits from other offerings, detractors regard this enthusiasm as evidence that participants have had their judgement and critical faculties undermined.
Likewise, supporters regard the enthusiasm as natural, given the results; and doubters regard it as ranging from misguided zeal to being downright sinister.
Course leaders make no apologies for promoting other Landmark products - they are convinced that they are worthwhile or they would not be spending their own time leading them. On the other hand, almost everyone would agree that either the time spent or the emotional tone has sometimes been inappropriate. In the last few years Landmark has added elements into the course presenters' training to discourage this, and has introduced strict policy guidelines to limit the time spent on this activity.

The value and validity of the course content, or the manner in which the courses are conducted

This includes suggestions that the courses:

are meaningless, trivial, or comprise a simplistic amalgam of derivative material;
appeal to the irrational, or require people to suspend their critical faculties;
include religous, evangelical, or mystical elements;
effectively function as psychotherapeutic sessions, but using unqualified practitioners;
are conducted in an aggressive and humiliating manner.

The methods of marketing and promoting the courses

This includes suggestions that Landmark Education:

utilises and encourages aggressive "hard-sell" tactics to promote its courses;
resembles in some way a multi-level-marketing or a pyramid-selling scheme;
seduces its customers into an endless sequence of ever more demanding and expensive courses;

Alleged consequences

This includes suggestions that Landmark Education:

is a "cult", or appears "cult-like";
employs "brainwashing" or "hypnotism";
has caused mental instability in some participants.

Questions of ethics, and the interests of customers

This includes suggestions that Landmark Education:

comprises a callous money-making scam, preying on the credulous;
encourages nihilistic and/or amoral and/or solipsistic and/or selfish characteristics;
exploits those who assist in its operations;
uses the threat of litigation to supress legitimate debate on its methods and results.

Comments about history, and personality issues

This includes suggestions that:

Landmark Education continues to function as did "est" and that it has not changed since it replaced the "est training";
Werner Erhard remains in effective control or exercises influence beyond what Landmark Education publically admits to.

Supporters regard all of these accusations as without foundation or as mere "interpretation", and point out inconsistencies between some of them.

Meaningless, trivial, and/or derivative?

Landmark Education stresses that it wants assessment of its courses to depend on the result that course participants accomplish as a result of completing them. It views attempts to analyse the content theoretically as unlikely to be instructive.

Outside these anti-analytical strictures, observers can see instructive parallels and explain features of Landmark Education's activities with reference to other human actions and beliefs.

For people who have "something wrong" with them?

Supporters claim that, on the contrary, a large proportion of Landmark Education's customers already see themselves as confident and successful. Yet they recognise some expansion of their personal freedom and self-expression as always possible; and that these courses may provide an access to that.

Some detractors maintain that Landmark Education promotes self-disatisfaction as a means of recruitment.

Aggressive and/or humiliating?

Most people with first-hand experience of Landmark course leaders find them empathic, generous and respectful. On the other hand, they do not readily tolerate evasion, self-deception or euphemism; and this may make them seem somewhat abrasive to some. For several years now, for example, Landmark Education has had a strict policy that none of their leaders use offensive or scatological language.

Registration, recruitment and the "hard sell"?

Some of the controversy surrounding Landmark Education manifests itself in differences in language. Because Landmark Education relies almost exclusively on word-of-mouth advertising delivered by its current customers, and because these customers very often exhibit great enthusiasm and persistence, some people experience a feeling of "recruitment" into an organization. All participation in Landmark Education activities takes place by choice, and that participation ends with the course of the moment (or its successor(s)). Landmark Forums start at 9 a.m. on a Friday and typically end typically around 11:00 p.m. the following Tuesday evening after a timespan of 108 hours, during which the course typically lasts 43.5 hours. Outside this timespan of 108 hours, the participants ("graduates") do not formally become members of anything and nobody has "recruited" them for anything. Landmark Education offers, as a tip, advice that anyone who leaves the room for any reason outside of the assigned break periods is not guaranteed to have "breakthrough" results. What Landmark Education calls "registration" takes place as a result of word-of-mouth marketing, the most cost-effective form of marketing known; marketing circles call the value of customers in recommending products and services "brand equity".

In the terminology of Landmark Education, enrollment ties into the idea of "creating possibilities" (generally speaking, "possibility" means a goal-setting technique common to self-help movements). Once one creates a possibility, Landmark Education suggests, enrollment involves engaging others in the pursuit of the goal or goals.

"Cult-like", "brainwashing" or "hypnotism"?

Some of those acquainted with Landmark Education Corporation "graduates", observing what they may interpret as grim Landmark-oriented monomania and dramatic behavioral changes in Landmark participants, plausibly surmise that Landmark Education methodology resembles brainwashing, especially in its inculcation of jargon, its alleged use of group pressure, and its allegedly putting listeners on the defensive and the leaders on the offensive.

Rebuttal: Supporters explain that the Landmark Forum (the current standard gateway to participation in Landmark Education's courses) merely demonstrates great effectiveness in impacting on people, and that it gives people "access" to those barriers that had allegedly slowed them down and this makes them somehow more satisfied, more fulfilled and more effective. Thus people see impactful results and seek to label them somehow. "Brainwashing" serves as one of the labels people come up with for want of a better description. An article in the London Observer ("I thought I'd be brainwashed. But how wrong could I be...") discusses this.

The "rigidly specified" bland layout and décor of Landmark Education's seminar environment (see image of a Landmark Forum environment in Manila, the Philippines), the focus in each individual "Landmark Forum" on a single charismatic presenter/leader (see images of the Landmark Forum leaders), the long hours and repetitive content of sessions, and the employment of set key phrases (such as: "I am the possibility of...", "I got it", "... what's so", "the promise of the Forum", etc) have led some (including former insiders) to explain some of the effectiveness of Landmark Education's outreach in terms of hypnotism and of post-hypnotic triggers.

Rebuttal: Landmark Education supporters may see this kind of thinking as stemming from a lack of understanding of Landmark's pedagogy and "technology". The paragraph above reports on a set of observed phenomena and then makes a dramatically tentative conclusion potentially involving "hypnotism" and "triggers". One could make a similar argument: that a good Harvard professor has effectiveness in terms of hypnotic paraphernalia because he lectures in a bland, undecorated lecture hall; the audience focuses on just the professor; he/she repeats his or her points (as any good instructor will do) and uses key phrases (such as "you will fail if you do not..." ; "listen up", and "pop quiz").

Some of Landmark's flagship courses (particularly the Landmark Forum, the Landmark Advanced Course, and the Landmark Communication programs) do indeed feature long hours, but most minor courses have sessions lasting for about three hours at weekly intervals.

Rationality and critical assessment?

A proportion of participants has claimed that Landmark Education attempts to forestall potential criticism by setting up (or 'creating', as the Landmark jargon might prefer) an atmosphere of trust and by disparaging reasoned questioning on part of the participants as "cynical". (Landmark proponents often frown on cynicism, critical analysis and searching for meaning, instead stressing acceptance, instinct and enthusiasm.) People often quote Werner Erhard's alleged aphorism: "Understanding is the booby prize"; they note the vagueness of Landmark's propensity of advocating the "experience" (rather than any logic) of "getting it"; they refer to Landmark dismissing vast tracts of human activity as "nothing"; and some regard Landmark Education analysis of "what's so" as superficial and inadequate.

Rebuttal: Supporters explain that although Landmark Education's instructors do not see the usefulness of pre-judgmental "cynicism" in the Landmark Education environment, they welcome skepticism (as opposed to cynicism) and critical thinking because they view critical analysis and searching as the only access to producing "breakthrough" results allegedly made possible by the work of Landmark Education. Indeed, they see some of the important results of Landmark Education's work as "being authentic", "being truthful", and "being honest" about what "is" really "so". In fact, many of those who use the word "superficial" to describe the work that Landmark Education does, have allegedly not studied it, or have allegedly not participated in "the work" . In such cases they get accused of just "making things up".

Religious, evangelical and/or mystical

Some oberservers have asserted that Landmark Education's training has religious aspects, a solipsistic worldview and passionately-held beliefs in and advocacy of Landmark concepts, practices and slogans, all spread with evangelistic zeal and re-inforced with regular meetings and courses.

Rebuttal: Supporters deny that Landmark Education has any religious basis and portray the courses as compatible with other existing beliefs. They explain that Landmark Education courses empower people in their beliefs but claim that Landmark Education's courses do not concern themselves with belief - just as a mathematics course does not concern itself with overt belief. Many people from various religious backgrounds participate in Landmark Education activities and state that they get value from participating in Landmark Education activities, such as Father Eamonn O'Connor in Ireland, Sister Iris Clarke and Father Gregg Bañaga, PhD, President of Adamson University, a Catholic university with 18,000 students in Manila, Father Basil Pennington, OCSO, (author of over 50 books) and others listed on Landmark Education's web site who have participated in the Landmark Forum. As noted in the referenced articles, both Father O'Connor and Father Bañaga lead introductions to the Landmark Forum. Sister Iris Clarke has written of taking part in the Landmark Education assisting program in Manila, the Philippines as an expression of her "love for the transformation of the Philippines".

Treatment of volunteers

Critics of Landmark Education have characterized Landmark Education's free-labor assisting programs as exploitative and assert that Landmark Education uses pressure tactics on its graduates to donate ever more of their time and energy.

On the other hand, assistants working for Landmark Education assist voluntarily. About 90% of Landmark's customers never participate in any assisting activity at all. When someone voluntarily commits to assisting, they choose to do so for a single weekend or for a few hours at a time over an agreed period, typically three months. Fewer than 1% of the estimated 1+ million graduates participate in a formal assisting program at any one time, according to Landmark Education.

People who assist usually cite one or both of the following reasons for doing so:

a) that it represents a free-of-charge training in a variety of skills - including teamwork, team-building and team-leadership, recourcefulness and reliability - which they can employ in other areas of their lives;

b) that they find it satisfying to contribute to the course participants by making the courses more affordable than they would be if all the supporting staff had to be paid.

Therapy?

Landmark Education does not present its programs as a substitute for therapy or for psychotherapy. While many participants report benefits such as increased well-being, greater ability to relate to others, and improved ease in producing the "results in life" (results such as good therapy might achieve), Landmark Education does not work in the domain of psychotherapy even though one might draw parallels between its activities and those of cognitive behavioural therapy for mental disorders. Landmark Education has a policy that requires people in therapy (among other conditions) to seek their therapist's approval prior to attending.(Note: This policy is ending effective January 1, 2006, to more effectively conform with the Americans with Disabilities Act. New "health warnings" are issued to participants, and it is expected that the choice will be left to the individual participant whether or not it is appropriate to participate in the course, but formal documentation of therapist approval is no longer required.)

Psychological Consequences or Post Hoc Reasoning

A handful of customers of Landmark Education have publicly alleged that their experience of Landmark has led to mental illness. (See Das Forum: Protokoll einer Gehirnwäsche: Der Psycho-Konzern Landmark Education [The Forum: Account of a Brainwashing: The Psycho-Outfit Landmark Education] by Martin Lell, Deutscher Taschenbuch Verlag, Munich, 1997, ISBN 3423360216 - a work which Landmark Education attempted to have suppressed at its first publication).

Rebuttal: This rebuttal has two parts: 1) Mr. Lell in specific (parts "a" and "b" below [1] quoted from Art Schreiber, general counsel of Landmark Education) and 2) the assertion of causality in general.

(a) Landmark Education did not bring legal action to stop the publication of the book. Rather, Landmark Education's action for injunction was to eliminate the use of the word "brainwashing" in the sub-title of the book since such statement was totally false and defamatory. At the Hearing, the Court decided that the term "brainwashing" was a matter of opinion, which I consider to be a highly questionable result. The Court therefore denied Landmark's request for an injunction and the book was allowed to be published with the full sub-title. Landmark Education never intended to stop the publication of the contents of the book.

(b) Mr. Lell was not "brainwashed". As the record at the Hearing indicated, following completion of The Landmark Forum Mr. Lell did not see a doctor; was not hospitalized; did not seek or obtain medication; and was not diagnosed by a medical professional as being brainwashed or having any mental problem. In fact, Mr. Lell did not even say he was brainwashed; apparently his parents, after his speaking with them following The Landmark Forum, stated they thought "he sounded like someone who was brainwashed". Given Mr. Lell was not in fact brainwashed, Landmark Education brought its action to seek the injunction against the use of such word in the sub-title of the book.

Supporters of Landmark Education analyze assertions of psychological damage using statistics and legal cases as the only way to substantiate subjective claims of frequency, noting that over 790,000 people worldwide (according to a 2004 report by Landmark Education) have participated in the Landmark Forum. As of 1996, when 350,000 had attended the Landmark Forum, only one person had filed a lawsuit claiming "psychological damage" (Stefanie Ney) and the court dismissed her case. With almost 800,000 having participated in the Landmark Forum, one might expect, statistically, two or three lawsuits, also statistically likely to be dismissed. Lawsuits occur commonly in the United States. The company that made the computer monitor the reader is looking at and the chair the reader is sitting on have also been sued, and people have had emotional and psychological problems after looking at computers and sitting on chairs. In other words, it is post hoc reasoning to assert that Landmark Education caused the psychological problems.

Litigation: Free Speech or the Tort of Defamation/Libel

Detractors portray Landmark as using legal means to supress legitimate criticism and scrutiny, often in advance of suspected publication. Landmark Education denies this, and claims that it only uses such measures as a last resort where comment has been clearly inaccurate and defamatory and other attmempts to resolve disputes have been exhausted.

Prospective participants in more recent Landmark Education courses must sign away any legal rights (declaring that they are mentally well) to seek redress from Landmark Education in the court system and agree to binding arbitration. (The use of binding arbitration is very frequent in many businesses and reduces expenses for all parties.)

As with many other organizations, court cases involving Landmark Education and dissatisfied customers (a total of three), or involving Landmark Education and the tabloids, have generally ended in out-of-court settlements with details placed outside the public domain. Many media organizations have published items about Landmark Education, including Time Magazine (Landmark had no objections to the Time article, which it regards as fair and balanced) ("The Best of Est") article, and Elle. (Landmark Education sued Elle for libel for this article, then dropped the case without receiving the apology it sought. See the press release for the lawsuit from August 31, 1998.)

In September 2004, Landmark Education filed a one million USD suit against the Rick A. Ross Institute, claiming that the Institute's online archives did damage to its (Landmark Education's) product (legal term: product disparagement). In 2005, Landmark Education filed to dismiss its own lawsuit with prejudice; possibly because:

of the high burden of proof, or
on-line archives could easily move to a country not using United States of America libel/defamation laws or
of the accuracy or vagueness (and lack of testability) of much of the Ross Institute material, or
of the disclaimer on the Rick Ross web site which basically says they "don't endorse or support any of the points of view" with the exception of the few so noted.
the rate of registrations into Landmark Education's courses has arguably not decreased (now at approximately 71,000 per year (as shown below) for the Landmark Forum).

Most legal jurisdictions specifically recognise libel and defamation as legal torts. When organizations or individuals believe someone is lying about them, such torts provide a standard remedy.)

Corporate history

Landmark Education does not highlight its corporate origins in est and in WEA, groups with a history of much controversy. Landmark Education's publicity materials do not mention est, nor does Landmark Education initiate the raising of the issue at introductory guest events.

While Landmark Education does not advertise its well known connections with Werner Erhard, whom many see as a controversial and polarizing figure, the company does freely acknowledge that its work originates in methodology and material originally developed by Erhard. The Landmark Education corporate fact sheet states that "[b]ased on a methodology and material originally developed by Werner Erhard, Landmark has evolved its unique educational methodology through years of continuous research, development, and redesign".

Landmark Education's programs have their basis in (unpublished) research and in what Landmark Education's customers refer to as the "technology" attributed to Werner Erhard, who has, despite his family ties, royalty payments, great personal respect, history and ongoing contracting associations with Landmark Education, no ownership, governance or management position in the organization. Landmark Education claims no responsibility for est or for WEA, its direct corporate predecessors; a US court has confirmed this absence of successor liability.

At the beginning of the Landmark Forum and of other programs, a course leader invites participants' questions about the Landmark Education Corporation, its origins, programs, policies etc., as well as giving the participants the opportunity to leave the program with a full refund. These Q&A sessions can potentially handle -- from a Landmark Education point of view -- questions about Werner Erhard, WEA, est and other matters anyone wants to discuss. Those wishing to obtain "official" answers from Landmark Education's corporate headquarters can telephone 1-415-981-8850.

Language: jargon overdose or a new discipline?

Landmark jargon pervades Landmark Education's courses. Some observers find that those trained by Landmark Education jargon over-use confusing, shallow and/or irritating jargon; and that its use of specialized terminology promotes an insider/outsider us/them divide vis-à-vis the "outside" world. On-going use of Landmark jargon can occasion (often unrecognized) confusion between "graduates" and those who have not taken part in a Landmark Forum, even to the point of discouraging the latter from finding out the actual nature of the Landmark Forum during recruitment-encounters. Scholars have observed that the use of specialized terminology makes it easier to create a manipulative environment. However, as with nearly all self-help and self-actualization courses, Landmark Education terminology serves as a psycho-linguistic tool which allows the course to bypass or fudge many established notions. Without specialized terminology, many such programs would prove ineffective.

Any new discipline or activity develops new and distinctive uses of language: from French cooking to chemistry to driving (e.g., "yield the right-of-way"). In "The Promise of Philosophy and the Landmark Forum" (referenced above), the authors note, "Words are used rigorously but not necessarily with their ordinary, familiar meanings so as to present a set of related 'distinctions' that propel the process of inquiry." Individuals not having taken Landmark Education's courses sometimes find themselves confused by the jargon.

Landmark Education's web site has a course syllabus with definitions in passing of some few of the more frequent terms, including "racket" and "already always listening".

hyped up meaningless claims

Debates have raged for several years over whether Landmark Education and its predecessors really have discovered breakthrough ideas and practices ahead of their time, or whether the whole exercise consists of merely a lot of hyped-up meaningless claims. Yet every year tens of thousands of people participate around the world.

Talk:Landmark Worldwide/Archive 1

Opening comments

Notes to users

Common issues

Are email groups and forums useful links

Pedant17 and NU comments

Multi Level Marketing

French notes

Intro rewrite

Criticism in the 'Responses to Criticisms'

Purported cult

POV

Why POV?

New edits

Balanced but empty

Minutiae no more

Minor Changes

Restructuring this entry

Regarding Restructuring

========

=============

This is Kopp

Can we agree on some guidelines?

Guidelines discussion 22 October 2005

=

Charity Fundraising Estimates

Free Advertising

Response re Free Advertising and Litigation

Another Response

Revert of massive anonymous edit (18:17, 6 November 2005)

newbie

Why is Landmark hotly debated- a possible answer

original research

Response re Original Research

Thanks

two examples of criticism

Major Re-Structure 15th November 2005

top level subsection

The value and validity of the course content, or the manner in which the courses are conducted

The methods of marketing and promoting the courses

Alleged consequences

Questions of ethics, and the interests of customers

Comments about history, and personality issues

Meaningless, trivial, and/or derivative?

For people who have "something wrong" with them?

Aggressive and/or humiliating?

Registration, recruitment and the "hard sell"?

"Cult-like", "brainwashing" or "hypnotism"?

Rationality and critical assessment?

Religious, evangelical and/or mystical

Treatment of volunteers

Therapy?

Psychological Consequences or Post Hoc Reasoning

Litigation: Free Speech or the Tort of Defamation/Libel

Corporate history

Language: jargon overdose or a new discipline?

hyped up meaningless claims