Talk:Landmark Worldwide/Archive 12

Declarations of views on Landmark
Jeffire wrote: "As we all know millions of people realize that Landmark Education is a cult. Which of course does lead its members to volunteer for all sorts of cult activities such as promotion, censorship, and so on. I'm expecting the same sort of activities to continue here because Landmark Education will continue to be a cult and its followers will continue to act unreasonably, especially regarding the more includable critical views." I assume from this that Jeffire will not accept anything that I have to say on the issue. What can be done about this? In my opinion, Jeffire's views are so strong that he/she should disqualify himself/herself from editing the article.

I suggest it will help the process if all editors state briefly any connections they have with Landmark and any views that they hold. Jeffire has just done that. My view is that Landmark courses are excellent and that most but not all people find them valuable. I have already declared on this page that I did the Forum 15 years ago and have done other courses in the time since then, the most recent being about 3 years ago. I know several people who have done Landmark courses. I do not believe that this compromises my ability to be objective, but I acknowledge that other editors may disagree. I can state that I have not been brainwashed until I am blue in the face, but such protestations will clearly never be accepted by those who are convinced that I have been brainwashed. Timb66 06:00, 20 May 2007 (UTC)


 * On what grounds would you assume that? -- Pedant17 01:45, 21 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia takes no notice of editorial opinion: try logical argument based on facts. -- Pedant17 01:45, 21 May 2007 (UTC)


 * One could assume good faith as a basis of cooperation. -- Pedant17 01:45, 21 May 2007 (UTC


 * If "all editors" approaching the Landmark Education article were to briefly state "any connections" and "any views that they hold", I could see how this would aid in name-calling, labelling and categorization of views as outdated or inadequate or based on deficient knowledge -- as we can witness eleswhere on this very Talk-page. But how would all that help us craft a better article? -- Pedant17 01:45, 21 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Pedant17, once again can you please stop inserting your comments inside other postings? As I and others have argued above, it breaks the flow and makes it hard to follow.  There is nothing in your reply that could not have been put at the end.  Timb66 01:55, 21 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Pedant17, to answer your question, I think that declaring conflicts of interest and currently held views does forward the process. I am perfectly willing to assume good faith.  Rather, I am asking about neutrality, which is not the same thing. Timb66 02:55, 21 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I hear the view "that declaring conflicts of interest and currently held views does forward the process" of improving the article, but I hear no reasoning as to why. I've stated a case against fossilizing opinions, but all I hear in response sounds to me like mere repetition of an opinion. -- Pedant17 07:04, 13 June 2007 (UTC)


 * The facts speak for themselves. Its obvious you don't want me here, and why not exactly? I've done nothing wrong. I've worked to improve the article by maintaining well sourced information that was provided by other diligent and committed NPOV inclined editors. I have repeated significant and acceptable critical views: Landmark is considered to be a cult. Thats a fact. Its a fact that some here should learn to accept. Many people have that view. There are specific views that say Landmark Education is a cult, backed up with lots of reliable information that just happened to have been deleted many many times over the past weeks. Such activity is unreasonable. When compromise was made and sections provided for proponents to suggest alternative ways of presenting the facts, nothing but deletion was suggested. The main suggestion was that such critical views were minority views and should therefore be dismissed. According to NPOV policies that is no reason at all to keep such information from the article. In fact a lot of those views were highly significant and deserve significant weight. No suggestion was made as to adjusting the information. The sooner editors start to accept that Landmark is considered to be a cult by significant sources, the easier it will be to present the information in the correct way. I and others here have been working reasonably by explaining to proponents that certain critical views are admissible. So far there has been nothing but denials of NPOV policies. Dispute resolution is necessary whether or some can countenance the result or not. Jeffrire 09:53, 20 May 2007 (UTC)


 * The facts do seem to speak for themselves. The fact that you have time to write treatise on your minority view point does not make it any more true.  The "cult " issue is a perfect example- pretty much only hack journalists or journalists digging up old info make that accusation or implication.  This is a serious accusation that has no rigorous backing at all but a LOT of pop culture reference in articles and blogs.  Let's have this be an ENCYCLOPEDIA article. Alex Jackl 14:26, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, Ajack, the so-called cult issue is a non-issue. Most of those foreign references have impromperly translated 'sectant' into 'cult'. The correct translation, per the State Department, is sect. It was my desire to work through a compromise here, but Jeffrire has indicated a preference for mediation. As that is Jeffrire's preference, I am waiting for Jeffrire to prepare the official mediation request. Lsi john 03:06, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Have we established/proven which views we can categorize as "minority" and which as "significant minority"? If the references to the "cult" thing relate primarily to "old info", you could move them to an expanded "History" sub-section or sub-article. -- Pop-culture references seem quite appropriate in dealing with a poip-culture manifestation such as Landmark Education. -- Pedant17 01:45, 21 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I have no relationship or connection to Landmark Education (personally or professionally) and no first hand information on Landmark Education. My only second hand information on Landmark Education comes from my experience with wikipedia. I do not personally know anyone who has been through any Landmark Education courses (Specifically, if anyone that I know has been through LE, they have not told me so). I have no pre-conceived views as to whether Landmark Education is (or is not) a cult. I have taken a course-series in Personal Growth and Personal Responsibility (unrelated to Landmark Education), which is only relevant in the interest of full and complete disclosure. I have no basis to know whether any of the Landmark Education courses bear any resemblence at all to what I have taken elsewhere.


 * I would also point out that more than one of the so-called critics of Landmark Education appear to be graduates. How else would they get their first-hand(?) information? And, I believe at least one of the LE-critics here on wiki also attended the LE courses. This would indicate that simply attending (and graduating) LE courses does not justify pidgeon holing the person as "being an unreasonable follower", as has been suggested here, by other editors.


 * And, finally, I would like to applaud and commend Jeffrire for having the courage and honesty to go on record with his personal POV that Landmark Education is a cult. Knowing that the acknowledgement could be used against him, he fully dislosed his personal views for all to see. That took a great level of courage and it sets a very high standard for other editors to follow. Wikipedia allows (and expects) for us to have our personal POV. It does not allow for us to insert that POV into articles. Jeffrire has acknowledged his personal POV and that is all. Thank you Jeffrire for having the outstanding courage to set a high standard for the rest of us. I STRONGLY DISCOURAGE other editors from misusing this, or any other, Good-Faith disclosure.


 * Lsi john 16:04, 20 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Well conflict resolution will conclude with having all relevant views being added, including the presently highly evident fact that Landmark Education is a cult/manipulative/potentially hazardous and so on. All we have to do is present those same sources. Its just one of those things. You might consider trying to think up something constructive to say in the meantime. Or not. Jeffrire 16:23, 20 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Declaration of viewpoint: I did the Landmark Forum in 2002 and have done several other courses since then. I found them all to be challenging, interesting, productive, and excellent value for money.  I got a strong impression that almost everyone else on the courses did so too.  I’ve assisted on a few occasions and found it both fulfilling and personally beneficial.  I’m not doing any Landmark courses or assisting at present and have no immediate plans to.

I don’t at all think that LE is any kind of paragon. Like any human institution, it has its flaws. And, for sure, some Landmark customers can be extremely irritating. But in my experience such people are the exception rather than the rule. DaveApter 13:54, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I think it would be really useful if everyone were to accept this invitation to declare where they stand on this topic. It is genuinely difficult to write from a neutral point of view if you haven’t first been straight about what is your own Point-of-View in the matter.DaveApter 13:54, 21 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Why would a general confession-session prove useful? Useful to whom? Useful in what way? The article covers several topics: how many should each editor wax opinionated on? -- Can one conceivably have achieved "straightness" without first having clogged up Wikipedia-talk with mere personal opinions? How does publishing personal views help to improve the development of well-sourced and neutrally-expressed/balanced articles? -- Pedant17 07:04, 13 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Declaration of viewpoint: I have done a number of Landmark's programs and I have some personal friends who have done the courses and a majority who have not. I like what I got and the difference I was able to make in my relationships with people I love, most of whom as I said have not done the Landmark Forum and that is fine with me. My friends are very diverse, conservative, liberal, Evangelical Christian, Jewish, Muslim, agnostic.  I have friends who are neo- hippies and executives who run multi-million dollar business operations.  If I threw a house party it would look alot like the departure gate of an airport.  I have a deep affection for all of them, just as they are. I respect people's views and the principles that they base them on. I began editing on Wikipedia in part because I saw somethings on the Landmark article that I knew for a fact were not true. This got me curious and then once I saw the debate, if you can call it that, I joined in.  I do not think Landmark is better than other things and in fact have been frequently annoyed by the organizations and it's practices, but at the same time I do not think that it should go extinct. I think that the idea that Landmark is a cult, while widely cirulated as hearsay, is completely absurd. Triplejumper 19:27, 21 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Timb66 seems to be presenting my statements about sources as if they are a declaration of my views. Timb66's behaviour in that regard is quite ridiculous and transparently propagandist. Just to clarify again, I am working on getting certain editors here to accept NPOV policy and to allow all relevant views into the article without any information suppression. Well supplied information shows that significant sources view Landmark Education as a cult. Such information has been deleted multiple times on the basis that consensus was against it (a consensus that never existed). There is no need at all for anyone here to make excuses for why you support Landmark Education and there is no need to declare why you don't hold the common view that Landmark is a cult/manipulative/ potentially harmful. We are not here to argue the truth. The objective here is to take the facts as stated and place them into the article in appropriate context with appropriate explanations. Jeffrire 04:38, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Time to move on Headley. Lsi john 05:08, 22 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I've asked this before without getting a straight answer. Who is Headley? Jeffrire 06:21, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually last time you asked I gave you a link. Here it is again. Fainites 19:57, 25 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Ok, well I suggest you get your facts straight. And please assume good faith. We may disagree on various issues, but desperate accusations are not really going to help. Jeffrire 02:47, 16 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Declaration of viewpoint: Iff Landmark kept the characteristic EST policy of "pay us $200, but in return You take all responsibility for experiencing anything", then Landmark Education is an evil exploiting cult. I did EST, I deemed it a destructive and manipulative sect with lots of bullshitting members – that means first hand experience, not any hear-say, not any rumor. (I don't use to talk about it normally.) So, therefore I will have no dealings with the article in question until the cultists leave the section by free will. Said: Rursus ☺ ★ 16:25, 3 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I never did est so I can't speak to it, but this is an article on Landmark Education. This isn't that. Alex Jackl 23:47, 13 June 2007 (UTC)


 * If Landmark Education inherits stuff from est, the topic may become relevant. Good evidence exists of such inheritance. -- Pedant17 00:56, 8 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Declaration of views: Hi. I do a lot of antivandalism editing, and my monitoring of the recent change list usually makes it pretty clear when there's a revert war going on.  For this reason, I noticed the Landmark Education page a while back.  Because the most difficult subjects to write good articles about are those surrounded by controversy and strong feelings, I sometimes intervene in pages which I have no personal interest in at all; I feel that my lack of involvement in the subject covered allows me to be a moderating influence in trouble spots.  My background as regards LE: essentially zero.  No relative of mine, or, AFAIK, friend of mine has ever been involved in any with LE, est, or any related group.  I'm not promising to get and stay highly involved in this page; there are a lot of controversial subjects that I have no strong feelings about that are vieing for my attention.  But if I can be helpful, and have a little time on my hands, I will try to do so. Poindexter Propellerhead 22:16, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

View from a Wikipedian who is not a party to this dispute
I just surfed in and have not been following this page before, so I am not a party to the dispute. I will say that I am shocked that there is not a "Criticism" section in this article. Instead, criticism seems to be lightly sprinkled here and there. Also, the objectivity of the article seems to be in question (at least to me...most of the article seems very pro-Landmark), and that template should be on the article (when the article is unlocked that is). Archer904 10:28, 22 June 2007 (UTC)


 * See: WP:Criticism. Lsi john 13:19, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I just surfed in, and I agree. There needs to be much more criticism. Many many pages have a much more equal point of view than this one. 72.208.194.253 03:51, 26 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I'd also like to say something from an outside perspective. I wouldn't necessarily agree that there needs to be much more criticism per se, but it will require a section on criticism just to keep it all in place. It is spread too thin. In addition, I had a general look at previous proceedings here such as with undue accusations of sockpuppetry and general lack of good faith. These all seem to be problematic arguments on similar articles such as NLP and Scientology and similar. I've had all sorts of accusations to myself from proponents for simply mentioning critical aspects of either subjects to the point of being pushed away from editing there and discouraged from offering my time to Wikipedia in general. Critical writing is key to encyclopedia presentation. I'd like to encourage critics to be cool, and proponents to be open to clear critical presentation. Reminder: lets be clear about this; Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Harristweed 06:50, 26 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Well-documented criticism of the content and practices of Landmark Education courses occurs so frequently that banishing such criticism to a separate (sub-)section would distort the article severely. The perceived "thinness" of critical material at the moment results from unjustified removal of critical material, not from the lack of such material, nor from the diligence of Wikipedians in presenting a broad range of views on Landmark Education in order to achieve an overall NPOV article. -- Pedant17 00:56, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Don't forget that there are Wikipedia pages on LGAT as well as cults (as imperfect as it is). Section 6 of LGAT clearly puts to rest (for me) the issue of whether or not the LF should be considered a cult. Though I would agree that this Observer article describes techniques of the LF that likely exist in cults, other characteristics of cults (lifetime commitment to the organization, for instance) appear to be lacking. For the record I have no direct experience with the LF, though I have had two friends complete the program. -VS 78 13:29, 2 July 2007 (UTC)