Talk:Landmark Worldwide/Archive 21

Sourced statement removed - why?
I added "It is the opinion of many casual observers that Landmark Education displays many cult characteristics. [8]" The source article supports this statement in paragraphs six and seven. It's an opinion of enough people who are not part of Landmark that people who were actually in the course in the article were asking.

Perhaps you disagree with the wording? Otherwise, this is absolutely significant enough to be in the article summary. A search on google of "landmark forum" -cult turns up 82,900 results while "landmark forum" cult turns up 44,600 results. That means that around 33% of the hits on google for Landmark involve the word cult. Maybe this statistic should be included? Either way it is sourced and significant.

Maybe Many casual observers question whether or not Landmark is a cult. would be better wording?Micahmedia (talk) 19:45, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Michamedia, he's the short, two minute answer-- Landmark Ed's enrollment is DOWN. Office closures in entire countries. Longtime Landmark and Erhard apologists (and sleeper accounts) have been rapid-fire editing these articles to get the negative info removed and the articles as sanitised as possible as fast as possible. -- Pax Arcane  22:23, 26 March 2008 (UTC)


 * This is unacceptable. After viewing the talk and edit history, I've requested mediation.  Micahmedia (talk) 00:36, 27 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I remember my first call for mediation. Ah, joy. I was so naive. None of the apologists bothered to show up. And that was that. Good luck! -- Pax Arcane  00:50, 27 March 2008 (UTC)


 * In defense of my edit; Primarily I do not think the article adequately supports the statement. In paragraphs 6 and 7 the article states one person asked a question, "is this a cult?" with the response being "No".  How does that support the statement "It is the opinion of many casual observers that Landmark Education displays many cult characteristics."  Second the reference is misleading, the original article is from the Boston globe why not reference the original article. It becomes misleading and POV when the link points to a cult awareness site instead of the actual article?Mvemkr (talk) 07:01, 27 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree that I could have worded it better, but that was not how you labeled your edit, so I was confused. The article is not publicly available from the Globe website anymore--it's archived in a paid account section.  I think that it's significant that many people have to ask "is it a cult?"  It's the first thing that came to my mind when I was introduced to it and support groups for former members are usually ones that handle ex-cult members and their issues.  It's obviously not a cult, but it displays many cult characteristics.


 * I am not a major editor here but I do watch this page from time to time. If I recall correctly a year or so ago on the talk page there was a whole discussion of what are cult characteristics and does Landmark display them and should they be included.  This was before the mediation and as I recall the consensus was that there were not enough characteristics to warrant inclusion.  Now that is just from my memory. I will research that over the weekend to get the facts.  If some one can look that up sooner I would appreciate it. Mvemkr (talk) 15:02, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I have a solution, but it's going to take me some time. How do I call off the call for mediation? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Micahmedia (talk • contribs) 23:23, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Michah, no matter how well-sourced you addition to the lede is, they'll edit it out. We've tried sourcing it. You edit it back in and you'll be tagged teamed with brute-force edits. -- Pax Arcane  01:33, 28 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I honestly appreciate your candor here, but I don't think that's helpful. If it were true (not saying it isn't) then getting in a huff and taking a fatalistic attitude won't fix it.  Lets just stick to the facts and make this a good article.  Micahmedia (talk) 05:14, 28 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Ok here is the link to the archive where Cult Characteristics are discussed. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Landmark_Education/Archives/2007/Apr#Response_to_Zortyl.27s_comments. Shirley Harrison's criteria can be found at Cult Checklist. Mvemkr (talk) 23:14, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
 * WE'RE moving forward, not backward. -- Pax Arcane  23:37, 30 March 2008 (UTC)


 * That all relates to discussing characteristics of cults (and the discussion did not let Landmark education off the cult hook entirely on any point). Irrelevant, though, to the text in question here and now, which relates to the popular perceptions of Landmark Education (as a cult and as a non-cult). -- Pedant17 (talk) 01:51, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

We could WP:NPOVize and source the statement "It is the opinion of many casual observers that Landmark Education displays many cult characteristics. [8]" as (for example): "Some sources have associated Landmark Education with cult-like characteristics. -- and then append the group of references. -- Pedant17 (talk) 01:51, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

For example:


 * The website categorizes this article in its section "EST; The Forum; Landmark Education" under heading "Psychotherapy Cults". Quotation: 'But quite a few had also heard about the controversial roots of the Forum, which reached about 68,000 people worldwide in 1998. Indeed, the very first question asked by a plaid-shirted woman in the audience is: "Is this a cult?"'
 * Quote: "...there are some who refer to Amway and Landmark Forum as cults..."
 * . Retrieved 2008-03-30 Quotation:"...the Forum has been dogged by claims that it comes close to being a cult. And the primary root of such allegations is the large number of people who work for Landmark unpaid."
 * retrieved 2008-03-30
 * Retrieved 2008-03-30

PLEASE stop deleting an entire paragraph from the lede
Because you don't agree with it, doesn't mean it isn't POV! If you have criticism, discuss it here first. I have cleaned up the paragraph you seem to take issue with and you need to discuss it before reverting or deleting it entirely. It's relevant, it is NPOV, it belongs in the lede, and it's written to standard.

Look at the article on Ford cars. They state that Ford is a car manufacturer. That tells you broadly what they do, among other things. Landmark Education does Large Group Awareness Training and they are in that Category:Large Group Awareness Training on wikipedia for that reason. You are what you do. This is simple--stop making it more complex than it needs to be. The paragraph belongs there to help readers identify LE for what it does. Micahmedia (talk) 19:39, 28 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Would you feel that the paragraph was more NPOV if the second sentence in the fourth paragraph were rephrased or removed? Micahmedia (talk) 20:30, 28 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I appreciate your offer and I take it to be a sincere gesture. However, I have issues with the whole paragraph. The term Large Group Awareness Training is not a universally recognized term.  It is used almost exclusively by people and organizations that are critics of the programs they have labeled as such.


 * I find about 78 books that use the term. That's pretty well established.  This one suggests that Landmark recognizes the term themselves, and not in a disparaging way.  But I agree with you that's it's not appropriate to introduce a strawman term like cult just to cut it down. Dicklyon (talk) 05:28, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Regarding Michael Langone, the reference provided doesn't even mention Landmark Education. Additionally, the paragraph implies that yoga, meditation and ‘mind control’ (another subjective term) take place in the Landmark Forum, however none of the references provided support this.

While I give you the benefit of the doubt, this paragraph seems to be a way to get the inflammatory terms "cult" and "mind control" into the lead to promote a certain POV. Said another way, this lead is a bit like saying Barack Obama's followers aren't a cult but exhibit cult-like characteristics. It would be irrelevant and inappropriate for the lead of an article on Barack Obama. You bring up Ford Motors. Ford Pintos actually blew up back in the 1970s; there is no disputing this. Yet the Ford article doesn't mention these things in the lead; it's in the article's criticism section. That's where this kind of would belong, provided it's sourced. By the way, since you are new to Wikipedia you may not know there a policy called WP:3RR that you want to be aware of. Triplejumper (talk) 21:13, 28 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I understand your concern, but I think it is unwarranted. I included the other things help balance it out.  The techniques used by the forum match the definition of LGAT on the LGAT page and it's sources.


 * I mention the word cult to expressly counter it, and yes, also to involve the word cult--but for good reason, hear me out. The question of whether it's a cult or not is significant.  It's significant enough that I came here looking for the answer to that question, and it seems other have too.  Google searches back up the notion that people often ask "Is it a cult?"  The reason I want to incorporate the word cult into the lede, is because people read the lede first--and sometimes nothing more.  If they come to wikipedia looking for an answer to whether or not it's a cult, they have a clear answer right up front.  Further they have a term to classify Landmark with LGAT.  Shouldn't the lede summarize in a way that strikes a balance between concise and precise?


 * Honestly, the rest of the lede is poorly written and could use a re-write. There is a lot of info there for what it does but not what Landmark education is.  Seems to me the lede should have more specific is and what it does should migrate to the main body (which is also desperately in need of editing--it's UGLY).


 * So what direction are we going? Micahmedia (talk) 22:06, 28 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Michamedia I still don't have time but here is my main issue in a nut shell. My concern about the paragraph you added to the article is directly related WP:Undue. I have observed and participated in this article on and off for a while and I have seen the issues you raised discussed at great length by many editors who hold a full spectrum of opinions on Landmark Education. Wikipedia Policy states that articles should be written conservatively and not give undue weight to controversy and it should not be put into the lead of an article. If we are to uphold Wikipedia Policies, we need to put the topics you raise in the controversies section. I will say more later when I have some real time. Sorry. Triplejumper (talk) 20:10, 1 April 2008 (UTC)


 * A glance at Google or a brief survey of those who have heard about Landmark Education will reveal that large numbers of people think of it as a 'cult'. No undue weight attaches to mentioning that people so opine. The controversy only comes when a minority of the world's population vehemently deny Landmark Education's cultishness and regard the matter as closed and unmentionable. You cannot ghettoize a majority opinion to a "controversy" section. Better to abandon any "controversy" or "criticism" section and fold their material into the main article in appropriate places according to subject-matter. -- Pedant17 (talk) 01:51, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok, after having taken the time to look at everyone's comments here on the talk page and look closely at this part of the lead, I think what it comes down to is that the last paragraph goes against Wiki policies in many ways. Triplejumper mentions WP:Undue--To me, the most blatant problem is the violation of Verifiability, which states "Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in an article." Given that the Langone source does not once mention Landmark Education even once, it clearly violates this policy. Langone says that some observers say that some programs may use thought reform or mind control. Again, this vague declaration does not come close to saying anything of the kind about the Landmark Forum, and using it to imply such about the Landmark Forum violates the verifiability policy--And if it's not in there to imply that about the Landmark Forum, how is it relevant? Gilbertine goldmark (talk) 04:24, 2 April 2008 (UTC)


 * What the paragraph says is verifiable, but its relationship to the subject is not close enough for it to be in the lead. In a later section on analyses or controversies, it could possibly be mentioned as a writing about est, the predecessor program.  I certainly agree it's got undue weight here.  I proposed below a modification, which I then admitted didn't go far enough, and invited the author to propose another version, which he hasn't done, so at this point we seem to have a consensus to take that out, and then maybe we can work on a more appropriate way to include commentary later in the article. Dicklyon (talk) 05:31, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Micha and I are working on the sources and we'll have an edit response shortly. I have a day job, and editing wikipedia isn't one of them...BUT, my research is impeccable. I've found the cult info from verifiable, reliable sources. I am not, as some editors are, rushing this. Triplejumper was original complaintant, he's too busy to contribute. He requested edit protection. Until he also has something substantial to bring to the table, this matter is unresolved. -- Pax Arcane  05:43, 2 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't see anything anywhere saying that anyone requested edit protection for the article. Gilbertine goldmark (talk) 14:42, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Section directly below this sentence, dude.  Pax Arcane  18:16, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Not that it's anything to me, but that's not an edit protection request--That's a request to have a protected article changed. Gilbertine goldmark (talk) 18:47, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * So why did you bring it up if it's not anything to you? Like I said here and elsewhere, you LE editors are masters at passive-agressive comments. Just a solid observation. This passive-agressive, loose, leave-open-to-explain-as-something-else writing is brilliant.  Pax Arcane  20:34, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Still waiting for an answer to my proposition.
Seems odd that there was so much activity on this article yesterday, but since it got locked, no one wants to talk.

If you think you can wait out the protect and then revert, you're wrong.

Please try and discuss this in a timely manner instead of playing games.

Read my response under the previous heading and let me know what you think. Micahmedia (talk) 05:10, 29 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry - I just don't have time right now. I will get back to you. Triplejumper (talk) 15:07, 29 March 2008 (UTC)


 * S'okay. Sorry if I came off argumentative.  Just a little riled.  Micahmedia (talk) 22:55, 29 March 2008 (UTC)


 * To make the paragraph in question more NPOV, we need to NOT introduce the strawman term "cult" into the text. Try something like this (I removed the Dawson ref, as it's not clear whether it refers to Landmark at all; if it does, put it back; the Langone ref mentions est, the origin of Landmark, so that seems relevant enough); if expansion on this stuff is needed, a criticisms section might be the place to do it:

The Landmark Forums are a form of Large Group Awareness Training (LGAT). Critics such as Michael Langone state that LGAT groups often use thought reform and mind control in addition to other more obviously beneficial techniques such as meditation, relaxation, and yoga.


 * Ok, that can work. I can see why it would be desirable to leave out the word cult.  I just wanted to get an opinion in light of why I put it there in the first place, instead of from the previous wrong assumption--that I'd put it there to be inflammatory.  I think the ref you deleted may be relevant, but I'll have to double check since it's not in front of me.  Out of curiosity, would it be proper technique to quote the relevant section in the footnote?  Assuming fair use of course.


 * Anybody else agree that the line is acceptable once the cult reference is deleted, as above? Micahmedia (talk) 22:52, 29 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, a quote in the footnote to clarify how the source supports what the article asserts is a good idea. Dicklyon (talk) 23:49, 29 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Oh, one more thing though: I think I misunderstood your straw man comment. "Straw man" implies that my initial suggestion that is not a commonly held belief.  It may or may not be a commonly held "belief" but it's absolutely a common (check out my google example above) concern for people outside the organization.  The question "is is a cult?" is oft repeated.  I'm setting it up to tear it down, but not because it's an outlandish or unusual question.  And honestly, I think the lede could benefit from as a say above more of what LE is which is a group who's stated goal is to help people.  Currently that's not explicit.


 * I can think of two ways to address the cult thing still: a)put it in the lede (which I don't doubt requires careful wording) or b)give the "is it a cult?" it's own section in the article with that as a heading. Or is there a c)?  I still think it's an prominent question that should be addressed.  Like I point out above with the google example, 1 in 3 hits have the term "cult".  Micahmedia (talk) 00:10, 30 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Just because it's a prominent question doesn't mean it should be discussed. If there are reliable sources comparing it to a cult, one way or the other, that could be worth mentioning, but I doubt that it would be justified to bring that up in the lead.  For example, here is a book that classifies it as a 'therapy cult;' could be worth a mention. Dicklyon (talk) 00:18, 30 March 2008 (UTC)


 * It's also not clear what the "meditation, relaxation, and yoga" phrase has to do with, as was pointed out before (sorry, I hadn't noticed when I did my proposed rewrite). The second ref is online here.  Please propose a new paragraph that is better supported by the refs, and then we'll be ready to ask for an unblock. Dicklyon (talk) 00:37, 30 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Michaemeda, regarding the google search you did I disagree. Both searches you did included the word "cult" and are therefore biased and prejudicial. When I did a search for "landmark education" only 3 of the first 40 articles contained any reference to the word cult. Regarding an IS THIS A CULT section, I propose the following text:

"Many have actually been asked if Landmark Education is a religion, or related to Scientology, or even whether it is cult-like. The answer in each case is no.

Questions of this nature are usually prompted by misinformation circulated by people who have not done the courses, who have no professional expertise in the field or who seem to be skeptical about anything designed to foster personal development." .http://www.whatsthedealaboutlandmark.com/forum.htm.
 * Mvemkr (talk) 22:49, 30 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Probably you're referring to my book searches. They certainly weren't intended to be unbiased, but rather to see whether there are reliable sources that say something about Landmark as a cult, one way or the other.  I didn't find anyone reliable calling it a cult, except for the "therapy cult" one that I mentioned.  As to your proposed statement, it appears to be right out of their own materials (or a site that looks like it's probably related to them, anyway); we need to report what various sources say about them, more than what they say about themselves, I think. But with balance; we could quote that as what they say about themselves, to balance what others say, if necessary. Dicklyon (talk) 04:47, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Regarding Mvemkr's above comment, the site is blatant LE PR and advertising in an article that already reads like an ad. I would expect non-corporate info concerning this as LE PR is unduly self-serving and doesn't belong in an encyclopedia article.-- Pax Arcane  05:01, 30 March 2008 (UTC)


 * In what specific respects (if any) can we regard http://www.whatsthedealaboutlandmark.com/forum.htm as a reliable source ? -- Pedant17 (talk) 01:51, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Lead paragraph
I've taken out that contentious paragraph, as it violates WP:LEAD: "The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article. It should establish context, summarize the most important points..." The paragraph didn't summarise anything in the article; it was just a stand alone comment. Even had it appeared within the body of the article, it would be a highly problematic edit for a number of reasons:
 * 1) "The Landmark Forums are a form of Large Group Awareness Training." This is not fact, merely a bald assertion of (unattributed) opinion.
 * 2) "Critics such as Michael Langone state clearly that Large Group Awareness Training groups are not cults, however they often use thought reform and mind control..." Is this a statement about the Landmark Forum? If not, what has it to do with this article?
 * 3) "This use of thought reform and mind control is what attracts comparisons to cults." What use? What is there to substantiate that  these comments have any connection with Landmark Education? DaveApter (talk) 15:01, 2 April 2008 (UTC)


 * The allegedly contentious paragraph simply stated a fact: lots of people reagrd Landmark Education as a cult and/or an LGAT. That summarized a wealth of material which has appeared and should re-appear in the article and the talk-page. If you find an unsupported assertion, tag it for confirmation rather than delete it. If you find an orphan meme, integrate it rather than delete it. If you find a terse statement, expand on it with explanatory text. -- Pedant17 (talk) 01:51, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Ditto- this has been hashed through a hundred times and I know some of the cult-fanatics desperately want to believe Landmark is a cult (despite evidence to the contrary) and keep pointing to the mass of popular, non-rigorous POV journalism about it but none of tha tmake sit rue and NONE of it makes it appropriate for the lead. Alex Jackl (talk) 21:27, 2 April 2008 (UTC)


 * The mass of journalism (and the masses of blogs and personal pages and newsgroup opinions and chat testimonials don't prove by their mere mass that "Landmark [Education] is a cult" -- agreed. But they DO bear some relationship to the public opinion concerniing a Landmark Education in the popular culture. Since Landmark Education operates in the pop-culture area, that has great significance and makes this opinion vital in the lead of our article. -- Pedant17 (talk) 01:51, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Too many links back to LE websites used for sources.
They make up the majority of the citations. Let's get ready to chop them away to make this article NOT look like an ad. -- Pax Arcane  01:02, 1 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Chopping away sources is not the way to make it not look like an ad; careful edits would be a better approach. Why don't we start by focusing on specifics?  I have not read or worked on this article, but if you'll point out which parts you think are too ad-like, I'll be happy to help fix them. Dicklyon (talk) 05:44, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I see why you agree with DaveApter, user Triplejumper
You agree because you and Jossi were the original people who hid the link to Landmark Education and the law. My memory was right! Heh. Who knew? ;) -- Pax Arcane  02:03, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

= This page looks at least slightly dubious = Hi. I am a part time wikipedian that feels the need to chime in on this discussion. This is what the page has right now under "criticism:"

Some observers question whether and to what degree Landmark Education courses benefit participants. Many are intimidated by the militaristic session. Others criticize the use of volunteers by Landmark Education; others highlight the connections with other groups and with Werner Erhard.[54]

Now, this is an organization that has been identified as a cult by watch-groups, and shut down in at least one major country due to continued scandal. Both of those statements I just made being cited. Yet, after tons of positive press, that's all that's in that section. Now I don't know about some of the editors that got it to this point, but I go to my encyclopedia for information. Seems like there is some very pertinent information being left out here. Is this an encyclopedia, or a place for organizations to promote themselves through citations? I question that in situations like this. Accipio Mitis Frux (talk) 22:53, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * That's all the text Landroids would approve from others' edits and other editors. What you're looking for, only 2-3 editors are honestly willing to put in. Landroids have "created the space" of no criticism, or a shell game of moving info around so nothing negative clusters in one spot, as it's "not what's so" for their magical world. And it's been edited to the bone, irregardless of reported controversy. "Controversy" is a word Landroids turn on its head constantly, possibly to "create the space" that it doesn't exist. Join, dig in, and edit if you will. Beware...Landmark's lawyers will remove webpages that contain citations leading to the citations vanishing and the "controversy" disappearing. Have you gotten the 66-page pluse package FedExed from Art Shyster yet? -- Pax Arcane  05:11, 2 February 2008 (UTC)


 * It's not going to be dubious anymore. Spacefarer was complaining to Jossi to get a sanitized/whitewashed version of this page back up. Why Jossi? No-brainer figuring out that one. This is not likely to happen anymore. Truth prevails. -- Pax Arcane  16:08, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

= Naming, branding and accuracy =

On 2007-12-15 an 19:28 an editor changed the sentence:

Landmark Education states that over one million people have taken part in its introductory program, "The Landmark Forum" since 1991.

to read:

Landmark Education states that over one million people have taken part in its introductory program, the Landmark Forum, since 1991.

and commented in the edit-summary: 'This is the name of the course. It exists. It's a course. It doesn't need to be "in quotes."'

This sentence paraphrases the statement published by Landmark Education LLC itself and accordingly originally referred appropriately to "The Landmark Forum" in the style and format used by Landmark Education LLC at http://www.landmarkeducation.com/display_content.jsp?top=26&mid=659 (as retrieved on 2008-02-03): "The Landmark Forum". Landmark Education LLC refers to its course in this way formally and officially, even though some people have less reverence for the branding and refer to "the Forum" or "the Landmark Forum"; or do not regard it as a course at all; or do not recognize it as the sole introductory program of Landmark Education; or do not accept that it exists as a single standardized presentation, let alone recognise it as a "forum" in any accepted sense of the word. It seems appropriate for Wikipedia to use Landmark Education LLC's own style in quoting a Landmark Education LLC statement about a Landmark Education LLC offering -- even though Landmark Education LLC appears to misquote the sentence in the original Time magazine article (http://www.time.com/time/printout/0,8816,138763,00.html, retrieved 2008-02-03) on which it anchors its claim and which refers simply to "the introductory Forum". We can (and should) put back the quotation marks. -- Pedant17 (talk) 01:34, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Similarly, on 2007-12-15 at 19:29 an editor changed the sentence:

Landmark Education regards the precise content of its courses as copyrighted material, but provides a course syllabus for the "Landmark Forum" on their public website.

to read:

Landmark Education regards the precise content of its courses as copyrighted material, but provides a course syllabus for the Landmark Forum on their public website.

with the edit-summary comment "wtf", which does not provide an adequate explanation for the variation from the text of the referenced web-page -- http://www.landmarkeducation.com/display_content.jsp?top=21&mid=59&bottom=62 (retrieved 2008-02-03) -- on the Landmark Education LLC site, which makes it clear, in itself and in context ( http://www.landmarkeducation.com/landmark_forum.jsp, retrieved 2008-02-03) that Landmark Education LLC endorses the form "The Landmark Forum" -- even when the initial uppercase "T" may appear awkward and/or pretentious. We can edit the Wikipedia sentence to read accurately and expressively:

Landmark Education LLC regards the precise content of its courses as copyrighted material, but provides a course-syllabus for "The Landmark Forum" on its website.

Failing that, we may need to note, highlight and distinguish the sloppy use of brand and terminology by speaking of "the so-called Landmark Forum". -- Pedant17 (talk) 01:34, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Make it so, Number One.-- Pax Arcane  04:20, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

= Cost of "tuition" vs fees =

On 2007-12-15 at 19:33 an editor changed the phrase:

The Landmark Forum in Action Seminar, optional seminar included in the tuition-cost of the Landmark Forum

without explanation, such that it read:

The Landmark Forum in Action Seminar, optional seminar included in the tuition of the Landmark Forum

Presumably this unreferenced phrase refers to "The Landmark Forum in Action (LFIA) Series" (http://www.landmarkeducation.com/landmark_forum_in_action.jsp, retrieved 2008-02-03), also referenced somewhat confusingly as a "seminar" (http://www.landmarkeducation.com/landmark_forum_in_action.jsp, retrieved 2008-02-03), as a "program" (http://www.landmarkeducation.com/landmark_forum_in_action.jsp, retrieved 2008-02-03) and as a "course" (http://www.landmarkeducation.com/landmark_forum_in_action.jsp, retrieved 2008-02-03). The page http://www.landmarkeducation.com/landmark_forum_in_action.jsp (retrieved 2008-02-03) links to "tuition information" at http://www.landmarkeducation.com/menu.jsp?top=23&mid=278 (retrieved 2008-02-03), but this "tuition" page appears to lack details on "The Landmark Forum in Action (LFIA) Series".

The change from "tuition-cost" to "tuition" introduces ambiguity, especially to users of Commonwealth English, in which "tuition" means something like "teaching" and has no connotations of "fees" or "cost". Wikipedia, in its mission of providing clarity to international users, should use meaningful wording such as:

The Landmark Forum in Action (LFIA) Series, a group of optional seminars whose monetary costs Landmark Education LLC has bundled into the monetary costs of "The Landmark Forum"

This would resolve some of the ambiguity. -- Pedant17 (talk) 01:34, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Make the changes for clarity accordingly. Thanks for pointing this ambiguity out and proposing a solution.-- Pax Arcane  04:21, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

= Stop the Personal Attacks =

Pax Arcane- Please stop the personal attacks and name calling. If you are telling the truth about your intent to edit in the spirit of Wikipedia you are obligated to follow WP:Civil. Triplejumper (talk) 02:54, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
 * TJ, Look...Don't be sore at me for editing Spacefarer's vandalism. I understand civility, but I'm more inclusive, WP:IAR if it has to force people to follow editing policy and WP:DGAF with no tolerance for apathetic deletionist edits, and I will respond accordingly. The discussion page is the place where all ideas for edits should be discussed before the fact, and by balanced editors with a NPOV. And the people I've named just don't have a NPOV. I wish you guys did, but ya don't.-- Pax Arcane  05:11, 5 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Arcane, we all have our POVs, and you also have one, obviously. Having points of view does not prelude us to participate in this project. Just, that we check our POVs at the login scree and pursue the ideal of NPOV. Be nice to others, and work towards bettering the article, by welcoming new and established editors alike. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:12, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm saying I'm for using the discussion page in edits. To make any article better. I'm trying hard to find a rationale for not doing so. I think on controversial topics, it is essential. Describing it in the edit line without no prior or further discussion is just pointless, and I think you'd be inclined to agree. Otherwise, we need to talk to Jimbo about canning the discussion process altogether. -- Pax Arcane  18:21, 5 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Editors are encouraged to edit, as well as discuss. The best model, which I invite you to consider is the BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:34, 5 February 2008 (UTC)


 * The BRD process


 * 1) Boldly make the desired change to the page.
 * 2) Wait until someone reverts your change or makes another substantial edit. DO NOT revert this change!
 * 3) If a disagreement arises, gracefully back down a bit, and explain and discuss your reasoning with the reverter and consider their different views too (don't go for discussion with too many people at once).  Once you reach agreement, start the cycle again by making the agreed change.

Wash, rinse, repeat. If no one reverts after a couple of days, congratulations! You got out of the impasse and got changes done. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:35, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

= Landmark Courses Section =

What have I gotten myself into? I added the sections for other Landmark programs because the 'curriculum for living' was previously referenced, but only one of its programs described. My entries got their facts from the Landmark Education website and were phrased to be NPOV. I took out Pax Arcane's additions because they were unsourced--Looking around, I can't find any basis for them.Gilbertine goldmark (talk) 15:10, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Why did you add stuff verbatim from the website? For a corporation, Wiki is _not_ a sales platform. Self-refering the website just makes it read like an advert.-- Pax Arcane  18:01, 5 February 2008 (UTC)


 * No need to get all worked up. Just summarize the text, amd provide a source. And yes, a web page from an official site of the subject of this article is a valid source. See WP:SELFPUB.

≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:09, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Hm? Jossi, I removed it. It's undue advertising...the courses available are ref'd in a previous link above. Let's keep this encyclopedic. A link to the corporations "technological products" is sufficient, otherwise we may be crossing into whay wikipedia is not territory. -- Pax Arcane  18:14, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

My additions were in no way verbatim additions from the website. I will re-add them with sources shortly.Gilbertine goldmark (talk) 18:55, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

This is odd--Admin Jossi says the edits I am doing are valid with a source, I put them back in with the source, and Pax Arcane just undoes them all without comment. Doesn't the Admin have a say here?Gilbertine goldmark (talk) 21:03, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think describing the course catalogue descriptions for The Curriculum for Living is needed, especially when it is listed above and has been for some time, along with a link to LE's site describing the already listed courses. It's advertising in the case of what you added, and doesn't add anything to the article that isn't already there or has direct corportate offsite links to, Gil. Especially if you're adding how much time it takes for each course and the days of the week. Try summarizing the content and leaving it at that, or adding what little info you have on each course by expanding this list that already exists in the article. It seems easier to add your 2-3 lines of pertinent info to the list I'm talking about that's already been there for some time. -- Pax Arcane  03:59, 6 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I have put this back in the article. Including a couple sentences about the courses outlined above is not blatant advertising.   It is simply saying what the purpose of 4 key courses are and evens out a section that it titled Landmark Education Courses. This slight elaboration is relevant to an article about Landmark Education.  Triplejumper (talk) 15:59, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Why leave out the ILP then? I added info to that course, you have to be candidated to do it. That's a bit more noteworthy, I think. For the record, if you're sticking with the 4, just elaborate on them at the top. We can come to a compromise on that, definitely. -- Pax Arcane  18:18, 6 February 2008 (UTC)


 * The explanatory commentaries on Landmark Education courses in the current form of the article do not always make clear the distinction between facts (hours and days of the week, for example) and opinions ( "Course X is about...") and marketing boosterism ("designed" ... "improve"...) It would improve the article to clarify in both text and referencing-material whose opinions get quoted/paraphrased. -- The current version of the article highlights a small group of Landmark Education's courses and seminars. We can remedy this selectivity by enumerating/listing all the 40-odd courses and seminars, thus giving a better overall summary picture of Landmark Education's scope and thrust. -- Pedant17 (talk) 03:00, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I removed what was left of this section. I've kind of come full circle on this section. At first I added to it to make it consistent with the course list. Some people criticized that saying that such a long list promotes the programs. Since then I've noticed some programs being added and removed from this section, which brings up the question of which ones to put in. Pedant suggests describing all 40 or so programs, which seems impractical, and to move the article in the direction of an encyclopedia. So I took out the whole section, which removes any appearance of advertisement. If people want to know more about the specifics of the courses, the information is easy enough to find.Gilbertine goldmark (talk) 02:31, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Gil, I have to commend you on your edits. I really appreciate you joining discussion in the editing process. It really helps. Your explanation of your edits is reasonable, I see no problem with them. I'm looking forward to working with you further. I've been editing this article for a while now and you're one of the most logical and sensible editors to grace these talk pages. Kudos, man. I hope everyone can follow your example. You've set the bar and I'm humbled. -- Pax Arcane  02:58, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

gives a snapshot of Landmark Education pedagogy and range as of May 2006:
 * A list does not promote anything: it gives an impression of the range of courses on offer. Suppose we treated Landmark Education like an educational institution. Readers might very well expect a summary of the range of courses or a list of schools and departments. A bare list fulfills this function in the case of Landmark Education, which lacks the school/department structure of the average college. -- Selectively listing some courses and not others smacks of suppression of information and may lead to imbalances. We can include them all in a list format. If Landmark Education adds a new course, we include it and note the date of introduction. If Landmark Education retires a course, we note the date of discontinuation. The article becomes more encyclopedic, not less so. If we provide all available information, dated, and in a consistent format, the chances of any distortion plummet. -- The suggestion that we describe all the programs -- where did that come from? -- not me! -- seems a good one, provided we adhere to verifiable external sourcing. Some of the course-names describe themselves, others give an impression of Landmarkian jargon. In either case a list adds value to the article. I find nothing impraticable about listing: we have done it before (see for example http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Landmark_Education&oldid=99698097#Courses_and_programs). I find nothing impracticable about describing each course: it may just take a few people a bit of work over a period of time. Wikipedia has enough cyberspace to cope with this. -- I disagree that one can readily find out more about the specifics of the courses -- the specifics remain closely-guarded secrets and Landmark Education makes only marketing hype available. But Wikipedia can help researchers by building up alternative reliable accounts. -- The site today lists 32 courses: http://www.landmarkeducation.com/landmark_events_schedules_locations.jsp. Now that Landmark Education discourages use of the Internet Archive to research its past, Wikipedia can provide a valuable service by tracking the development of Landmark Education courses. Accordingly I suggest that we restore the following information to the article: The following list of programs offered


 * Access to Power
 * Advanced Course
 * Assisting and Leadership Program
 * Being Extraordinary - The Art and Practice of Living from Possibility
 * Beyond Fitness - A Breakthrough in Well-Being
 * Breakthroughs - Living Outside the Box
 * Causing the Miraculous - A New Realm of Possibility
 * Commitment - The Pathway to Adventure
 * Communication Curriculum
 * Creativity - Life by Design
 * Excellence - In the Zone
 * Integrity - The Bottom Line
 * Living Passionately - The Art and Mastery of Playing the Game of Life
 * Money - From Concern to Freedom
 * Partnership Explorations Course
 * Power and Contribution Course
 * Power to Create
 * Producing Breakthrough Results - Part I - Effectiveness
 * Producing Breakthrough Results - Part II - Velocity
 * Self-Expression and Leadership Program
 * Seminar Program
 * Sex and Intimacy - From Predicament to Possibility
 * Special Introductions to The Landmark Forum
 * The Family Coaching Seminar
 * The Landmark Forum
 * The Landmark Forum for Young People
 * The Landmark Forum for Teens
 * The Landmark Forum In Action
 * The Relationships Seminar - The Basics of Love, Romance, and Partnership
 * Vacation Courses
 * Wisdom Courses
 * Wisdom Unlimited


 * -- Pedant17 (talk) 02:19, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

From the perspective of a wikipedia user / reader, I have to wonder why there is no discussion in the article regarding the methods / activities involved in the forum? This seems to be a glaring absence. I appreciate that certain aspects of this may be under IP protection (copyright)as constiutive of the 'technology', but there is a need for it to be referenced here. I have no doubt there is sufficient attributable and verifiable content in print to establish the existence of a controversy over methods, at least. 159.33.10.92 (talk) 20:10, 3 March 2008 (UTC) Alec Forbes, aiforbes@gmail.com
 * It was an editorial decision by an editor to remove gridlock on some issues while not giving the guise of advertisement. I think the end result is something all editors involved didn't have a problem with. Gilbertine goldmark's rationale for his edits was spot-on, actually. Instead of splitting hairs over parts, the whole thing needed to go, as the LE website has all of the pertinant info.


 * This article discusses Landmark Education, the org. Try setting up a separate un-redirected article on (say) The Landmark Forum to discuss details of that particular course. I look forward to seeing the content and references for such an article. -- Pedant17 (talk) 02:19, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

As far as controversy of the methods, besides Kopp and the suppressed French doc info, there's not a whole lot other editors can do without it being wiped out by the whitewashers (that I listed somewhere in the talk page) in a matter of moments, without any discussion on their part except "weasel words," "bias," "irrelavent," or some other such baseless nonesense. Look at the history of this page and you'll see how much got wiped out. There's stuff I won't add because I know the addition is futile. It's like Congress trying to write a Bill that President Bush has said he'll veto beforehand.

It doesn't have to make sense. It's Wikipedia.-- Pax Arcane  22:49, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

= Kopp =

I am concerned about this source:. The work, which is self-published, does not seem to be notable to be cited in a Wikipedia article, See WP:SELFPUB, and the author (a graduate student) does not seem to be notable enough either to be used as a source. (see bio)≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:46, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Cross-ref it with the Denison grad thesis. There may be some overlap. Denison may already cover what Kopp did. Would you mind taking that on? -- Pax Arcane  18:10, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Cross reference? No, I cannot do that, as that would be a violation of WP:OR. Unless, that dissertation includes Kopp's self-published PDF as a source. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:14, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
 * No, my wording on this is bad. Look at Denison's paper. More reputable source. I think it covers what Kopp does. Read the two and compare them. I don't think this is OR, just fact-checking. -- Pax Arcane  18:17, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
 * If Denison's grad thesis covers it, please delete Kopp's self-published article. It is not a source that can be used for reasons explained above. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:33, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
 * A moment to read Denison's thesis, please. This is time-consuming, and will take another read. This is requiring another read of a lengthy peer-reviewed philosophy article also to ensure accuracy. I only ask your patience and allowing me the time to read through. None of the 3 documents in question are negative, they just require extensive reading. Cool? -- Pax Arcane  20:13, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

What is not cool, is your edit warring. You are violating WP:3RR, and you should know better by now. One more revert and you may get to take a break. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:49, 6 February 2008 (UTC)


 * WP:SELFPUB has no relevance to Kopp's sober and balanced article. WP:SELFPUB relates to "Self-published and questionable sources in articles about themselves" Kopp's article does not represent self-publishing in the conventional sense of the word, but appears as a sample of research corporately published on the University of Arizona website. Kopp's article does not appear questionable as a source: it makes it author's background clear and treats its subject with academic detachment and scholarly referencing. We use Kopp's material here not in an article about Kopp (which would constitute a publication about itself) but in a discussion of Landmark Education and (specifically) the Landmark Forum -- one of very few academic articles to address these topics in a serious and analytical manner. -- As for the notability of Kopp's article, that does not come into question. Kopp expresses a viewpoint, backed by analysis and experience, and published in a reputable academic environment. His work constiutes one of the better sources for an otherwise barely notable phenomenon of minority pop-culture interest: the Landmark Forum. We would do well to retain Kopp as a source and to cite him more frequently. -- Pedant17 (talk) 03:00, 8 February 2008 (UTC)


 * The Kopp article contains a professors name and a course number at the top. It appears to have been written for a class assignment.  It's not clear how this constitutes "published in a reputable academic environment".  Whose the publisher?  Was it peer reviewed?  I think ≈ jossi ≈ may have meant to cite WP:SPS which is directly relevant. Tealwarrior (talk)  —Preceding comment was added at 07:07, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Ya know, for what it's worth right now, I don't care to venture what Jossi might have been thinking. I don't care what he was thinking anyway, period. He's got poor judgement. I'd rather other editors participate with their own thoughs, no disrespect. I tire easily of people speaking on behalf of others, again, no disrespect. Kopp has some valid stuff. Instead of editing it out, let's ruminate for a while. Koppp's stuff is in no way harmful to Landmark Education, offers some insight, adds depth. -- Pax Arcane  15:44, 8 February 2008 (UTC)


 * The Kopp study includes the name of a professor and a course-number -- true. That may well relate to the writing of the piece -- in what way does it relate to the manner of publication? -- The Kopp study has some of the trappings of a class assignment -- albeit a substantial one: true. That may well relate to the original writing of the piece -- in what way does it relate to the manner of publication? -- The Kopp study, as its URL suggests, appears on the University of Arizona website. Do we have evidence that someone has spoofed the URL? - If so, let's see the evidence.-- Do we have evidence that the University of Arizona does not constitute a "reputable academic environment"? - If so, let's edit the University of Arizona page appropriately, using verifiable sources. -- Has anyone peer-reviewed Kopp's study? - Dunno. We can address any concerns about the University of Arizona publishing non-peer-reviewed research to the University of Arizona. -- It seems idle to speculate whether ≈ jossi ≈ may have intended to refer to refer to WP:SPS rather than the non-relevant WP:SELFPUB. But leaving such idle speculation aside for the moment, we can ascertain at a glance that WP:SPS has no relevance to the citing of Kopp's research, since WP:SPS refers to specifically "created" websites, not to personal areas of established websites. -- Pedant17 (talk) 01:19, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I read the LE article, read Kopp's paper, and did some research on the U of Arizona website. The link to Kopp's paper seems to be a private webpage on the U website. Additionally, papers posted on University websites do not fulfill the criteria for peer-reviewed. Frequently, they are posted to advertise the caliber of the student, or to other promotional affects. That said, the paper is about public space and Landmark Education - a theoretical discussion that focuses more on the critical/philosophical elements of the discussion. I assume most of the commentators above didn't bother reading the paper, otherwise they wouldn't be clamoring to include it as a source. It's unclear what the paper adds to the LE discussion. I see that this discusison is a little under a month old, but considering the revert activity on this page, I thought another vote on this topic was worthwhile. 66.65.55.82 (talk) 22:36, 6 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Reliable sourcing does not always equate to "peer-reviewed". And frequently, university staff use university web-pages to make their research more widely available. -- That said, and given the great dearth of objective discussion of Landmark Education available, let us welcome the fact that one reader finds it unclear what exactly the paper adds to the Landmark Education article -- that constitutes a vote in favor of balanced neutral point-of-view. Let's cite Kopp again  and allow future editors to build on the topic of theoretical philosophical approaches to Landmark Education. -- Pedant17 (talk) 03:22, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

= Lead =

This portion of the lead: Landmark Education is a controversial organisation[8][9], often accused of being a cult.[10][11][12] is poorly written and not compatible with NPOV, as it is asserting opinions as facts. It needs to be re-written, and properly attributed ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:53, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
 * It is totally opinion and should not be in the lead at all. I removed it. Triplejumper (talk) 15:22, 6 February 2008 (UTC)


 * The referenced sentence may contain some opinion, but it backs the expression of any such opinion by giving no less than 5 references: Herewith the full version as of 2008-02-06:

Landmark Education is a controversial organisation , often accused of being a cult.


 * The mere existence of the references suggests the controversial nature of Landmark Education. Landmark Education's own web-site (since revised) referred itself to the controversies. The suggestion of culthood in the article-text appeared indirectly -- not presented as a fact -- and with appropriate verifiability, especially given the position of the sentence in the lead. Any opinion seeing it as "poorly written" does not justify deletion. Any suggestion that the attribution as it appeared on 2008-02-06 needs improvement may need specific elaboration -- such a sweeping statement about 5 very different sources does not justify deletion. -- Indeed, one might very plausibly suggest that controversy (espcially "cult-controversy) provides the principal grounds for the notability of Landmark Education. Let's restore this referenced material, elaborating and re-attributing as suggested, and give it even more prominence within the lead section. -- Pedant17 (talk) 03:00, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Pendant17, add the lede portion back in. It's sourced. Let's move on. I have to go wipe this egg off my face. -- Pax Arcane  15:46, 8 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Some day, over the rainbow, when the Landmark Education article gets unlocked ... -- Pedant17 (talk) 01:19, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

The vehemence with this page has been discussed has got my attention, particularly around the disputed sentence in the lead about many people calling Landmark Education a cult, so I followed the given sources to see what I could find. It seems to me that almost none of the sources actually call Landmark Education a cult. The first reference, the skepdic page, has no reference to anyone calling it a cult. The second one, to the Boston Globe article, has an unsourced comment that some people think it comes close to being a cult, and then it goes on to say that social scientists don’t consider it a cult. The third reference gives dozens of links, only two of which make that claim, one in an offhand manner in an anonymous internet post, and one that I would take seriously except that the person who claims that Landmark Education is a cult then goes on to say that he went to Japan, where the entire country turned out to be a cult.

In short, there’s a lot of smoke and innuendo, but no fire—There are no substantial claims here of Landmark Education being a cult. A lot of the links led to quotes that basically said ‘Landmark Education isn’t really a cult, but I really don’t like them.’ It reminds me of how when Barack Obama came on as a presidential candidate, his opponents started referring to his enthusiastic followers as a cult. No one really thinks that they are a cult, but by throwing that word around it gives a sort of negative groupthink smear. I think there’s a danger in Wikipedia giving overweight to something that really isn’t there, or when it is there, it’s usually reporting something someone else said. To give another political parallel, look back to the whole John Kerry Swift Boat story. The criticism of Kerry’s military record started as a few ads that almost no one saw; however, the mainstream press picked it up and soon it was being repeated by every person in the media, even if it was to criticize it. Second hand reporting inadvertently validated the Swift Boat attack far beyond what its makers ever could have done by themselves—A couple of obscure ads blossomed into something that made a big difference in Kerry not being elected president. A similar thing has happened this year with the ‘Barack Obama is a radical muslim’ emails going around—It starts with a couple of emails, and soon no one even knows where the lie came from—It has a life of its own and is being circulated everywhere. The same could be said of John McCain supposedly fathering an illegitimate black child, a lie difficult to disprove because McCain has an adopted daughter from Bangladesh. To give a non-political example, look at any of a thousand urban legends that have a life of their own. I like the one about Mikey from the old Life cereal commercial dying after eating 6 boxes of pop rocks—This falsehood killed off a popular candy brand.

None of this is to say that there aren’t legitimate sourced criticisms of Landmark Education that could be written in the controversies/criticisms section of the article, just like there are legitimate criticisms you can make of Barack Obama, John Kerry, John McCain or whomever. But it seems to me that using these sources to start throwing the loaded ‘cult’ word around in the story lead is an overreach.Gilbertine goldmark (talk) 20:32, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * OMG, Your writing style sounds so much like AlexJackl's, did anyone ever mention that? Anyway, that was a boring, tangent riddled piece of work you wrote that took up a lot of space and told me absolutely nothing. Unfortunately, the goal of Landmark Education is groupthink. The truth is hard to accept sometimes, I must admit. Take it light bro, processing that fact is tough. -- Pax Arcane  22:57, 22 February 2008 (UTC)


 * The Skepdic page (http://skepdic.com/landmark.html) mentions Landmark Education and "cults like Scientology" in the same breath. Some connection gets implied here. And only a click-link away, at http://skepdic.com/cults.html, we find: "there are some who refer to Amway and Landmark Forum as cults..." Evidently different definitions may apply, but the Skepdic has stated the case in point: some people regard Landmark Education as a cult. That in itself deserves mention and discussion rather than suppression.


 * The Boston Globe article at http://www.rickross.com/reference/landmark/landmark17.html addresses the question of whether Landmark Education has cult-attributes. The context and wording make it clear that that point-of-view exists -- else why the article with its heading "The Forum: Cult or comfort?" ? -- and why the (unattributed) claim that "Social scientists familiar with the Forum agree that the program itself is not a cult. But whether the training gets people so hooked on the experience as to make them dependent on the Landmark company and thus engage in cultlike behavior is an open question for some." -- Note the distinction between "The Landmark Forum" and "Landmark Education the company.


 * The "third reference": http://www.culthelp.info/index.php?option=com_content&task=category&sectionid=8&id=73&Itemid=12 from the Cult Awareness Information Center with its many links (including of course Landmark Education's reactions to some claims) groups Landmark Education firmly in the ambit of what many people term cults. Note here that in the real world, people do not go around conveniently defining "X is Y" or "Landmark Education is a cult". They use context, implication, comparisons and hints. And when we deal with a phenomenon of popular culture (such as Landmark Education) such passing comments and suggestions have great value. They show how people -- without thinking or analyzing -- instinctively recognize what they may term a "cult". The "offhand manner" expresses the popular mindset -- and when presenting facts like "Landmark Education is a controversial organisation, often accused of being a cult", that provides precise and well-grounded proof of the claim that some people do indeed make such accusations (quite distinct from the question as to whether or not Wikipedia can label Landmark Education a "cult").


 * We need more and better references on the "perception of culthood" issue -- not the removal of this obviously important point. Let's restore the vital and well-documented facts to the lead section. We could state:

Landmark Education as an organization has occasioned much controversy, and a general popular perception views it as a "cult".


 * -- Pedant17 (talk) 02:19, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

See my comments from February 22nd as to why describing Landmark Education as a cult or cult-like don't belong in the lead of the article.Gilbertine goldmark (talk) 12:51, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Gil, that's just your group's opinion. I disagree with your reason for editing Micha. His edit was NEITHER inflamatory NOR irrelevant. It was very sanitized. I'd like to remind you to stop some of the passive aggressive vandalism you've been doing lately as well (putting in a destruction of an office in a city as a closure in a country closure section). Micha's edit was BOLD yet cautious and civil, and sourced. And really, I'd like to remind everyone to use the TALK PAGE before any shenanigans. -- Pax Arcane  13:56, 28 March 2008 (UTC)


 * The views expressed in the comments of 2008-02-22 may need revision or re-statement in the light of replies to those comments dating from 2008-03-08. -- Pedant17 (talk) 04:20, 30 March 2008 (UTC)


 * "[D]escribing Landmark Education as a cult or cult-like" don't come into it. We have a different issue to address: the mentioning of the perception/opinion/judgment of third-parties as to whether one can regard Landmark Education as cultic, cultoid, cult-like or cult-similar. Plenty of evidence exists that proves that this connection exists in the minds of some commentators. We need mention nothing more in the lead -- but we should mention this perception in the lead as a major and ongoing factor in "the public conversation" about Landmark Education. -- Pedant17 (talk) 01:51, 4 April 2008 (UTC)


 * The problem is that it's clearly a minority POV. I'm not saying this based on my own opinion; I'm saying this from looking at reliable sourcing. When all these arguments about the lead started, I looked around for sources. I found hardly anything reliable saying Landmark Education is a cult. On the other hand, I found plenty of reliable (non-Landmark) sources saying it isn't. Given that the undue weight policy says extreme minority POV should not be in a Wiki article, I think that the most one can argue for is putting it in the criticisms section. Gilbertine goldmark (talk) 02:56, 4 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Points-of-view in popular culture do not necessarily rely on the existence of reliable sources. Several sources support the fact (fact -- not opinion) that a widespread perception exists that Landmark Education appears cultic. So we record that fact: a perception exists. The other matter: whether Landmark Education does actually operate in cult-like ways, we reserve for a separate discussion -- probably in a separate section of the article. And at this point we need to see those "plenty of reliable (non-Landmark) sources" putting the case for non-culthood. The article cries out for such opinions -- far too many refutations and denials appear not in reliable sources, but only in material published by Landmark Education about itself. -- The Wikipedia policy on undue weight says nothing about "extreme minority POV", but suggests: "If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia (except perhaps in some ancillary article) regardless of whether it is true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not." Judging by the lack of good evidence so far presented to disprove Landmark education's cultishness, it seems apparent that a major -- it not a majority -- view exists that regards Landmark Education as a cult. That view too -- along with but separate from the report on public perception -- belongs in the article -- and not in some tucked-away artificial miniscule section on "criticisms".  -- Pedant17 (talk) 03:22, 9 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't have much time to work on this today, but here are a few reliable sources off the top of my head:
 * Huffington Post -- http://www.huffingtonpost.com/karin-badt/inside-the-landmark-forum_b_90028.html
 * "At the end of the day, I found the Forum innocuous. No cult, no radical religion: an inspiring, entertaining introduction of good solid techniques of self-reflection, with an appropriate emphasis on action and transformation (not change)."


 * The Guardian -- http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2003/dec/14/ameliahill.theobserver
 * "Landmark has faced accusations of being a cult, but I saw nothing of that. Far from working to separate us from our families and friends, we were told there was no relationship too dead to be revived, no love too cold to be warmed."


 * Elle Magazine -- http://groups.google.com/group/alt.fan.landmark/msg/6eaaade6749dbbee?hl=en
 * "anti-cult counselors say that the Forum itself is not a cult; in a cult members are encouraged to live within the
 * group and are conditioned to be mistrustful of the outside world." Gilbertine goldmark (talk) 15:02, 9 April 2008 (UTC)


 * That looks like a great start. Load them into the article and we can give them dates and comments and contexts and counter-claims in an orderly and informative fashion. -- Pedant17 (talk) 02:10, 10 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I wasn't able to find any source anywhere for the Tekniko statement, so I removed it. Maybe someone else can find something. Gilbertine goldmark (talk) 17:29, 2 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Put it back and tag it rather than remove it. That information could prove valuable to the next reader -- Pedant17 (talk) 01:51, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

= Houston, we have a problem =

In light of this article, http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/02/06/the_cult_of_wikipedia/, I am distancing myself from any and all suggestions and edits suggested by ≈ jossi ≈ , inclusive to the Kopp paper. Something seems quite unethical about everything I've read, and I'll let the higher ups sort it out, but I'd rather edits on this page from inception not be possibly tainted by scandal...otherwise we may have to start over from scratch. The implications of the Register article disturb me deeply. -- Pax Arcane  02:23, 7 February 2008 (UTC)


 * The article is very interesting but not for the reasons you are trying to promote here. There are no conclusions to draw from the article, just insinuation. Conspiracy theories abound in the information age.  (Notice how many programs there are on the History Channel about UFO's.)  Conspiracy gets attention.  I don't know much about Jossi except that you don't appear to like him very much. I do not have enough time to examine all of Jossi's edits but I think  he makes things pretty clear here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jossi/Response#My_response_to_Cade_Metz_article_in_The_Register.    I see no reason not to take him at his word and more importantly I don't see what this has to do with this article.  Just in case though I am going to wear a tin foil hat for the next few weeks. Triplejumper (talk) 00:27, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry you're feeling that way. Spacefarer and you guys don't have apologist-Jossi to whine to anymore, but Spacefarer did give it a shot before the shit hit the fan.http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jossi&oldid=189184418#fellow_editor_seems_out_of_line
 * We'll just find the next person he works with that is apologetic to your cause, and we have their names and edits. Then they'll be next. Not really a whole lot you pro-Erhard/LE people can do at this point except take your licks at this point. You can't whitewash your shit-stains anymore (or rename them). -- Pax Arcane  19:44, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The "Cult of Wikipedia" article may have included some insinuation. It did include some facts. Each reader may legitimately draw inferences and/or conclusions from any such article. -- Do cult-apologists exist? Does their existence necessarily imply a conspiracy theory? -- Do conspiracies exist outside conspiracy-theories? -- Do we ignore any unpalatable material? - or simply suspend judgment? - or dismiss it as "insinuation"?  -- Pedant17 (talk) 01:19, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, he made the Cult News. http://www.cultnews.com/?p=2257 I'm ignoring his edit and admin advice in this and related articles. Period. -- Pax Arcane  01:57, 10 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Well Pax, it looks to me as though you were ignoring Jossi's advice well before you dug up this piece of garbage to justify yourself. Please remember that that this page is for discussion of ways to improve the article on Landmark Education, not for propagandising unrelated topics, or for smear campaigns against diligent editors of Wikipedia.  The Register article is strong on innuendo and contains some pretty dubious assertions, but very little factual content that wasn't already known.  Jossi has been pretty upfront about his affiliations to Prem Rawat and has no axe to grind either way in regard to Landmark - his occasional interventions here are those of a disinterested editor working to improve the quality of Wikepedia.  As far as my investigations have been able to discover, Rawat seems to be doing a commendable job of spreading a worthwhile message (that "Peace is available within you"), and has facilitated extensive humanitarian activities in providing food aid and medical care in rural India, as well as several  disaster-relief projects. For this he apparently attracts the opprobrium of exactly the same sort of people who want to slag off LE (in some cases the very same individuals - don't these people have a life of their own to get on with?).
 * Anyone who wants to get a perspective on the Register article, could take a look at Jimbo's talk page DaveApter (talk) 17:22, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
 * No need to give more advert space for Rawat's good work here on Wikipedia. It's a pretty dead topic. Dave, we improve the article by not using people with an apologist attitude to help our cause, and the best sources we can use that aren't corporate PR. I've added good stuff in and you have as well (when you're not deleting journal articles). We'll go from there. -- Pax Arcane  19:24, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I am a new editor of this article. The fact that any mention of cults or controversy is minimised and brushed aside is ridiculous. Everyone knows this is a hugley controversial organisation, as the length of this talk page, edit wars, etc prove. There should be a clear statement on this in the opening few paragraphs, as there is, for comparison, in the article on Scientology. It is most unfortante that a group of Landmark devotees are allowed to cleanse the article in this way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.43.32.85 (talk) 00:13, 12 February 2008 (UTC)


 * We fail in our duty to provide balance if we omit from the lead section any mention of culthood or of controversy. These, after all, have made Landmark Education well-known. References to a mere sample of the critical discussion of Landmark Education in the infosphere can establish the existence of such controversy. -- Pedant17 (talk) 02:19, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

= A case-study in marketing =

At 1934 on 2006-12-15 a Wikipedian changed the phrase "marketing case-study of the Forum" to "marketing case study of the Forum" in the "Assisting program" section.

This change compounded ambiguity: we can no longer tell whether Wruck and Eastley wrote a study of a "marketing case" or a "case-study" with a marketing focus. I propose we address the ambiguity by recasting the phrase to read: "this case-study of the marketing of the Landmark Forum".

-- Pedant17 (talk) 02:48, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * It is/was a case study for classroom use/discussion only. That's the tile. "Single-purpose Case Study." -- Pax Arcane  02:54, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

= Religious Implications Section=

editprotected I request that an administrator remove the Religious Implications section from the article. In my opinion it was put into the article by a former editor who was known for an extreme POV (Smeelgova/Smee) for the purposes of implying that Landmark Education is a Religion. It is full of problems

For example one paragraph is using an unattributable quote by an obscure blogger:


 * Paul Derengowski, formerly of the Christian cult-watch group Watchman.org, states that Landmark "has theological implications".[59]

When you go to the references provided, you can’t find anything about who this Paul Derengowski is or where he said what he said. That is like “I over heard a guy who was sitting at a picnic bench at the Dairy Queen say it”  kind of reference.

Also what is written in the following two paragraphs is not reflected in the citations provided.


 * In 2002 theologians Deacon Robert Kronberg, B.Th. and Consultant Kristina Lindebjerg, B.Th. of the Dialog Center International in Denmark discussed the religious aspects of Landmark Education, stating: "Also we see a large number of people joining groups, such as Landmark and Amway, which become controversial because of their sales practices."[63]


 * Kronberg and Lindebjerg posited that Landmark Education's courses seem to fill a void in the lives of disillusioned young adults, who have not found answers in religion: "Landmark seems to appeal to young people between 20 and 35 in liberal professions who are disillusioned with or discouraged about their lives. Landmark seems to be a pseudo-scientific substitute for the need for religious answers to life's fundamental questions."[64]

In the citation provided (63 and 64 are the same) In the first paragraph, the “religious aspects” of Landmark education are not discussed in the reference provided. Landmark education in the article is mentioned in reference to sales practices. The second paragraph is a non sequitur. Everything, from money, to sex, to football has been written about as a replacement for religion.

Per the box at the top of the article I am requesting that the section be removed. Triplejumper (talk) 22:35, 20 February 2008 (UTC)


 * The sourcing. I'm on it. As this isn't my day job, it make take until tomorrow, but I have the sources somewhere. -- Pax Arcane  03:03, 21 February 2008 (UTC)


 * A search on google for Paul Derengowski reveals that he is a dogmatic Christian Fundamemtalist self-publicist of no particular expertise or knowledge on this subject. Why are his personal opinions worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia article? Similarly Kromberg and Lindebjerg are merely putting forward a personal opinion, and once again one that appears merely speculative without any sign of knowledge of the topic.  Why else would they bracket LE and Amway (a multi-level soap-powder marketing operation)? On the other hand there are numerous cases of ecclesiastics of many denominations making attributable on-the-record positive comments on Landmark courses based on personal observation.  The section as it stands is just more blatant attempts to drag in any material, however dubious, which provides a negative POV. DaveApter (talk) 15:31, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Viewpoints and opinions, no matter how diametrically opposed, that are citeable, are worthy of inclusion. I detect a POV in your last statement, which is unfortunate. Balance is balance. This will not turn into the Prem Rawat type of page, but if you'd like it to, I'd be more than happy to accomodate you. No corporation is perfect and without divergent viewpoints and divergent public opinions. This is the nature of a corporation with such a colorful and storied history as Landmark Education, as well as the rather interesting things people and the press report, as well as legal proceedings. I have an NPOV for inclusion. If you have personal feelings about LE, it would be best to recuse yourself from editing. The rough data would seem to show that taking "courses" from Landmark combined with psychotherapy would produce an optimal result, which is a really positive thing in my professional opinion. I seem to recall efforts on your part to actually _quash_ the study, which from your Non-NPOV is beyond me. I would imagine it to be a form of censorship or article control for purposes OUTSIDE wikipedia, but I won't assume as much if your continuing edits do not give hints to the contrary. You may want to check your objectivity to the related articles to this topic you edit as well. At any rate, I stand by my earlier statements in the paragraph. -- Pax Arcane  17:44, 21 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Kronberg and Lindebjerg ("Psychogroups and Cults in Denmark" in Cultic Studies Review: An Internet Journal of Research, News & Opinion Vol. 1, No. 1, 2002: http://www.culticstudiesreview.org/csr_articles/kronberg_robert.htm) have every right to their opinions, especially as they have survived the process of editing and publication, and thus become worthy of citation in Wikipedia -- unlike many of the cases of enthusiastic ecclesiastics whose endorsements appear "publishable" only on the Landmark Education website. Kronberg and Lindebjerg discuss the religious landscape of contemporary Denmark and repeatedly refer to the place and activities of Landmark Education ("the American psychogroup, Landmark, which some people associate with cultic groups because of the high level of one-sided sales pressure that many people report") in that context. They make the connection with religion explicit: "Landmark seems to be a scientific substitute for the need for religious answers to life's fundamental questions.". They posit a theoretical framework: "The Dialog Center calls the mechanism behind this phenomenon "religio occulta" (hidden religion). This concept views groups as having several layers, with the religious layer hidden behind other layers. With some groups the religion is hidden by front organizations; with other groups the "religio" is reframed as psychology (psychogroups). The psychogroups seem to base their work on some sort of magic or occult way of thinking that implies a capacity to manipulate the forces of nature as the followers are taught they are their own cause... This means that those who are attracted to seemingly nonreligious groups are really attracted to the hidden religious aspects of the groups that on the surface may appear to be scientific. The question then arises whether in the future psychogroups, by virtue of religio occulta, will continue to supplant the religious cults that attracted people in past years." Overall, the relevance of this work to a discussion of the religious aspects of Landmark Education appears clear. For more Danish material on Amway, Landmark Education and religion in a more scholarly vein, see Tom Thygesen Frederiksen: "Amway - en ny tids religiøsitet?" at http://www.dci.dk/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1312&Itemid=34 -- If specific published refutations of Kronberg and Lindebjerg's analysis of the situation in Denmark exist, let's see them and if appropriate include them in the article. Otherwise let's not exclude the work of published researchers on the basis of speculation and aspersions. -- Pedant17 (talk) 01:23, 22 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Follow my lead and add it in. -- Pax Arcane  22:58, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I've been reading over the discussion here today, and it does seem odd that this big section is in here. I'm sure someone could write an interesting article on what the religious implications of self-improvement seminar programs are, but absent evidence that religion, or the praise or criticism of it are part of the course material, which none of the sources come close to doing, it seens that such speculation should not be part of this Wiki article. I'm pretty new to Wikipedia, and I've been reading over Wiki rules as I've started editing, and two stand out: Wikipedia is neither a collection of unverifiable speculation, nor an indiscriminate collection of information; in other words, it's not about the far flung implications of the subject matter of each article. To give an analogy, I could find you a hundred sources saying the practice of psychology has religious implications, yet you don't find a "Religious Implications" Heading on the Psychology Wiki page, because it's tangential. None of the sources given for this section do more than tie religion to Landmark Education obliquely, and as such, seem to be insufficient reason to justify this article section.Gilbertine goldmark (talk) 21:05, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * You are new. You are right. You came in and did edits that read like adverts, showing a possible POV. And people outside of Wikipedia who don't edit have POVs. And we document them here as they are relavent to someone. -- Pax Arcane  23:20, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I reverted back to Pax Arcane. Triplejumper reverted to a version which contained mainly advertisement(The course starts each day at 10am and ends no later than midnight. The Tuesday evening session runs from 7:00pm to 10:15pm) but removed unpopular content(including the sources) without explanation. -- Stan talk 22:13, 21 February 2008 (UTC) Sorry for using TW and marking my revert as a minor. My fault. ): -- Stan talk 22:36, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi Stan- just clarify, I did not remove content without explanation. I explained on the talk page here.  I in fact reverted the reversions of another editor who was not at the time discussing it on the talk page. Also I removed a weasel worded POV violating sentence that was just added to the article.  It is completely inappropriate for the opening section of the article.  Triplejumper (talk) 23:13, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * It's sourced and, well, we're going to Prem Rawat article angle with this stuff now it seems, so, you know...POV stuff is a mofo. Once you obliterate opposing views, they will crop up again. Anyway, onwards and upwards. This is an encyclopedia article, not an Landmark Education Advertisement. -- Pax Arcane  23:20, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Not having a minority POV in the opening paragraph or the article is not advertising. All people are entitled to their views I have not issues with that. I have an issue with something that is essentially a regurgitated subjective opinion that happens to reference some special interest blogs being put in the opening paragraph. Triplejumper (talk) 23:39, 21 February 2008 (UTC) See WP:UNDUEWEIGHTTriplejumper (talk) 23:48, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Lemme explain something to you: if what went down in France and Sweden is a MINORITY point of view, I think your logic is pretty effed up. TWO WHOLE COUNTRIES is just a MINORITY POV? -- Pax Arcane  08:19, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Reminder WP:CIVIL Triplejumper (talk) 15:14, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * And I would remind you to do the same. I didn't make this ((cur) (last) 19:23, 22 February 2008 Triplejumper (Talk | contribs) (38,908 bytes) (→Criticism: removing weasle worded edit by Pax Arcane- Sources does not support what was written. -) (undo) (cur) (last)  18:42, 22 February 2008 Stan En (Talk | contribs) m (39,110 bytes) (undo) ) edit. I do not appreciate your careless accusation an innuendo-- Pax Arcane  20:51, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * see WP:LEAD  The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article. The controversy is important and part of this topic. Most reports about Landmark don't get around of mentioning this controversy. Not everyone agrees with this accusations like The Observer but still acknowleges that controversy exists.(It claims to be about self-improvement but it's been accused of exploiting the gullible, even of being a cult.). It should be mentioned even if proven wrong because it is such a big issue.  -- Stan talk 19:15, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

The stated opinion: "In my opinion it was put into the article by a former editor who was known for an extreme POV (Smeelgova/Smee) for the purposes of implying that Landmark Education is a Religion" that a whole section (on "Religious Implications") came into the article as a result of one fellow-editor's work does not provide any sort of argument (let alone a justified one) for removal of such section. -- Pedant17 (talk) 01:35, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

The bare unjustified speculation that a fellow-editor acted "for the purposes of implying that Landmark Education is a Religion" cannot play any meaningful role in determining the fate of a section of the article -- which must stand and develop or shrink solely on the merits of the information it contains and references. -- Pedant17 (talk) 01:35, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

The argument "When you go to the references provided, you can’t find anything about who this Paul Derengowski is or where he said what he said. That is like “I over heard a guy who was sitting at a picnic bench at the Dairy Queen say it” kind of reference." does not have relevance. If one goes to a reference quoting the Gospel of Saint Mark, you can't find anything about Saint Mark or where he said what he said. Do we therefore expunge from Wikipedia all paragraphs which quote Saint Mark's Gospel? Or do we leave the references and encourage readers and editors to do further research? Far from comparable to overhearing a guy at the Dairy Queeen, the citation for the Derengowski opinion ( "Landmark Forum", The Skeptic's Dictionary, Robert T. Carroll, Published by John Wiley & Sons, August 15, 2003, ISBN 0-471-27242-6) at least tracks Derengowski's statement as far as a recognised and authoritative published expert (Robert Todd Carroll) who confirms names and provides a list of further reading, thus serving as a good start-point for further research. Let's not exclude the section on the religious implications of Landmark Education on the basis of this sort of argument. -- Pedant17 (talk) 01:35, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

The characterization of Paul Derengowski as "an obscure blogger" appears an unjustified and weaselly disparagement. Let's see at least some justification for this negative labelling before we make a generic judgment on a single statement from this man. After all, some bloggers may have something to say -- inside or outside their blogs. And Mr Derengowski may have utterly acceptable views on the blueness of sky. -- Pedant17 (talk) 01:35, 10 March 2008 (UTC) = =

Disappearance of information on survey-methodology
At 1543 hours on 2007-12-22 a Wikipedian removed the following sentence relating to the "DYG Study": "Some details of the study methodology, especially concerning sampling methods, statistical hypothesis testing and the demographics of study participants, remain undefined in what Landmark Education refers to as the "Full Study"." The editor added the edit-summary: "Removed OR".

Since accepted methods exist for evaluating statistical surveys and since Landmark Education's website misleadingly has referred to its presentation of the results as the "Full Study", let's restore this useful note, (suitably expanded to point out that the Landmark Education website (at ) persists in its claim that it presents the "Full Study" or "the full DYG, Inc.study" at the link ), on the limitations of the information as presented. Nobody would wish to malign a distinguished scholar such as Yankelovich by implying that survey-results used for marketing represent the totality of a solid methodologically-sound exercise.

-- Pedant17 (talk) 02:10, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

moving forward
Now that the page is unprotected, we're off to a bad start with another half-cycle of edit war. It would be more productive to find a place in the article to represent the point being made in sources about LGATs and/or cults in relation to the topic, and to write it with NPOV, rather than just remove it based on one POV and wait for someone with another POV to put it back. Some compromise in attitude may be necessary to avoid another edit war and protection... Dicklyon (talk) 14:49, 2 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi Dicklyon, thanks for trying to bring some order to this page. I'm sorry you regard my edit as more edit-warring. I've added my reasoning in the section above, which didn't appear until just after you wrote this comment. I'm not averse to there being mention of the cult or LGAT accusations, as long as they are backed up by adequate sources and given a suitable balance.


 * The LGAT term is particularly problematic as there doesn't seem to be a clear generally accepted definition. It often seems to be used in a dishonest "bait and switch" type of argument whereby it is attached to some group (eg Landmark) on the grounds that they hold Training Sessions to promote Awareness in Large Groups (all of which is uncontentious), and then to imply that therefore this group must use "thought control" or other unsavoury practices.


 * Although LE is frequently accused of being a "cult" by anonymous blog writers etc., I have yet to find any sound references where anyone of expertise who has actually studied its operations, and defined clearly what they mean by the term "cult", and what evidence they found for Landmark fitting that description. If such references can be found, then obviously we could add an entry to this effect, balanced of course by the remarks of numerous psychologists, priests, bishops, rabbis, social scientists etc who are on record stating unambiguously that it is not. DaveApter (talk) 15:21, 2 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I think we can all agree that criticisms deserve their place, provided they follow policies on sourcing and undue weight. After a lot of edit warring, the whole article suffers from choppy writing, missing sources, and ambiguous, weasel worded statements. I'm going to make some attempts to start cleaning it up--If anyone has a problem with a particular edit, let me know and we can all discuss. Gilbertine goldmark (talk) 15:39, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

One of the questions most often asked about Landmark Forum is whether or not it is a cult, this is a valid question and must be adrdessed in the opening few paragrpahs, otherwise the article is not covering the issue properly. Clearly even Landmark themselves conceed that this is a often asked question as they have a refutation to it on their website: http://www.landmarkeducation.com/display_content.jsp?top=26&mid=658&bottom=726 199.43.32.87 (talk) 21:08, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

How is it that all these Landmakr defenders leap out of the woodwork to revert edits they don't like, and even put in their revert comments "take i t to teh talk page", but they don't actually contribute to teh talk pages themsleves? 199.43.32.87 (talk) 21:30, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't think anyone is denying this issue should be addressed in the article. However, the first source you cite fails under WP: Attribution--Citing anonymous postings on a website is clearly a questionable source. The second source you cite does not meet the standards of WP: Verifiability--As has been discussed on this page before, the second source doesn't actually call Landmark Education a cult, except for one anonymous web posting and one person who refers to the country of Japan as a cult in the same article. More importantly, it violates the [WP: Undue Weight] by putting a minority point of view without reliable sourcing into the lead of the article. Again, mone of this is to say it shouldn't be mentioned--But it should be done in a sourced, NPOV fashion in the criticisms section. Gilbertine goldmark (talk) 21:44, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Looks to me like none of you guys is willing to propose the needed compromise, as opposed to just edit warring, so I've gone ahead and moved the contentious material down to a section where it seems more appropriate, and added more direct attribution instead of the weasel words. If it's not acceptable, let's talk about improving it. But a couple of group criticising it or calling it a cult probably shouldn't rise to the level of something that needs to be in the lead. Dicklyon (talk) 00:52, 3 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't have time now to look at the edit carefully, but at first glance it seems like exactly the appropriate thing to do. Gilbertine goldmark (talk) 01:09, 3 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I haven't had time to read or edit. I'll put my two cents in when I get a chance.  Micahmedia (talk) 03:11, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Regarding 'Office Closures', in an encyclodepic article about a company, we might include how the company changes that would include office openings and closures. It seems that to represent just closures is one-sided. It almost seems minor to have anything, although it may be alright if the section is balanced. Spacefarer (talk) 01:09, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Spacefarer...if an office closed permanently due to scandal or something similar, it is what it is. You can't spin what happened in France, Scandanavia, or Germany. Primarily France though as the sources are there. If the location changed from Paris to Nice, yeah, THAT's a change. That's not what's so, and you know that.  Pax Arcane  05:25, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I am going back to what I first thought when I saw the France Office Closure -- it does not belong in the article at all. I have tried to change the title and put in NPOV context, but it always gets reverted, not worked with. Having a whole section on an incident is undue weight to one event. I am taking it out. Consider an NPOV statement that is appropriate to an enclopedic entry. (and the reference is questionable since it is one individual's point of view statement) Spacefarer (talk) 01:40, 8 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Your additions get reverted because they are unsourced; that's not a reason to remove a simple report of a sourced news item. I took out the Rick Ross url and put the new source url instead; someone should check the French and make sure it is fairly represented, or maybe say more instead of just it being an office closure. Dicklyon (talk) 04:32, 8 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Quote the relevant French text, in a footnote if preferred, and include a translation. That way anyone can readily check every word. Like this:

[Translation from the article with the title "At home with the gurus in neck-ties: Of American origin, Landmark Education promotes courses in personal 'transformation'. For many months Marie Lemonnier followed incognito the brain-washing of this cult organization":

June 2004. 32, rue d'Hauteville. The Labor Inspectorate enters Landmark's premises, establishes the exploiting of volunteers and sets up documentation of undeclared work. The chase quickens, the knot tightens. July 2004. Trainees find the doors closed. The French subsidiary of the movement has been officially dissolved. ]


 * -- Pedant17 (talk) 03:22, 9 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I can see both sides of this one--On the one hand, this is a sourced news item. On the other hand, singling out this news item in its own section in the article seems bizarre--It gives the item undue weight. I'm going to move the item to the history section, since that's what it's a part of. I'd be interested to hear others' thoughts on this. Gilbertine goldmark (talk) 14:08, 8 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Ok, I moved it. I added some other info on number of course locations and such to add context--If this doesn't make sense here, it could be removed--I wanted to French closing to have some connection to the rest of the history section. Another alternative is that the French office closure go into the "criticisms" section, which could be renamed "Criticisms and Controversies", since this seems to be the point--To give information about a controversy. What do others think? Gilbertine goldmark (talk) 15:15, 8 April 2008 (UTC)


 * An edit can have several points. The ideal content of any "Criticisms and controversies section" would read "See main article, passim." -- Pedant17 (talk) 03:22, 9 April 2008 (UTC)


 * One can best tackle perceived undue weight by expanding rather than hiding an item. If an editor thought a subject deserved a section on its own, perhaps it does. -- Pedant17 (talk) 03:22, 9 April 2008 (UTC)


 * As always, Spacefarer, and NOW you Gil, are ignoring or trying to skirt/spin a WP:3O decision. No dice. More closures are forthcoming. I'm translating sources. What you guys are doing is trying to bury it or spin it. No spin guys. Be editors for wiki, not LE.  Pax Arcane  16:13, 8 April 2008 (UTC)


 * There is no WP:3O decision--You are fundamentally misunderstanding that policy, which involves a specific request for a third party opinion. Dicklyon reverted Spacefarer's removal of the section which was appropriate given that it was a sourced statement. You aren't engaging in what I'm discussing however, which is why an office closure calls for an entire section of its own, which seems to me a violation of WP:undue weight. I ask that you actually discuss why that you think it deserves its own section. Justifying it on the basis edits you plan to make in the future seems weak. Gilbertine goldmark (talk) 16:57, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * It has been as such for over a year. You're new here. It was a national scandal in France...they closed the doors on grads without even telling them, leaving them high and dry. Such a stand for integrity and good customer service! I should probably include that since you and Spacefarer, Triplejumper, and DaveApter want to downplay this point, so I'll probably do that.  Pax Arcane  18:45, 8 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Any alleged undue weight may stem from previous editors trimming (rather than expanding and verifying) a former larger section on multiple office-closures For a semi-random example, on 2007-12-06 we also had within the article additional material on Scandinavia and on office-closures there: In a 2002 article: "Psychogroups and Cults in Denmark", the researchers asserted that some people had thought of Landmark Education as associated with "cultic groups" due to the "high level of one-sided sales pressure that many people report."

On June 6, 2004 Landmark Education ceased operating in Sweden. As in France, the causes of the closure included a diminishing public interest in participating, evinced in connection with very critical articles in the press and on television. The airing of two documentaries on national Swedish television by the broadcasting corporation TV4 on October 28, 2003 and on March 15, 2004 called "Lycka till salu" (Happiness for sale) in the program series Kalla Fakta contributed to the termination of the organization there.


 * Restore the data, encourage rather than discourage edits and refinements, and the balance has a chance of taking care of itself. -- Pedant17 (talk) 03:22, 9 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Spacefarer is under the impression now that the collusion between him and Gilbertine represented the majority of opinions on this subject on the discussion page, and I have since edited the biased edits. I think the 9/11 data Spacefarer keeps editing in is irrelavent.  Pax Arcane  16:46, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

The studies should be in the references, the studies shouldn't be the content
It seems that the bulk of this page is talking about studies about Landmark Education. These studies should really be inside of references, rather than actual content on this page.

For example, if Time Magazine writes an article on Michael Jordan, Michael Jordan's Wikipedia entry may reference that article, but Michael Jordan's Wikipedia entry shouldn't have a section detailing how Time Magazine wrote an article on Michael Jordan.

If we used the way that Michael Jordan's article is written as a guide on how to write a good article, which is content-based, we would probably remove most of this article, which is talking about references, and references are different than content. Fredsmith2 (talk) 05:44, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
 * What do you expect from a bunch of apologists using testimonials to sell large group awareness training? Someone tried (Gil?) to actually add a course catalogue into this article, including the days and times of courses. Research into the "content" of LE is verbotten, as legal issues prevent anyone from going into a course as a third-party and conducting more formal research methodology on the "content" as the "content" is copywritten material. See Landmark's lawsuit snafu and entaglement with the EFF where they tried to sue someone for copyright infringement (and the party of the alledged infringement didn't care its material was being distributed...sorta like suing on behalf of someone without letting them know ahead of time to achieve your own ends).  Pax Arcane  07:49, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Disappearance of information on survey-period
At 1544 hours on 2007-12-22 a Wikipedian removed explanatory comment with the edit-summary "DYG study: Removed OR commentary". The excised text pointed out that documentation of a survey (as touted on the Landmark Education website) lacked detail as to when the survey took place. In the interests of accuracy and full disclosure and verification of relevance let's restore the text such that it reads " ... survey conducted at some undisclosed time ...". -- Pedant17 (talk) 01:52, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

How much did Landmark pay for this ad-space on Wikipedia?
This article is written like an advert. I find it un-infomrative, un-balanced, and un-readable. thanks. &mdash; Gaff ταλκ 19:34, 16 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Please help in editing the article to redress these deficiencies. -- Pedant17 (talk) 01:30, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Pendant, his comment is needed. Would a normal person seriously want to tangle with an LE-apologist owned article? This article is always going to be a trainwreck... unless Werner achieves sainthood. Then it'll just be the Prem Rawat page. lol! :P Cheers, mate.  Pax Arcane  02:12, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Disappearance of Harvard marketing case-study
At 0151 hours on 2007-12-31 a Wikipedian removed discussion on a Harvard University marketing case-study of the the Landmark Forum, commenting in the edit-summary "Assisting Program: Removed as per talk page. Non-notable and non-relevant. If yo uwant to start a section onf the Harvard case study lets talk about that". The study, famed in the history of Landmark Education's PR, received extensive discussion, now archived in Talk:Landmark Education/Archives/2008/Jan, in which answers to outstanding points of discussion emerged. The time has come to restore to the article this well-documented phase of the past. -- Pedant17 (talk) 01:30, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I gotta say, that was an asinine point of LE editors to even include that and balk/whine when it was revealed why the study went out of print. The case study added no information, IMO. If some believes that PR, they have a bubblegum brain and they deserve whatever happens to the bubblegum when they enroll. Just my 2 cents. It was for the easily fooled an baffled, and I doubt those people can even read, much less read Wikipedia.  Pax Arcane  02:07, 20 April 2008 (UTC)


 * As I suggested, the Harvard/Wruck episode forms a part of the history of Landmark Education's PR and self-promotion. It provides an example of what can happen when one moves away fom word-of-mouth and becomes hostage to written, verifiable marketing-materials. -- In our article it served merely to support a statement by Harry on assisting -- a topic now (temporarily) expunged. All this material can go back ito the article to provide a more balanced and comprehensive account of these topics. -- Pedant17 (talk) 02:36, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

"This is the criticism section and includes a variety of criticisms"
Gil, I understand renaming it...the section covers a lot. The problem is you moved information to interrupt a clean segue from the prior section, and that rationale for movement I cannot understand.  Pax Arcane  14:36, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

No structure in Wikipedia will necessarily last. Material banished to "criticism" sections can get better-integrated in to the article under various subject-headings to promote WP:NPOV alongside non-criticisms. -- Pedant17 (talk) 02:36, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Trademarked "distinctions"
At least three of the "distinctions" mentioned in the article are trademarks of Landmark Education. Perhaps others are as well, but these three (Rackets™, The Vicious Circle™ and Already Always Listening™) are the only ones that appear in the Landmark Forum Course Syllabus http://www.landmarkeducation.com/landmark_forum_course_syllabus.jsp I added the trademark sign to those three distinctions in the article. Also, I edited the format in which two of the distinctions appear, to be consistent with their use in Landmark Education's materials: The Vicious Circle™ (vs. Vicious circle) and Already Always Listening™ (vs. Already/always listening). Jenny235 (talk) 13:58, 27 April 2008 (UTC)Jenny235

Disappearance of "Religious implications" views
At 1918 hours on 2008-01-27 a Wikipedian removed an entire sub-section on "Religious implications", asserting in the edit-summary "Landmark is not a religion it is courses". Since a topic can have religious imnplications without necessarily becoming a religion, and since the section provided well-sourced citations expressing a variety of viewpoints, and in the light of discussions in February and March 2008 on this talk-page, lets restore this data, as follows: == Religious implications ==

Divergent views about Landmark Education exist among religious people. Some of the ideas put forth in Landmark Education programs raise questions for some people in some religious faiths, while others feel that Landmark Education has strengthened their religious faith.

Paul Derengowski, formerly of the Christian cult-watch group Watchman.org, states that Landmark "has theological implications". The Apologetics Index (an online Christian ministry providing research resources on what it considers cults, sects, other religious movements, doctrines, and practices) maintains a page on Landmark Education.

A different view appears in the article "A Very Nineties Weekend" in the international Roman-Catholic weekly The Tablet stating that several Catholic priests have endorsed Landmark Education, and that the Trappist monk Basil Pennington has praised the Forum for bringing about a "full human enlivenment".

Other examples of commentary from clergy appear on the Landmark Education website.

James R. Lewis' 2001 book (published 10 years after the establishment of Landmark Education), Odd Gods: New Religions & the Cult Controversy dicusses Werner Erhard, Erhard Seminars Training and The Forum. Odd Gods describes the spiritual influences of the coursework, including Zen Buddhism, Abilitism, Subud, Dianetics, Scientology and Asian spiritual leaders.

In 2002 theologians Deacon Robert Kronberg, B.Th. and Consultant Kristina Lindebjerg, B.Th. of the Dialog Center International in Denmark discussed the religious aspects of Landmark Education, stating: "Also we see a large number of people joining groups, such as Landmark and Amway, which become controversial because of their sales practices."

Kronberg and Lindebjerg posited that Landmark Education's courses seem to fill a void in the lives of disillusioned young adults, who have not found answers in religion: "Landmark seems to appeal to young people between 20 and 35 in liberal professions who are disillusioned with or discouraged about their lives. Landmark seems to be a pseudo-scientific substitute for the need for religious answers to life's fundamental questions."

-- Pedant17 (talk) 02:36, 23 April 2008 (UTC)