Talk:Landmark Worldwide/Archive 22

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)


 * I do not yet agree with restoring this section. Partially it is the title which seems to be taken soley from Paul Derengowski's comment, and when I look for other titles what I come up with based on the citations is something like, Theological Commentary/Comments or Clerical Views and Opinions of Landmark Education. This leads me to think that this section is closer to non notable points of view cobbled together to create original research. Also, specifically regarding the Kronberg, what religious aspects was he discussing? If anything he says, "...the ideology the young are attracted to appears "scientific," rather than political or religious...Landmark seems to be a scientific substitute for the need for religious answers to life's fundamental questions." Kronberg's reference seems more suited to a section like Who Does the Landmark Forum or Why People do the Landmark Forum. The way it appears in the above section says that Kronberg had some discussion of the religious aspects of Landmark Education and in the article there is no such discussion. Mvemkr (talk) 07:01, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd agree on the section title being "Theological Commentary." It is more appropriate in tone and it very well could be balanced with both viewpoints, written neutrally. I'd given that some thought initially, sparked by the similarity in a limited study that indicated psychotherapy with LE worked better than either alone...that initially reminded me of people indicating their faith was strengthened (or LE became "their religion.") Some sort of balance could be found if done tastefully.  Pax Arcane  16:10, 23 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Although theologians/clerics dominate among the commentators appearing in the deleted section, they tend to discuss not theology per se but pastoral and psychological issues. How about calling the section "Landmark Education and religious matters"? That would cover the comments of Kronberg and Lindebjerg as well as each of the other viewpoints expressed. (Note in passing that the "religious implications" formulation does have an echo in the 21st Century Democrats case, which refers to "religious characteristics and theological implications." -- Pedant17 (talk) 02:14, 5 May 2008 (UTC)


 * The suggestion of original research attaching to the "religious implications" section holds little water. Most of the content consists of quotes and referencing, with only a bare minimum of summary and linking. Given that Landmark Education LLC has itself devoted a specific section of its website to clerical views ("Clergy Members and Religious Professionals" at http://www.landmarkeducation.com/display_content.jsp?top=25&mid=260&bottom=310&subsection=694, retrieved 2008-05-05), a selection of comments on religion and Landmark Education provides merely an unoriginal sample of commentary on the matter. -- Pedant17 (talk) 02:14, 5 May 2008 (UTC)


 * The suggested sections on Landmark Forum attendees and on Landmark Forum marketing/selling would fit better in a separate article called "The Landmark Forum" rather in this general overview article on Landmark Education which covers the org and its courses as a whole. -- Pedant17 (talk) 02:14, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Disappearance of the origins of Landmark Education
At 1327 hours on 2008-02-04 a Wikipedian changed the clause "Landmark Education had its origins in the purchase of the intellectual property of Werner Erhard and Associates (WEA)" to read: "Landmark Education purchased of the intellectual property of Werner Erhard and Associates (WEA)" and entered the edit-summary: "more factual statement".

The revised version seems less factual and less informative. The transaction involving the purchase of intellectual property commenced before Landmark Education Corporation formally re-constituted itself from "Transnational Education". Even more importantly, the revision glosses over the extensively documented similarities and continuities between the predecessor movements/organizations (Erhard Seminars Training (est) and Werner Erhard and Associates (WEA)) and Landmark Education. Continuities in courses, personnel, methodology and attitude get short shrift when collapsed into an account of an intellectual-property purchase. Let's make this article more accurate and detailed, not less so.

-- Pedant17 (talk) 02:14, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

September 11th 2001 and other closures
Space, Gil...feel free to stop tying to get rid of controversy and make up your own section to discuss buildings that were destroyed or closed in a pedestrian fashion.  Pax Arcane  04:05, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Don't forget to include the San Francisco building move and picutues of past offices to make your _really important information_ detailed!  Pax Arcane  04:07, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

GILBERTINE
Why did you hack out the ISRAELI STUDY and use editing on the DENISON THESIS CITATION as your rationale? THEY'RE TWO DIFFERENT THINGS. I READ PAGE 234 OF DENISON AND WHAT TRIPPLEJUMPER WROTE IS NOT THERE.  Pax Arcane  21:10, 7 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Pax, the quote I added from the Denison Thesis really is on page 234. My specific quote comes from the third paragraph of page 234 and reads as follows:

"Concerning the focus of this study, I concluded that The Forum clearly produces a positive outcome in the vast majority of participants. I also concluded that the training is psychologically safe and appropriate for most persons."

Triplejumper (talk) 22:41, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Disappearance of attribution of claim re participation
At 1329 hours on 2008-02-04 a Wikipedian 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 has had over one million people who have taken part in its introductory program, the Landmark Forum, since 1991." and entered the edit-summary: "statement of fact with reference".

Given that the reference associated with this figure: http://www.landmarkeducation.com/display_content.jsp?top=26&mid=659 does not accurately quote the statistics in the article from Time magazine which it references (Charlotte Faltermayer: "The Best of Est?" published in Time Magazine on June 24, 2001), we should not regard it as "fact", let alone as "fact with reference".

Given that the vague figure supplied ("over one million people") has no independent confirmation but comes from the marketing literature of Landmark Education alone, we should treat it with a certain amount of suspicion.

Given that we do not know whether the vague figure given includes or excludes repeat attendances and/or dropouts, it seems entirely appropriate to flag the statistic as a claim rather than as an established fact.

Until we get better statistics (audited? statistical samples?) from reputable third parties, let's restore the neutrally-expressed factual version, attributing the statement to Landmark Education, and leaving our readers to evaluate the accuracy of the "over one million" figure.

-- Pedant17 (talk) 02:12, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Disappearance of "technology" definition
At 1330 hours on 2008-02-04 a Wikipedian removed a reference to 'Landmark's pedagogy (also known internally as "technology")' and substituted some marketing-speak with the edit-summary "Corporation: rewording". Since the article currently lacks a discussion of or definition for the important and distinctive concept of "technology" within Landmark Education circles, let's restore this information as (say) an entry under (say) the "Terms/Distinctions" section to read something like: "Technology: Landmark Education's term for its "training methods and materials" -- Pedant17 (talk) 02:02, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Disappearance of courses history
At 1332 hours on 2008-02-04 a Wikipedian removed the sentence "Landmark Education also inherited other WEA courses" and commented in the edit-summary "repeated material". As no direct mention of Landmark Education's inheritance of other WEA courses now appears in the article, let's restore and expand on this historically interesting piece of information. -- Pedant17 (talk) 04:37, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Disappearance of religious discussion
At 1335 hours on 2008-02-04 a Wikipedian removed the section then headed "Religious implications" with the edit-summary "not religious". -- We don't know what the editor regarded as "not religious"; but since Wikipedia does not shy away from discussion of religious matters and as the deleted material contained referenced comments linking the activities of Landmark Education and religious views, we can restore this material -- as expressing views on Landmark Education -- for further elaboration and improvement. -- Pedant17 (talk) 03:11, 24 May 2008 (UTC)