Talk:Landmark Worldwide/Archive 26

Disappearance of researched sourced quotations on recruitment
On 2008-03-02 at 1823 hours a Wikipedian removed researched sourced quotations on recruitment, commenting in the edit-summary "misc cleanup": see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Landmark_Education&diff=195365320&oldid=195241335 The removed text stated: "Concerning recruitment, the research found: "The response of the interviewees, overwhelmingly, is that the practice of using graduates for recruiting ('enrolling') others is a negative one. Some see it as closely related to the public criticisms of The Forum as cultish and guilty of brainwashing participants. They describe it as 'inappropriate,' 'a turn-off,' 'proselytizing,' a 'club the baby seals attitude,' and 'damned, constant enrollment shit.'"Only one participant saw it as an "opportunity." -- The effect of the removal of this text unbalanced the coverage of Denison's research and deprived readers of one of the few academically refereed collection of comments on reactions to the work of Landmark Education. We should restore such material, together with a courtesy link to online extracts from the original work: . -- Pedant17 (talk) 00:24, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Disappearance of quoted/translated material on "Erhard" links
On 2008-03-02 at 1823 hours a Wikipedian removed sourced quotations on criticisms linking Landmark Education to Werner Erhard, commenting in the edit-summary "misc cleanup": see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Landmark_Education&diff=195365320&oldid=195241335. Given that we have an obligation to reference sources and an obligation to translate non-English citations, let's restore relevant supporting material and update the source links thus: " ... others highlight the connections with other groups and with Werner Erhard. -- Pedant17 (talk) 00:24, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Pedant17, I appreciate your continued postings regarding the removal of sourced information from these articles, it is good for posterity as a notice to others - but so far it seems to have not accomplished too much as far as the articles' current status themselves with regard to this material. Cirt (talk) 01:04, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The fact that an item is "sourced" is a necessary, but not sufficient reason for including it. It also has to be relevant, significant, and contribute to the overall structure and balance of the article. It's not clear to me that this item meets these critera at all. DaveApter (talk) 16:44, 16 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I would appreciate someone explaining to us -- in detail -- in what respect suggested explanations of widely-observed phenomena lack relevance to a Wikipedia article. I would furthermore like to hear how any contribution to Wikipedia can possibly fail to contribute to the (only broadly defined) structure of an article. And I would dearly love to hear the rationale for excluding alternative viewpoints on the grounds of  unbalancing an article. As Jimbo Wales suggests in WP:NPOV, "[i]f a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts". -- Pedant17 (talk) 02:14, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Undue weight
I am removing a recent edit that clearly violates WP:UNDUE WEIGHT. For one thing, it is an expression of opinion rather than fact; and furthermore the opinion of a single individual with no particular claim to expertise in the subject. Secondly, it is a highly selective quote from the article which does not capture the overall thrust (even the editor admits it was "cherry-picked"); for example Badt also says "I did experience my own breakthroughs. I was glad I went. I did see how I used my past in my future; I did contemplate the rackets I laid on my friends and family. I thought overall this was a healthy experience.", and "There was nothing too objectionable about a program that has as a result reconciliation in relationships, as well as a new commitment to responsibility for one's present. Philosophically, the concepts are too sensible to be controversial."

Furthermore, I would suggest that we should view with caution the edits of unregistered IP editors on controversial subjects. DaveApter (talk) 12:37, 21 October 2008 (UTC)


 * The edit corrects selective ("cherry-picked") quotations from Badt's article that previously cast LF in a positive light without giving any sense (clearly expressed in her article) that LF's techniques are questionable and discourage critical thinking. I would suggest that unless some balance is given in the choice of quotations; that the entire referencing of Badt's article be removed from the wikipedia article entirely --- it amounts to a testimony (itself an expression of opinion rather than fact).  You can't have it both ways, DaveApter. ProlixDog (talk) 06:57, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that; it's an intelligent contribution to the debate. I agree with your suggestion that the reference to the article be removed entirely, as it contains so many conflicting remarks about the Landmark Forum that it's difficult to summarise even-handedly.

It's also a poor article insofar as it contains a number of assertions on matter of facts that are totally inaccurate (eg that "Werner Erhard, the founder of the organization, escaped from the United States ..., to avoid possible imprisonment for tax evasion," or that "Landmark's 3 million dollar profit is divided among only 400 employees"). In fact it as Erhard who sued the tax authorities over a disputed assessment not the other way round, and he was eventually awarded $200,000 compensation. The staff of LE (who own the company) do not share out the profits - they pay themselves modest salaries and re-invest the profits in the expansion of the operation.

There are a number of sound articles in quality newspapers that would serve better - one from The Times (of London) last year comes to mind. Perhaps someone can dig that out and replace this reference?

The accusations of "brainwashing" are problematic in that they are loosely thrown around by detractors of LE and sensation-hungry journalists; but if you try to search back to the source of the suggestion it is impossible to find a clear statement from any authoritive individual that this is the case. If it's going to be mentioned at all, it would need to be balanced by noting the attributable on-the-record statements to the contrary by by a number of respected psychologists and other experts. DaveApter (talk) 09:16, 22 October 2008 (UTC)


 * One need seldom remove material on the grounds of WP:UNDUE WEIGHT -- better to swamp such views with properly-sourced countervailing views. But to argue that "an expression of opinion rather than fact" justifies an argument on undue weight confuses two categories: proven facts and perceived majority opinion. In matters of popular culture (as exemplified by Landmark Education) few facts exist, and we must perforce take notice of multiple opinions. -- Where assertion or presented facts have alternative explanations, let's see the evidence, properly sourced, alongside the "doubtful" claims, properly sourced. Allegations of "sound articles in quality newspapers that would serve better" (serve better for what?) remain mere allegations until included/referenced/sourced in the article. -- If we can find an "authoritative individual" on brainwashing (as opposed to a host of journalists in touch with popular opinion) then let's have that opinion too. Would some senior veteran of the People's Liberation Army with experience in running camps during the Korean War fit the bill? Or must we rely on piecing together collective wisdom like we do in Wikipedia? -- Pedant17 (talk) 02:14, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

The "brainwashing" controversy should be discussed
The "brainwashing" controversy should be discussed. This is something that has been referred to in the media and in academic sources as well, throughout the history of this company and its precedents. Here are some sources for perusal:

Cirt (talk) 21:24, 22 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Than you for that. A review of the above list indicates that most of the entries falls into one or other of the following categories:
 * a) The writer is reporting that "Some people have said that Landmark uses brainwashing"
 * b) The writer is asserting their own personal opinion on the matter.


 * It is certainly the case that some people have expressed an opinion that Landmark uses brainwashing and others disagree. Whether there are any sources that meet this aspect of the WP:NPOV policy is open to question:

The reference requires an identifiable and objectively quantifiable population or, better still, a name (with the clear implication that the named individual should be a recognized authority)


 * So do you think there are any sources that indicate that this opinion is held by such populations or individuals? Thanks DaveApter (talk) 15:03, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Cirt is one of our most prolific featured article writers. I think they know how to source material properly.  The list is long and looks like a lot of work.  Perhaps it would be best to identify a few sources that provide relevant information and have excellent reputations for reliability, and then add that content to the article. Jehochman Talk 15:16, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Here's a good source: . The Phoenix New Times newspaper sent one of their regular reporters to take a Landmark course. Good details of what actually happened there. --John Nagle (talk) 18:25, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the kind words, ., that is indeed a very good source, I had listed it above as (16). Cirt (talk) 19:03, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
 * As a graduate of the Landmark Curriculum for Living, I know the methodology used at Landmark Education is NOT brainwashing. This is the common experience of people who COMPLETE the entire Landmark Forum (yet not those who walk-out immediately after being confronted with something from their lives).  All this "brainwash" talk is occurs to me as sensationalized statements from people with an agenda to make Landmark Education wrong.  Anyone can say anything... every has an opinon about everything... let us limit was is said on Landmark Education's pages to facts that can be VARIFIED.  (It is different to quote someone yelling "brainwashing", then to define "brainwashing" and show exactly how Landmark Education is doing so.) (User:iheartceline)20:08, 23 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Editing appears to have overtaken the contention that the sentence "The reference requires an identifiable and objectively quantifiable population or, better still, a name (with the clear implication that the named individual should be a recognized authority)" appears in the WP:NPOV policy. Some one appears to have consigned that prescription to the past. -- There remains a large body of respected and widespread and well-sourced commentary connecting the notions of brainwashing and Landmark Education. To ignore such opinion would distort our article. To include such opinion without dissenting opinions (if any exist of comparable merit and quotability) would also distort our article. -- Pedant17 (talk) 02:14, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Reference to French Senate statement
In the "Evaluations" section, we see a qualification to the inclusion of LE on the French list of "sectes": "In 2005, the French Senate stated that this list has no normative character, but is only informative." However, the reference does not appear to support the claim that the Senate stated that the list has no normative character. Can another source for this claim be provided? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 10:23, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
 * It would be best if a secondary source is provided to back up that claim, or else it should be removed. Cirt (talk) 17:43, 28 October 2008 (UTC)