Talk:Landmark Worldwide/Archives/2009/Apr

Removal of material on origins and descent
At 2030 hours on April 4, 2008, a Wikipedian removed material on the origins and ancestry of Landmark Education, noting in the edit-summary "Removed two unsourced statements". In the process we lost more than two statements -- none of them disputed as to factuality, and only one of which previously sported a tag. I propose restoring the material as:

(WEA operated as the corporate successor of Erhard Seminars Training -- est or EST.) The new owners, including former staff of WEA, renamed the WEA "Forum" course as The Landmark Forum, and shortened it from a four-day, two-weekend format to three full days. Landmark Education also inherited other WEA courses. -- Pedant17 (talk) 01:41, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: The account referred to above that removed this information from the article is, this account was subsequently indefinitely blocked for abusing multiple accounts. You can read more about that as well as many other disruptive sockpuppets on the topic of Werner Erhard, Erhard Seminars Training, and Landmark Education, at Requests for checkuser/Case/Eastbayway. Cheers, Cirt (talk) 01:43, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * This removal seems to have been improper -- but I don't see the point of restoring it at this stage -- the article currently deals sufficiently with the Erhard origins, in my view. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:35, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Since the proposed restore deals not with "the Erhard origins" but with the origins and background of Landmark Education itself and of its founders, I suggest that we can set about improving the article by restoring this sourced information (otherwise missing) at any time. -- Pedant17 (talk) 00:25, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Negativity
I am new to Wikipedia and trawling around came across this on Landmark Education. I am glad to see such discussions going on but surprised to see it bogged down in the Landmark Forum and how it arranges its chairs. I have been using Landmark courses for myself, family, friends and business since 1994 and would have thought a discussion on the merits or otherwise of its Self Expression and Leadership Programme, where participants interface with the public through community projects, should be included at least. Also, where is the link to the Socratic Method, which is the model of human (employee) potential and education/training on which it is predicated? You need to broaden your discription out. There is nothing about HOW it works, which is technically distinguishable and perfectly normal in 21st centuary personal development. A little less hysteria and rather more description - maybe the BBC Radio 4 two or three part series done in around 1994 could be a reliable secondary source.Floriblunder (talk) 21:43, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Removal of material on the training of presenters
At 2030 hours on April 4, 2008, a Wikipedian removed a statement on the training of Landmark Education presenters with the edit-summary: "Removed two unsourced statements"

I propose that we restore this material (suitably improved and referenced). Given that Landmark education does not demand any recognized external qualifications of its trainers, yet presents itself as a provider of "education" via a "faculty", the question arises as to what prerequisites Landmark Education expects before it places a Landmark Education trainer in front of a its flagship seminars. Landmark Education itself confronts this very question fearlessly by stating: "The men and women who lead The Landmark Forum are extensively trained senior program directors of Landmark Education. The training program includes 3-7 years of full-time, rigorous, specialized study, preparation, and practice." Thus we might encapsulate the situation in our article as follows:

Those who present Landmark Education courses, according to Landmark Education, receive extensive training (from undefined sources). See:

-- Pedant17 (talk) 02:09, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: The account referred to above that removed this information from the article is, this account was subsequently indefinitely blocked for abusing multiple accounts. You can read more about that as well as many other disruptive sockpuppets on the topic of Werner Erhard, Erhard Seminars Training, and Landmark Education, at Requests for checkuser/Case/Eastbayway. Cheers, Cirt (talk) 02:12, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Karen Karin Badt opinion
I removed the section about Karen Badt accusing Landmark Forum participants of "putting critical thinking aside", as it is a comment from a completely different part of her article and is nothing to do with the issue being debated in this section of whether LE is a cult or not. In any case, that remark is clearly an expression of her personal opinion rather than a statement of fact. DaveApter (talk) 12:20, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * For that matter, her remarks regarding the cult issue are no less an expression of her personal opinion... I also wonder why we need quotations like that for the anti-cult view when there are no quotations supporting the view that it is a cult.  I'm hardly suggesting that we add the latter -- but perhaps it would be appropriate to remove the former and let the summary sentence at the beginning of the paragraph stand on its own.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 12:56, 23 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia consists of opinions -- clearly sourced and referenced opinions. Any claim or implication made should optimally have a verifiable source. Whether a view fits neatly into an "anti-cult view' or some view "that [X] is a cult" or (much more realistically -- even in the case of discussing Landmark Education)) into some other category, we as Wikipedians should support it with references and (whenever appropriate) with quotations. The more the merrier. -- Pedant17 (talk) 03:05, 27 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Karin Badt's plaint about the lack of critical thinking in Landmark Education course participants recaps one her themes in the article quoted. If we can quote Badt's offhand personal opinion (just an opinion) about the non-culthood of Landmark Education, we can equally emphasize her reasoned and experience-based concerns with the lack of critical thinking going on in a Landmark Forum. The quote: "the problem with the Forum is the participants. Why do they willingly put critical thinking aside, not wanting anything to disturb their pleasure?" comes in the paragraph immediately following the lukewarm endorsement of the Landmark Forum as a non-cult. Where did the idea of "a completely different part of her article" come from? -- I do not detect that "this section" of our article focuses in any particular way on "whether [Landmark Education] is a cult or not". The removal of the Badt's quote took place from a section headed "Evaluations of Landmark Education" and specifically from the subsection headed" Criticism and response". The "Criticism and response" subsection discusses the usefulness/uselessness of Landmark Education, the issues of volunteers and labor-regulations as well as the labeling of "psychotherapy" cult" or as "cult" tout court. No discussion takes place as to "whether [Landmark Education] is a cult or not" -- rather (and much more appropriately for an encyclopedia), editors have gathered various opinions on the matter. -- It seems entirely appropriate to add one more fresh criticism to the "Criticism and response" and note that a Landmark Forum attendee, whom Landmark education let into a Landmark Forum despite her acknowledged journalistic credentials, detected (among other demerits) a lack of critical thinking in the room. Let's restore the deleted material to the article. Its presence in the "criticism and response" subsection may even occasion a well-sourced response of equivalent merit and insight. And having established Badt's credentials as a participant-observer, we could provide more balance by adding in some of her other criticisms: "This was brainwashing." Or: "The most criminal aspect of the Landmark Forum's insistence on its methodology is precisely that: its insistence on its methodology." Or: " I had noticed that all questions objecting to the Forum were turned into problems of the self: the ad hominem argumentative strategy".  -- Pedant17 (talk) 03:05, 27 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Could you explain to me what "putting critical thinking aside" means, Mr. Pedant? Exactly WHAT is she talking about? Can you provide some examples? Wowest (talk) 03:13, 27 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I'll act as if these questions address me: I doubt I can explain what "putting critical thinking aside" MEANS -- but I might assume that Karin Badt may have had critical thinking (in one or more of its multiple shades of meaning and connotation) in mind -- see her text, wherein her own account of her questions and her questioning may give examples. If this talk-page had the purpose of general discussion about the topic (which it expressly does not), I might counter-ask in the same vein what exactly it might mean to talk about a "Forum" or about "transformation". -- But such meta-questions might divert us from building a better article... Suffice it to note that Badt (like other commentators) uses certain terminology, and leave it to the readers of Wikipedia either to "get" it or to reject her views as too arcane or obscure for understanding. -- Pedant17 (talk) 11:52, 27 April 2009 (UTC)