Talk:Landmark Worldwide/Archives/2009/Mar

Removal of Tekniko information
On 2 April, 2008 at 1725, a Wikipedian removed a reference to Tekniko Licensing Corporation from the article with the edit-summary "Removing unsourced statement from lead". A glance at Wikipedia's own archives readily reveals a sourcing for the status and nature of Tekniko. For example, on February 8, 2007 at 2258 hours, we find the following: Tekniko Licensing Corporation, originally owned by Werner Erhard, formed the successor organization to his Transformational Technologies. Werner Erhard and a management consultant named James Selman originally incorporated Transformational Technologies in 1984. Landmark Education referred to Tekniko Licensing Corporation as one of the company's "wholly owned subsidiaries". According to SEC filings, on the other hand, Terry M. Giles fully owns Tekniko Licensing Corporation, and as of March 31, 2006, SEC filings also listed Mr. Terry M. Giles as the Chairman of the Board of Landmark Education Corporation. -- I suggest we restore the deleted passage, edited and sourced appropriately with notes on the provenance and timing/sighting of the citations. -- Pedant17 (talk) 01:24, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: The account referred to above that removed a reference to Tekniko Licensing Corporation 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) 02:42, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Format
What do you want to say here?
 * The Forum takes place over a three-day weekend and one evening session. Chairs are arranged in a highly stylized manner, in four sections separated by three aisles. Participants are asked not to move their chairs in order not to trip volunteers who run up and down the aisles with corded microphones. There are normally two water-tables with pitchers of iced water and glasses. There is one meal break each day, and participants are asked not to eat on bathroom breaks unless they have a medical reason for doing so. If a participant cannot go for two hours without eating or if a participant is taking certain medications, they are encouraged not to participate.

O.K. What do you want to add to that? We don't need to know that some people put tape on the back of their nametags so they don't need to poke holes in their silk blouses. That's a bit too much detail.

Wowest (talk) 02:47, 17 February 2009 (UTC)


 * For a start it needs tightening up, Wikification and a lot of reliable sources. I could mark it up like:

The Landmark Forum takes place over a three-day weekend and one evening session. Chairs are arranged in a highly stylized manner, in four sections separated by three aisles. Participants are asked not to move their chairs in order not to trip volunteers who run up and down the aisles with corded microphones. There are normally two water-tables with pitchers of iced water and glasses. There is one meal break each day, and participants are asked not to eat on bathroom breaks unless they have a medical reason for doing so. If a participant cannot go for two hours without eating or if a participant is taking certain medications, they are encouraged not to participate.


 * Note, as my name implies, I have participated in their programs, and support of Landmark, NEVER, in the courses I have been in, or have supervised,( I would note, that I have produced over 100 courses. ) has a course leader or program supervisor said this. "not to move their chairs" --Artoftransformation (talk) 20:27, 5 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Nothing in the name "Artoftransformation" reliably implies participation in the courses of Landmark Education -- compare The Art of Transformation -- or makes its bearer in any Wikipedic sense a reliable source. Landmark Education has no monopoly on the concepts of "art" or "of" or "transformation" or combinations thereof. Do we have a reliable source on edicts on the moving of chairs? -- Or do we rather fall back on Kopp's trained rhetorician's detailed and reasoned and published account of the arrangements of seating as a manipulation of chairs for the convenience of the course staff and the control and intimidation of course participants? -- Pedant17 (talk) 00:42, 15 March 2009 (UTC)


 * There are three breaks during the day, and two being 30 mins, ( eat a snack ), and one being an hour and a half. Call ANY office, and they will tell you the same thing. Its standard. --Artoftransformation (talk) 20:27, 5 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Do we have a WP:RS reliable source -- specifically and independent secondary source, rather than a self-serving primary source -- to support this assertion? Has the "standard" pattern of breaks always prevailed in the 18-year history of Landmark Education? -- In this respect Kopp published in 2003 an extract from the Landmark Education website as an example: "Breaks are approximately every 2-3 hours, with a 90-minute dinner break." (Compare the details provided by the Landmark Education website as of 2009-03-15, which add explanatory text in the equivalent passage.) Things may and sometimes do change over time and circumstances. -- Pedant17 (talk) 00:42, 15 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Why would a primary source be unreliable with respect to the pattern of breaks? And why would the description of the pattern of breaks be "self-serving"?  As for whether the current pattern has always prevailed, that is a good point, although if we do not have reliable sources for any change over time, describing the current pattern would seem adequate.  If reliable sources (including primary sources, which can be reliable) can be found for the pattern of breaks over time, that information should certainly be added. Rlendog (talk) 00:56, 15 March 2009 (UTC)


 * The WP:RS policy warns against the use of primary sources: "Primary sources, on the other hand, are often difficult to use appropriately. While they can be reliable in many situations, they must be used with caution in order to avoid original research." One must assume any published output of any commercial organization represents self-serving propaganda: Landmark Education (which actually presents itself as a commercial organization, whatever its underlying nature) does not differ from anyone else in this regard. Every published word potentially reflects on the corporate image. Far safer to rely on third-party secondary sources (like Kopp) and reserve primary sources to support individual factoids.We do not KNOW that we have cases of unreliable primary sources (regardless of Landmark Education's record), nor do we concern ourselves about whether a particular description appears self-serving (despite Landmark Education's relentless self-promotion). We simply assume the worst and follow the Wikipedia rules in assembling reliable sources. -- Pedant17 (talk) 00:58, 17 March 2009 (UTC)


 * These inaccuracies and more are costing wikipeida credibility. --Artoftransformation (talk) 20:27, 5 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Hence the requirement in Wikipedia for reliable sourcing. -- Pedant17 (talk) 00:42, 15 March 2009 (UTC)


 * We also need to cover more than just the Landmark Forum: some of the other 40-odd offerings may differ in the occasional detail. Then it needs something on the format of the philosophy. All this from reliable sources. -- Have you delved into the Wikipedia history archives? They contain a wealth of material on many topics -- just waiting for retrieval and recycling. As User:Micahmedia suggested when inquiring into the topics of "format and business model" in the first place ... -- Pedant17 (talk) 23:52, 21 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Brilliant. How about starting with the 'other odd offering' the course 'Wisdom Unlimited?" --Artoftransformation (talk) 20:27, 5 March 2009 (UTC)


 * An excellent idea. Do we have Wikipedia-worthy reliable sources giving details of the approximately 40 offerings? -- Pedant17 (talk) 00:42, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Free-use image of Werner Erhard
removed a free-use Wikimedia Commons image of Werner Erhard from this article, with the edit summary: I removed the 30-year-old (1979) picture of Werner Erhard because Werner sold the company to Landmark Education in January 1991 (18 years ago!) and never worked for Landmark Education.

However, the IP does not have the facts straight. According to this 1998 Metroactive Features article: ''[http://www.metroactive.com/landmark/landmark1-9827.html Landmark says that Erhard has nothing to do with The Forum. But the license Landmark obtained from Erhard enabling them to produce The Forum is in fact owned by Erhard, and is scheduled to revert to him in 2009. Erhard's 63 now and is assured 50 percent of Landmark's net pre-tax profit each quarter, not to exceed $15 million in the 18-year lifespan of the license. Furthermore, Erhard's brother, Harry Rosenberg, is currently Landmark's CEO, and sister Joan Rosenberg is listed as a director.]'' Further, no matter what happens in the future Erhard is part of the organizational history of the company, and a picture is most appropriate in the section of the article discussing such history. Cirt (talk) 02:56, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I see no problem with use of this image. Even without the reversion of the license, the history here is sufficient to establish relevance.  I'm curious about the basis for the author's claim about reversion of the license; it would be nice to know how she knows this.  But I don't think that's necessary for establish relevance of Erhard here.  BTW, that's quite a piece...  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 04:20, 20 February 2009 (UTC)


 * First cirt the link you supplied is a bad link. While Werner Erhard is relevant to the development of Landmark I don't think his photo is relevant here. If it is then it should be on the lifespring page too and every other page he is mentioned. I checked a few other companies & educational companies on Wikipedia and without exception they all have corporate logos and or photos of HQ buildings, not people from the past development of the company. Maybe we can find a photo of a building with a Landmark sign.  In short I agree with the IP. --Mvemkr (talk) 08:10, 20 February 2009 (UTC)


 * The link http://www.metroactive.com/landmark/landmark1-9827.html works fine and states: "Landmark says that Erhard has nothing to do with The Forum. But the license Landmark obtained from Erhard enabling them to produce The Forum is in fact owned by Erhard, and is scheduled to revert to him in 2009. Erhard's 63 now and is assured 50 percent of Landmark's net pre-tax profit each quarter, not to exceed $15 million in the 18-year lifespan of the license. Furthermore, Erhard's brother, Harry Rosenberg, is currently Landmark's CEO, and sister Joan Rosenberg is listed as a director." I wouldn't call it "a "bad link". -- The photo has relevance because Erhard has a huge relevance in the origin, inspiration and ongoing development of Landmark Education. We can set an example for other "companies and educational companies" by including a personal photo. Lifespring and other pages present separate issues of interconnection which need not distract us here and now. Since Landmark Education does not resemble other companies or educational companies, their parallels need not apply. Christianity has an image of Christ. Platonism includes a template with an image of Plato. If a policy exists to discourage including images of prominent people in articles on organizations, we can debate the issue in those terms. But meanwhile we have no need to obscure the associations between Landmark Education and Erhard. -- Pedant17 (talk) 23:52, 21 February 2009 (UTC)


 * When I initially wrote bad link it was because it was dead I couldn't get it to work. I came back days later and it was fine. That is why you will notice that I redacted my own statement. Where did metroactive get that info? Can that be corroborated? I haven't found that info about the 18yr lifespan and Erhard's profit sharing anywhere else. I am not trying to obscure the association between Landmark and Erhard. I just think that his image here doesn't fit. If someone reads this artice and wants to know more about or see who Werner Erhard is they can click to his page.--Mvemkr (talk) 01:55, 22 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I wondered why that sentence "First cirt the link you supplied is a bad link" appeared marked up as "small" -- and only realized later that the codes indicated "strikeout". -- I have no idea where Traci Hukill obtained the information which appeared in Metroactive in 1998. but such information existed generally: Stephen Pressman published a similar account in his 1993 book  Outrageous Betrayal: The Dark Journey of Werner Erhard from est to Exile stating that Erhard stood to earn $15 million over 18 years (pages 253-255). Do you wish to question the accuracy of the account? -- It provides just one of the many links which definitively associate Erhard and Landmark Education. -- It pleases me that you have no wish "to obscure the association between Landmark [Education] and Erhard". You will accordingly have no objection to an image that anchors that association. -- You do not give any reasons for your opinion that Erhard's "image here doesn't fit". Since it fits perfectly in the Wikipedia context, we can enrich and deepen our article by including it. -- I take your point that readers wanting to know more about Erhard can click through to his linked page. But Wikipedia does not offer any sort of service to those wanting to know who someone "is".On the other hand, I recall that one of the characteristics of a Wikipedia Good Article involves that it become "6. Illustrated, if possible, by images". The importance of Werner Erhard in the history and nature of Landmark Education fully justifies inclusion of his image. -- Pedant17 (talk) 04:12, 24 February 2009 (UTC)


 * This source of the data is old, it is unconfirmed by any other sources, and it flies directly in the face of what the company officially states. I have to agree with Mvemkr that other companies do not have people who had some part of the organizations pre-history as pictures on their Wiki pages.  Also putting a thirty-year-old picture of someone who has never been an employee or owner of the company is a little strange.  It would make more sense to put a picture of a current employee but I agree also that that is not common practice on Wikipedia to even do that. Alex Jackl (talk) 16:58, 23 February 2009 (UTC)


 * The source of the data, I presume, means -- This information, published less than 11 years ago in 1998,and a mere 7-odd years after the events described, accords well with other reliable sources. I've mentioned Stephen Pressman's published Outrageous Betrayal account above. But note too in particular that Arthur Schreiber (who may have some official knowledge of such matters in his various capacities with Landmark Education) confirmed  in a carefully-worded legal document dated 2005-05-03 that "[w]hen Landmark Education was founded in January 1991, it licensed certain program materials from Werner Erhard & Associates." (See Declaration of Arthur Schreiber in the United States District Court, District of New Jersey, civil action 04-3022 (JCL), page 3.(PDF image of document kindly made readily available on-line at http:www.rickross.com/reference/landmark/landmark107.pdf as part of the Landmark Education Litigation Archive. (Retrieved 2009-02-24).) Schreiber further confirms the existence of "license agreements" and implies the possibility of payments for those agreements and further implies that Erhard had rights, possibly in connection with the license agreements: "Landmark Education has never paid Erhard under the license agreements (he assigned his rights to others)." (See Declaration of Arthur Schreiber in the United States District Court, District of New Jersey, civil action 04-3022 (JCL), pages 3-4. (PDF image of document on-line at http:www.rickross.com/reference/landmark/landmark107.pdf as part of the Landmark Education Litigation Archive. (Retrieved 2009-02-24).). We might reasonably conclude that legal details may have changed subsequently, but that licensing/financial agreements involving Erhard (directly or indirectly) went into effect with the founding of Landmark Education in 1991. Thus the intimate connection between Erhard and Landmark Education gets confirmed by yet another piece of evidence. -- If in any sense Hukill's material "flies directly in the face of what [Landmark Education] officially states we might bear in mind her assessment that "Landmark executives take pains to separate the organization from Erhard". Nevertheless Landmark Education does acknowledge some links with Werner Erhard and his activities: "Landmark began with a dynamic group of leaders, a powerful operations team, and a body of intellectual properties originally developed by Werner Erhard**... **Werner Erhard is widely regarded for the unique and lasting contribution that his ideas made in peoples' lives and organizations. While best known for creating the extremely popular est Training and later the original Forum, Mr. Erhard's work has spread over a large scope. Among many examples, he was recognized by Fortune Magazine for his contribution to corporate leadership and strategic thinking and he is widely regarded as the pioneer of the idea and practice of employee empowerment. In 1988, Mr. Erhard received the Mahatma Gandhi Humanitarian Award for his international efforts to end starvation and for drawing public awareness to the value of integrity in every day life." See  http://www.landmarkeducation.com/landmark_education_company_history_media.jsp (retrieved 2009-02-24). If Landmark Education itself recognises the link with Erhard up front in its corporate history, then we can appropriately mote and illustrate the linkage. -- I concur that some "other companies do not have people who had some part of the organizations['] pre-history as pictures on their Wiki[pedia] pages.(User:Mvemkr actually used the broader phrase "people from the past development of the company" rather than "pre-history".) But some of the more interesting articles do display images of people from their past development or from their pre-history: see Ford Motor Company with its picture of Henry Ford, now long gone from his company; note the images of Lars Magnus Ericsson, prominent in the Ericsson article, and Donald Trump in the article on the Trump Organization and Coco Chanel in the article on House of Chanel and Arthur Edward Andersen in the article on Arthur Andersen.  And compare the images of James Watt (died 1819) in the article on his semi-eponymous Heriot-Watt University (originating in 1821) and of Alexander von Humboldt in the article on the half-eponymous Humboldt University of Berlin. (These universities, of course, do not pretend to the title "company", but do actually purvey education.) And recall that Landmark Education has significance not as a mere company, but as a disseminator of ideas and attitudes. Different guidelines may apply to such organizations. Either way, we need not exclude imagery of significant folk from our Landmark Education article. -- The view that it appears "a little strange" to depict someone "who has never been an employee or owner of [a] company" seems to have very little merit. Few notable companies have individual owners these days, and many organizations -- even companies -- have prominent figures who do not count as employees: board members, patrons, shareholders, partners, etc. And given the amount of corporate restructuring and re-naming that goes on, influential figures often drift away from "their" organizations. something similar has happened with Landmark Education LLC (formerly Landmark Education Corporation, heir to Werner Erhard and Associates and thus to Erhard Seminars Training/est.) In some ways a thirty-year-old photo of the founder/guru/source seems entirely appropriate -- it relates to erhardism in its long-ago heyday. But we could use any available permitted more recent photo -- as well or instead. --  The suggestion that our article could depict "a current employee" instead of Jack Rosenberg appears mischievous. Unlike a "normal" company, Landmark Education has shareholders and volunteers rather than mere notable employees. It doesn't readily fit within the employer/employee paradigm -- and our article need not follow articles devoted to such models, even if many have not (yet) acquired a portrait of their founder/inspiration. -- Pedant17 (talk) 04:12, 24 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I also think it is worth following Pendant's line of reasoning on comparing Landmark to other adult education institutions here on the talk page- I think that will clarify how much it is like a college or adult education company rather than a "religion" or something like that. When I free up some time I iwll respond to Pendant's chain of questions.  It may take me a week or two to get to it though. Alex Jackl (talk) 16:58, 23 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Landmark Education resembles a lot of different things. Perhaps no single model will predominate: we can certainly dispassionately examine several: firm, college (though that word might well cause confusion in Hong Kong), professional partnership, church/ ecclesia/sect, cult,  MLM,  philosophical school, volunteer military unit, volunteer non-military organization... I look forward to broadening this discussion as to how our Wikipedia article can best characterize Landmark Education. -- Pedant17 (talk) 04:12, 24 February 2009 (UTC)


 * This might be a very good way to organize an objective analysis, without giving emphasis to a particular potential category. A section with comparisons of various models: school, self help clinic, religion, MLM, etc.  How about under evaluation subtitled "comparisons to existing models"? Micahmedia (talk) 23:51, 5 March 2009 (UTC)


 * The period of a "week or two" has now passed -- while we await the promised clarification the article can continue to feature already-available comparisons of Landmark Education with (say) religious and/or cultic and/or MLM entities -- in accordance with the Wikipedia policies on neutrally-based balance. -- Pedant17 (talk) 00:42, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Removal of allegedly unreliable Swedish source
On April 3, 2008 at 1703 a Wikipedian removed material from the article with the edit-summary "French office closure: remove Scandinavian office comment, as that does not appear to be anything like a reliable source. The removed material read: "Landmark Education also closed its offices in Scandanavia (Swenden, Denmark, Norway) as of June 2004." The cited publication produced wide-ranging summary news and opinions of events and trends in Sweden and beyond, covering a wide range of topics.  I can see no good reason to dismiss it (or its content) as not appearing "to be anything like a reliable source" -- on the contrary, it appears to provide "reliable, third-party, published" material. The Swedish Wikipedia cites the publication too: see  http://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svenska_småpartier_som_ställt_upp_i_riksdagsval . Absent proof to the contrary, we can safely restore this material (once spell-checked) to our article as evidence of Landmark Education's withdrawal from Sweden: --Citation:

containing the text:

Landmark Education lägger ned verksamheten

(2004-06-08) Det suspekta amerikanska kursföretaget Landmark Education som ger kurser i "personlig utveckling", dvs. extatiska väckelsemöten blandat med "hjärntvätt", lägger ner verksamheten i Sverige efter den förtjänstfulla och kritiska granskning som bl.a. TV4 utfört. Sedan granskningen påbörjades har antalet deltagare sjunkit och därför lönar sig det inte längre med detta geschäft i Sverige.

[Translation: Landmark Education ceases operations. -- (2004-06-08) The suspect American seminar-enterprise Landmark Education, which gives courses in "personal development" (i.e. ecstatic emotional swings mixed with "brainwashing"), has ceased its operations in Sweden following comprehensive and critical investigation carried out by TV4 (amongst others). Since the beginning of the investigation the number of participants has reduced and accordingly carrying on business in Sweden became no longer profitable.]

Anyone disputing the accuracy of the published material should provide equally reliable sources of equal or better merit which contradict the statements given.

Note that supporting statements for the account in Analys & Kritik come from the magazine Vetenskap och Volkbildning which reported:

Landmark Education, ett amerikanskt företag som anordnar kurser i personlig utveckling, lägger ner verksamheten i Sverige, uppger DN 2004-06-08. Orsaken är ett kraftigt minskat intresse för kurserna. Det torde hänga samman med flera kritiska reportage i olika massmedier, bl.a. i TV4. Kritikerna menar att kurserna liknar extatiska väckelsemöten och huvudsakligen går ut på att värva nya kursdeltagare eller att deltagarna ska utföra annat gratisarbete åt Landmark. Flera fall av psykiska sammanbrott har förekommit hos personer som genomgått Landmarks kurser. [Translation: "Landmark Education, an American company which organizes courses in personal development, will cease its activities in Sweden, according to Dagens Nyheter on 2004-06-08. Orsaken är ett kraftigt minskat intresse för kurserna. The reason: a substantial reduction interest in its courses. This may relate to several critical stories in different media, including TV4. Critics argue that the courses resemble ecstatic revival meetings and mainly aim to recruit new course-participants or that participants will carry out other free work for Landmark. Several cases of mental breakdowns have occurred in persons who have undergone Landmark's courses."]

-- Pedant17 (talk) 04:58, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with that information about the closure in Sweden should be added back into the article. Here is the diff of its removal from the article . Cirt (talk) 05:07, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Removal of presenter-training note
On April 4, 2008, a Wikipedian removed a claim concerning the training of Landmark Education presenters with the edit-summary "Removed two unsourced statements" rather than calling for sourcing via time-honored methods such as the tag. I propose restoring this uncontested material with sourcing -- this would give editors and readers a basis on which to discuss/learn the educational credentials of the Landmark Education organization. We could write something like:

Landmark Education claims that it trains its seminar-presenters (known internally as "leaders") extensively in its methodology and material-delivery. The company prescribes no formal education prerequisites for program leaders. Landmark Education distinguishes its methodology from conventional educational practice. -- Pedant17 (talk) 01:44, 29 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) 02:50, 29 March 2009 (UTC)