Jump to content

Talk:Landmark Worldwide

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Roy Fultun (talk | contribs) at 01:05, 22 December 2009 (Explaning referenced additions.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

A request has been made of the Mediation Cabal for mediation on this page.

Please do not remove this notice until the issue is resolved. Preloaded case page

Notice re Checkuser case

A checkuser case resulted in "confirm" on several users as sockpuppets of each other, that edited articles on closely related topics including Landmark Education, Werner Erhard, Landmark Education litigation, Scientology and Werner Erhard, Erhard Seminars Training, and Werner Erhard and Associates, among others. As a result, several of these users and sockpuppets of each other have been blocked. The checkuser case page is here: Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Eastbayway. Cirt (talk)

References

Removal of sourced material by Nwlaw63

[1] = This removal of sourced material by Nwlaw63 (talk · contribs) is inappropriate. The book was published in 2001, long after the Erhard Seminars Training successor company started calling itself "Landmark Education". The book's entry specifically refers to "The Forum", a term commonly used to refer to "Landmark Forum". Cirt (talk) 16:52, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think both edits were pretty good. This article is about Landmark -- noting a bit of history about the origins of the Forum is fine, but in other respects when this article discusses the Forum it ought to discuss the Landmark Forum. Yes, the passage included a quote to the effect that they are similar, but for all we know this author's view might include the notion that they are different precisely in regard to "cult" or "religious movement" aspects. In any event I'm pleased to see the Bromley and Melton sentence was restored. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:02, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The source is discussing the Landmark Forum. It is simply referred to as "The Forum". Cirt (talk) 17:04, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Update: Replaced 2001 source with more recent source, also edited by James R. Lewis, this one is a reference work titled simply Cults [2]. And it does refer to Landmark as The Forum.
Source: Lewis, James R. (2005). Cults. ABC-CLIO. pp. 123–124. ISBN 1-85109-618-3.
So this issue is now  Done. Cirt (talk) 17:17, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Cirt, you don't get to pronounce it "done" -- it's not as if a green check-mark will prevent further discussion. The quotation still refers to est. If the entry refers to est, then in my view it doesn't belong here. If the text of this source specifically refers to Landmark's version of the Forum as having been accused of being a cult, then fine. But I think this ought to be substantiated with a quotation in the footnote/reference, given that they admit the possibility that there are differences (as well as similarities) between est's Forum and Landmark's Forum. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:28, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
@Nomoskedasticity (talk · contribs) - apologies, I have struck that portion of my comment out, okay? The entry in the reference book Cults, from 2005, refers to "The Forum", and notes it is now called "Landmark Education". Cirt (talk) 17:31, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Update: Modified quote from source [3]. Cirt (talk) 17:43, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for striking. But I still don't think it works. The quotation refers to cult accusations against est. Other quoted passages establish a degree of continuity between est and Landmark. The implication appears to be that the cult accusations stick to Landmark as well. This strikes me as original research at best, and we're still left with text that refers to cult accusations against est. There are other sources for the notion that people have levelled cult accusations against Landmark -- I really don't think we need or want this one. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:06, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is also noteworthy simply for the fact that there is an entry on The Forum in a reference book discussing Cults. Cirt (talk) 19:08, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Update: Trimmed quoted portion further [4]. Cirt (talk) 19:15, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But the text -- now deleted -- seems to indicate quite clearly that the accusations referred to (which after all are not the author's own) applied to est. So we have Lewis referring to cult accusations made by others against est, and Lewis noting that there is a degree of continuity between est and Landmark. To use these to conclude that the Lewis source provides relevant content on cult accusations against Landmark still strikes me as original research. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:24, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It should be noted that the Christopher Partridge book on new religious movements also refers to the various namechanges seemingly interchangeably, and the entry on Landmark in that book is called "Landmark Forum (est)". There seems to be a tendency among scholars to treat the various namechanges as one organization that has simply engaged in numerous namechanges. Cirt (talk) 19:26, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) Definition of WP:SYNTHESIS: "A and B, therefore C". If we add another term -- say, "A and B and W, therefore C", C is still the product of original research. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:33, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And that is falsely applied in this case. It is not synthesis if the reliable sources themselves view the two things as being virtually identical. In such cases, it is not a violation of WP:SYNTHESIS, which refers to editors saying two different things are the same, because in such an instance the reliable sources are themselves stating the two items are substantially identical, and in such instances all an editor here is doing is basically saying what the reliable sources themselves are saying. John Carter (talk) 21:42, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with this comment by John Carter (talk · contribs). Cirt (talk) 21:46, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is getting silly. The game is given away by the use of the word "basically". Again, Lewis is not stating that he thinks the Landmark Forum is a cult, nor is he relating that others think so. He is relating others' accusations that est is a cult, and he is noting that there is continuity between est and Landmark. If Lewis himself were accusing Landmark Forum of being a cult, then his identification of est with Landmark would be sufficient to establish that he thinks the cult accusation sticks to Landmark. But it is not sufficient to establish that others (who, by the deleted quoted passage, wrote about est) have accused Landmark Forum of being a cult. Yes, Lewis appears to think they are substantially the same, but that doesn't mean that we can have Lewis putting words into the mouths of those making accusations against est. And: may I suggest that I really think more is being lost than gained by insisting on keeping this passage. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:02, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Again, it is also noteworthy in and of itself that in a book titled Cults, the editors chose to include an entry on the subject of this article. Cirt (talk) 22:11, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And I am curious how making statements which are basically repetitive of reliable sources makes more lost than gained. I hope everyone remembers that we are an encyclopedia, and our sole puprose is to repeat what reliable sources have stated. I cannot see how there is anything to lose by including material which has been specifically included in reliable sources. That statement, implying that there is something to be "lost" by including reliably sourced information which is seemingly directly relevant to the topic, strikes me as very odd indeed. John Carter (talk) 22:19, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, there is an entry on "Erhard Seminars Training (est) and The Forum". And thanks to Cirt we know what that entry says: that others (not Lewis) have accused est of being a cult. How then do we get to the notion that this source is relevant to a cult accusation against Landmark Forum? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:23, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is relevant to a new religious movement characterization of Landmark Forum. It was moved (not by myself) into a different subsection. Cirt (talk) 22:26, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fine -- that suggests a solution that at least avoids the original research associated with the cult accusation. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:35, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
See above comment by admin John Carter (talk · contribs) - who notes that your definition of original research was "falsely applied in this case". Cirt (talk) 22:40, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, let's get a bit pedantic: "notes" is incorrect. "claims" would work, and then I would note that I disagreed with his view. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:44, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless, the current presentation is fine. I agree with the move of the material to the section discussing the characterization of Landmark Education as a religious movement. Cirt (talk) 22:58, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of part of listing of Board Members

At 1934 hours on September 10, 2008, a Wikipedian removed sourced information listing members of the Landmark Education Board of Directors, noting in the edit-summary: "Trimmed list of executives--Far more listed than is usually customary". This preferential purge of some Board members from the record appears inconsistent and deprives readers of a fuller appreciation of Landmark Education. I propose that we restore the excised membership list, as follows:

[[Laurel Scheaf]]: [[Board of Directors|Director]];<ref> See the redacted PDF facsimile: {{cite web | title = Minutes of the General Meeting of the Board of Directors of Landmark Education Corporation | url = http://rickross.com/reference/landmark/landmark124.pdf | archiveurl = | work = Landmark Education litigation archive | publisher = rickross.com | location = | format = PDF | date = | month = | year = 2002-08-19 | archivedate = | accessdate = 2009-10-03 }} </ref> Landmark Forum Leader<br> Sanford Robbins: [[Board of Directors|Director]]<ref> See the redacted PDF facimile: {{cite web | title = Minutes of the General Meeting of the Board of Directors of Landmark Education Corporation | url = http://rickross.com/reference/landmark/landmark124.pdf | archiveurl = | work = Landmark Education litigation archive | publisher = rickross.com | location = | format = PDF | date = | month = | year = 2002-08-19 | archivedate = | accessdate = 2009-10-03 }} </ref><br> [[Brian Regnier]]: Course designer<ref> {{cite web | title = Synergistic Emergence In the 21st Century | url = http://web.archive.org/web/20080504030241rn_1/www.paradigmnouveau.com/about/ | archiveurl = | work = Paradigm Nouveau | publisher = Paradigm Nouveau Enterprises, LLC | location = | doi = | date = | month = | year = | archivedate = | accessdate = 2009-10-03 | quote = Brian Regnier, Landmark Forum Leader and principal designer of the programs of the Landmark Wisdom Course Area | ref = }} </ref><br>

-- Pedant17 (talk) 03:56, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of language examples

At 1501 hours on October 4, 2008 a Wikipedian removed the section on "Terms/distinctions", noting in the edit-summary "Remove PR sourced to blogs and oganization". The removed material does not solely or even principally consist of PR. The removed material does not exclusivly stem directly from blogs and organizations. Even if it did, some material in a pop-culture article such as this can legitimately come from blogs and from organizations. Let's restore the material (which covers an important aspect of Landmark Education's activities) and edit/tag it point by point for any blatant PR or inappropriate sourcing. We could write something like: == Language == Landmark Education utilizes some specific terms in its courses. (Landmark Education itself categorizes some of these jargon terms as "distinctions".) Articles in ''Metroactive''<ref> {{cite web | url = http://www.metroactive.com/landmark/landmark1-9827.html | title = The est of Friends | first = Traci | last = Hukill | date = 1998-07-15 | work = metroactive.com | publisher = The est of Friends | accessdate = 2009-11-22 | quote = Like any exclusive group of people who know something the rest of the world doesn't, Landmark has its own language. It happens to be the same vocabulary esties learned, and it serves to separate the ones who "get it" from those who don't. }} </ref> and in ''Life Positive''<ref> {{cite web | url = http://www.lifepositive.com/Mind/personal-growth/landmark/forum.asp | title = Landmark - Master of fate | first = Anupama | last = Bhattacharya | month = May | year = 1999 | work = Life Positive | publisher = Life Positive Foundation | accessdate = 2009-11-22 }} </ref> have provided short [[lexicon]]s of a few terms, such as: * "breakthrough": Landmark's term for arrival in new psychological terrain - also called a "paradigm shift."<ref> {{cite web | url = http://www.metroactive.com/landmark/landmark1-9827.html | title = The est of Friends | first = Traci | last = Hukill | authorlink = | coauthors = | date = 1998-07-15 | work = metroactive.com | publisher = The est of Friends | accessdate = 2009-11-22 | quote = A 'breakthrough' is Landmark's term for arrival in new psychological terrain--a phenomenon also called a 'paradigm shift.' Old limitations wither away, replaced by a vital conviction that anything is possible. }} </ref><ref> {{cite web | url = http://www.lifepositive.com/Mind/personal-growth/landmark/c_617_forum.asp | title = Forum lexicon | first = Anupama | last = Bhattacharya | month = May | year = 1999 | work = Life Positive | publisher = Life Positive Foundation | accessdate = 2009-11-22 | quote = Breakthrough: Looking at things from a different perspective, getting a new understanding of life. }} </ref> * "distinction" / "distinguish": "[t]o distinguish something means to take something from an undifferentiated background and bring it to the foreground."<ref> {{cite web | url = http://www.landmarkforumsyllabus.com/daytwo.htm | title = Landmark Forum Day Two | work = http://www.landmarkforumsyllabus.com | publisher = Landmark Education | location = San Francisco | accessdate = 2009-11-22 | quote = III. Distinguishing: Opening New Worlds To distinguish something means to take something from an undifferentiated background and bring it to the foreground. Just as learning a new language builds a bridge to a new culture, or the capacity to balance makes riding a bicycle possible, drawing distinctions gives us a facility to navigate in areas that were previously inaccessible. Distinctions give power and breadth to the ability to live creatively and successfully. With this ability to distinguish, we are left with new worlds and opportunities for action. }} </ref> * "racket": A way of being that allows us to justify ourselves and our point of view; preconceived notions of why we are right and others are wrong<ref> {{cite web | url = http://www.lifepositive.com/Mind/personal-growth/landmark/c_617_forum.asp | title = Forum lexicon | first = Anupama | last = Bhattacharya | month = May | year = 1999 | work = Life Positive | publisher = Life Positive Foundation | accessdate = 2009-11-22 | quote = Racket: A way of being that allows us to justify ourselves and our point of view; preconceived notions of why we are right and others are wrong. }} </ref><ref> {{cite web | url = http://www.metroactive.com/landmark/landmark1-9827.html | title = The est of Friends | first = Traci | last = Hukill | date = 1998-07-15 | work = metroactive.com | publisher = The est of Friends | accessdate = 2009-11-22 | quote = 'Rackets' are persistent complaints that we orchestrate in order to avoid some kind of responsibility-- complaints like 'I have too much to do,' which might excuse shoddy performance. Rackets obstruct breakthroughs [...] and we've spent our lives perfecting them in order to get what we want. }} </ref> * "strong suit" (previously known as "formula for success", or as "winning formula": a way of being that has worked well in the past and that we keep using, which keeps us from perceiving new options.<ref> {{cite web | url = http://www.lifepositive.com/Mind/personal-growth/landmark/c_617_forum.asp | title = Forum lexicon | first = Anupama | last = Bhattacharya | month = May | year = 1999 | work = Life Positive | publisher = Life Positive Foundation | accessdate = 2009-11-22 | quote = Winning formula: A way of being that has worked well in the past and that we keep using, which keeps us from perceiving new options. }} </ref><ref> {{cite web | url = http://www.metroactive.com/landmark/landmark1-9827.html | title = The est of Friends | first = Traci | last = Hukill | authorlink = | coauthors = | date = 1998-07-15 | work = metroactive.com | publisher = The est of Friends | accessdate = 2009-11-22 | quote = [...] 'winning formulas,' tricks we learn to get along in society, like being charming and smart. Winning formulas, we're told, keep us smug and content, but they also keep us from breakthroughs - and real happiness. }} </ref> * "vicious circle": a sphere where one's concepts determine one's experience<ref> {{cite web | url = http://www.lifepositive.com/Mind/personal-growth/landmark/c_617_forum.asp | title = Forum lexicon | first = Anupama | last = Bhattacharya | month = May | year = 1999 | work = Life Positive | publisher = Life Positive Foundation | accessdate = 2009-11-22 | quote = Vicious circle: A sphere where our concepts determine our experience. }} </ref> * Taking a stand: Putting attention on a vision for the future; putting our attention on our vision of life that gives us [[self (psychology)|self]]-expression<ref> {{cite web | url = http://www.lifepositive.com/Mind/personal-growth/landmark/c_617_forum.asp | title = Forum lexicon | first = Anupama | last = Bhattacharya | month = May | year = 1999 | work = Life Positive | publisher = Life Positive Foundation | accessdate = 2009-11-22 | quote = Taking a stand: Putting our attention on our vision of life that gives us self-expression }} </ref> * "distinguishing ourselves and our world through language"{{fact}}: The world consists of language and can be altered through language * "already/always listening": listening to others with preconceived notions of what they really mean<ref> {{cite web | url = http://www.lifepositive.com/Mind/personal-growth/landmark/c_617_forum.asp | title = Forum lexicon | first = Anupama | last = Bhattacharya | month = May | year = 1999 | work = Life Positive | publisher = Life Positive Foundation | accessdate = 2009-11-22 | quote = Already/always listening: Listening to others with preconceived notions of what they really mean. }} </ref> * "possibility"{{fact}}: a phenomenon that exists in and impacts the present. (As distinct from the regular usage of ''possibility'' meaning "something that perhaps might happen in the future".) * "enrollment"{{fact}}: essentially having (or creating) a conversation in which you move, touch, inspire someone by "causing a new possibility to be present"{{fact}} * "unmessable with"{{fact}}: the quality of being able to stand in the face of any circumstance and not be thrown off course. * "stories vs. reality"{{fact}}: the idea that there is what is, and there is also our story about it, or our characterization of it into a context. Example: "She didn't call me so she must not care about me." What's real is she didn't call. What's made up is she does not care. * "inauthenticity"{{fact}}: pretending a story that one made up really happens, and also pretending that one does not pretend this{{fact}} -- Pedant17 (talk) 05:48, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Pedant17. With these deletions, the article lost its quality appropriate for wikipedia standards. The two warnings on neutrality and cleanup are hanging for more than 1 year. I am for restoring at least a portion of these old deletes. Newageindian (talk) 07:14, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Adding Course Content Section

As per recent discussion on this talk page, I am adding material that tells something about the ideas in the courses. I am starting a section that simply describes the logistics of the Landmark Forum and what is discussed during the course, staying away from partisan language and evaluations of whether the course is good or bad, and focusing on well established facts from credible eyewitness accounts ( taking care to avoid using primary sources). I am adding this because currently there are a number of evaluations of The Landmark Forum and other Landmark classes , and a long discussion on whether it has religious aspects, but no discussion whatsoever of what actually happens during The Landmark Forum or other programs. Roy (talk) 01:05, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Landmark_Worldwide&oldid=333163030"