Talk:Landmark Worldwide

Tactics and Methods

Does anyone mind if I create a section on methods or technology used within the forum? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dabrams13 (talk • contribs) 16:43, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

That would be fine as long as the info is sourced from Independent Sources WP:IS, NOT Landmark's website or course materials. ---Avatar317^(talk) 19:44, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

I'd like to add that this section on their teaching methods still reads as a puff piece, it doesn't contain any information on the fact that they use behaviour modification methods and coercive control techniques that many reports (many articles on Rick Ross website and this entry on Ney vs Landmark:https://en-academic.com/dic.nsf/enwiki/11816406) have shown are extremely dangerous how can I flag this or edit without it then all getting edited out as happened last time? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Albert8879 (talk • contribs) 19:51, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

PR tag?

I see that there has been a PR Tag at the heading for some time. I don't see that at all - I can't see any signs of sensationalism, and it certainly doesn't read like a press release. It seems more like a mixture of objective facts and critical comment. Also there's an tag suggesting that additional references would be desirable. That seems odd bearing in mind that there are 71 cited footnotes and a long list of additional references. Can anyone suggest the improvements they'd like to see to satisfy the concerns implied by these tags? DaveApter (talk) 10:15, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

I don't know why it was added, but it appears appropriate, since I can still see a lot of "biz-speak" and puffy language.

I am reluctant to give too many specific examples, because I have done that dozens of times in the past on various talk pages, and editors almost always merely fix exactly those issues without understanding them as examples. So, as just one of many possible examples, Landmark Worldwide#Current operations fails WP:TONE. The first sentence is extremely vague and extremely promotional, and worse, it is obviously not supported by the attached source. Again, as just an example, the idea that training could improve vitality is an extraordinary and extremely ambiguous claim, and so it would need both context and a strong source. The entire article has this problem, so the tag is still appropriate. Grayfell (talk) 03:25, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Removed tags. I reviewed the links and they seem good and upon comparing to other page son corporations it seems to have more citations not less. It actually is NOT that promotional at all. It actually sounds sort of dry.  :-) Alex Jackl (talk) 16:48, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Questions on POV

How to add more balance in line with NPOV and using verifiable sources if many sources are blogs or survivor testimonials and will be seen as not verifiable enough?

I have to say I agree that this page still sounds very much like a puff piece. I am a survivor of their 'training' (2009-2014), training which left me with a lifetime of trauma and PTSD and who has had to swallow whole their propaganda in training course after course. So believe me when I say that quite a bit of this Wiki entry reads like one of their promotional booklets in uncritically and basically saying that is transformational personal development training that has been used and endorsed by orgs such as Reebok, PandaExpress, LuluLemon etc.

With no mention of the fact that they use dangerous behavior modification tools and thought reform techniques like NLP, encounter and attack therapy (which includes long sessions of verbal abuse of participants who've often just shared very vulnerable details of their life such as abuse, bullying, troubled relationships etc etc) and guided regression exercises without knowing consent from participants and without any trained licensed mental health professional present.

As I really think we need to add more balance and in line with the policy which states: 'that does not stop us from describing the majority views as such and using the words of reliable sources to present strong criticisms. Fairly explaining the arguments against a pseudoscientific theory or verifiably describing the moral repugnance that people feel toward a notion is fully permitted by NPOV.'

As at the moment someone looking at this Wiki entry would think that this is just a personal development company that offers transformational training to change your relationship to the present and future etc etc. Yes there is some criticism but it's buried and not enough to counter-balance the uncritical reproduction of what Landmark says they are about.

When this training in actual fact has lead to people's: severe depression, anxiety psychosis, psychiatric hospitalisation, triggered suicide, depersonalisation syndrome, PTSD and implants in people a loyal evangelical attitude to Landmark which means they try to convert everyone around them and literally cannot see Landmark in a critical way (other than it can be a bit too intense on sales etc). See: https://en-academic.com/dic.nsf/enwiki/11816406, https://www.win.tue.nl/~aeb/secul/landmark/landmark6.html, https://www.philosophyforlife.org/blog/attack-therapy-and-the-landmark-forum, https://culteducation.com/group/1020-landmark-education/12497-mind-game-courses-aimed-at-public-sector-workers.html, https://forum.culteducation.com/read.php?4,76435,76546)

The only thing I can think of is to quote/cite from Rick Ross's book Cults Inside Out (https://cultsinsideout.com/) as counter-arguments to what Landmark claims to do/be about in their content, with details on the behaviour modification techniques that Landmark uses fro example. As I guess that would count as a verifiable source?

There are also a few media articles but not many because mostly the media have has been really biased in reporting on Landmark for example not talking to survivors and only talking to people who are uncritical whilst only referring in a few lines to criticisms, or else Landmark has many articles taken down and journalists also fear lawsuits so remove references to it being a cult for example. There's some articles in Mother Jones and have quoted some above.

But don't know if they would be counted as too dated as some are from the 90s and I don't know if it matters that the text is not on the original print publication but hosted on different blogs/Rick Ross' website as the publication may be out of print or the articles taken down from the original website.

Rick Ross also did a podcast The Unmistakable Creative (https://play.acast.com/s/the-unmistakable-creative-podcast/thecultofpersonaldevelopment-deprogrammingwithrickalanross) about Landmark but I'm not sure if that would be considered verifiable.

If I could get some advice on this would be much appreciated.

History of litigation section?

I would like to add a section on the history of litigation as I think it's important to show readers the facts of Landmarks' long history of using lawsuits against critics, similar to Scientology. This could also help add to NPOV in understanding the lack of mainstream critical reporting, acting as a counter-balance to the reporters section which only shows positive commentary.

See: https://culteducation.com/group/1020-landmark-education/12303-landmark-education.html#Litigation, https://culteducation.com/group/1020-landmark-education/12390-introduction-to-the-landmark-education-litigation-archive.html, https://www.dmlp.org/threats/landmark-education-llc-v-ross#node-legal-threat-full-group-description and https://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Controversial_development_training_cited_in_religious_discrimination_lawsuits.

Please let me know if this is possible?

Response to Questions

Please sign and date your comments on talk pages; you can do this by typing four tilde ~ characters. I suggest you review Wikipedia's relevant policies, especially what Wikipedia is not and undue weight. I am very sorry to hear that you personally are unhappy with the experience that you had in participating in a number of Landmark courses, but Wikipedia is not a forum for venting your dissatisfactions. If you look at the history of this article, you will see that all of the issues you mention have been entertained at some point in the past and that the consensus of editors was that they were either inadequately verified by reliable sources or expressions of opinions by non-notable individuals. Rick Ross's site is not regarded as a reliable source for example, as has been concluded in discussions on a large variety of topics. As far as I am aware, Landmark has not been involved in litigation for more than ten or fifteen years, and the fact that they took action in several cases in the distant past where they felt that they had been slandered or libelled is adequately covered in the article. The case you mention of Stephanie Ney related to an event before Landmark was even founded, and the court concluded that she had not established that she had been harmed by her participation in a course held by a predecessor organisation. DaveApter (talk) 19:20, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Section update tag

The 'update needed' tag added without comment in June 2021 presumably refers to the change to online delivery of courses due to covid restrictions. I have added a couple of sentences about that, and removed the tag. DaveApter (talk) 09:57, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

NPOV

Whatever NPOV is; this ain't it. Wikipedia is not censored, we should describe weird cults as weird cults. Plenty of criticism online, but none seems to be mentioned in the article? Polygnotus (talk) 04:39, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

It is undoubtedly correct to say that there is "plenty of criticism" of Landmark on the internet. Most of it is unsubstantiated gossip or rumour, and some is vindictive defamation. Very little of it passes muster as Reliable Source. The suggestion that it is a "Weird cult" is of course a matter of opinion rather than a matter of fact. The assertion that "it uses tactics similar to Scientology" is factually inaccurate. Incidentally, there is also a great deal of enthusiastic endorsement of Landmark's programs on the internet (which is equally irrelevant for Wikipedia purposes). None of the three previous cases on the NPOV noticeboard that Polygnotus cited resulted in a conclusion that this article violated WP:NPOV in favour of Landmark (if anything, the reverse). I am removing the tag. If you wish to re-instate it, please discuss it here first to make out the case. DaveApter (talk) 11:24, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

You spammed this rant also on that other page. Please read Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. COI editing is strongly discouraged on Wikipedia. It undermines public confidence and risks causing public embarrassment to the individuals and companies being promoted. Editors with a COI are sometimes unaware of whether or how much it has influenced their editing. If COI editing causes disruption, an administrator may opt to place blocks on the involved accounts. Polygnotus (talk) 10:01, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Please remain civil and assume good faith. As I requested above, please discuss the matter here before reinstating the tag, with references to reliable sources that support your opinions which you wish to see included in the article, if you can find any. Thanks. DaveApter (talk) 14:55, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

You think a quote from the relevant guideline is incivil?? Please fix the article before removing the tag; using reliable sources. My opinion should not be included in the article. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Maintenance_template_removal#When_not_to_remove Do not editwar to remove the template. Fix the problems instead. Here you claim the article, at that point, contained "40% Criticisms and Controversies". In the years since all criticism has been removed. The talk page archive is full of npov problems. This looks like WP:OWN and WP:PROMO problems. Please read How to disclose a COI. Thank you. Polygnotus (talk) 15:39, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

@Polygnotus: Do you have some proof of the COI of which you are alleging? Because without proof, we can't really do anything.

Some articles on Wikipedia are biased toward/against the subject because one editor who loves/hates the subject wrote most/all of the article. The way to fix this is to find RS's and use those to add content to the article. Some articles will be nothing but critical, when the RS's are all critical.

If you can post sources which you think will add balance to the article, than myself and others can read and summarize those sources and add content to this article. ---Avatar317^(talk) 00:21, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

It is the person with a COI who should do anything (e.g. declare their COI and use the talkpage to suggest improvements instead of directly editing the article). On Wikipedia, a duck is a duck is a duck. If an account spends the period between 2005 and 2023, so 18 years, defending a topic then it quacks like a duck. I have some people over but when they are gone I'll have a look around for some sources because pretty much all criticism has been surgically removed. Polygnotus (talk) 08:00, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Removal of Tag

Tag removed as this has been rehashed on these pages over and over again. Please review the history on this talk page and then discuss what issues you might have here before tagging the main page. Thank you so much! There are plenty of contributors who would be happy to engage on any questions you might have. Alex Jackl (talk) 17:21, 17 October 2023 (UTC)