Talk:Landmark Worldwide

Please start new discussion topics at the bottom of the talk page per Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. Thanks!

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)

Shift of discussion to Landmark Education's Curriculum for Living

The following addition has been rejected, perhaps because of the unverifiable date (this month: June, 2009) and perhaps for additional reasons.

Is there a way to clean this up in order to steer the discussion to Landmark Education's current practices, as evidenced by their web site? Most importantly, the Syllabus for the Landmark Forum exhibits the content of the course as delivered. If we can focus the discussion on the Curriculum, we can rid this page of much of the animosity currently in evidence.

Please note that the Syllabus is available both online form, as well as privately published form. Landmark Education distributes it to prospective customers. Were it inaccurate, or if Landmark Education did not deliver substantially on its promises, they would be sued penniless in a heartbeat.

---

Curriculum

As an international training and development organization, Landmark offers courses and programs conducted by leaders who have completed intensive training. The overall curriculum is richly developed, as the array of courses and programs indicates.

The Landmark Forum

This is the foundation course on which the fundamental distinctions of all the coursework is based. As the foundation, the Landmark Forum stands on its own independently of the other courses and programs in the core curriculum. The subsequent coursework develops and deepens the results participants generate for themselves by engaging in the fundamental distinctions. The syllabus for the Landmark Forum is available for download in PDF form, making the foundation material freely available for evaluation, analysis and discussion. Readers should keep in mind that reading and even understanding the material presented in the syllabus cannot be expected to produce the results generated by participation in programs and coursework.

Core Curriculum and Other Programs and Courses

The core curriculum is a set of four mutually synergistic courses beginning with the Landmark Forum and including the Landmark Forum in Action Series, the Advanced Course, and the Self Expression and Leadership Program. As of June, 2009, the Landmark Education web site describes other programs and courses including the Landmark Seminar Program, the Communication Courses, the Wisdom Courses, the Family Coaching Session and the Leadership and Assisting Programs.

Roy (talk) 08:16, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Comment: Let's try to avoid violating WP:NOR and overusage of primary sources and links to this for-profit company's website. Perhaps you could suggest some WP:V/WP:RS secondary sources? Cirt (talk) 08:22, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

"Shift[ing] the discussion" or "steer[ing] the discussion" would run a risk of violating the Wikipedia requirement to maintain a neutral point of view. That said,the article has great scope for expansion into providing facts about the "Curriculum for living" -- provided we avoid commercial bombast and one-sided unsupported claims. -- I hesitate to veer into the banned area of discussing items not immediately concerned with improving the Landmark Education article. But any suggestion that the published Landmark Education curriculum offers an accurate and legally verifiable account of any part of Landmark Education activities would have to address the woolliness and vague jargon of the Curriculum statement, as well as the requirement for potential enrollees into Landmark Education courses to sign away their rights to sue in favor of an arbitration agreement. As the registration procedure at http://www.landmarkeducation.com/display_content.jsp?top=24&mid=343610 (retrieved 2009-06-28) states:

ARBITRATION AGREEMENT I agree that any dispute, claim or controversy arising out of my participation in the Program (or any of its associated activities), including the interpretation, application, execution, performance or enforcement of any provision of this Agreement or concerning Landmark Education LLC, its officers, managers, employees, agents, people who assist and/or other participants in the Program (“Landmark Education”) will be submitted to and determined by final and binding arbitration. This Agreement to arbitrate includes claims that there have been any wrongful acts or omissions in my registration in the Program and the warnings and disclosure, content or delivery of the Program (or any of its associated activities) by Landmark Education. Any such dispute, claim or controversy shall not be determined by lawsuit or resort to any court process in any court of law or equity, except as applicable law provides for judicial review, confirmation and enforcement of arbitration proceedings and awards. Judgement upon any award rendered in arbitration may be entered in any court having competent jurisdiction and an application may be made to such court for an order of enforcement.

Such arbitration shall take place pursuant to the Commercial Rules of the American Arbitration Association (“AAA”) then in effect in the City hosting the program and shall be expedited and conducted on successive days before three arbitrators, in accordance with the rules of the AAA then in effect.

I agree that if either party institutes any legal action in any Court not authorized herein, the other party shall be entitled to respond by demurrer or other appropriate response, shall not be required to answer any complaint, and shall be entitled to a dismissal of such legal action. The other party shall be entitled to an award in its favor for the amount of its actual fees and costs of suit.

I understand that Landmark Education LLC is a Delaware company and that this Agreement will be construed and governed by the laws of the State of Delaware. This Agreement cannot be modified unless in writing signed by me and by Landmark Education.

I also agree that the time in which I may commence arbitration shall not be greater than ninety (90) days following the occurrence of the event or events which is/are the subject of my claim or claims. I understand that if I fail to commence arbitration within said ninety (90) days, I may be forever barred from making such claim or claims against Landmark Education.

I UNDERSTAND THAT THIS IS A LEGAL AGREEMENT IN WHICH I FREELY GIVE UP MY RIGHT TO A JURY OR COURT TRIAL.

-- Pedant17 (talk) 03:53, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Many businesses, particularly in California, require binding arbitration rather that court trials. 
I don't have a problem with that. This seems to be a fairly standard piece of writing - really
not worth mentioning, and certainly not worth quoting.
Wowest (talk) 01:55, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

If one regards Landmark Education as a "business" (a highly contentious point of view), the claim that some Californian entities try to avoid litigation might merit some examination. But the context of mentioning and quoting this helpful piece of legalese involved the claim that "if Landmark Education did not deliver substantially on its promises, they would be sued penniless in a heartbeat". Whatever the reason for making that suggestion, the published Landmark Education registration documentation might just possibly suggest the possibility that it might take more than a heartbeat to sue the organization penniless. -- Pedant17 (talk) 03:44, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Removal of material on the exploitation of volunteers

At 0312 hours on July 8, 2008, a Wikipedian removed well-sourced material relating to alleged "exploitation of volunteers" as reported by official French labor-inspectors. The finding of "exploitation" had some official weight and related to the closure of Landmark Education's office in France. It has relevance to an oft-heard charge against Landmark Education, that of exploitation of its volunteer "assistants". Let's restore this material to the article as part of the "Corporation" section to provide balance and background in the account of Landmark Education's unorthodox commercial operations and its close relations with its customers. -- Pedant17 (talk) 02:14, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

The word exploitation is indeed used in the source, so yes. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 06:26, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Removal of Badt balance

At 1359 hours on July 11, 2008, a Wikipedian removed sourced comments by Karin Badt which counterpointed and balanced a misleadingly unbalanced summary of Badt's work in the article. The edit-summary claimed that the removed material "reiterates criticisms already made in this section" as if supporting alternative and expanded views do not add to Wikipedia. The edit-summary noted "repeated irrelevant references to [Martin Luther King] and Gandhi", but instead of rationalizing these relevant and accurate references, actually advocated removing them altogether! -- Let's restore a better-balanced and better-crafted summary of Badt's comments, taking account of her emphasis on King and Gandhi. We could start with something like:

Karin Badt of The Huffington Post noted a zealous emphasis on "'spreading the word' of the Landmark forum as a sign of the participants' '"integrity.'" in recounting her personal experience of a introductory "Landmark Forum" course. She calculated that 9 hours over three days concentrated on this theme. Part of this time included comparisons between program participants and Martin Luther King and Mahatma Gandhi.

[...] However, Badt regards the course's word-of-mouth marketing methodology and its considerable focus on proselytizing, as "brainwashing" -- Pedant17 (talk) 02:09, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the reference of the Badt article in the Criticism and Response section ignores the entire (skeptical) tone of the piece while picking the one section of text that seems supportive of Landmark. --Yatta (talk) 23:08, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree as well -- it should be restored. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:13, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Removal of key points and concepts

At 1518 hours on August 18, 2008, a Wikipedian removed a paragraph from the article, claiming in the edit-summary: "removing unsourced material from lead of article. It is refered to in it's own section in the article anyway". As of August  2009 the article lacks references to the distinctive use of the word "graduates", to the importance of "change" in Landmark Education ideas and marketing, to the "heavy-handedness" within Landmark Education sessions, to the great importance that Landmark Education circles attach to what one might interpret as "selling" Landmark Education courses, to the crucial charge of "brainwashing", and to the explanation of the significance of the French television documentary Voyage au pays des nouveaux gourous. Each of these topics might merit a section or subsection of its own, despite any assumption that they belong in "it's[sic] own [existing] section". Calling for the provision of sourcing would have helped preserve this material; removing it has distorted the article apparently merely for the lack of referencing. Let's restore this material in modified form with references. We could write, for example: Some "graduates"<ref>Landmark Education and those who espouse it refer to people who have done a three-day course as "graduates". See for example Philip Guy, Rochford (2005). "The Prologue: the executive's life is fashioned through speaking". The Executive Speaks: An Executive Insider's 5 Power Speaking Secrets. iUniverse. p. 3. ISBN 9780595338306. Retrieved 2009-08-19. Able Toastmaster Bronze of Toastmasters International, and a graduate of Landmark Education corporation, U.S. and the Dale Carnegie Program {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameters: |nopp=, |lastauthoramp=, |laydate=, |laysummary=, |month=, and |separator= (help); External link in |chapterurl= (help); More than one of |pages= and |page= specified (help); Unknown parameter |chapterurl= ignored (|chapter-url= suggested) (help) </ref> of Landmark Education courses claim that Landmark Education has changed their lives.<ref> Note the article in Teen magazine ("The Weekend that Changed my life", Teen, Vol. 41, February 1997, pp. 72-73), cited in McCarl, Steven R (2001). "The Promise of Philosophy and the Landmark Forum". Contemporary Philosophy. XXIII (1 & 2): 52. {{cite journal}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help); Cite has empty unknown parameters: |laydate=, |laysummary=, |day=, |month=, and |laysource= (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help) </ref> Other participants have complained of heavy-handed treatment within sessions<ref> One summary of the literature on participation speaks in terms of "challenging", "systematic escalation", "discounting", "forcing" and 'brainwashing": Koocher, Gerald P; Keith-Spiegel, Patricia (2008). Ethics in psychology and the mental health professions: standards and cases. Oxford Textbooks in Clinical Psychology (3 ed.). Oxford University Press US. p. 151. ISBN 9780195149111. Retrieved 2009-08-19. Werner Erhard, the developer of est, was a skilled salesman with no professional training as a psychotherapist. his programs evolved to become the "Forum" seminars (Efran, Lukens, & Lukens, 1986; Finkelstein, Wenegrat, & Yalom, 1982; Wistow, 1986) and exist currently as the Landmark Education or the Forum, a genre of so-called large-group awareness programs. A recent Web search for critics for the current incarnation yielded more than 960,000 hits (e.g., Ross, 2005). {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameters: |laydate=, |separator=, |nopp=, |month=, |laysummary=, and |lastauthoramp= (help); External link in |chapterurl= (help); More than one of |pages= and |page= specified (help); Text "author1-link" ignored (help); Text "author2-link" ignored (help); Text "trans_chapter" ignored (help) </ref> and still others of pressure to sell courses to other people.<ref>Odasso, before describing how she herself became a recruiter, acknowledges the common perception: "I have heard the rumors - [...] the forced enrollment of your peers and family." See: Diana, Odasso (2008-06-05). "My Landmark Experience". The Huffington Post. HuffingtonPost.com. Retrieved 2009-08-19. I have heard the rumors - the strict bathroom policy, the no eating/ no drinking rule, the endless hours of class, the forced enrollment of your peers and family. </ref> General opinion may associate Landmark Education with brainwashing</ref> "Self-help and the Quick Fix: the eternal search for answers" (PDF). The Estimator. The State of Queensland (Queensland Theatre Company). p. 16. Retrieved 2009-08-20. The Landmark Education Forum is an accelerated learning experience designed to discover a new and unique kind of freedom and power. [...] Seminars such as these are sometimes referred to as Large Group Awareness Training (LGAT) and some critics have labelled them cults. LGAT events are often accused of brainwashing people via their implied or explicit religious nature. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameters: |month= and |coauthors= (help); More than one of |pages= and |page= specified (help) </ref> and/or with culthood.<ref> In addition to other sources within this article, see for example Matthews, William J; Edgette, John H (1997). Current thinking and research in brief therapy: solutions, strategies, narratives. Current Thinking & Research in Brief Therapy. Vol. 1. Psychology Press. p. 53. ISBN 9780876308196. Retrieved 2009-08-20. Yet another attack over warring philosophies may be found in the $40 million defamation suit brought by the Landmark Education Corporation against the Cult Awareness Network (National Alliance, 1994). The plaintiff was a San Francisco-based company that runs training seminars for businesses and groups. The defendant described itself as as 'a national non-profit organization founded to educate the public about the harmful effects of mind control as used by destructive cults.' In essence, the plaintiff claimed that the defendant labeled it a cult and spread materially misleading stories about its activities. At the heart of the case was a dispute about the legality and validity of cult indoctrination procedures. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameters: |laydate=, |separator=, |nopp=, |month=, |trans_chapter=, |laysummary=, and |lastauthoramp= (help); External link in |chapterurl= (help); More than one of |pages= and |page= specified (help); Unknown parameter |chapterurl= ignored (|chapter-url= suggested) (help) </ref> Voyage to the Land of the New Gurus, a television documentary program, broadcast in France and incorporating material filmed secretly at a Landmark Education course, fanned debate. Within three months of the broadcast, the Paris office of Landmark Education closed.<ref> http://hebdo.nouvelobs.com/hebdo/parution/p2115/articles/a268827-.html Lemonnier, Marie (2005-05-19). "Chez les gourous en cravate". Le Nouvel Observateur (in French). Paris. Retrieved 2009-08-20. Juillet 2004. Les stagiaires trouvent porte close. La branche française du mouvement est officiellement dissoute. Officieusement, les dirigeants ont repris leurs activités sur Londres et continuent de recruter en France. [TRANSLATION: July, 2004. The trainees find the doors locked. The French subsidiary of the movement has been officially wound up.Informally, the bosses have resumed their activities in London and continue to recruit in France.] {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |trans_title= ignored (|trans-title= suggested) (help); line feed character in |quote= at position 14 (help) </ref> -- Pedant17 (talk) 03:49, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Not a "New Religious Movement"

I removed the tag relating to this, since Landmark Education is not a religious movement of any kind, new old or intermediate. This is clearly demonstrated by the fact that its customers include committed Christians, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, agnostics and atheists. DaveApter (talk) 15:37, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

This comment misunderstands the nature of "new religious movements". The "newness", as discussed in research on the sociology of religion, consists precisely in the way membership and ideas "cross-cut" older religions as conventionally understood. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:45, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Also, it is an offshoot of the old Erhard Seminars Training system, which is included in several encyclopedia of new religions, including, but not limited to James R. Lewis's The Encyclopedia of Cults, Sects, and New Religions, ISBN 1-57392-222-6, pp. 213-216, and is specifically listed as a "cult", a subject the NRM group already specifically covers, at List of groups referred to as cults in government documents#France. On that basis, I have every reason to believe that it rather clearly falls within the purview of the new group, and am restoring the banner. I have every reason to believe that the information regarding this subject which the new group will ahve access to will help develop this article. John Carter (talk) 16:05, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I fully agree with the above comment by John Carter (talk · contribs). Cirt (talk) 16:07, 24 August 2009 (UTC)