Talk:Landmark Worldwide/Archive 15

Any sign of life?

What happened to this page? It seems to have fallen tino the mediation cabal and died a slow painful death. What happens now? Ckerr 06:26, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

• Maybe drop a message at the Mediator's talk page ? Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 07:08, 5 October 2007 (UTC).

Discussion on the overall structure

The article remains too fluid to have any prescribed overall structure. -- Pedant17 05:10, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

If this article does remain, and as a happy graduate of a controversial course, I'd rather it did, I would like to see it improved in terms of corporate responsibility. I would like to see all sites regarding a corporate entity have a Corp Responsibility section, and, specifically, address the topic of climate change. I, for one, am critical that LE has no stated policy on climate change, despite having a number of international courses (try searching the corporate site for: climate change; global warming; greenhouse or carbon - zilch!) nealeu 82.21.103.94 17:24, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

• • • Get in touch with Harry in some way possible, a letter even. At least he'll acknowledge the concern, as he has done with the Reformer's Group. Hope that helps. Arcana imperii Ascendo tuum 00:16, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

questions?

is it a pyramid scheme or money trap or cult or something like that? Can we include debate for or against? I don't know what to think of Landmark Education.--Sonjaaa 03:45, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

• What is the point of your question above?Triplejumper 23:15, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
  • I would hazard a guess that many people have these very same questions. Especially those that have researched the history of Landmark Education. Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 04:47, 10 October 2007 (UTC).
  • The point of asking questions (plural) = to elicit information. If an encyclopedia does not provide the answers to the obvious questions, it needs enhancement and expansion. -- Pedant17 02:43, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
• Not a pyramid scheme, not a money trap, something more like a mind-trap cult. No debate needed, this page is about the factual correspondence of the article to what humanity in general believes. Sorry to say, adherents of this and other cults make overzealous cleanups of cult articles, so that humanity belief is essentially removed from Wikipedia. This is an area when Wikipedia procedures fails. I wanted to read about the Landmark Education being forced to leave Sweden, but that was removed. (I don't believe in this "Assume good faith" stuff regarding this kind of information). Said: Rursus ☻ 20:17, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
  • My understanding is that they left on their own, not "forced out," as you've stated. Will add neutrally worded and factual information when I can get to it. Arcana imperii Ascendo tuum 06:00, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
• Most assuredly we can include for and against views. But they keep getting deleted, so one has to wander throught he archives to gain the full flavor of the varying viewpoints and the zeal with which some of those viewpoints get obscured. -- Pedant17 02:43, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Well I keep hearing negative talk about Landmark, so I turned to Wikipedia to get the facts, and it seems our article does not really address the whether or not Landmark Education is one of those. I guess some countries consider it a sect, so maybe that answers my question.--Sonjaaa 05:14, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

• I used Wikipedia before on a college exam as a fact source and it turned out the information was wrong so I flunked my exam. I would not rely on Wikipedia for any kind of verifiable facts. You should call a representative of Landmark Education and ask them what value they provide to their customers and if you like what you hear, then go for it (or not). Personal experience or at least talking to someone who has had direct experience with the organization is the only thing you can call factual. They have been around for over 30 years - if they violate the law, they would have been closed down by now, you'd think... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Martinn (talk • contribs)
  • What? This is the kind of barely subtle persuasion techniques endemic in this article. Wikipedia is unreliable so therefore you should speak to someone who works for the company in question and consider taking one of their courses? I can't believe anyone can say this kind of stuff and expect that others won't see through it.211.30.0.79 11:21, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
  • People who used thalidomide might have asked representatives of the developers/manufacturers of the drug about its safe use during pregnancies. I would not rely on providers for qualitative information. -- Personal experience suffers from human biases and limitations: individual testimonials cannot count as factual. The claim that "They have been around for over 30 years" appears slightly misleading: Landmark Education has existed under that name for fewer than 20 years; if one regards Erhard Seminars Training (est) as a closely-aligned predecessor, then "they" have existed for over 35 years. -- The Mafia has existed for about 150 years. If they violate the law, someone would have closed them down by now, you'd think... -- Pedant17 02:43, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
• Are you referring to Austria, France, or maybe Belgium ? Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 07:22, 10 October 2007 (UTC).
  • Personal experience is absolutely not the only thing you can call factual. You do not need to only rely on "direct experience" in order to evaluate this for-profit, privately owned company for yourself. If your friends told you that the only way to understand cocaine was to try it for yourself, would you do it? There is a wealth of information on the internet out there, not here on Wikipedia necessarily for the best stuff, but definitely on other sites like http://www.rickross.com/groups/landmark.html and other sites. Do your own reading and read up on the history of the company and the various individuals involved with its various incarnations and name changes over the years, it is quite interesting, and shocking too. Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 17:09, 10 October 2007 (UTC).
    • I am interested in experiencing the factual condition that cocaine elicits without trying it. How do I go about doing this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.7.231.212 (talk) 01:05, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
      • Experiencing (involving impressions rather than facts) differs markedly from gathering information about a subject or even "understanding" that subject. -- Pedant17 02:43, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
    • The problem is that this article gives the reader very little indication that there is any reason to do more reading and does very little to direct them towards further reading from critical sources, although it does a lot to help the reader get to information put out by the company in question. In my opinion this article is a whitewash, a very careful and subtle piece of PR and a mockery of Wikipedia, the fact that the article has been locked for five months is very troubling. 211.30.0.79 11:21, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
    • Personal experience also violates WP policy for NO original research, if that can be kept in mindArcana imperii Ascendo tuum 17:49, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
      • I think it is important that people reading this be aware that there are people who have a philosophical objection to programs they refer pejoratively to as "Large Group Awareness Trainings". In the recent past some of them have used Wikipedia as a platform for their views by actively attempting to put their extreme POV into articles by including as much critical information as possible about these programs into articles. In some cases these individuals edited continuously for 19 hours a day for several days in a row. Rather ironic given one of their chief complaints about these programs is the long hours. That is the primary reason this article has been locked by the admins. Triplejumper 19:22, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
        • No need in re-iterating what is easily accesable in the archived histories. Let's stick to peer-reviewed information and past editors' histories in the past. Re-direct old business with a link to the archives. Thanks. Arcana imperii Ascendo tuum 22:01, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
        • Dispassionate observers coined the label "Large Group Awareness Training" (LGAT) in an attempt to take some of the pejorative aura away from the subject. The fact that the neutral label quickly came in its turn to carry pejorative connotations says something about the corrosive nature and rock-bottom reputation of such programs. Wikipedia has not yet succeeded in clearly conveying this widely-recognized expression of the general opinion.-- Pedant17 02:43, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

• • I'm sorry Martinn, that you flunked your exam! I think that the universities are right in warning students against using Wikipedia in their reports, but I think it is because encyclopedias (including Encyclopedia Britannica, and such) shouldn't be used as fact bases at all any more, now when scientific articles are directly available on the net. We editors are doing our best, but for the sharp facts, please search among the links and references that we provide, don't take what we write for truth! Said: Rursus ☻ 08:23, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
    • Rursus, scientific information is like kryptonite to Landmarkians. Be careful. Arcana imperii Ascendo tuum 18:37, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
    • Rursus, I will summarize and include a recent article published in a scientific, peer-reviewed journal of psychology/counseling, leaving out jargon so that it is readable, if this suits you. Conducted in Israel, 2005, if I'm not mistaken. Arcana imperii Ascendo tuum 05:16, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

• • • Arcana- statements like the above are untrue and designed to attack and diminish people that happen to believe your POV is not an accurate one. This is actively discouraged in Wikipedia. In fact Landmark's courses encourage critical thinking and not taking things at face value. To those newly reading please read through the archives so you can see there is an extremely vocal minority who are trying to portray Landmark as a cult or something like it. The majority of writers on these pages do not agree with that assessment and believe it is espousing a extreme minority view. Those in opposition to this view make the same claim. I advice listening to ALL of the editors with a grain of salt. Please do not attack people on this talk page- it is about discussion of the article. Arcana, please play by the rules you opened with above! Alex Jackl 04:42, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
      • No soapboxing Alex. The kryptonite statement was admittedly a poor attempt at humor. If you detected negativity, I can only apologise for what's there for you in that space. My concern is not what your personal opinion/testimonial of Landmark is. I'm a writer and was employed as a journalist. This article needs factual, balanced information. Whatever direction the facts fall, "it is what it is." The most neutral language is being used and although it may take a few attempts, I have faith in the other editors taking part in the writing of this entry. Regarding your view of Landmark and "majority/minority": You can speak for yourself and yourself alone. Casting "majority" or "minority" statements not backed by factual information is purely conjecture and conjecture alone. Let's refrain from this. This will be my last warning for you to refrain from speaking for others that are not here speaking for themselves. Assumptions about what people read and assume, again, are only assumptions and conjecture. BUT, they may or may not be your personal generalizations/assumptions. Please speak in the singular from now on. Thanks! Arcana imperii Ascendo tuum 05:05, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

• • • • Arcana- I have been editing on this article for a while and I am one of the people who can vouch for the accuracy of Alex Jackl's assertion above. It is not simply conjecture. The facts exist in the edit history of Wikipedia on well over 100 articles. Contrary to what you stated in response to one of my previous comments, it is necessary to re-iterate what is accessible in the archives. I say this for the sake of our common interest in balance. We need to take the edit history of this article into account. As someone who is new to this article, please don't dismiss Alex Jackl's assertion outright.Triplejumper 16:49, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
        • Again, the past problems of this article are irrelevant. Again, speak for yourself. Alex Jackl can speak for himself and himself alone. This is how objectivity is reached. I have stated before that what is in the archives can stay there, but it has no bearing on the present possibilities. Letting the past define what you do here is inherently limiting and could potentially become just your story. I may be new to the article, but what I provide is excellent copywriting skills and an almost impeccable desire for objective, peer-reviewed, non-corporate information, something that has been lacking, if we decide to let the history of past edits define our present possibility. This is not my strong suit, however. We are moving forward and the header I decided to be WP:BOLD in writing is arguably the most constructive thing we've had here in ages. Let's get this thing going cool and non-emotive from the jump. Thank you for your input and good luck! Respectfully- Arcana imperii Ascendo tuum 17:17, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
          • We can learn much from the past. If the archives really can show any definitive evidence that a clear 'majority" or 'minority" of opinion exists on any matter relating to the building on the Landmark Education article, let's see it. (Similarly, we can take into account the debates on the Mediation case related to this page: Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-05-21 Landmark Education.) -- Pedant17 01:21, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
            • Pendant, we're not here to discuss about past discussions and personal inklings about them, read the box. OK? Otherwise these comments will start getting deleted. Arcana imperii Ascendo tuum 01:29, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Projected growth rates box

Pendant or Alex (can't tell from edits and my eyesight could be better), I'd remove that box if I were you until the certified document is published by Landmark about their participants, which I understand should be available now, if not soon. Catch AlexJackl on his talk page, he should have immediate access to that info. Arcana imperii Ascendo tuum 17:20, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Not sure what this refers to: have we ever had a box of projections about growth in the Landmark Eduaction article? -- If Landmark Education plans to produce a certified document then I would welcome that, but it would need to traverse the usual barriers against corporate self-published documents before we can process any such work for inclusion in the Wikipedia article. -- Pedant17 01:21, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Alex indicated he has no problem producing this. I think he mentioned they reached a million as of late 2006/early 2007, so your estimates may have been over the mark by a lot. Arcana imperii Ascendo tuum 01:32, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Back to being an encyclopedia article

Let's go back to the idea of Wikipedia of being an encyclopedia. We need reliable references that would include direct experience and other professional observations. Spacefarer 01:25, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

• You know, Spacefarer, I keep mentioning this but no one seems concerned about it and they'll get this article locked again. Arcana imperii Ascendo tuum 01:29, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
• Precisely because we have the task of writing an encyclopedia, we need to minimize any hint of direct experience (unreliable, prejudiced original research) and to concentrate on sourcing material from reliable, published observers and commentators. -- Pedant17 07:20, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
  • I'd looked at my response (while blocked, collateral damage) and needed to strike it out. This is a corporation providing adult education classes. It sounded like I was endorsing the use of testimonials from grads or companies. This is an encyclopedia article, not an advert. This is why I'm wary of the enrollment box, btw. No need for testimonials, or corporate provided data. The following should be standard: third-party, non-corporate, verifiable, peer-reviewed data. I'd prefer it stay that way. Arcana imperii Ascendo tuum 08:39, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Majority references are corporate

Look at the ones on this page? See a non NPOV or bias...or a lack of objectivity? Arcana imperii Ascendo tuum 13:45, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

This will not be an edit war

The block was lifted per conditions that it not be an edit war. Triplejumper, good job on the citations, but see if you can find non-corporate citations. The information I added, that Mvemkr tightened up the wording for was fine the first time. If another citation is needed, I will happily provide. Mvemker edited it so the language was neutral. Let's all stay in check from the jump. Cool? Arcana imperii Ascendo tuum 23:09, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

REMINDER

This is not a forum for general discussion of personal discussions about the subject. Any such messages will be deleted. Please limit discussion to the suggestions on how to improve the content of this article.Arcana imperii Ascendo tuum 19:44, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Removal of non-cited sources

This is probably where we need to start on editing this article. Too many "citation needed" components need to be removed in an brisk fashion. Arcana imperii Ascendo tuum 21:11, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

• In the essence of providing a solid article, it is necessary to find viable, verifiable, non-corporate information to use as citations. I don't see how this policy, used conservatively, would ever present a problem. Arcana imperii Ascendo tuum 23:09, 24 October 2007 (UTC)