Talk:Landmark Worldwide/Archive 2

message: DO NOT EDIT OR POST REPLIES TO THIS PAGE. THIS PAGE IS AN ARCHIVE.
This archive page (Archive 2) covers approximately the dates between 17 November 2005 and 16 August 2006.
Archive 1 covers approximately the dates January 2004 to 16 November 2005.
Post replies to the main talk page, copying or summarizing the section you are
replying to if necessary.
Please add new archivals to Talk:Landmark Education/Archive03. (See Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page.) Thank you.  Kat'n'Yarn 16:39, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: I have moved this comment to the end of the article to preserve the chronological sequence of the discussion.DaveApter 10:49, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Edits in violation of NPOV and Citation of Sources policies

message: (pasted from above)
several significant points of controversy are not addressed in the present article which were moved off into the Talk page below: 1) psychological consequences versus post hoc reasoning, 2) is LE religous or not, 3) does it cause favorable results or not for customers, 4) are assistants volunteering for a for-profit being exploited or not, 5) the whole cult or not controversy (which should be separated into all the points and testimony so rendered), 6) brainwashing or powerful customer value, 7) Werner Erhard: still an influence or not.
I've broken these up into subsections below for easier discussion. please insert relevant discussions into the sections below. FuelWagon 01:58, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: remaining points of controversy needing sources

message: The two legal cases cited in the article (Stephanie Ney) where the jury ruled in LE's favor and the Appeals court found that she could not show proximate physical causality and Been versus Weed with LE as a cross-defendent are the two main references for assertions of adverse psychological effects.   Martin Lell in his book about Brainwashing could also be included in this context with Art Schreiber's rebuttal (that Martin Lell did not say he was brainwashed).
http://www.landmarkeducation.com/uploaded_files/24/LFIF-06.pdf
You could quote item 6. verbatim beginning with "From time to time,"
::Well, that's an interesting little factoid. 1/1000th of a percent? they say there is no correlation, has anyone actually done a study? Does anyone claim a correlation? what's the percentage of suicide/bodily harm for the average american off the street? Any psychologists or therapists who support a linkage or deny a linkage? FuelWagon 04:50, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: psychological consequences versus post hoc reasoning

message: Here is the main attributed adverse assertion I know of:
http://skepdic.com/landmark.html
It is predictable that many participants in self-growth programs will attribute their sense of improvement to the programs they've taken, but much of their reasoning may be post hoc. Furthermore, their sense of improvement might not be matched by improved behavior. Just because they feel they've benefited doesn't mean they have. Research has shown that the feelings of having benefited greatly from participation in an LGAT do not correspond to beneficial changes in behavior (Michael Langone, "Large Group Awareness Training Programs," Cult Observer, v. 15, n. 1, 1998).
Here are some of the positive assertions:
An overview of the independent studies:
http://www.landmarkeducation.com/menu.jsp?top=25&mid=264&bottom=700
http://www.landmarkeducation.com/display_content.jsp?top=21&mid=80&bottom=116&siteObjectID=150
Among the results reported by participants:
One-third experienced a significant increase (of 25% or more) in their incomes after completing The Landmark Forum. Of that group, 94% said The Landmark Forum directly contributed to the increase.
Seven out of 10 people said they worried less about money and became more effective in managing their finances after completing Landmark's programs.
Participants found they were working fewer hours, suggesting they achieved greater balance in their lives.   
http://www.landmarkeducation.com/display_content.jsp?top=21&mid=80&bottom=116&siteObjectID=157
Conclusion 
The set of interventions in the organization produced impressive measurable results: 
• Safety performance improved 50%
• Key benchmark costs were reduced 15-20%
• Return on capital increased by 50%
• Raw steel produced per employee rose 20%
Here is the one from the International Society for Performance Improvement (not on LE's web site):
http://www.ispi.org/services/gotResults/2005/Landmark_Education_GotResults.pdf
:::I've added a new section titled ==Results, post hoc or caused==. Please modify as you see fit. FuelWagon 22:20, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: does it cause favorable results or not for customers

message: http://www.landmarkeducation.com/display_content.jsp?top=26&mid=658
What is Landmark Education's relationship with Werner Erhard? 
For 15 years, Landmark Education has developed leading edge programs in the area of personal training & development, and Landmark's programs are based on research and ideas originally developed by Werner Erhard. Landmark respects and appreciates the enormous contribution of Mr. Erhard's ideas. Mr. Erhard has no financial interest, ownership, or management role in Landmark Education.
http://www.rickross.com/reference/landmark/landmark79.html
Kamin says that Erhard has nothing to do with the organisation now and that his "technology" has been developed and modified by Landmark staff. Kamin denies that Erhard receives any income from Landmark, but he confirms that Erhard's younger brother Harry is Landmark's CEO.
Here is the only sourced assertion I know of asserting otherwise:
http://www.wernererhard.com/wernererhardtimemagazine.htm
Landmark critic Walter Plywaski, a Colorado electronics engineer who took on the company after his daughter ran up a $3,000 tab on courses, thinks Erhard is still pulling the strings. Says he: "Erhard is like the Cheshire Cat. He has gone away, but the smile is there, hanging over everything."
(There are no tests one could perform to determine whether the smile of a Cheshire Cat is hanging over everything, but people at LE do smile a lot. :) )
:how about something like this:
::Some critics state that Werner Erhard is still "pulling the strings" at Landmark Education . Werner's younger brother is Landmark Education's current CEO. Landmark Education states that its programs are based on ideas originally developed by Erhard, but that Erhard has no financial interest, ownership, or management role in Landmark Education.  And in Stephanie Ney v. Landmark Education Corporation , the courts determined that Landmark Education Corporation did not have successor liability to Werner Erhard & Associates, the corporation whose assets Landmark Education purchased.
Yes, I think you could add the date next to each.  The Time article is from 1997 or 1998.   
:that reports the various pov's about the topic. FuelWagon 04:20, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I've added it to the article. Update as you see fit. FuelWagon 04:39, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Werner Erhard: still an influence or not

message: Or, in another interpretation, the negative arguments are, for the most part, spin and spending even as much print space as we have hopelessly skews the article to the negative. 
On Werner:
There is no cover-up about this either.  I can remeber a time in Landamrk where people were unsure of talking about Werner and were unsure of how to reference it so as a matter of practical policy he was not brought up.  This ended up causing confusion amongst those people who never met the guy and knew nothing about him.  That time is over- Werner is now openly talked about.  Harry, his brother, will even mention conversations he had with him and on occassion Werner will visit Landamrk leader trainings.    It is a normal, friendly relationship consistent with the fact that he founded a lot of the distinctions the current technology of Landamrk is based on.   
I have no idea what the fiscal relationship is between Werner and LE but I know it is none of our business and there is no conspiracy about it either.  Do you know the cleaner down the street's fiscal relationship with his brother who founded the clenaing shop twenty years ago?  No?  Oh my god- it must be a conspiracy!!
Sorry for the sarcasm- I think all this stuff about Werner is much ado about nothing.  The only problem is he was a dramatic figure who was in the news a lot and a lot of things were said about him.  Some of those things turned out to be baseless- like the tax fraud accusations and the abusing his daughters things (although I agree with whoever said that there is something wrong in a family when people are even willing to be coerced by money or fame to make accusations like that!). Some turned out to be true (he did leave his wife and run away from his family to California with another woman, he did make good money for the licenses on the WE&A technology).  Some are still unresolved: I have no idea if Scientology really has a "black list" and put him on it (although what happened to him around 1990 has all the earmarks of a smear campaign).  
Overall- just another human being.  Not the messiah, not a cult leader, just a really smart, flawed guy who was committed to something and really started something interesting, powerful, and wih a potential to make a big difference in the world, yet still racked by the flaws, concerns , and issues all human institutions are saddled with.  I think we can safely slack off on the drama about it.
- Alex Jackl 15:21, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Coverup" 

message: This is another area of controversy about LE.
Here is part of LE's POV:
An eight-page article in the March 2001 edition of the journal  Contemporary Philosophy hosted at the University of Colorado at Boulder and co-authored by Professor Steven McCarl and by Landmark Education Business Development CEO Steve Zaffron discusses philosophy and the Landmark Forum under the title "The Promise of Philosophy and the Landmark Forum".  (Readers interested in a detailed discussion from Landmark Education's point of view can read this article - one of the few written articles discussing course content of Landmark Education (aside from the course syllabus - one of Landmark Education's marketing documents.)
http://www.landmarkeducation.com/display_content.jsp?top=26&mid=654
Educational Methodology
Landmark Education's methodology and the results it has produced make Landmark a leader and innovator in the field of training and development. Landmark's technology is drawn from a rich tradition of thinking and research that spans a number of disciplines, from philosophy to linguistics to Zen. Based on a methodology and ideas originally developed by Werner Erhard, Landmark has evolved its unique educational methodology through years of continuous research and development.
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/print/0,3858,4819050-102285,00.html
Over the next three days, we are educated in a mix of philosophies, psychology and religious theories, illustrated by readings from books, plays and one detailed description of the entire plot of Citizen Kane. Including the ending.  The theories expounded cherry pick ideas from existential philosophy and motivational psychology. They take in aspects of Maxwell Maltz's psycho-cybernetics, Zen Buddhism, Alan Watts and Freud. Shadows of Abraham Maslow, Hinduism, Dale Carnegie, Norman Vincent Peale and P.T. Barnum flit over the proceedings.
Adverse POV: (Heidegger for Fun and Profit, 1990)
http://evans-experientialism.freewebspace.com/gottlieb.htm
One main idea behind the Forum is a thesis that is often thought to be Heidegger's, though it in fact owes more to his pupil, Hans-Georg Gadamer. Mr. Gadamer's idea is that people derive their identities from stories they tell about themselves. The Forum's aim is to expose these stories by inducing existentialist anxiety, and then to enable people to construct more empowering stories, which transform them. Sounds easy. It certainly empowers Forum adepts to adopt a great deal of jargon and go off in search of more people to transform.
...
Those who take the Forum phenomenon seriously might see it as an attempt to overthrow the democracy of reason: you cannot debate the Forum, you just start talking its language or you don't. It is replete with the ironies of most minor cults: to open up the possibilities in your own life, you have to be intellectually bombarded by somebody else; to free yourself from the categories of everyday language, you have to be imprisoned in a new jargon that few other people speak.
::So, this is about the topic of "jargon", really, isn't it? Or are people disputing existentialism's validity? I can't quite tell. FuelWagon 07:44, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Course Content / Derivation (Philosophy, P.T. Barnum et al) 

message: I think all the sourced information for and against is now in the article (or at least a majority of it is.) so I did a reorganization of the article to re-interleave the various POV's by topic. So now, a topic like "results" will contain critical views about results as well as favorable views. I think this reads better. FuelWagon 20:10, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: major reorg

message: Hi Pedant17
I don't know what to make of your contributions to this article.  You repeatedly claim to be trying to restore a NPOV, but all your edits are written from an extreme anti-Landmark POV.  Much of what you write is simply your own opinion and has no place in an encyclopedia.  Much else is other unauthorative unsourced opinion.  How recently have you reviewed the NPOV policy to see what it actually says?  Also the policies relating to 'Citation of Sources' and 'Words to Avoid'? DaveApter 11:16, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Further comments

message: Just to clarify one thing, I'm not an admin. I happen to be extremely familiar with NPOV policy and highly controversial wikipedia articles. I haven't combed through the edit by Pendant, but it contained some minor tweaks that I would agree with, as well as containing some major rewrites that I would say breaks NPOV. The minor tweaks were some rare insertions of attribution, such that a sentence would be changed from "The Forum provides blah" to "Landmark Education states that the Forum provides blah." For the most part, it seemed clear to me that it was Landmark Education that was the source, but I don't have a problem with making the reference more direct.
Ok, it was originally the edits, especially those of Pedant17, that, I believe, had DaveApter go looking for outside assistance.   Sometimes Pedant17 adds things which are consistent with NPOV, but very frequently, as in the edits I referred to, they are A) unsourced, B) his personal opinions (and, yes, others do hold those opinions as well, but that is not the point), C) twisting of statements that are, in fact, sourced.
We still have many more controversial points to add about LE.  The stuff that we put in the archive is all stuff people (journalists mostly) have written about LE (both pro/con), so we will have to source it and get it in there.  I thinking about this, I think the final article structure should evolve to something that reflects two major controversies:  1) What is it (education or something else, a long list of items to consider) and 2) what does it cause (favorable results per the studies, nothing per certain criticism or "psychological damage" as has also been asserted in rare cases).  Sm1969 16:46, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: clarification

message: So, I read the heidigger for fun and profit article, and I'm not sure how relevant it is. Most of the article is criticizing heidigger for being a nazi and completely un-understandable. The tail end mentions some folks who used Heidigger to get rich, the last couple paragraphs talk about how Werner Erhardt used Heidigger to create EST, and how it is completely un-understandable. The last paragraph or so then says that EST became the forum in 1990. Generally, I don't like articles that go out of their way to satisfy Godwin's law, and whether Heidigger was a nazi or not seems quite irrelevant to whether or not Landmark is good or bad. It seems to be a wildly loose application of "guilt by someone else's association". Landmark came from Est, est came from heidigger, heidigger was a nazi, tehrefore landmark is a nazi, or at least very bad. I'm not sure how to include this in the article without introducing a wildly biased view. thoughts? FuelWagon 15:11, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree.  The article certainly does not appear to be a 'notable source' even on the subject of Heidigger, much less on Erhard or Landmark.  I think the influence of Heidigger is exaggerated anyway - a short quotation from his work is given to illustrate a point in the Communication Course, but he is only one of dozens of thinkers who are quoted somewhere or other in Landmark courses, as well as many dozens more who have had some influence on the underlying ideas. DaveApter 17:02, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: heidigger

message: I think the article is in pretty good shape as far as making sure all claims and criticisms are sourced. I was thinking that maybe we could review the requirements for qualifying for Featured Article status, make sure the article meets those requirements, and then when we think it is ready, nominate the article for Featured Article status. When the Terri Schiavo article was nominated, they wanted all the URL's in footnote format. I'm not sure if that's a hard requirement or not, but it's one thing to look into. I think the content is in good shape, we just may need to do some formatting stuff, and then it would be ready for nomination. Any thoughts? Anyone more familiar with Featured Article requirements? FuelWagon 18:35, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I deleted most of the unsourced claims because they seemed to be too generic to find a source. If you want to find a source for stuff, go for it. As for quantitative participation/revenue data, I'm not sure what the point would be. As for pictures, what would you get a picture of? a bunch of people in a room? One thing that I did notice is that there are a lot of statements about what Landmark "is" that do not have sources or URL's. Where did this information come from? When the article states "Landmark says its programs are blah", where did this come from. I'd like to see URL's to the stuff that is already in the article. FuelWagon 16:09, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: featured article?

message: What criteria are there for including "links" in the "links" section at the bottom of the article?    Some links are to sites that have defamatory and discredited allegations.  Others are to personal web sites.  Can any of these be struck?
:sorry for the delayed response. been busy. try Wikipedia:External links. FuelWagon 17:10, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criteria for Links 

message: This article is so clearly NPOV, with a large portion having been written and/or conveniently edited by someone who is clearly affiliated with Landmark. A lot of it sounds more like an advertisement or justification than an encyclopedia worthy entry
What specifically are you objecting to?  Much of what is here today went through an process of getting outside assistance from someone with no affiliation with LE and a very large section of it has now been sourced.  NPOV is, perhaps, not what you think it is.  NPOV, per the Wikipedia definition, is citing all sources of significant opinion and attributing them.  We have sourced Landmark Education's opinion and the opposing opinions in many instances. If you can find better articulations of the opposing opinions, so long as they have a certain level of frequency, you should update them (with referenceable sources).  Sm1969 10:23, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  So very NPOV 

message: However, in the Stephanie Ney case the court did order Werner Erhard (in absentia) in a default judgement  to pay more that $500,000 in damages for "mental injuries" (Pressman, 1993: 262).)
Again, had Werner Erhard contested this, he would have won.  Even your Pressman book notes this.  Instead, Werner left the country.  You can certainly put this on the Werner Erhard page, but even there you should not that the jury finding of fact was against the "intentional infliction of emotional distress" (the legal tort for mental injuries).
:I missed any inference from "my" Pressman that Erhard would have "won". And I've not seen a source for the legal detail apart from what appears in Pressman's book. The finding that participation in a Forum course resulted in a judgement to pay more than half a million US dollars for "mental injuries" seems worthy of note on a page to which Landmark Forum re-directs. - Pedant17 01:25, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stephanie Ney -- Default judgement;  move to Werner Erhard 

message: I revised the entry to make it clear what is being quoted.  The quotes are accurate, and in context.  
This is not inflammatory in that it accurately reflects the complaint.  The purpose here is to reflect complaints against Landmark.
The fact that the alleged circumstances were, as the plaintiff herself indicates, outrageous is not a reason to shield the public from the fact that Landmark was sued for its alleged negligence leading to this allegedly outrageous result.
: And I took it out again, on the grounds that this degree of prurient detail doesn;t enhance the article, especially since it's only an allegation and was never formally corroborated by a conviction. In my view it violates this provision of the NPOV policy:
::    * Sensationalism, which is bias in favor of the exceptional over the ordinary. This includes the practice whereby exceptional news may be overemphasized, distorted or fabricated...
DaveApter 10:13, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: =========

message: It is clear that your own point of view is that Landmark Education is in some way harmful and worthy of criticism ( although you have repeatedly declined invitations to indicate your own experiences and evidence leading to your adopting this view).  You have made repeated attempts to have this point of view represented disproportionately in this Wikipedia article.
You have repeatedly introduced phrasings intended to cast doubt upon any statements or evidence which casts LE in any kind of positive light, while going to great lengths to include and emphasise references critical of it, however marginal or dubious they may be.
The case made by critics is that one or more of the following opinions applies to LE:
*that it produces bad consequences for a significant proportion of participants
*that it fails to produce the claimed benefits reliably
*that it is in some sense fraudulent.
This is the slant that you are repeatedly trying to introduce into the article.
However, when we examine these claims in detail, they turn out to be totally unsubstantiated. For one thing, the actual number of cases where specific allegations of harm resulting from paritcipation in Landmark programs are on the record is infinitesimal as a proportion of number of customers.  That is even assuming that the allegations are regarded as justified. But my second point is that wherever there has been any rigorous examination of the claim, it has not been proven.
The repeated references to 'brainwashing' and 'cult' are also dishonest and misleading.  Some commentators have used these terms in a loose colloquial sense, and critics repeatedly attempt to confuse the loose casual usage with the specific factual use of the terms, which - if true - would be a very serious accusation.
As far as 'brainwashing' is concerned, it is not clear that it has any specific clear meaning except in a context where someone is being seriously maltreated while being held against their will, eg at a facility such as Guantanamo Bay or a Prison Camp.  Clearly nothing like that applies to a Landmark Seminar.
As far as the 'cult' conversation is concerned, the word used in a meaningful sense implies that an organisation shows most of the following characteristics:
*it has a charismatic leader, often though to be infallible or divinely graced
*it has a set of doctrines that followers are required to believe unquestioningly
*it encourages its followers to adopt specific life-styles, habits, practices, clothing, or diets
*it encourages its followers to break with family and friends, and may suggest that they live communally
*it takes a substantial portion of their income and assets
None of those apply to LE: There is no single leader, it is run by a board of directors who are elected annually by the shareholders, who are also the staff members; It has no specific beliefs, only various propositions which customers are encouraged to 'try out, and see whether they are useful'; It encourages and empowers customers to seek out and create a life-style which suits them; It encourages customers to be in communication with their friends and families, and to strengthen their relationships with them; It solicits no money or other dues, apart from the (extremely cheap - typically £2.50 per hour, and often much less) tuition fees for whatever courses an individual chooses to register into.
If you want to air your prejudices to a group who share them, I suggest you conribute to one of the many unmoderated discussion groups, not on Wikipedia. Thank you. DaveApter 12:46, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Dave - Thanks for your incisive and timely critique and advice. - Pedant17 00:58, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Further responses to Pedant17

message: Although there was little information at the time of the suits filed there is a basis to assign blame for the psychotic episodes but est is not completely to blame. 
The manner in which the Large Group Training Sessions are held allows the creation of "special circumstances" creating a critical level of exposure from Visual Subliminal Distraction. 
The phenomenon was discovered when it caused mental breaks for knowledge workers using the first movable close-spaced office workstations. The Cubicle solved the problem by 1968.
Those who experienced mental breaks would have been previously exposed so that intense exposure during the training session pushed them over the edge.
The same mental breaks happen when Qi Gong or Kundalini Yoga users perform too many sessions in a compact time frame. 
http://visionandpsychosis.net/QiGong_Psychotic_Reaction_Diversion.htm
http://visionandpsychosis.net/Kundalini_Yoga_Psychotic_Episode.htm
A longer discussion is on these site pages. 
Subliminal Accidental Operant Conditioning is suggested as the acting force in the training seminars.
http://visionandpsychosis.net/EST_Werner_Erhard.htm
They have also happened on polar scientific expeditions, Belgium 1898, and Russian space missions, Soyuz 21.
http://visionandpsychosis.net/Astronauts_Insanity.htm
The phenomenon can be demonstrated with a simple psychology experiment, habituation of the notice you take of movement in peripheral vision. 
http://visionandpsychosis.net/a_demonstration_you_can_do.htm
L K Tucker 68.223.107.250 05:00, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Psychotic Episodes Associated With est

message: The results section, and the subsection called Post Hoc do not really seem to contain any content.  Maybe there are some results, maybe not, and a researcher has said, hey, who knows?  Is this useful to the reader? 22:37, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Results section

message: :: Made some POV changes to the "Landmark Education "qua" education" section (entertaining title by the way).  Clearly some axe grinding going on so I just kept the basic content as I felt it wasn't illegitemate and just made it a little more balanced.  It is still a little inflammatory but is better now.  Pedant: I will take a look at your past few revisions and comment in a few days.   Alex Jackl 13:46, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks Alex. The section could do with some additions too: on coaching, for example. - Pedant17 03:03, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Landmark Education "qua" education changes

message: The suggestion from Sm1969 that books "go out of print
because they need to take such extreme positions to go into print and
then they are gone, as happened with Pressman, Lell and Samways" provides a possibility, but an unconvincing one.
It may seem tempting to conclude that such works as W W Bartley's Werner Erhard: The Transformation of a Man: The Founding of EST or Jane Self's 60 Minutes and the Assassination of Werner Erhard: How America's Top Rated Television Show Was Used in an Attempt to Destroy a Man Who Was Making A Difference have gone out of print because of someone taking some extreme positions. But other possibilities exist. Publishers may misread the (potential) market. Subject-matter (such as Erhard and his spin-offs) may go out of fashion or simply lose prominence. Published works may achieve their authors' crusading purposes. Better or more modern books and ideas may eclipse the old ones. Just to identify a few alternative possibilities.
One interesting situation relating to the marketing of books occurs when people with influence attempt to distort the flow of printed matter by manipulating publication and/or distribution. We've seen how Landmark Education, for example, failed to prevent the publication of Martin Lell's book with its inflammatory subtitle translating to  "Account of a Brainwashing: The Psycho-Outfit Landmark Education". Another case of potential attempted distortion of book distribution emerges with the statement from the "new" Cult Awareness Network (CAN):
:"h. CAN also understands that Landmark would prefer that CAN not sell at all copies of a biography of Werner Hans Erhard by Steven Pressman entitled OUTRAGEOUS BETRAYAL (St. Martin's Press 1993) (the "Pressman Book"). CAN has not previously considered whether, after its emergence from bankruptcy, CAN would consider it appropriate to sell copies of the Pressman Book at all, for any purpose. In the interests of settling a dispute and in deference to Landmark's preference, however, CAN now agrees not to sell the Pressman Book for at least five years after CAN emerges from bankruptcy." 
Just a couple of examples of a form of incipient would-be censorship to place alongside the 2004 attempt by Landmark Education to claim damages from the Rick Ross Institute relating to the Institute's web-site materials relating to Landmark Education.
A last (but not least) possibility that might prove a factor in some books going out of print: in recent years this Internet thing has influenced the book market. People with important messages that they wish to communicate may set up a web-site or a blog where once they might have published (or re-published) a pamphlet or a book. The online self-publishing phenomenon makes "publishing" cheaper and easier than in the past. it also makes books relatively more precious than on-line content, since books have more likely profited from the selectivity of a publisher, from the advice of an editor and from the warnings of lawyers.
The implication that books which go out of print "are gone" exaggerates the situation. Apart from second-hand book establishments, libraries ( particulary serious libraries and libraries of record) collect and preserve books quite assiduously. I recommend libraries.
Books, in short, -- even out-of-print books -- continue to have relevance for reference and research purposes, and may well survive better than much of the contemporary electronic ephemera. The fact that some (many, even most) books go out of print eventually does not necessarily reflect on their accuracy or their authority or their importance.
- Pedant17 03:03, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  On books going out of print

message: Sm1969 has noted that in contradistinction to books going out of print:
: the statistics confirm that Landmark Education is growing despite these temporary interjections. We can verify the statistics by going to LE's web site and seeing how many Forums, for example, are scheduled. Thus, my conclusion regarding the temporary nature of the books (loss of interest in the books versus loss of interest in LE) is better substantiated in verifiable evidence.
I see some problems with this argument as expressed.
Scheduled Landmark Forums may not provide a good indicator of growth/decline in the popularity even of Landmark Education courses. Even if scheduled manifestations of the Landmark Forum always take place as scheduled, we do not know how many people attend each one. Even if we had a reliable average figure of numbers attending, we do not know how many repeating attendees lurk behind the numbers. Even if we could learn what proportion of attendees provide fresh blood at the Landmark-Forum level we gain little insight into growth/decline of Landmark Education's numerous other course offerings from Landmark Forum figures alone. And even if we obtained clean figures for this, there would remain, at all levels, the issue of attendees dropping out.
Overall then, necessarily fuzzy estimates of growth/decline of interest in Landmark Education do not compare compatibly with growth/decline of interest in books, where we can expect publishers (at least) to have accurate records of the numbers of volumes printed, the numbers sold and the numbers pulped.
Note too that electronic publishing may have recently impacted on the book trade, distorting the perceived popularity of ideas as measured by volumes printed.
Moreover, the correlation between popularity of books and popularity of Landmark Education appears questionable. The two products have somewhat different markets, very different marking methods, and widely divergent influences affecting their sustainability and profitability. No necessary linkage or correlation exists.Such "verifiable evidence" as we have substantiates nothing overall. Landmark Education enrolments have grown, but over the same period the price of a barrel of crude oil has grown more in relative terms. So what?
- Pedant17 03:03, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  On statistics and trends in popularity 

message: DaveApter detects an inaccuracy in the claim that est training sometimes suffices as a prerequisite for taking part in Landmark Education courses, and points out that "the est training does not provide a qualification for registering into Landmark graduate courses."
That formulation appears to match current Landmark Education policy for "Landmark graduate courses". But the text as I last edited it did not confine itself narrowly to current policy nor to "graduate" courses, specifically stating: 
::Landmark Education currently regards doing the Landmark Forum (or in some cases the predecessor est training) as a pre-requisite for registering into any other Landmark course, with the possible current exception of Landmark Education Business Development offerings."
Without having set up an experiment to test whether non-graduates can purchase the Landmark Education courses available on CD: ("Relationships: Love, Intimacy, & Freedom" and "Causing the Miraculous"), I would point out that the Landmark Education website advertises, (under a separate rubric from the "Graduate Programs") "The Landmark Family Coaching Session":  "Open to the public, this program... ". The page for "The Family Coaching Session" itself says: 
:"This program is available to anyone over the age of 18, as well as people under 18 who are graduates of The Landmark Forum. This single-evening session is conducted from 7:00 p.m. to 11:00 p.m. Prerequisite: None"
The Landmark Education website  also touts the offerings of its fully-owned subsiary,  "Landmark Education Business Development" (LEBD). I detect no mention of specified prerequisites for LEBD courses on the LEBD webpages.
DaveApter also points out that Landmark Education's 'Causing the Miraculous" seminar has an implied prerequisite that participants have "completed" the Landmark forum. Well, surprise, surprise: Landmark Education has changed the rules! I remember how, at the time when Landmark Education introduced this seminar, the publicity made a special pitch to encourage est graduates (as opposed to the other target audience, Landmark Forum graduates) to attend. 
This may exemplify an overall pattern. When Landmark Education first began offerring seminars and courses in 1991, it recognised veterans of est and of Werner Erhard and Associates (WE&A) courses as having fulfilled requirements for embarking on the non-Forum courses as appropriate. To have started the credentialling process from scratch immediately whould have interrupted the flow in the ongoing series of courses that Landmark Education wanted to sell to its pre-approved repeat-custom clientele. 
Later, one might reasonably surmise, Landmark Education would want to milk its graduate body further by encouraging its members to re-qualify for "higher" courses under new rules. Thus the situation with "Graduate courses" and their prerequisite conditions today.
My formulation of the situation in my last edit, "Landmark Education currently regards... " glossed over but covered these details. The bald statement that replaced my text: "Completing the Landmark Forum is a pre-requisite for registering into any other Landmark Education course" disregards the historic facts and over-simplifies the present policy of Landmark Education.
- Pedant17 03:03, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Prerequisites for taking part in Landmark Education courses

message: I don't mean this in a bad way - but given all the more substantive issues we are dealing with is not this topic really much ado about nothing and angels dancing on heads of pins?  I mean 99% of the time it is true that the Landmark Forum is a pre-requisite for Landamrk's courses.  Introductions (obviously) and some Family courses not withstanding it is primarily and for all practical purposes a truism.  So- who cares?  I don't mind if we softwen the statement to add "with osme expections" or some such but I don't think it matters.  
Historically I think the Landmark leadership struggled with how to include the people who participated in the Forum before Landmark and even those that did est.  Not that is all sufficiently in the past that I don't believe it really comes up any more.  Now, it comes down to "requiring Landamrk Forum " or Not.  est is pretty much out of the picture. 
- Alex Jackl 04:45, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Much Ado About Nothing

message: DaveApter regards the contributed "Operational Statistics" section as "lenghty, tedious irrelevant" and has removed the section as "spurious". 
I repeat my previous and so-far unrefuted comment on the matter: "I attempted to provide a precise, careful reflection of the wording and numbers published (principally) by Landmark Education itself. If one believes statements made by Landmark Education, one could regard these figures as "facts" about the history of the Landmark Forum. Even if one regards Landmark Education as a business, figures relating to growth may interest readers. - Pedant17 13:55, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that accurate and authoratitive statistics would be helpful. I removed your paragraph because it was lengthy and repetitions, and failed to provide a lot in the way of reliable information.  It was impossible to avoid the impression that your main intention was to mischievously flag up the fact that LE is clearly a bit sloppy in updating the statistics on that web page (having shown a figure of 600,000 three years running.  On other occasions you have tried to promote the opinion that interest in LE's courses is declining, whereas they are clearly still attracting substantial numbers. DaveApter 14:25, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Operational statistics section

message: Sm1969 states: "Another article reference that I have a problem with is the Eileen Barker article on New Religous Movements, which also has zero references to Landmark Education."
I presume that the expressed "problem" relates to the reference to Barker's book, New Religious Movements. That book, written by a prominent scholar who has expressed skepticism on the matter of cults, nevertheless offers an explanation as to why people accuse certain movements of brainwashing. Given that the popular perception of Landmark Education frequently associates it with brainwashing, Barker's insights seem useful and relevant to a discussioin of Landmark Education, and especially so in a discussion of Landmark Education's alleged brainwashing. As it so happens, Barker's comments tend to question rather than to endorse the notion that groups such as Landmark Education actually may practise brainwashing.
Barker's book appeared in 1989, just before Landmark Education emerged as the successor-owner of the intellectual property, the telephone-lists and the practices of est and of Werber Erhard and Associates. Excluding Barker's work from consideration of brainwashing in the late 20th century on the grounds of timing would resemble discussing a new development in genetic engineering without the freedom to reference Darwin, or banning discussion of Von Neumann's publications in a consideration of Java programming. 
- Pedant17 03:03, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Barker on NRMs

message: This argument does assume a twice-removed causal link if you don't accept the initial premise that Landmark is brainwashing (which I by the way find little to no evidence for).  Better for people interetsted in concepts and subtleties around brainwashing to go somewhere else than this article.  There is enough mention in the article of certian people thoughts on Landamrk being associated with brainwashing that any more would begin bending POV balance far too much (In My Opinion)
Alex Jackl 04:36, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: A quick response

message: Sm1969 makes the intriguing suggestion that "Landmark Education is not "est".
On a certain superficial level, this suggestion appears accurate: differently-named courses presented by differently-named enities at different times may have changed/developed/transformed.
But equally -- and perhaps even at a more fundamental level -- est gave rise to Landmark Education, and Landmark Education inherits and reflects est.
If at some point in time Landmark Education repudiated est and all its works, forms, methods and practices, let's hear about it. In the meantime, we can assume some sort of connection between est and Landmark Education, between Werner Erhard and Associates and Landmark Education LLC, and between the est training and the Landmark Forum. 
In light of this I set up a "Est and Landmark Education" section in the "History" section of the Landmark Education article as a likely spot for discussion of the inheritances and the differences connecting and contrasting the two phenomemena. I take the view that part of history involves coming to terms with the past and making a distinction between past and present. Our very discussion of this topic (est and Landmark Education) reflects the importance and widespread perception of some sort of connection, which a serious encyclopedic treatment of Landmark Education needs to address. ( However, I see that a subsequent edit has eviscerated the "History" section and removed my contributions as expressing "extreme minority opinion".)
 Sm1969 goes on to suggest that in comparing est and Landmark Education "in order for anyone to truly make that comparison, you would have to have someone (a credible source) do both programs and then make the comparison."
 
I disagree on the necessity for such an approach: indeed, a comparison using this method would provide very little useful data. Any study based on a person (or even multiple people), however "credible", "do[ing] both programs" would fall into the trap of what I think of as the experience fallacy. Psychologists know that we cannot rely on reports of experience. Lawyers, though they have to deal with the personal experiences of their clients, also know how unreliably their reports can reflect actual events. Physical scientists trust calibrated equipment rather than their own impressions. Even parapsychologists have started to learn that what their subjects report counts for very little. But marketers of Landmark Education have yet to learn the perils of relying on the personal account.
If we wish to compare est and Landmark Education (and I believe we must do so in order to gain some understanding of many aspects of the Landmark Education story and phenomenon), we can more profitably employ better forms of evidence: slightly more subtle (but more reliable) indirect methods. The insights of published researchers such as Barker and Pressman provide one valid place from which to start.
:Again, while I agreed with you that Pressman's book is marginally Wikipedia worthy, very, very little of it concerns Landmark Education.  For an encyclopedia, you could compare customer experiences of est and Landmark Education (if you could show that they are somehow representative) or take the viewpoint of an external observer of both organizations, and then, again, show that that opinion is somehow representative;  finally, you would have to come up with weightings of both opinions.  71.146.141.40 20:23, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: est and Landmark Education

message: To be totally frank I usually disagree with you, Pedant- not on everything but on a lot.  It seems like you have some axe to grind.  Please no insult- I am only expressing my opinion and perception.  I could be wrong. 
In this case, though, I think you raise an interesting question:  How do you compare two things that by their nature are experential and do not come with pre-ordained specific measures.  
I have done the Landmark Forum and not done the est training.  Frankly, everything I know about the est Training is from est graduates accounts, newspaper and magazine articles, and books.   I think I would be a bad judge for comparing the est training with the current Landmark Forum. Partly because a lot of the people who have told stories about the Landmark Forum- including published accounts- are so off the mark.  Because of this I need to assume at least as bad an accuracy drift in the published accounts on the est Training.   Therefore - who knows?  
I think you are totally worng as well about there being any advantage to not having been at one.  That is how Cold Fusion happened.  Enough people believed what they heard without trying it themselves- once peopel started trying it - the story unraveled.  Same deal here.  I have no repsect for anyone who claims to be able to analyze the Landmark Forum with ANY depth who hasn't studied it directly.  That is just good rigor in an investigation or a study.  
Anecdotal and second hand accounts do not good science or good reporting make although both have to make do occassionally when they need to.  
My advice: Don't listen to people spouting off about something they have not studied in detail.  If they have studied the socisaological phenomenon by interviewing people who have done it and want to talk about that GREAT- but all you are doing is polling people 's opinions then.  It is one level of depth and does not compare with direct study.
SOoo... that being said I think a section on est and Landmark might be useful but it is such ancient history it should be a small section. Landamrk does not at all by the way deny it is connected hisotrically with the est Training.  Werner Erhardt is clearly the originator of a lot of the initial "technology" Landmark started with and many of Landamrk's original founding memebers working with Erhard in WE&A and est.  There are no dark secrets in that at all. 
- Alex Jackl 02:39, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: What makes a good comparison?

message: Sm1969 states: Your "debunking" of the surveys is unattributed POV and your own analysis. You can say that the survey methodology was not disclosed, but adding the term "debunking" violates the attribution policy. You also have the reputations of these large marketing research companies (Yankelovich and Harris).
I accept that my use of the word "debunking" slightly overstated my case.
I did not previously realise that I had "the reputations of these large marketing research companies (Yankelovich and Harris)".
I have nothing against Harris Interactive doing surveys and know nothing of the reputation of that organization. But surveys of participants have inherent problems (self-reporting, organizational taint...), and the fact that Landmark Education's website does not disclose details of the methodology of the survey makes the results of this Harris Interactive survey very questionable.
The case against the DYG survey has more sinister overtones. The Landmark Education website touts a "Full Survey" but fails to provide methodology details (once again). That does not necessarity reflect on DYG or on Daniel Yankelovich, it simply demonstrates Landmark Education's apparent inability to pass on meaningful information -- as promised in the phrase "Full Survey" -- in this respect. I do wonder, though, at the accuracy of Landmark Education's apprent implication that "Internationally recognized social scientist, Daniel Yankelovich surveyed more than 1300 people" in person. Note too that Yankelovich personally endorses Landmark Education in his book The Magic of Dialog (2001, pages 143 - 144). Does this expressed published opinion have any potential bearing on the independence and the impartiality of the administration and interpretation of the DYG survey? Landmark Education, while praising Yankelovich, does not even give us the date of that survey, let alone any precautions taken against any perceivable bias.
- Pedant17 03:03, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Generally, the job of the encyclopedia is just to define the positions and not comment on them or editorialize them.  You should be faithful to the context.  71.146.141.40 20:27, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Reputations and surveys

message: The text:
:"In her foreword to Lell's book on Landmark Education (Lell, 1997, page 8), the psychologist Baerbel Schwertfeger quotes a book from the early 1980s (with a foreword by Werner Erhard) as stating that est (Landmark Education's predecessor orgaization) "is Scientology without the hocus-pocus".
has disappeared from the article with the comment "Reference is on est, not LE".
Schwertfeger wrote her comments in the preface to a book on Landmark Education. Her mention of est she evidently considered relevant to Landmark Education in this context. As Landmark Education has undoubted links with est -- not least the purchase of its intellectual property via Werner Erhard and Associates, Schwertfeger's comment merits inclusion in a discussion of the philosophical origins of Landmark Education's activities. (We need citations for the people who have compared Landmark Education ideas to those of "Heidegger, Richard Rorty, Sartre, Fernando Flores [...]  Westernized and popularized Zen ... Socrates [and] Wittgenstein" as well...)
- Pedant17 03:03, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Schwertfeger on est and Landmark Education

message: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Landmark_Education&diff=44789706&oldid=44789664 Changing this heading in the article to "Management" implies that the Landmark Forum leaders that it discusses count as managers. It also precludes the inclusion of historical figures, prominent in Landmark Education, who no longer rank (or never ranked) as "Management". They too deserve a place in this hall of infamy.
- Pedant17 03:03, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Prominent Landmark Education figures

message: I am really curious....
- Alex Jackl 05:34, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Who did you have in mind?

message: In the "Management" article, there appeared to be a sort of random collection of people; some of whom appeared to hold positions of management and others who did not.  I researched other major companies to see what their articles said about their management persons/structure and found very little (please see: Tony Robbins, The Learning Company, Target Corporation, and Wal-Mart).  At most, I discovered a list of Wal-Mart board members and a link to a very brief biography of the company's CEO.  Even Tony Robbins article gave only a minimal description of Mr. Robbins personal life.  While the heads of a company are pertinent and important to an informational article about a company—the slew of disjointed employees is not, and calls into question the NPOV of that article.  I’ve removed all names from the management page with the exception of the CEO of Landmark Education, Harry Rosenberg, and the CEO of Landmark Education Business Development, Steve Zaffron. Blondie0309 16:15, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Management Cleanup

message: DaveApter has changed the text:
:(This book has gone out of print, like all printed books dealing specifically with Landmark Education, and the publisher's web-site no longer notes Lell as one of their current authors.)
to read:
:(This book is out of print, and the publisher's web-site no longer notes Lell as one of their current authors.)
with the comment: "remoed marginal minority opinion".
I know of no evidence that makes the legitimate comment on books going out of print a "marginal minority opinion". I await evidence of facts or definitive refutation before accpting this undue POV highlighting of out-of-printedness.The Lell book, as THE published book on Landmark Education, has particular resonance for our Landmark Education article. Have other books specifically devoted to Landmark Education ever even appeared in print, let alone remained in print? 
- Pedant17 03:03, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: POV on out-of-print-books

message: Other editors have transformed "Various opinions on Landmark Education" into "Generally unfavorable opinions on Landmark Education".
Let me repeat what I stated in a previous discussion:
:the section sometimes labelled "Generally Critical Opinions" contains links to trenchant defenses of Landmark Education as well as links to doubters and detractors and links to sites which attempt, however vainly, to provide room for balanced or mixed views. A previous schema which divided sources into three - pro, anti and mixed - seemed to difficult to maintain consistently. - Pedant17 00:58, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well yes you did say that, but is there any truth in it? I'd previously made my comments on your misleading re-naming of this section, and it gets tedious just going back and forth making the same points.  There are 13 links in that section. Ten of them are implacably and deliberately hostile to Landmark (and generally inaccurate, but that's a matter for people to investigate and evaluate for themselves). The remaining three (the alt/fan/landmark newgroup and the two versions of rantsandraves) may contain an occasional post by a supporter, but are 95% dominated by critics. It's just another example of your deliberately trying to skew the article. DaveApter 08:53, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: "General opinions" heading

message: There doesn't seem to be much of a meeting of minds here.  And the same points keep getting made ad nauseam. Can we just pause to take stock of the situation?
What facts on this subject can we be sure of?
1) Tens of thousands of people from dozens of countries do the Landmark Forum every year, and tens of thousands also do other courses offered by Landmark Education. The majority of those who do the Landmark Forum do at least one other Landmark Course.
2) The majority of those who do it report that they got worthwhile results, that it represented good value for money, and was well worth the time spent.
3) A large proportion of those who do Landmark courses recommend them to their friends, family and colleagues.
4) Some people who did the Landmark Forum subsequently said that they didn't like it and/or didn't get useful results.
5) Some acquaintances of people who did Landmark courses don't like the apparent effects.
6) Some acquaintances of people who did Landmark courses do like the apparent effects.
7) Some people have formed an opinion that Landmark courses are harmful in some way, at least for some participants.
8) Some journalists have written articles critical of Landmark Education.
9) Some journalists have written articles giving a substantially positive account of Landmark Education.
10) Some people have from time to time given the opinion that Landmark Education is a cult.
11) Landmark Education has none of the characteristics that define a cult.
12) Some people have from time to time given the opinion that Landmark Education uses "brainwashing" techniques.
In order to give "due weight" to the differing opinions above, we need to have some idea of the numbers of people who hold them, and what is the basis for their opinion, and what is the expertise and reputation of the people who express them.
Regarding (2), the only specific sources we have are the surveys quoted in the article. Pedant and ODB want to have these disregarded entirely because of a lack of detail on the methodology, but they give no evidence whatsoever for any alternative estimates, still less any sources for such.  Anyone can get a feel for the spectrum of reactions to the Landmark Forum by going along to any Tuesday evening session.  What is invariably observed is over 90% entirely satisfied with what they have just been through. In my experience typically 0, 1 or 2 people (out of 150-200) leave during the course, and 0, 1 or 2 are complaining at the end.
Regarding (4), the only evidence is the complaints on various bulletin boards and discussion forums and on sites maintained by implacable critics.  Most are anonymous so we have no way of evaluating the authority and reliability of the writer. Even if we take all at face value, and assume that all are distinct individuals, the total number is an infinitesimal proportion of the numbers who have done the Landmark Forum.  Many of these openly admit that they didn't do the assignments and/or didn't keep the promises they made at the start of the course, so perhaps it's not surprising they didn't experience any benefits.
Regarding (5) and (6), reaction of acquaintances, there appears to be no objective data, but it clearly isn't universal that acquaintances are spooked by the effects of Landmark courses.  My estimate is that more find their friends to be more energetic, honest, reliable and/or empathic etc. than complain about them becoming "obsessed" or "weird" etc.
Regarding (7), harmful effects, the number of identifiable alleged cases in support of this is insignificant in relation to the number of landmark Customers (less than 0.001%), and in none of them is a clear-cut link established anyway.
Regarding (8) and (9), journalistic appraisal, there seem to me to be at least as many items giving an essentially positive account, and the proportion seems to be much higher in the "serious" rather than "sensationalist" part of the press spectrum. It's up to individuals to review the sources and come to their own conclusions.
Regarding (10), "cult" allegations, the only identifiable accusers are a handful of self-appointed "cult experts". Clearly they have a vested interest in scaremongering, and a vested interest in refusing to own up to misjudgements. Furthermore none of them have observed Landmark courses themselves, nor do they show any convincing evidence of accurate knowledge of Landmark's methodology. On every occasion where they have had to either justify or retract the accusation, they have chosen to retract. Yet they continue to maintain the stance they have explicitly disavowed, eg by selectively publishing hostile anonymous opinions on their websites whilst asserting a lack of accountability for the same.
Regarding (12), the "brainwashing" debate, the only sources that Pedant has managed to come up with are an offhand comment in an article in a lifestyle and gossip magazine, and one book that never made it into the English language writtten by one disgruntled customer 13 years ago and long out of print. The author has no credentials in the field and could not confirm when cross-examined under oath that he had been brainwashed anyway. Does this really count as a 'notable source'?  On the other had we have attributable opinions by eminent psychiatrists and religious leaders that there is no resemblance to brainwashing. Does this really justify the best part of a screenful in the article dealing with this topic?
In short, although the article notes that "Landmark Education and its methods evoke considerable controversy, with passionate opinions held both by supporters and by detractors," it turns out that a search for notable sources for the detractors' position fails to come up with much.  It is almost impossible to find credible authorities citing actual facts or reliable evidence to back up the criticisms levelled.  Against this background, the article already gives considerable space to airing their views.  Pedant's edits invariably have the impact in total of emphasising negative opinions and undermining supportive views.
Pedant17 clearly reveals a strong anti-Landmark POV in his comments on this page.  Of course he is perfectly entitled to that. What he is not entitled to do is make repeated attempts to hijack this article to propagandize his own viewpoint. DaveApter 13:51, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well said, I would be happy to have a moderator come in and look at some of Pedant's prior edits and their deliberately sarcasm to show the insignificant minority positions he is overweighting.  Pedant, for whatever reason, it might be time for you to forgive Landmark Education.  71.146.141.40 20:31, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Summary 

message: 1. I made a series of changes that I consider corrections against POV attacks on the site. 
2. There is an LGAT page.  It is currently appropriately referenced that some consider Landmark to be an LGAT. All the rest is fine material for someone to put up on the LGAT page.  Just to make it easier for someone to do this I added an explicit reference to the LGAT page for anyone interested.
3.  People should sign in if they are going to make edits.  I am not interested in debating with an IP address. 
4. At least half of the "References" where not appropriate to this page - they were about Cults, LGATs and other things.  I considered just renaming the section "Unfavorable Landamrk Education References" but then decided that that was just catering to a POV attack on what is supposed to be a NPOV article so I took it out.  There is a cult page and there is   an LGAT page.  I think the poster of that section should feel free to go to work on those pages OR OR 
5. Recommend some references here on the Talk page and let's get some agreement that they represent the subject in a NPOV way and then let's post them.  
6. I am happy to discuss any of these changes- I am too busy and don't have time for a soapbox.  However, I will maintain the integrity of the pages I am watching or call in a moderator if the attacks get to be too much.
- Alex Jackl 00:35, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: My Recent Changes

message: Rading this article I find a subtle bias in favour of Landmark. I dont have an oppion either way on Landmark I just think the article should be more neutral.
===Bias: Negative or Positive?=== 
I believe this article is trapped in that form of debate centered around false duality.  Do people think an article on banana trees should have 50% stuff negative about banana trees and 50% positive about banana trees?  No- you put in the facts about banana trees.  Now if there is some dissention on the subject of banana trees you would want to reference that but the majority of the article would be facts and generally understood knowledge about the topic of banana trees written mostly by experts on banana trees.
In this case, there are a few people out there with radical and deeply-held negative opinions about Landmark Education.   At the risk of generalizing, they keep trying to shift the POV of the article to be about talking about their beliefs or  defending Landmark about those beliefs.  It has been demonstrated on these pages that this is a SIGNIFICANT minority belief and we have had to pull in moderators at least twice to pull these revisionists back.   
Some of the points they add, I believe, are worthy of comment and some are just blatant negative spin.  I think the current article is still too heavily shifted in the direction of the unfavorable POV, but Wikipedia is about the "commons" right?  They have a right to their opinions so there is a fairly extensive section about some of those minority concerns.  
Any more emphaiss than already exists there would inaccurately represent the facts of the article.  In My Opinion.  
SO, hopefully we are coming to an understanding with Pedant17 (a person with some of those opinions, but at least talking and presenting their case) and have stabilized things.  Those that change the content and don't even register themselves as who they are... mostly we will just reverse those as vandalism.  
I read the article and I find it more neutral than in early revisions but still slanted to the negative. *shrug*  Thank God we are all different- the world would be so boring!
- Alex Jackl 01:31, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Artlicle seems biased in favor of Landmark 

message: I believe this article is trapped in that form of debate centered around false duality.  Do people think an article on banana trees should have 50% stuff negative about banana trees and 50% positive about banana trees?  No- you put in the facts about banana trees.  Now if there is some dissention on the subject of banana trees you would want to reference that but the majority of the article would be facts and generally understood knowledge about the topic of banana trees written mostly by experts on banana trees.
In this case, there are a few people out there with radical and deeply-held negative opinions about Landmark Education.   At the risk of generalizing, they keep trying to shift the POV of the article to be about talking about their beliefs or  defending Landmark about those beliefs.  It has been demonstrated on these pages that this is a SIGNIFICANT minority belief and we have had to pull in moderators at least twice to pull these revisionists back.   
Some of the points they add, I believe, are worthy of comment and some are just blatant negative spin.  I think the current article is still too heavily shifted in the direction of the unfavorable POV, but Wikipedia is about the "commons" right?  They have a right to their opinions so there is a fairly extensive section about some of those minority concerns.  
Any more emphaiss than already exists there would inaccurately represent the facts of the article.  In My Opinion.  
SO, hopefully we are coming to an understanding with Pedant17 (a person with some of those opinions, but at least talking and presenting their case) and have stabilized things.  Those that change the content and don't even register themselves as who they are... mostly we will just reverse those as vandalism.  
I read the article and I find it more neutral than in early revisions but still slanted to the negative. *shrug*  Thank God we are all different- the world would be so boring!
- Alex Jackl 01:31, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Bias: Negative or Positive?

message: In reviewing the entire page.  I found a few things that I cleaned up- there was an old request for citation that had the citation added but the request was still there.  There were a few sections where a lot of extra verbiage was put in to, perhaps, make it sound legal or in doubt or something, which verbiage I removed. :-) 
For instance, in the scope section I removed the plethora of various ways it was written to imply this is "just" what Landmark says.  Saying it once at the begining is enough.  Everyone gets that is Landmark's position.  If you ask for the charter or scope of a company it is obviously their "stated" scope and is obviously what they "maintain".  Saying it over and over agian just clutters the article.
I also took out a incorrect change to the page which changed the reference to limited Liability Corporation [LLC] to [LEC] .  This was just an error of someone not reading carefully enough before changing the article.
As  always, feel free to contact me with questions or concerns.
- Alex Jackl 05:12, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Some minor changes

message: I removed these (again) because they violate several of Wikipedia's policies, most especially the NPOV and citation of sources.
Judging from these edits and others you have made on other topics, you don't seem to have grasped the nature of Wikipedia - it is not a discussion board for posting up your personal opinions and observations.  The statements should be in the realm of facts, not opinions or value judgements, and the published sources where these facts can be verified should be provided.
Furthermore, several of the points you inserted are already discussed elsewhere in the article.
DaveApter 11:43, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  reversion of Hdroute's edits 

message: I was reading through this artical and was following the links.
I could not see any reason why "hypnosis" & "martial arts" were included in the see also section.
martial arts just through me. In my limited understanding of Landmark Education they are not related in any way to martial arts.
=== Followup ===
I agree.  I am going to weed out the non-directly related "See Also"s or at least categorize them clearly.  This is a site about Landmark Education NOT Werner Erhard or EST.  ALthough Werner Erhard and EST have a place in the history leading up to Landmark Education it is FAR TOO OVER EMPHASIZED in this article.   I am not going to try to solve the bigger problem- but I will clean up the "See Also" section.  
Hopefully we will not have to involve the Wikipedia's administrators involved in this.  If this keeps up we will propbably need to do that again.  Managing POV is critical with a site that has as much contraversy attached to it.
Alex Jackl 14:46, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why is "hypnosis" & "martial arts" in the "See Also" section 

message: I agree.  I am going to weed out the non-directly related "See Also"s or at least categorize them clearly.  This is a site about Landmark Education NOT Werner Erhard or EST.  ALthough Werner Erhard and EST have a place in the history leading up to Landmark Education it is FAR TOO OVER EMPHASIZED in this article.   I am not going to try to solve the bigger problem- but I will clean up the "See Also" section.  
Hopefully we will not have to involve the Wikipedia's administrators involved in this.  If this keeps up we will propbably need to do that again.  Managing POV is critical with a site that has as much contraversy attached to it.
Alex Jackl 14:46, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Followup 

message: He definitely is not getting 50% of the pre-tax profit so you should check your sources because that is wildly inaccurate.  I know you are referencing Pressman's book (terrible reference by the way since he wrote it as a hack job it isn't likely to be full of NPOV data! :-)) and an article I haven't read from some paper called the the "Metro" from 1998.    We should probably see if we could reference some public documents rather than what these two authors thought (not withstanding the fact that Pressman's information is 14 years old!)
* Citation is from a reputable source, and is certainly relevant to the section:  
Metroactive is a Northern California meta-site specializing in arts and entertainment information and featuring content from three of the San Francisco Bay Area's leading publications: Metro, Silicon Valley's Weekly Newspaper; Metro Santa Cruz; and the North Bay Bohemian.  Both Metroactive and Metro's weeklies have won national awards for writing, editing and design.
website, Metroactive
Alex notes: 
The citation is relevant to the section- its accuracy is all that is in question.  I have located the article thanks to Smeelgova's assistance.  Here is the URL:
Landmark Article in Metro
I have contacted the author to see if she has any notes on her sources.  She does not cite any in the article and she herself is not an expert- she is a reporter who attended a Forum and talked to some people and then wrote the piece for the Metro.  Her assertions on the finances are not attributed so it will be hard to find out where she got them from unless she can find her records that go back that long.
Alex Jackl 20:35, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Innaccurate 

message: I have heard that Werner Erhardt occassionally will do a conference or consult but have never seen that personally.  I will see if I can get some official or unofficial stance on that.
I will look for documentation on these matters because unlike the WEA and EST finincials and goings on I think Werner Erhardt's financial ties to the organization has some relevance to this article.  (Not too large, but it deserves a treatment). 
Alex Jackl 14:56, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Uncertain 

message: * I am very uncomfortabble with this quote.  Just because this reporter said it doesn't make it true.  She did not attribute it to any source and I have been looking and can't find any validation of her assertion.  I think it is a total disservice to put bold financial assertions into an encyclopedia article when we are almsot certain that they ar eblatentloy false and they DIRECTLU contradict what the entity the article is about says is true. 
Because of that I am going to reverse this change.  I will try to soften my source note a little but i think it needs to stay or we need to take the assertion out. 
This frustrating because any idiot can say anyhting about anything and if a reporter reports that unattributed we should put it into an encyclopedia article?  I don't think so.  But I agree we can't just remove the reference so I thought my source note was a good compromise.  I am looking for contradictory source documentation that is meaningful.  I have read her other articles- this woman was by no means an expert and this was a one shot assignment for her. 
Let's talk about this more.  I will put a kinder, gentler version of my warning on the article site.Alex Jackl 23:24, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Metro article 

message: The problem with including things that we are almsot certian is untrue and there is dispute about is that it misleads the reader and diminishes WIkipedia's repiutation as a source of accurate information.  
I have this page as one of the pages I have volunteered to look over and keep vandal-free.  it is a constant struggle with this because of the contraversersy and strong opinion on all sides.
We had gotten to a point where the page had stabilized and we were making slow gradiual changes with discussions about it here.  Let's not have to pull in the Wikipedia NPOV police again.  In both cases it was decided that the anti-Landmark contingent was vandalizing and we did a massive change over.  Let's not do that again.  
To perform a sanity check I have been checking other web sites about organizations and corproations.
1) Some of them do need POV checks becasue they ar eoften blatant marketing for thwir company.  
2) Not SINGLE ONE I FOUND DEDICATES THE PERCENTAGE OF ITS ARTICLE TO NAY-SAYERS AND CRITICS AS THIS ONE  DOES.
3) IF THIS ARTICLE HAD TO GO THROUGH A pov SHIFT IT WOULD BE PUSHED TO THE MORE POSITIVE ABOUT LANDMARK.
4)Let's stop the revising and start discussion streams on the talk page and when we reach consesnus we will then move content on the page.  It will slow things down but- what's the hurry.  This article states the facts and gives a thorough overview of Landmark Education and it s critics view points.  
5) This is an article about Landamrk Education NOT Werener Erhardt or EST or WEA.  Let's stick to that there ar emore than enough reference to that- people get it.  There is a connection.  
Thanks!  Trying to avoid calling in the cops!
Alex Jackl 00:44, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: What is this page for??? 

message: Smeelgova; It looks like you just took some irrelevant information that I removed from another sub-heading where it didn't belong and dropped it here.  It is still irrelevant.  That whole thing about "pulling the strings" that you are committed to just baffles me, in the realm of someone contributing to an encyclopedia.  It is a sensational quote pulled from an article where an electronics engineer in Colorado was giving his opinion:
"Landmark alumnus Walter Plywaski, a Colorado electronics engineer who took on the company after his daughter ran up a $3,000 tab on courses, thinks Erhard is still pulling the strings."
How does that qualify to be included in an encyclopedia article? 
Also, what relevance is it that former staff members of one organization now work for another one, even if they are family members? How does that equate to financial ties.  If I hired the accountant of my former company to do my personal accounting while I was an employee there, then left that company, but still use that accountant. . . does that give me financial ties to my former employer?  This seems to be what you are saying by putting those peoples names here.  If you want them listed in the article, the only possible place they could go is under some "current management personnel" section and even then I am not sure how relevant that would be, or who is going to take the time to keep it current when changes are made.
Also, how does the fact that Landmark put up a favorable site for Erhard, when they have already acknowledged that they respect the contribution he has made and since they use the "technology" they bought from him, equate to financial ties?
Also, you show no source for what is obviously confidential information; licensing fees paid and technology reverting in 2009, as an example.  You provide a link to an old MetroActive article (The est of Friends) in which the author has the exact paragraph that you have put in your edit, without even updating it, by the way (I am sure Erhard is no longer 63).  The author doesn't give a source for that confidential information either.  So far as I know, Landmark is a privately held company and unless you (or she) got that information from them or Erhard directly, you are claiming to know (and worse, pass on) something you do not know.  Otherwise, you would quote the real source.
This kind of work on this site that is sure to corrupt it and ruin the intention.  THIS IS AN ENCYCLOPEDIA.  Your opinions, or worse, someone elses opinions passed off as the truth, do not belong here.  There are other places to register your opinions.  As far as I am concerned your intentions are counter to the intention of this resource.  The first thing that I was impressed by when I first looked at Wikipedia was their statement that this is not a place for expressing your own opinions. I request you stop doing that, and stop using others as if they are facts. Dante C 16:17, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Financial Ties 

message: I believe that many, if not most, of  Smeelgova's external links violate this wikipedia guideline:
::Any site that contains factually inaccurate material or unverified original research. (See Wikipedia:Reliable sources for further information on this guideline.)
DaveApter 18:32, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Smeelgova's links 

message: I removed a quote that was represented as if it was a viable source regarding Werner Erhard's supposed involvement.  As I explained before, the Time magazine quote of an electonics engineer from Colorado expressing his OPINION that Erhard is "pulling the strings" is CLEARLY someone adding inaccurate / unsourced information as if it were the opinion of "some claim" vs. one person, not qualified to say, expressing his opinion.Dante C
Regarding your attempt to continue to add the irrelevant information about Erhards personal attorney (though I doubt you have talked with Erhard or Schreiber directly to see if they still have that relationship), even if it is true, it is still not relevant.  Who cares? and Why would they? Why would someone interested in looking up information about a company IN AN ENCYCLOPEDIA (by the way) care about the possibility that the former owner's attorney is still on the board of directors of said company?  How does that equate to that former owners Current Involvement?  This section is about Erhards Current Involvement not Schreibers.  If you have a reason for including such seemingly irrelevant information you should explain the relevance or make the connection which demonstrates "current involvement."  Since you do neither, and until you do, this type of information doesn't belong here.
In addition, your inference that Erhard is "currently involved" because Landmark started the website on him is stretching it, albeit clever. . . as accurate as that information may be, it is still not relevant.  Please add "relevant" to your editing of this article vs. just accurate.  This kind of unnecessary, irrelevant information just bogs down the article.  Unless or until you can make a case for including speculations, inferences and opinions as relevant to the article, I request you keep them out.Dante C 16:30, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Current Involvement 

message: In reading through this article, this is the first section I saw that made no sense and is inappropriate for what is supposed to be an encyclopedia article.  It's not neutral at all and looks mostly like hearsay ("some critics say" or "supporters say"), etc. It ignores the section above by DYG and their findings and quotes Langone regarding LGATP's which is irrelevant to this article.  Since Langone isn't quoted about Landmark, the LGATP information belongs on a page for that subject if someone wants to add one.  This section of the article isn't NPOV as well as being poorly written and makes no point worthy of referencing for someone wanting to use this article for reference material.  It looks like a recent editor called for sources to be cited on the "some critics" and "supporters say" lines, so if someone can provide those it may be worth adding this section back in.WBLman 01:11, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Post Hoc? Section 

message: I combined some sections to eliminate redundancy.  The History title was at the bottom of the article just floating there with no related information before or after it, so I moved it to the top of the article and combined the Naming and Timeline section under the heading History since both of those sections contain only historical information.  I also removed the line "For information about pre Landmark entities see. . . " which was under the previous Timeline section because that information and those links were already just above in the pre-edited format and I left them there in my edit.WBLman 18:51, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  History Section 

message: I'm not willing to attempt editing a hotly debated article like this but I'd like to urge that some short statement of the controversy be put near the very beginning of the article, e.g. "proponents say the forums make positive changes in people's lives; critics accuse it of being cult-like".  IMO the early history (i.e. the early connection to Est) should also be mentioned at the top of the article.  This is a very weak article since it says nothing til halfway through about what the controversies mentioned in the introduction actually are.  Phr (talk) 09:00, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  intro to article 

message: Imagine an article that said "there is no hard evidence that Ramon Martinez has any direct current involvement with the Los Angeles Dodgers, other than that he plays second base for the team." If you can see why that is odd, you should be able to see why "there is no hard evidence that Erhard has any direct current involvement with the operations of Landmark Education, other than his consulting with Landmark" is also odd. I changed the article to simply state what his involmemnt is, without editorializing on whether there is "hard evidence" of "direct current involvement with the operations," which smacks of original resarch.
I also deleted redundant statements. -- Sparkman1 05:19, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Changes to Erhard Section

message: As an article that is supposed to be aiming to be NPOV, this is atrocious!  I've read many of the comments here.  There are some people who are conscientiously trying very hard to produce an NPOV article, and there are people who don't understand the genre of an encyclopedic article, who don't understand NPOV, who don't understand Wikipedia's policies, who are doing nothing but get in the way of arriving at an NPOV article.  With a subject this controversial, both sides should be factually presented, and the reader should be unable to determine from the article's content whether either POV is superior.  That is not being done here.  Editing is far too agenda-driven in promoting Landmark Education.  They've got their own website to do that.  This is an encyclopedia!  Kat'n'Yarn 07:29, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article is clearly '''not''' NPOV