Talk:Landmark Worldwide/Archives/2009/Jan

Removal of Boston Globe reference

On 26 March 2008 at 1641 hours a Wikipedian missed out on enhancing the article with an accurate summary of Landmark Education's reputation in a Boston Globe article, instead deleting the reference to this reliable source. Lets utilize the reference approporiately as (say): The association of Landmark Education with the idea of a cult appears widespread.<ref> {{cite news | first = Alison | last = Bass | authorlink = | author = | coauthors = | title = Soul Training At The Forum, A Retooled Version of The Controversial Est Movement, Seekers of Many Stripes Set Out On A Path of Self-examination | curly = y | url = http://www.culthelp.info/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=979&Itemid=12 | agency = | work = [[The Boston Globe]] | publisher = | location = Boston | id = | pages = | page = | date = 1999-03-03 | accessdate = 2008-12-28 | accessdaymonth = | accessmonthday = | accessyear = | quote = ... quite a few had also heard about the controversial roots of the Forum, which reached about 68,000 people worldwide in 1998. Indeed, the very first question asked by a plaid-shirted woman in the audience is: "Is this a cult?" "No, we're not a cult," replies the Forum leader, a 39-year-old former New Yorker named Beth Handel, who addresses the concern head-on. | archiveurl = | archivedate = }} </ref> -- Pedant17 (talk) 14:15, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

No, let's not restore this reference - like so many of the items you have proposed for re-integration in the article, it is superficial in its treatment, sensationalist in style, and one-sided in the selection of the opinions it reports. There are many other newspaper reports which are better quality and more balanced in their portrayal of the variety of viewpoints about Landmark Education. You will be well aware that a great many passages have been inserted into and removed from this article in the course of the extended edit-warring that it has suffered over the last few years. I don't see that the goal of reaching consensus of how to improve it is served by your cherry-picking individual details that have been removed that validate your own viewpoint without consideration of the overall balance.

Also, could I ask you to frame these suggestions in a more readable fashion than the near-incomprehensible blocks of text jumbled up with the references that you seem to favour? Thanks

And - to take issue with a specific point you make above, and which is a recurrent theme with you - you say "The association of Landmark Education with the idea of a cult appears widespread". Appears to whom? Clearly to you, but to who else? We can agree that "some people" have accused Landmark of being a cult (or being "cult-like", or whatever other phrasing you prefer). But "Some people say..." is not an appropriate formulation in accordance with Wikipedia guidelines and policies. It begs the questions of:

• • Who are these people?
  • What is their expertise in a relevant discipline to support the notability of their opinion?
  • What is their degree of knowledge of Landmark products on which they base this opinion?
  • How numerous are they?

Bear in mind that the WP:NPOV policy states "When we discuss an opinion, we attribute the opinion to someone and discuss the fact that they have this opinion." So far as I have been able to discover, there is no instance of any notable individual, or any definable substantial population who have attributably expressed this opinion. (the secondary references that you have put forward, merely state that such a conversation exists - they do not qualify or quantify it in any way whatsoever). In any case, if the topic is to be mentioned in the article at all, these views would need to be balanced by reference to the numerous on-the-record contrary opinions (ie that it is not anything remotely resembling a cult) by identifiable qualified psychologists, academics and religious leaders. DaveApter (talk) 17:19, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I think the proposed wording would amount to "original research". I see nothing wrong with the notion of using an article from the Boston Globe -- the source presents no problem with WP:RS -- but it's not clear to me that using it would provide a platform for addition to the text of this page. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:25, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

How then do we interpret the quoted text in such as way that it does not support the proposed wording, given that Bass wrote: "... quite a few had also heard about the controversial roots of the Forum, which reached about 68,000 people worldwide in 1998. Indeed, the very first question asked by a plaid-shirted woman in the audience is: 'Is this a cult?'" -- Alternatively, can we construct a more accurate summary of this phenomenon for the article? -- Pedant17 (talk) 11:06, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

The smearing of Alison Bass's article in The Boston Globe as "superficial" applies no more nor less than to any journalism. Bass's impressionistic approach conveys a sense of her interests and of those of her intended audience -- all within the confines of editorial policy at the Globe. For in-depth analysis of the Landmark Education metaphysics one might want to look elsewhere, but Bass provides a sympathetic account of individuals and their individual reactions while succinctly profiling the background of the Landmark Education organization. -- The labelling of Alison Bass's article in The Boston Globe as "sensationalist" applies neither to the quoted extract nor to the article as a whole. On the contrary, the referenced article treats its subject(s) with respect and sensitivity -- as one might well expect from a reputable newspaper. -- The smearing of Alison Bass's article in The Boston Globe as "one-sided" has some merit: the article fairly consistently portrays the procedures of and reactions to Landmark Education in an accepting and unquestioning manner, stressing the "positive" outcomes. The odd exception, as quoted in the extract given in our proposed footnote, merely serves to provide some semblance of journalistic balance. But since it conveys, in spite of the writer's gentle approach, an indication of the general opinion on Landmark Education, we can accept it as unbiased and relatively unvarnished journalism. (Note that the actual quoted text provides too the instant official riposte of "not a cult". We have "balance" even in the very detail of the proposed citation. Does this not make for a good reference for our Wikipedia article?) -- If "many other newspaper reports" exist which demonstrate their "better quality" and which show more balance "in their portrayal of the variety of viewpoints about Landmark Education" then let's see them alongside this one in the article -- then we can evaluate fairly how many references we need to give a balanced viewpoint on the specific point proposed: that a general opinion exists that associated Landmark Educxation with the notion of culthood. I don't see that "the goal of reaching consensus of how to improve" our article profits from excluding material and points and viewpoints not otherwise neutrally expressed. Achieving a fair WP:NPOV-style balance requires examining and including a range of sources covering a variety of points. -- On the matter of "the near-incomprehensible blocks of text jumbled up with the references" -- this represents standard Wkipedia formatting, conveniently ready and marked up for inclusion in our article. I use the "nowiki" tags to format it in Talk-page indentable blocks so that statements and responses from fellow-editors stay cleanly separate. Any Wikipedian accustomed to including referenced contributions to articles will recognize the format and know how to view it in different ways: under a Wikipedia-aware editor or (with the removal of the "nowiki" tags) as formatted text. -- The citation given does not support the formula "some people say" -- hence I did not use that formula. The citation supports in this case the alternative formulation, as proposed: "The association of Landmark Education with the idea of a cult appears widespread." That formulation may indeed profit from some elaboration for readers unwilling to read the cited source. Bass presents a group of people about to embark on a Landmark Forum. These people have shown sufficient interest to enrol with Landmark Education. They may even typify Landmark Education's constituency. In Landmark Education terms, they represent the "special" folk prepared to "try on" this experience. And yet, and yet ... even these potential proselytes have a potential issue that bubbles to the fore immediately: "quite a few had also heard about the controversial roots of the Forum, which reached about 68,000 people worldwide in 1998. Indeed, the very first question asked by a plaid-shirted woman in the audience is: 'Is this a cult?'" -- They have doubts, and those doubts may stem from Landmark Education's linkages to a a cultic background (the world of est, the Forum, and Werner Erhard). In this respect these typical people bear out in posing the question the contention that a widespread linkage exists in the popular mind between Landmark Education and cultdom. And Alison Bass recognizes the connection too: consider the implications of her "Indeed" in this context. -- Given this elaboration we can start addressing some of the background questions. Question: Who links Landmark Education with cultiness? Answer: typical people who have some sort of interest in Landmark Education and who may have investigated its background. Question: What expertise do opinion-holders have in a relevant discipline to support the notability of their opinion? Answer: Members of the human race with curiosity have the social and investigative skills to ferret out and detect a widespread opinion, which may then influence their own opinions. Question: What degree of knowledge of Landmark Education products do opinionholders have on which they base their opinions? Answer: As much as the average citizen -- prior to undergoing Landmark Education's attempts to disabuse them of that opinion. Question: How many people hold the opinion that Landmark Education has something to do with cults? Answer: Probably at least in the millions -- given that Landmark Education's million-odd potentially recruiting acolytes have not grown geometrically in numbers and that the public conversation outside the WP:RS-zone features thousands of such associations and that Landmark Education itself devotes so much effort to countering the "cult" label. -- WP:NPOV states: "When we discuss an opinion, we attribute the opinion to someone and discuss the fact that they have this opinion." The "someone" in this case represents public opinion -- no more notable nor inflential "someone" can exist. -- I agree that mention of public opinion in the article can sit alongside contrary opinions. Someone would need to find reliable sources (meaning sources other than those published and publicized by Landmark Education LLC and its fellow-travellers) documenting any such on-the-record opinions of "identifiable qualified psychologists, academics and religious leaders". Similiar statements by cult-researchers, NRM-professionals, memeticists, linguists and lexicographers might prove even more pertinent -- if we can find them. -- Pedant17 (talk) 11:06, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. The Globe article belongs here. It's relevant, balanced, and a more reliable source than most others referenced. Micahmedia (talk) 21:13, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

How does a quote of one person asking "Is this a cult?" support a statement that "The association of Landmark Education with the idea of a cult appears widespread?" If an article in a credible newspaper reported a quote of someone asking "Is Islam a cult?" would we then state in the Islam article that "The association of Islam with the idea of a cult appears widespread?" Rlendog (talk) 20:34, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh for the simple situation where journalists line up and ask people identical questions and report the answers in identical terms again and again repetitively. What gripping journalism that would make! -- and we could count heads... -- The quote provided in the proposed citation reads: '.. quite a few had also heard about the controversial roots of the Forum, which reached about 68,000 people worldwide in 1998. Indeed, the very first question asked by a plaid-shirted woman in the audience is: "Is this a cult?" "No, we're not a cult," replies the Forum leader, a 39-year-old former New Yorker named Beth Handel, who addresses the concern head-on.' Look at the context. One person asks a single question, but Alison Bass presents that question as a summary of a wider picture: " '... quite a few had also heard about the controversial roots ... Indeed, the very first question ... is "Is this a cult?"' Everything here implies that the single quoted question represents a wider concern. So we quote Bass the literate journalist (in extended context) -- not the unidentified but representative questioner -- to support the cautious contention that: ""The association of Landmark Education with the idea of a cult appears widespread". QED. -- Pedant17 (talk) 02:54, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Removal of LGAT discussion

On 28 March 2008 at 0127 hours a Wikipedian removed an informative paragraph on LGATs and Landmark Education. Discussion of the LGAT concept then got hijacked by discussion of cults, and we now have in our article only a "see also" to Large Group Awareness Training. Let's improve the scope of the article by introducing a section discussing the mutual relevance of LGAT ideas and Landmark Education. We could start with examining the relevance of Fisher, Jeffrey D. (1990). Evaluating a Large Group Awareness Training. Springer-Verlag. p. 142. ISBN 0387973206 , ISBN 978-0387973203. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help) and analyzing the textbook Coon, Dennis (2003). Introduction to Psychology: Gateways to Mind and Behavior. Thomson Wadsworth. pp. Pp. 648, 649, 655. ISBN 053461227X. {{cite book}}: |pages= has extra text (help). Does anyone have a Wikipedia-standard reliable source which questions Landmark Education'sotherwise well-established classification as an LGAT? -- Pedant17 (talk) 01:52, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I second the motion to include discussion of LGAT in the article. Why was it removed in the first place? Why is this article continually eroded every time I come back to it? Micahmedia (talk) 02:21, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Note: The user referred to above by Pedant17 that removed that information was Triplejumper (talk · contribs), this user was subsequently indefinitely blocked for abusing multiple accounts. More info on that at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Eastbayway. Cirt (talk) 05:21, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Removal of source for the name 'The Landmark Forum"

On 2 April, 2008 at 1549 hours a Wikipedian changed the sentence "Landmark Education refers to its standard introductory course as The Landmark Forum to read "Landmark Education's standard introductory course is The Landmark Forum", commenting in the edit-summary: "Changed wording of second sentence, which violates wp:avoid weasel words)". -- Far from removing weasel-wording, the change introduces a sweeping generalization. Rather than making the sourcing of the naming more specific, the change makes that sourcing quite unspecific. Given that other people (including Landmark Forum graduates) often refer to "The Landmark Forum" as "Landmark Forum" or "Forum" or "The Forum" or 'the Forum" or even "the Landmark Forum", it behoves us in our article to spell out the "official" corporate-image version of the naming and to label it as such. -- Consider too that any of the other present or future organizations with the name 'Landmark' have every right to set up a forum which they might call something like "Landmark Forum" -- to claim that Landmark Education's course "is 'the Landmark Forum'" overstates the case and claims an unwarranted generality. We also have the problem of change. "The Landmark Forum", according to Landmark Education sources, has changed and developed over the years. To state that any one thing "is 'the Landmark Forum'" minimizes and counters that contention. Whereas the statement as it once stood: "Landmark Education refers to [its] course as 'The Landmark Forum'" expresses a non-weaselly fact -- accurate and helpful. -- Absent a specific explanation as to how the previous wording violated wp:avoid weasel words, let's revert this confusing and ambiguous change. (We could even (legitimately!) quote from Landmark Education material to demonstrate that Landmark Education favors this usage... whereas other commentators follow the Landmark Education corporate line less stringently.) -- Pedant17 (talk) 01:52, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Note: The user referred to above by Pedant17 that changed that sentence was Gilbertine goldmark (talk · contribs), this user was subsequently indefinitely blocked for abusing multiple accounts. More info on that at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Eastbayway. Cirt (talk) 02:43, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

As to changing the phrase "Landmark Education refers to its standard introductory course as The Landmark Forum to read "Landmark Education's standard introductorycourse is The Landmark Forum", Pedant17 suggests that we are selling out to the Man by using the corporate title, "The Landmark Forum", to describe LE's main course, and that we should be free to call the course whatever we like. I would like advance the revolutionary notion that a company is allowed to name its own products. Perhaps we should suggest that we stop selling out to Yahama by using the company name to describe its motorcycles and that Wikipedia should only refer to them as "Rice Burners" or "Crotch Rockets".

This is clearly makes no sense and Cirt's attempt to disparage the editor with a personal attack only clouds the action. "The Landmark Forum" is the official name of that course by the company that puts out the course. Come on! Alex Jackl (talk) 00:51, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

What the hell? Yeah, Landmark education's introductory course is the The Landmark Forum? Who would dispute that? On what grounds? What is going on with this article? Micahmedia (talk) 02:23, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

@Alex Jackl - Pointing out that a user has been indefinitely blocked for abusing multiple accounts is not a "attempt to disparage the editor with a personal attack". Please refactor your above comment. Thank you. Cirt (talk) 04:58, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I would dispute the wording ("Landmark education's introductory course is the The Landmark Forum") on the grounds that Landmark Education has used and does use other introductory courses; and that other (non-official) names for the "Landmark Forum" occur commonly. Wikipedia can avoid accepting any implication that the course in question has any sort of status (as a "landmark") or crediting for a moment that "The Landmark Forum" has much resemblance to a "forum" in any accepted normal sense of the word. Whereas the older text: "Landmark Education refers to its standard introductory course as The Landmark Forum" conveys a verifiable fact without slipping into bias. -- Pedant17 (talk) 04:10, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

If we use (and we should) the "corporate title" or "official name" of "The Landmark Forum" we can flag it (as a grandiose and pretentious corporate marketing phrase) -- and point out that real-world speakers frequently use standard variants. Wikipedia itself has a link from The Forum ("a name used by the organization Landmark Education"); another from Forum ("Landmark Education, San Francisco based, offers the Landmark Forum as its introductory course"); and another link from Landmark Forum; as well as one from The Landmark Forum. -- I fully endorse the notion that a company can "name its own products" -- thus Landmark Communications or Landmark Graphics Corporation (for example) might choose to set up something called a "Forum", just as Werner Erhard and Associates did back around 1984. On the other hand, an entity like Landmark Education, which even casual observers might not think of as a company, might have different rights. Ask yourself: what happens? Answer: Landmark Education allegedly keeps re-inventing a course and calling it by the same name time after time: "The Landmark Forum". We can point out their corporate foibles without falling for the canard that the course "is" anything -- that terminology would breach the neutral point-of-view by promulgating a Landmark Education marketing-department point-of-view and favoring it at the expense of other opinions. It makes a lot of sense to encourage a neutral point-of-view when editing Wikipedia. -- Pedant17 (talk) 04:10, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Not a personal attack. Just another SPA. YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 05:11, 22 January 2009 (UTC)