Talk:Landmark Worldwide/Archive 26

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Disappearance of researched sourced quotations on recruitment

On 2008-03-02 at 1823 hours a Wikipedian removed researched sourced quotations on recruitment, commenting in the edit-summary "misc cleanup": see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Landmark_Education&diff=195365320&oldid=195241335 The removed text stated: "Concerning recruitment, the research found: <blockquote>The response of the interviewees, overwhelmingly, is that the practice of using graduates for recruiting ('enrolling') others is a negative one. Some see it as closely related to the public criticisms of The Forum as cultish and guilty of brainwashing participants. They describe it as "inappropriate," "a turn-off," "proselytizing," a "club the baby seals attitude," and "damned, constant enrollment shit."</blockquote>Only one participant saw it as an "opportunity."<ref>Denison, C. W., (1994) "The children of EST a study of the experience and perceived effects of a large group awareness training (The Forum)," Thesis (Ph. D.)--University of Denver, 1994.</ref> -- The effect of the removal of this text unbalanced the coverage of Denison's research and deprived readers of one of the few academically refereed collection of comments on reactions to the work of Landmark Education. We should restore such material, together with a courtesy link to online extracts from the original work: Denison, Charles Wayne (1994). "Part 1--The process and ecology of the Forum: An excerpt". The Children of est: A study of the Experience and Perceived Effects of a Large Group Awareness Training (The Forum): Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Denver, 1994. Retrieved 2008-10-09. The response of the interviewees, overwhelmingly, is that the practice of using graduates for recruiting ('enrolling') others is a negative one. Some see it as closely related to the public criticisms of The Forum as coltish and guilty of brainwashing participants. They describe it as "inappropriate," "a turn-off," "proselytizing," a "club the baby seals attitude," and "damned, constant enrollment shit."
On the other side of the issue. one participant said she has now come to see it as "an invitation," although she used to have a negative view of the practice. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |month= (help). -- Pedant17 (talk) 00:24, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Disappearance of quoted/translated material on "Erhard" links

On 2008-03-02 at 1823 hours a Wikipedian removed sourced quotations on criticisms linking Landmark Education to Werner Erhard, commenting in the edit-summary "misc cleanup": see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Landmark_Education&diff=195365320&oldid=195241335 . Given that we have an obligation to reference sources and an obligation to translate non-English citations, let's restore relevant supporting material and update the source links thus: " ... others highlight the connections with other groups and with [[Werner Erhard]].<ref> For example: <blockquote> Ein Interessierter am Angebot von Landmark Education (LE) oder ein Teilnehmer am Einsteigerkurs "Forum" dieses Anbieters mag verwundert gewesen sein: Da besteht das Unternehmen in Deutschland unter diesem Namen erst seit 1991 und dennoch wird auf die mehr als 20jährige Erfahrung des Unternehmens verwiesen. Fast nebenher fällt manchmal auch der Name des Gründers: Werner Erhard. <br> '''Translation:''' <br> Someone with an interest in the offerings of Landmark Education (LE) or a participant in the introductory "Forum" course might get confused: This organization has operated under this name in Germany only since 1991, yet makes claims of over 20 years of experience as an organization. Sometimes the name of the founder will occur almost incidentally: Werner Erhard. {{cite web | url = http://www.religio.de/publik/senatsbericht.pdf | title = Landmark Education (LE) | accessdate = 2008-10-09 | author = Anne Ruehle (editor) | last = Ruehle | first = Anne | authorlink = | coauthors = Ina Kunst | date = | year = 1997 | month = December | format = PDF | work = "Sekten" - Risiken und Nebenwirkungen: Informationen zu ausgewaehlten neuen religioesen und weltanschaulichen Bewegungen und Psychoangeboten ["Cults": Risks and Side-effects: Data on selected new religious and world-view movements and psycho-offerings] | publisher = Senatsverwaltung fuer Schule, Jugend and Sport {Senate Administration for Schools, Youth and Sport] | location = Berlin | pages = 69 | language = in German | doi = | archiveurl = | archivedate = | quote = }} </ref> -- Pedant17 (talk) 00:24, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Pedant17, I appreciate your continued postings regarding the removal of sourced information from these articles, it is good for posterity as a notice to others - but so far it seems to have not accomplished too much as far as the articles' current status themselves with regard to this material. Cirt (talk) 01:04, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
The fact that an item is "sourced" is a necessary, but not sufficient reason for including it. It also has to be relevant, significant, and contribute to the overall structure and balance of the article. It's not clear to me that this item meets these critera at all. DaveApter (talk) 16:44, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
I would appreciate someone explaining to us -- in detail -- in what respect suggested explanations of widely-observed phenomena lack relevance to a Wikipedia article. I would furthermore like to hear how any contribution to Wikipedia can possibly fail to contribute to the (only broadly defined) structure of an article. And I would dearly love to hear the rationale for excluding alternative viewpoints on the grounds of unbalancing an article. As Jimbo Wales suggests in WP:NPOV, "[i]f a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts". -- Pedant17 (talk) 02:14, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Undue weight

I am removing a recent edit that clearly violates WP:UNDUE WEIGHT. For one thing, it is an expression of opinion rather than fact; and furthermore the opinion of a single individual with no particular claim to expertise in the subject. Secondly, it is a highly selective quote from the article which does not capture the overall thrust (even the editor admits it was "cherry-picked"); for example Badt also says "I did experience my own breakthroughs. I was glad I went. I did see how I used my past in my future; I did contemplate the rackets I laid on my friends and family. I thought overall this was a healthy experience.", and "There was nothing too objectionable about a program that has as a result reconciliation in relationships, as well as a new commitment to responsibility for one's present. Philosophically, the concepts are too sensible to be controversial."

Furthermore, I would suggest that we should view with caution the edits of unregistered IP editors on controversial subjects. DaveApter (talk) 12:37, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

The edit corrects selective ("cherry-picked") quotations from Badt's article that previously cast LF in a positive light without giving any sense (clearly expressed in her article) that LF's techniques are questionable and discourage critical thinking. I would suggest that unless some balance is given in the choice of quotations; that the entire referencing of Badt's article be removed from the wikipedia article entirely --- it amounts to a testimony (itself an expression of opinion rather than fact). You can't have it both ways, DaveApter. ProlixDog (talk) 06:57, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that; it's an intelligent contribution to the debate. I agree with your suggestion that the reference to the article be removed entirely, as it contains so many conflicting remarks about the Landmark Forum that it's difficult to summarise even-handedly.

It's also a poor article insofar as it contains a number of assertions on matter of facts that are totally inaccurate (eg that "Werner Erhard, the founder of the organization, escaped from the United States ..., to avoid possible imprisonment for tax evasion," or that "Landmark's 3 million dollar profit is divided among only 400 employees"). In fact it as Erhard who sued the tax authorities over a disputed assessment not the other way round, and he was eventually awarded $200,000 compensation. The staff of LE (who own the company) do not share out the profits - they pay themselves modest salaries and re-invest the profits in the expansion of the operation.

There are a number of sound articles in quality newspapers that would serve better - one from The Times (of London) last year comes to mind. Perhaps someone can dig that out and replace this reference?

The accusations of "brainwashing" are problematic in that they are loosely thrown around by detractors of LE and sensation-hungry journalists; but if you try to search back to the source of the suggestion it is impossible to find a clear statement from any authoritive individual that this is the case. If it's going to be mentioned at all, it would need to be balanced by noting the attributable on-the-record statements to the contrary by by a number of respected psychologists and other experts. DaveApter (talk) 09:16, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

One need seldom remove material on the grounds of WP:UNDUE WEIGHT -- better to swamp such views with properly-sourced countervailing views. But to argue that "an expression of opinion rather than fact" justifies an argument on undue weight confuses two categories: proven facts and perceived majority opinion. In matters of popular culture (as exemplified by Landmark Education) few facts exist, and we must perforce take notice of multiple opinions. -- Where assertion or presented facts have alternative explanations, let's see the evidence, properly sourced, alongside the "doubtful" claims, properly sourced. Allegations of "sound articles in quality newspapers that would serve better" (serve better for what?) remain mere allegations until included/referenced/sourced in the article. -- If we can find an "authoritative individual" on brainwashing (as opposed to a host of journalists in touch with popular opinion) then let's have that opinion too. Would some senior veteran of the People's Liberation Army with experience in running camps during the Korean War fit the bill? Or must we rely on piecing together collective wisdom like we do in Wikipedia? -- Pedant17 (talk) 02:14, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

The "brainwashing" controversy should be discussed

The "brainwashing" controversy should be discussed. This is something that has been referred to in the media and in academic sources as well, throughout the history of this company and its precedents. Here are some sources for perusal:

  1. Braid, Mary (December 5, 2003). "Turn up, tune in, transform? - The Landmark Forum claims to change utterly the lives of its devotees - and it is spreading fast by their word of mouth. But are its 'breakthrough' sessions a good or bad thing? Some see it as education, and others as brainwashing". Independent. Independent Newspapers (UK) Ltd.
  2. Bell, Matthew (December 17, 2000). "Wills' Chile leader is in ' brainwashing ' sect Secret of the Prince's friend and her links to the 'mind transformers' accused of ruining lives". Mail on Sunday. Associated Newspapers Company. {{cite news}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
  3. Staff (February 2, 2000). "Health group spends up on New Age therapy". Dominion Post. Wellington Newspapers Limited. A Crown health entity has spent more than $20,000 on controversial self-help training that some liken to brainwashing .
  4. Koocher, Gerald P. (1998). Ethics in Psychology: Professional Standards and Cases. Oxford University Press. p. 111. ISBN 0195092015. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
  5. Bardini, Thierry (2000). Bootstrapping: Douglas Engelbart, Coevolution, and the Origins of Personal Computing. Stanford University Press. p. 205. ISBN 0804738718.
  6. Staff (December 6, 1992). "Psychiatrists concerned as 'guru of gurus' heads for Hong Kong". South China Morning Post. Mr Werner Erhard is the founder of the most infamous of the self-development phenomena ever marketed, EST (Erhard Seminars Training). The course attracted hundreds of thousands of people in the 1970s and '80s, and was widely condemned after allegations of brainwashing and mass hysteria.
  7. Ruth, Robert (February 12, 1992). "Consultant Sticks to Guns on Training Seminar Issue". Columbus Dispatch. The Dispatch Printing Co. The Forum was created in 1984 by Werner Erhard, whose est movement was a controversial self-awareness program of the 1970s. Critics, including a cult specialist for the Columbus police and other experts, say The Forum has some of the characteristics of a cult, in terms of use of mind control, brainwashing and psychological techniques. {{cite news}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
  8. Brooks, Sylvia (February 10, 1992). "Agency Spends $4,800 on "Cultlike" Seminars". Columbus Dispatch. The Dispatch Printing Co. Cauble's description of The Forum does not surprise Edwin Morse, a psychologist and nationally recognized cult expert from Madison, Wis. Morse said The Forum is "a sophisticated cult" that uses mind control, brainwashing, psychological manipulation and emotional control.
  9. Bowers, Karen (January 28, 1990). "Experts Challenge Inmate-Counseling Service's Claims". Denver Rocky Mountain News. Denver Publishing Co. Their joint venture, which they brought to prisons in Michigan and Colorado, includes a self-realization program called "The Forum." It is conducted by Werner Erhard and Associates, the same people who swept the nation with est seminars. The Forum uses some of the same techniques that made est controversial, including intense 15-hour sessions that detractors label "brainwashing."
  10. Cerabino, Frank (May 28, 1989). "Erhard Went From Encyclopedia Sales to Marketing 'It'". Palm Beach Post. The Palm Beach Post. Est came under fire for non-medical reasons, too. "The use of brainwashing techniques, ostensibly to enhance peoples' lives, becomes bizarre when the outcome is to create unpaid salesmen," wrote free-lance journalist Mark Brewer, who went through the training and wrote about it for Psychology Today.
  11. Martin, Sam (2005). How to Achieve Total Enlightenment: A Practical Guide to the Meaning of Life. Andrews McMeel Publishing. p. 44. ISBN 0740750348. Others claim that it is a manipulative cultlike process that can cause emotional breakdowns while brainwashing its students into emptying their bank accounts.
  12. Cross, Elsie Y. (2000). Managing Diversity: The Courage to Lead. Greenwood Publishing Group. p. 69. ISBN 1567202691. It was a very, very frightening experience. There was a large group of people, 250 or more, in one room, with a leader standing in the front and someone standing in the back of the room at a huge console. This device manipulated the entire environment - it raised or lowered the temperature, created sounds that were coordinated with the presentation, and was aimed at creating an effect that I can only describe as brainwashing.
  13. Blackwood, Kendrick (September 20, 2001). "Brain Wash: Chancellor Martha Gilliland takes UMKC on a long, strange trip". PitchWeekly. People who had been through the course started speaking its strange language. They talked of needing "space," having "breakthroughs" and "getting it." The jargon doesn't sound especially weird today, but unique language is one of the characteristics of a cult, according to the American Family Foundation, a nonprofit group formed in 1979 to "study psychological manipulation and cultic groups." The foundation characterizes est as the most successful of a line of "large group awareness trainings" (LGATs) worth monitoring. On its Web site, the foundation notes that est and its knockoff groups repeatedly use "'exciting' words and phrases, such as 'breakthrough,' 'unique,' 'your full potential,' 'must be experienced,' and 'changed my life' ... Observers have also associated some LGATs with at least the potential to cause psychological distress to some participants. Some compare the training to thought reform programs, or 'brainwashing,' and to 'cults.'"
  14. Hukill, Tracy (July 9, 1998), "The est of Friends: Werner Erhard's protégés and siblings carry the torch for a '90s incarnation of the '70s 'training' that some of us just didn't get", Metro Silicon Valley, Metro Newspapers, For me, it's almost impossible to observe The Forum's methods without the word "brainwashing" flashing across my intellectual radar screen every 15 seconds or so. Landmark refers inquiries in this department to a letter by Forum graduate Edward Lowell, a New Jersey psychiatrist who states in no uncertain terms that Landmark does not use brainwashing techniques. So there we have it. However, San Jose's own Brian Lippincott, associate professor of psychology at JFK University, calls grouping people close together for long periods a "time-honored method of indoctrination," used since the days of the Roman centurions. "And then you're tired on the second or third day," he says, "and you lose your independent thought process, and the things you're hearing become internally consistent. {{citation}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help)
  15. Kornbluth, Jesse (March 19, 1976). "The Fuhrer Over est - Werner Erhard of est: How the king of the brain-snatchers created his private empire". New Times: The Feature News Magazine. And, closer to home, other trainings were beginning to attract attention - especially Stewart Emery's "Actualizations" program, a supposedly benign and anti-jargon approach that, along with its modest promise of an improved ability to communicate, is also said to "cure" est graduates troubled by est "brainwashing."
  16. Scioscia, Amanda (October 19, 2000). "Drive-thru Deliverance: It's not called est anymore, but you can still be ridiculed into self-awareness in just one expensive weekend". Phoenix New Times. But does Landmark wash brains? That is an entirely different question. In an article titled "Coercive Persuasion and Attitude Change," Richard J. Ofshe, professor of social psychology at UC-Berkeley and co-recipient of the 1979 Pulitzer Prize, defines coercive persuasion, or brainwashing, as "programs of social influence capable of producing substantial behavior and attitude change through the use of coercive tactics, persuasion, and/or interpersonal and group manipulations." Dr. Robert Jay Lifton, a psychiatrist and professor at the City University of New York, studied brainwashing in China, and in his book Thought Reform and the Psychology of Totalism identified eight criteria as a basis for answering the question: "Isn't this brainwashing?"
  17. Howard, Roland (Howard). "Mindbreakers: A rape victim is sneered at. A senior surgeon breaks down. It's an extraordinary scene of humiliation and control. But why are Britain's professional elite paying 235 to a former hairdresser who says he can break them and remake them? Self improvement self awareness self discovery self obsession". Daily Mail. I'm told that in about 40 hours it will break me and remake me. Called The Forum and run by an organisation called Landmark Education, it promises to alter my reality radically and transform my relationships. Some say such courses are brainwashing, but I want to keep an open mind. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  18. Winters, Ben (1999). "Head Shrinker: Ben Winters gets lost and found again in the world of transformation training". NewCity Chicago. Some of the reports are disturbing, indeed. A 1992 news item from the Washington Post tells of Stephanie Ney, a woman from Silver Spring, Maryland, who sued Landmark in 1992 after suffering a nervous breakdown in her seminar. And the London Times writes about senior managers [who] have lost their jobs, experienced nervous breakdowns or been unable to continue with personal relationships after taking the course. I check into Internet chat rooms where the enthusiastically transformed get into it with skeptics. I said I love you to my mother for the first time in years, says one Forum enthusiast. Decriers say it's a bunch of brainwashing, a money-making scam, more of a pastiche of ideas than an actual system. There's also a damning 1986 report from the American Psychiatric Association, and a snippet from The Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, asserting that the claims of huge success made by transformational programs can be correlated not to the effectiveness of the programs, but to the type of people who would choose to go into them in the first place. I encounter the concept of loaded language - like Humanus' phrases speak yourself and get off it - common sense ideas that, simply rephrased and obsessively repeated, take on an irresistible, shamanistic quality.
  19. Mathison, Dirk (February 1993). "White collar cults, they want your mind ... - ...and your money, and six of your friends. A look at the new, white-collar world of cults--where 'personal growth' means brainwashing". Self Magazine.
  20. Brewer, Mark (August 1975). ""We're Gonna Tear You Down and Put You Back Together"". Psychology Today. Such efforts, or course, are commonly known as brainwashing, which is precisely what the est experience is, and the result is usually a classic conversion.
  21. Los Angeles Times staff (April 2, 1989). "Workers Challenge 'New Age' Consulting Firms". Los Angeles Times. "The sessions put people into a hibernating state," Kim says. "They ask for total loyalty. It's like brainwashing." Faced with the choice, Kim says, of staying in the program or losing his job, he quit. But he didn't give up the fight. Kim and seven other former employees of DeKalb Farmers Market recently sued the business and its consulting firm. The plaintiffs charge that they were forced out of their jobs for objecting to a "new age quasi-religious cult" that they contend was developed by Werner Erhard , founder of the human potential movement known as est.

Cirt (talk) 21:24, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Than you for that. A review of the above list indicates that most of the entries falls into one or other of the following categories:
a) The writer is reporting that "Some people have said that Landmark uses brainwashing"
b) The writer is asserting their own personal opinion on the matter.
It is certainly the case that some people have expressed an opinion that Landmark uses brainwashing and others disagree. Whether there are any sources that meet this aspect of the WP:NPOV policy is open to question:

The reference requires an identifiable and objectively quantifiable population or, better still, a name (with the clear implication that the named individual should be a recognized authority)

So do you think there are any sources that indicate that this opinion is held by such populations or individuals? Thanks DaveApter (talk) 15:03, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
Cirt is one of our most prolific featured article writers. I think they know how to source material properly. The list is long and looks like a lot of work. Perhaps it would be best to identify a few sources that provide relevant information and have excellent reputations for reliability, and then add that content to the article. Jehochman Talk 15:16, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
Here's a good source: Scioscia, Amanda (October 19, 2000). "Drive-Thru Deliverance". Phoenix: Phoenix New Times.. The Phoenix New Times newspaper sent one of their regular reporters to take a Landmark course. Good details of what actually happened there. --John Nagle (talk) 18:25, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the kind words, Jehochman (talk · contribs). Nagle (talk · contribs), that is indeed a very good source, I had listed it above as (16). Cirt (talk) 19:03, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
As a graduate of the Landmark Curriculum for Living, I know the methodology used at Landmark Education is NOT brainwashing. This is the common experience of people who COMPLETE the entire Landmark Forum (yet not those who walk-out immediately after being confronted with something from their lives). All this "brainwash" talk is occurs to me as sensationalized statements from people with an agenda to make Landmark Education wrong. Anyone can say anything... every has an opinon about everything... let us limit was is said on Landmark Education's pages to facts that can be VARIFIED. (It is different to quote someone yelling "brainwashing", then to define "brainwashing" and show exactly how Landmark Education is doing so.) (User:iheartceline)20:08, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
Editing appears to have overtaken the contention that the sentence "The reference requires an identifiable and objectively quantifiable population or, better still, a name (with the clear implication that the named individual should be a recognized authority)" appears in the WP:NPOV policy. Some one appears to have consigned that prescription to the past. -- There remains a large body of respected and widespread and well-sourced commentary connecting the notions of brainwashing and Landmark Education. To ignore such opinion would distort our article. To include such opinion without dissenting opinions (if any exist of comparable merit and quotability) would also distort our article. -- Pedant17 (talk) 02:14, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Reference to French Senate statement

In the "Evaluations" section, we see a qualification to the inclusion of LE on the French list of "sectes": "In 2005, the French Senate stated that this list has no normative character, but is only informative." However, the reference does not appear to support the claim that the Senate stated that the list has no normative character. Can another source for this claim be provided? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 10:23, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

It would be best if a secondary source is provided to back up that claim, or else it should be removed. Cirt (talk) 17:43, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Landmark_Worldwide/Archive_26&oldid=1142473313"