Talk:Landmark Forum

From Wikiquote
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Created[edit]

Created, with text from lede of en.wikipedia article, Landmark Worldwide. Created as "Landmark Forum" because of so many different name changes for same course and entity: (1) The Forum, (2) Landmark Forum, (3) Landmark Education, (4) Landmark Worldwide, etc. etc. etc. "Landmark Forum" appears to be the most prevalent and prominent name associated with this particular topic used in scholarly academic sources. -- Cirt (talk) 18:30, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Landmark Forum staff member acknowledges Large-group awareness training[edit]

  • Dennison's dissertation, which categorizes the Landmark Forum as a 'large group awareness training' is a qualitative study based on interviews with Forum graduates. He also reports predominantly positive outcomes and in addition, briefly summarizes philosophical components of the Forum.
    • Steven R. McCarl, University of Denver - Department of Political Science; Steve Zaffron, Landmark Worldwide LLC and Vanto Group; Joyce McCarl Nielsen, University of Colorado at Boulder - Department of Sociology; Sally Lewis Kennedy, Graland Country Day School (April 2001). "The Promise of Philosophy and the Landmark Forum". Contemporary Philosophy XXIII (1 & 2).
  • The extensive research literature on 'large group awareness training' published in the 1970s and 80s (summarized in Finkelstein, Wenegrat, and Yalom) is framed in psychological more than philosophical terms, albeit there is some reference to the training as existential psychotherapy.
    • Steven R. McCarl, University of Denver - Department of Political Science; Steve Zaffron, Landmark Worldwide LLC and Vanto Group; Joyce McCarl Nielsen, University of Colorado at Boulder - Department of Sociology; Sally Lewis Kennedy, Graland Country Day School (April 2001). "The Promise of Philosophy and the Landmark Forum". Contemporary Philosophy XXIII (1 & 2).

  1. These two above quotes are co-authored by Steve Zaffron.
  2. Steve Zaffron is CEO of Vanto Group, which was previously known as Landmark Education Business Development (LEBD).
  3. Steve Zaffron is therefore a high-ranking staff member within the Landmark Education company hierarchy.
  4. Steve Zaffron as a co-author of the above cited article, acknowledges that the term "large group awareness training" has been used by academics in scholarly writings to refer to Landmark Forum.
  5. Steve Zaffron as a co-author of the above cited article, makes no attempt to disavow use of the term "large group awareness training" to refer to Landmark Forum.
  6. Steve Zaffron as a co-author of the above cited article, utilizes prior studies which make use of the term "large group awareness training" in reference to Landmark Forum, in order to state that Landmark Forum has "positive outcomes".
  7. Additional material on this topic by author Steve Salerno in multiple article series at SHAMblog:
  8. This is an important distinction to acknowledge that a high-ranking member of the Landmark Education hierarchy Steve Zaffron has used and cited the term "large group awareness training" in this manner. -- Cirt (talk) 06:32, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Documenting usage of terminology is not really Wikiquote's purpose. ~ Ningauble (talk) 14:44, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Documenting for multiple purposes, one of which would be that, others include in case other queries come up about this later. -- Cirt (talk) 15:51, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
  • I approve of the subsequent removal of these two quotes from the article because, whatever other purposes they might potentially have served, they are not good results for queries about quotable quotes. ~ Ningauble (talk) 13:33, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Okay, thank you for your opinion, -- Cirt (talk) 17:03, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

This page seems to be a coatrack for quotations *about* Landmark, for a critical agenda[edit]

Many of the people quoted are not notable. If they were notable, then pages of quotations from these people may be appropriate. The quotations here, on first glance, seem to have been selected to prove some point or other. Is this an appropriate use for Wikiquote? I had the impression that Wikiquote was for quotations from notable individuals or similar sources, with, then, certain topic indexes existing that compile quotations from various individuals, given on their individual pages, on a topic.

I find it remarkable that Wikiquote has one quotation on Boy Scouts of America and then, on the Landmark Forum, this farrago of comments that seem to have been collected by searching for anything on the Landmark Forum or the company Landmark Education, or matters that seem related to the Forum by the editor here, without regard for the notability of the authors, i.e,. the authors could not have a page here, or if they did, it might have some balance.

The editor who created this is working on an educational resource at wikiversity:Landmark Education. As editing there was becoming contentious, I forked it, he should be able to put any of this content on wikiversity:Landmark Education/Cirt. Cirt seems to have a critical POV, or to be specially interested in criticism, and he can do that on Wikiversity without conflict if he takes responsibility for a resource; we preserve neutrality by not allowing that original research or point of view expression at top level, but only on attributed subpages. (This is like having a university course with sections with different teachers.)

Here, the material quoted, taken out of context, can be quite difficult to understand, not being placed in a context of analysis. This is a bit like a Wikipedia article with no text, just quoted sources. --Abd (talk) 01:34, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Rather than attempt to remove material that you find objectionable, I'd most appreciate it if you wanted to help with research and suggest additional material to add to this page. Thank you! -- Cirt (talk) 01:41, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
Or in words used by Mike Godwin, "the best answer for bad speech is more speech.". Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 01:58, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
I have to agree with Abd's closing remark above:  This is very much like an expository article bereft of the actual exposition, presenting a collection of citations to document some point or other without presenting the actual thesis. Even if this were not an incoherent way to write an exposition or thesis, as Abd suggests, it is not within Wikiquote's purpose to present expositions and theses in the first place.

The problem here is broader than the notability, or lack thereof, of authors in the "About" section to which Abd refers. More fundamentally, throughout the entire article I do not see a single item that exhibits the sort of quotability that merits inclusion in a compendium of quotations. None of this material would be even remotely considered by the editors of Bartlett's Familiar Quotations or any compendia like it. ~ Ningauble (talk) 14:47, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

There are thirty-six (36) sourced quotes in the About section. Surely we can come to a compromise agreeing that at least some of these are quotable. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 15:52, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
My opinion is that any of these 36 quotes that might be at least marginally quotable are already captured on the New religious movement page. I agree with the above discussion that this particular page (Landmark Forum) does not present quotes (outside of those on the New religious movement page) that rise to the necessary level of quotability. ~ UDScott (talk) 16:03, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
I think a good compromise solution is to trim this page to a smaller total amount of shorter quotes. I've already begun addressing another issue raised by the original poster, linking authors with existing Wikipedia entries. -- Cirt (talk) 16:06, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
Update: Regarding original subject of this sect, I've gone ahead and removed a ton of the quotes that may have been perceived as critical by the original poster, see DIFF 1 and DIFF 2. I've replaced them with quotable quotes re-quoted by other authors about the same topic = the very definition of quotable. -- Cirt (talk) 18:58, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

┌─────────────────┘
New material has been added to the article since the evaluations by Abd, UDScott, and myself above. The current article revision contains some quotations that may merit inclusion. In particular, the two quotations of Capuzzo (new) and of Oakes (previously included), though they may not display particularly stellar locution or wisdom, might at least possess a modicum of pith or insight. For the time being, I recommend removing the rest of the quotations in the present article. ~ Ningauble (talk) 13:49, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

And what about the quotes from other notable individuals, such as Chuck Palahniuk??? -- Cirt (talk) 17:04, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Compromise solution[edit]

Proposed: Let's come to a compromise solution here and trim the size of the About section, to a smaller leaner section of shorter quotes. -- Cirt (talk) 16:07, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't think anyone has objected above to the size of the section. ~ Ningauble (talk) 16:38, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
I'm trying to propose good faith solutions to the issue. -- Cirt (talk) 18:54, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
Like I said, above, we can add other quotes and trim current ones. If you feel all quotes on the page are unsatisfactory to you, we already know the subject itself is notable and has an article on Wikipedia so we can retain this page and simply add better quotes. :) -- Cirt (talk) 19:09, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Update: Linked notable authors[edit]

Update: Per talk page comments, above, I've gone ahead and linked notable authors with existing Wikipedia entries. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 16:08, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Not to beat a dead horse, but I'm not sure the issue is entirely about whether or not the authors are notable - to me it's equally about the lack of quotability of the quotes themselves. So I don't believe that just linking notable authors on its own solves the problem. ~ UDScott (talk) 17:19, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
In that case, we can add more quotes that are more quotable. The topic of the theme is certainly notable and has an existing article on Wikipedia. Therefore, I will work on research and cleanup to improve the page itself, so the page may be retained. -- Cirt (talk) 18:55, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
Regarding "quotability of the quotes themselves" = I've updated this, below, and noted that I've specifically done more research on quotes about this topic that were then re-quoted by other authors = the very definition of quotable quotes. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 18:56, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Update: Removed several quotes. Trimmed size of a bunch of other quotes.[edit]

Update: Removed several quotes. Trimmed size of a bunch of other quotes.

Please see DIFF.

Hopefully this looks a bit better and also incorporates some of the commentary from above.

Cheers,

-- Cirt (talk) 01:21, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Update: Another good faith attempt at compromise = I've gone ahead and removed several more quotes, see DIFF 1 and DIFF 2. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 17:59, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
Update: Yet another good faith attempt at compromise = I've added two (2) quoted quotable quotes from notable person Chuck Palahniuk, please see DIFF followed by DIFF. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 18:09, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Added the above quote. It is a quote from a secondary source that was then re-quoted by another secondary source about the same topic. This meets the very definition of a quotable quote. -- Cirt (talk) 18:53, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

New section about new sections[edit]

Creating multiple new sections to rehash the same points makes the discussion rather tedious to follow and contribute to. It's not just that it is difficult to respond when something is continued in multiple places. Forking multiple top-level threads about side issues or non-issues, while ignoring the central issues of quotability and the appropriate use for Wikiquote, gives the appearance, even if unintentionally, of stonewalling. If these issues cannot be resolved here then it may be time to take it to a different, more structured venue. ~ Ningauble (talk) 17:46, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

  1. I've made several good faith attempts to address above commented-on issues and improve the page.
  2. I've trimmed the size of quotes, making the quotes more pithy and succinct.
  3. I've removed several quotes.
  4. The topic itself is certainly notable, I am open to the idea of adding more quotable quotes and replacing less quotable quotes.

Cheers,

-- Cirt (talk) 17:51, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Update: Another good faith attempt at compromise = I've gone ahead and removed several more quotes, see DIFF 1 and DIFF 2. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 17:59, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
Update: Yet another good faith attempt at compromise = I've added two (2) quoted quotable quotes from notable person Chuck Palahniuk, please see DIFF followed by DIFF. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 18:09, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
I don't think you are addressing the subject of this thread, which is meta-discussion of the manner in which discussion has been conducted. Rather, and to the point of this thread, the above three posts seem to be a disjointed fragments of other discussions above. ~ Ningauble (talk) 18:48, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
Fine. I will add my updates to the thread about updates. But it feels like my good faith attempts to improve the page are not getting noticed. -- Cirt (talk) 18:51, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
I do believe that you mean well, and if I have been too strong in expressing frustrations then it is my own failing. I have been online for several hours, and need to move on to other things for a while. I will review the new article version when I return tomorrow, and try to make some sense of the ongoing scattershot of posts here. ~ Ningauble (talk) 19:32, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
Thank you very much, Ningauble, your kind words and expression of good faith about my intentions are most appreciated !!! :) -- Cirt (talk) 20:13, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Quotes Do Not Relate to Topic[edit]

The following quotes are not about the Landmark Forum and do not even include mention of Landmark. They should be removed from this page:

  • Although est and the Forum are frequently characterized as NRMs or 'cults'(q.v.), leaders and participants have typically denied that undergoing the seminars involves following a religion. George D. Chryssides (2006). The A to Z of New Religious Movements. Scarecrow Press. p. 121. ISBN 0810855887.
  • In 1985, est was discontinued and replaced by a program called The Forum, which is very similar to est. James R. Lewis (2001). The Encyclopedia of Cults, Sects, and New Religions. Prometheus Books. p. 306. ISBN 1573928887.
  • Criticism of EST led the organization to lower the intensity of the workshop experience and to rename Erhard Seminar Training The Forum to reflect the change. - J. Gordon MeltonCriticism of EST led the organization to lower the intensity of the workshop experience and to rename Erhard Seminar Training The Forum to reflect the change. J. Gordon Melton (1991). New Age Almanac. Visible Ink Press. ISBN 978-0810394025.
  • L. Ron Hubbard repackaged Scientology from occultism, and est/Forum was a repackaging of Scientology by Werner Erhard, but few Scientologists or estians ever see the connections, and both leaders seem to have gained little from their teachings. This is what the followers of Erhard found so unsettling; he was the great pop artist of spirituality, yet was unable to apply his insights to himself. Len Oakes (1997). Prophetic Charisma: The Psychology of Revolutionary Religious Personalities. Syracuse, New York: Syracuse University Press. p. 189. ISBN 0815627009.

thank you --MLKLewis (talk) 01:07, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

MLKLewis (talk · contributions), can you please be more specific? Why specifically do you feel these sourced quotes don't relate to the topic? -- Cirt (talk) 06:53, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
Further, they all mention "The Forum", which is used interchangeably in academic literature with "Landmark Forum". Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 07:04, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
Additionally, here are some secondary sources that acknowledge "Landmark Forum" is known simply as "The Forum", for short. Please see DIFF. Hopefully this is now satisfactory sourcing standards for MLKLewis (talk · contributions), -- Cirt (talk) 07:22, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
The quotes subsequently added in the above linked "DIFF" are prime examples of what I referred to, in a thread above, as "very much like an expository article ... presenting a collection of citations to document some point or other". I must reiterate, from that same post, that it is not Wikiquote's purpose to present documentary expositions, and none of this material would ever appear in Bartlett's Familiar Quotations or any other compendium of quotable quotes. ~ Ningauble (talk) 14:00, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

  • Landmark Education Corporation. Aka Landmark Forum. The organization that continues to offer est seminars, in a modified form, as Landmark Forum, or simply the Forum.
  • Paul Heelas, for example, includes a significant number of what he calls the 'self religions': groups like Landmark Forum (also known simply as The Forum, formerly est or Erhard Seminar Training) and Programmes Limited (formerly Exegesis).

Yes check.svgY Done, I've gone ahead and removed these added quotes, per above comment by Ningauble (talk · contributions), please see DIFF. Thank you, -- Cirt (talk) 14:38, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
Now that these quotes are on the talk page, I'd like to discuss them individually. I personally feel that the Grigoriadis 2001 quote, above, is pithy, succinct, and quotable. I'd like to add that particular one back to the quote page. What do others think about that particular one? -- Cirt (talk) 14:53, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
Many people at many times have said of many things that they "will change yor life", or that they will not. There is nothing original or quoteworthy in this instance. ~ Ningauble (talk) 16:03, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
Okay, thank you, Ningauble, for your opinion, I'd like to hear more from MLKLewis about this particular quote. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 18:42, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
The Grigoriadis quote does not seem all that pithy, succinct or quotable to me. I'd actually question using a journalist as a source of quotes for much of anything, unless it is related to the topic of journalism. Originality and quotability are Wikiquote standards I hold in high regard.--MLKLewis (talk) 00:16, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Ninguable that quotes in wikiquote should meet a higher standard of quotability, as is laid out in Wikiquote:Quotability. I'd argue that that reason alone calls for these quotes to be removed.

In addition to that, in the particular case of the quotes that I pointed out above as not relating to this topic, there is the distinct problem of applying quotes to the wrong entity. The est training began in 1971 and ceased to exist in 1984. Then 'The Forum' began in 1984, which was seven years before Landmark as a company and The Landmark Forum itself even existed. Just because some writers make assumptions and get things wrong does not mean that two different entities are in actuality one and the same. Indeed the fact that the Lewis quote used here even gets the date wrong says something about the questionable reliability of these sources.

I want to strongly reiterate that I think that the four quotes that I listed at the top of this section should be removed for the reason that I will restate simply: They are clearly not about the Landmark Forum. --MLKLewis (talk) 00:16, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes check.svgY Done. Removed four (4) quotes from page, per complaints on talk page by MLKLewis (talk · contributions). Please see DIFF. Thank you, -- Cirt (talk) 09:54, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
Thank you. I removed another quote that also predated the Landmark Forum. --MLKLewis (talk) 01:47, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
I'd rather this page be about both "The Forum" and "Landmark Forum". -- Cirt (talk) 04:39, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

"The Forum"[edit]

Page intro notes topic includes "The Forum" as well as "Forum" and "Landmark Forum". Please don't remove quotes related to "The Forum", thank you, -- Cirt (talk) 06:04, 6 March 2014 (UTC)