Wikipedia Correction (Video)

Corrections to WIkipedia Landmark Worldwide. I’m asking you to create a wikipedia account to correct these changes. A lot of Large Group Awareness Training programs that get a bad rap try to copy Landmark, repackage it, not acknowledge it, sell it as their own. NXVIM, for example was found to have plagiarized Landmark. Landmark is not sociology or theology, it’s not religious at all. You may find some of the questions about theology answered in the forum. Critics may call it “new religious movement” (NRM) even though it’s not religious. A lot of people say a lot of things. “self-religion” – Nonsense. A “corporate religion” – Nonsense, “religio-spiritual corporation” – Buddhism is not a religion, some people may have a spiritual awakening on their own. Both the Cult Education Institute and the Cult Awareness Network have both confirmed it’s not a cult. Rick Ross hasn’t done the forum and was concerned it could be a cult at the higher levels, however they have a President and CEO, then on top of them is a board of directors, then there’s the court of public opinion. While someone may experience an uncomfortable conversation for them, very quickly they are met with a breakthrough that is a new freedom from the uncomfort. Landmark is not trying to convert anyone to a new worldview. Critics are concerned about perceived recruiting. People find a new found happiness, breakthroughs in health (as a result of researching health after the forum), breakthroughs in wealth (purely as a result of them researching after the forum), wisdom, freedom, and to explain that freedom takes something. Because people don’t know how to explain that stuff it occurs to people like they’re recruiting, when it’s really just people trying their best to share their experience, and since it’s customized to each person, it can take something to be able to say “I got X, let’s talk about how you can get something, what do you want?” And to respond, oh you want xyz, this gives you xyz, sounds crazy. Landmark is not “pie in the sky” or a “pipe dream”. It’s real hard headed impact on your everyday being in the world. If that occurs to people as pressure, while Landmark understands that concern, it’s not meant to be pressure at all. It’s just “you said you want xyzx. I’m telling you, if you don’t get xyz within the five days, you’ll at least be way further along than you ever thought possible in five days, and maybe the month leading up to the forum. “Pressure” and “recruiting” is a perceived occurrence, and is not based in reality. In 1991, he sold the company and its concepts to some of his employees – it was technically always owned by the employees. 7,500 “volunteers” Nobody volunteers. People assist. They get great training and development out of it, even if they don’t fully realize that. And they can chose to finish their agreement, and not continue to assist. After 2020, investigations by the United States Department of Labor, which concluded without requiring Landmark to make any changes to their practices.[2]: 1. They are not afraid of change, and constantly are restoring anything that is out of integrity. Described by reporters variously as: “evangelical”,[4] having “a Ponzi taste”,[21] “a quasi-pyramid scheme”,[1] and including a “hard, hard sell”.[3] These are perceived and not based in reality. These reporters didn’t know how else to explain it, much like above. If you were more free to be you after the forum, yeah, that might come off to people as you getting something out of it. No graduate gets anything out of a family member registering, therefore it can’t be a ponzi. It just provides real value, and most people find sharing it to be a challenge or not easy or whatever they would say. Landmark is not psychological and had a Psychologist on staff for years. Landmark is not New Age. Someone wrote, “Abgrall complained” in 2004 when interviewed by Le Parisien that this had only been revealed to block his involvement in the ongoing Order of the Solar Temple cult trial, and that he had no conflict of interest as he “wrote an unfavorable report and paid my taxes.”[26][27] “Complained” is not accurate. This is missing that he maintained his innocence. Ross stated that he does not see Landmark as a cult because they have no individual leader, but he considers them harmful because subjects are uses the word, “harassed” and “intimidated”, causing potentially unsafe levels of stress.[24] This is wholly inaccurate. Other lawsuits In 2004, a lawsuit was filed against Landmark, accusing the business of causing a psychotic episode in an individual after they attended a Landmark Seminar.[28][29] It seems to me that person already had challenges and their family member registered after the psychotic episode. Landmark isn’t responsible for people that were already going to have an episode and then they have it afterwards. If you’re taking anti anxiety medicine, either don’t do it, or get off the medicine with nutrition and then do the forum. Landmark is not selling a belief system. A 2011 Time article stated that “Landmark has been criticized for delving into the traumas of largely unscreened participants without having mental-health professionals on hand.”[21] Yes, this is a description of austoundedness simply saying what they’ve been criticized for. Time is not saying they thought they were rightly criticized or not. They are merely amazed that people that have dealt with trauma are seemingly not screened, and not having mental health professionals on hand is quite extraordinary and they don’t know how to explain what happens other than the distinctions above. Some people have said, “teaching” and “techniques” for “improvement”. Landmark doesn’t teach, it’s personal discovery. They don’t have “techniques”, it’s just conversations and proposals. Improvement is a comparison, and they don’t live in the world of comparison at all for anything. Some people have said, “need”. Nobody needs Landmark. It works, it’s effective, nobody needs it. Others may feel violated. This seems to only be people that haven’t done the forum, or someone did actually complain, and they shifted the way they do things so it wouldn’t happen again in the future. No one has to talk if they don’t want to. You’d still get the bare minimum if you just listened the whole time. You’d get more if you speak. It’s not really even “education”. It’s just a conversation. But found no long-term positive or negative effects on individuals’ self-perception. Right, because Landmark doesn’t try to be “good” or “bad”. It’s just reality. I ask Laura McClure of Mother Jones if she did the program for specific reasons to her own life or if she went in trying to challenge them? ‘My lost weekend”. If you do the assignments and do them honestly you’ll get probably the most efficient and effective weekends of your life. “Trademark happy” – Yeah, thousands of people have contributed to decades of work, of course they trademarked three concepts. Bathroom-break hating – There’s plenty of time for the bathroom. It seems Laura may have wanted to excessively go to the bathroom to take notes for her story and may have missed something that could’ve made a huge positive difference on her life. “Slightly spooky inheritors of est.” It’s not spooky at all, it’s understandable that you might want to know more about where the ideas of the forum came from. Happiness, freedom are not tangible, but are real. France 3 broke their agreement and filmed private conversations, and was only straight and ending with benefits and more success in people’s lives. In 2004, the French channel France 3 aired a television documentary on Landmark in their investigative series Pièces à Conviction.[60] The episode, called “Voyage Au Pays des Nouveaux Gourous” (“Journey to the land of the new gurus”) was highly critical of its subject.[61] Shot in large part with a hidden camera, it showed attendance at a Landmark course and a visit to Landmark offices.[62] In addition, the program included interviews with former course participants, anti-cultists, and commentators. Landmark left France following the airing of the episode and a subsequent site visit by labor inspectors that noted the activities of volunteers,[63] and sued Jean-Pierre Brard in 2004 following his appearance in the documentary.[64] Today, they have a great reputation among French graduates.