Talk:Landmark Worldwide/Archive 32

Archive 25

←

Archive 30

Archive 31

Archive 32

Recent activity on this page

Background

This page has been a wp:battleground for many years. There have been numerous edit wars between those who feel that the page was at times overly critical of Landmark and those who felt that it was insufficiently so. Both sides claimed that the other was violating the wp:npov policies and that they were attempting to restore neutrality. Many of the editors were blocked for violations of Wikipedia policies, in some cases indefinitely. There have been many resorts to mediation and other dispute resolution procedures, including an extended arbitration process in 2014, which resulted in a number of editors pushing anti-Landmark material being blocked or otherwise sanctioned, and the page being placed under restrictions for a time. A good deal of work by non-partisan editors and admins resulted in an article which had a broad degree of consensus, and it has been largely stable for some time now. It is a well established Wikipedia practice that significant edits to a page with a history of controversy should be discussed beforehand to check whether or not there is a broad consensus for the proposed changes. Recently there has been a flare-up of wp:contentious editing on the page, all without prior discussion here.

NPOV tag and edit warring

An NPOV Tag was placed on the article on 25th September, without discussion, apart from the editor clearly stating his own viewpoint at the head of the section above. Apart from refusing to provide a justification, the editor proceeded to edit war by replacing the tag when it was removed.[[1]],[[2]], [[3]], [[4]]. Arguably this was a violation of the wp:3RR policy, although it maybe escapes that on a technicality, since the third reinsertion was of a COI rather than the NPOV one.

Breaches of civility and wikiquette

I would say that the conduct of the above section on this page headed 'NPOV' speaks for itself...

Recent edits to the article (all without prior discussion and consensus seeking)

Wholesale removal of section

The entire section influence an impact was removed [[5]], despite its being essentially factual, relevant and adequately sourced.

New 'Litigation' section

This added section [[6]] appears to me to give undue weight to a civil case that was opened 19 years ago and then abandoned. What is the relevance of this to the topic of this article?

And this addition [[7]] of a reported comment by Rick Ross is surely even more irrelevant? Who knows whether he was really disappointed that the case did not proceed, or whether he was just putting a face-saving gloss on matters? Who knows what he would or would not have uncovered if the case had been processed? DaveApter (talk) 15:44, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Reply to Wholesale removal of section

Well you seem to be biased toward attempting to remove any negative content, no matter how well sourced and relevant, and pushing the positive content. I'd like to note the entire last paragraph of this removal you are contesting was SELF-SOURCED WP:SPS to Landmark, and can be seen as an WP:UNDUE inclusion of trivial content, the same argument you are trying to use against the Rick Ross comment below.

I'm not opposed to re-instating the sentence about the RUOK? Day sourced to the abc news source, and excluding the self-sourcing from the RUOK? Day's own website.

The first paragraph in that removal is not supported by the quotes from the sources, which talk about Ehrard, NOT Landmark's ideas.---Avatar317^(talk) 23:26, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Hello. I have reformatted this conversation slightly to comply with WP:TPG. Every statement should have a signature, and comments should not be placed in the middle of other comments. Having multiple subsections will make a mess of any future archives, as well. Grayfell (talk) 23:34, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

(Sorry about the location of my previous comment) This is a reply to the "New 'Litigation' section":

The relevance is that this organization is 30+ years old, and this Wikipedia article is pathetically small and sparse for the content that has been reported by RS's on Landmark and COULD be included.

You claim that because this happened 19 years ago it is not relevant, but that the above positive reporting on RUokDAy, 14 years ago is relevant?

You are making it clear that your bias is to keep as much negative information about this organization out of this article, and keep as much positive info included. ---Avatar317^(talk) 23:39, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Okay, I guess I will re-involve myself in this article. Back in '21 (at #PR tag? above) I explained some of my concerns over the tone of the article. While it has improved in some ways, I don't think the problem has been fully resolved. The article still has WP:TONE issues, and uses far too much filler and softball PR. As just one of many possible examples, I still do not accept that "vitality" is meaningful enough to justify using without a definition. This is a small, subtle point, but I think it helps illustrate the deeper problem. Whether or not this is a buzzword depends on context, so provide enough context that it isn't a buzzword. Similarly, Landmark Worldwide#Concepts seems to be written from the perspective that "Landmark" is a single sentient entity capable of holding opinions and making arguments and proposing things and so on. This is obviously false, landmark is a business entity composed of many people and documents. The article should explain who, specifically, is making these claims, ideally with some indication of when they originated, instead of merely passing them along as bland truths from some unknown source.

As I said back in 2021, the article has many problems and merely fixing these examples would not, by itself, be enough to fix the entire article. Grayfell (talk) 00:01, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Responses

I don't really know how to address the threading with the structure that this section now has.

@Grayfell Thank you for returning to contribute to the debate. For what it is worth, I have removed the claim about 'vitality' since you objected to it, and I don't mind having a stab at re-wording the 'Concepts' section to avoid the vague attribution to 'Landmark' as an entity. I do appreciate that this will not satisfy all of your concerns since you say that these are only examples, and you feel that the article has more fundamental issues. However, unless we have specific concrete suggestions for changes that will improve matters, I don't see how we can move forward. DaveApter (talk) 16:00, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

@User:Avatar317

1. Please don't make personal attacks, and confine your remarks to constructive suggestions for improvement of the article.
2. Regarding the 'Wholesale removal' comment (which was not your edit, but you have rushed to defend), my main point was that this had been done without any prior discussion on this talk page. In fact both of your objections to the sourcing for this section are mistaken. The source for the first section did mention Landmark as well as Erhard. The source for the third section was The Times of India (and the ref does need fixing to cite the original publication, rather than its re-quote on Landmark's website).
3. Regarding the addition of the 'Litigation' section, again, my main point is that this was added without any prior discussion. Why do you feel that this court action two decades ago is sufficiently noteworthy to add to this article?
4. In any event, even if the case is worthy of mention, surely it is egregious to add the following material: postings on the Institute's websites which characterized Landmark as a cultish organization that brainwashed their clients .... 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 harassed and intimidated, causing potentially unsafe levels of stress. These are at best non-notable opinions, and at worst malicious fabrications on Ross's part. What is the justification for using Wikipedia to propagate these viewpoints? DaveApter (talk) 16:00, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

If the current arrangement is frustrating, you can use subsections for individual comments, but please add your signature to each comment in a section so that other readers can understand who is saying what. I personally recommend against this, however. Talk pages are intended to be a record, not just an ongoing discussion. It's not always realistic to expect a detailed response to many different points, so this approach can often feel frustrating and incomplete. This is why I have emphasized that my examples were examples, because I hoped that they would illustrate the deeper issues without having to enumerate all of them. If you understand the problem with the 'concepts' section, than you should also be able to recognize more subtle version of that same problem elsewhere in the article.

I have adjusted the formatting of the reference for the Ross case in the article (repeated here for convenience, with full archive link):

• Toutant, Charles. "Suits Against Anti-Cult Blogger Provide Test for Online Speech". New Jersey Law Journal. Law.com. Archived from the original on October 6, 2006. Retrieved October 26, 2023.

This source appears reliable and does specifically include Ross's comments regarding Landmark not being a cult, stress, and harassment. To me it would seem very strange to mention this without mentioning Ross's stated opinions, since they are obviously relevant to this lawsuit. Since Rick Alan Ross appears to still be living, including his opinion does help comply with WP:BLP. In this situation, if this is mentioned at all, the details help clarify the bigger picture.

If you would like additional suggestions for how to improve the article: The 'Landmark Forum' section is overly-detailed and includes some strange MOS:OVERLINKs as well as WP:SYNTH of multiple sources. The 'Current operations' section should adjusted to avoid MOS:CURRENTLY (which involves slightly more than just renaming the section) and to remove trivia and name-dropping which is only supported by passing mentions or primary sources. Grayfell (talk) 21:17, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Thank you @Grayfell. It is helpful to have experienced editors who are not motivated by strong personal views about Landmark contributing to this discussion. My personal goal is for this to be a good quality accurate account fully in accordance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.

As regards your suggestions re the Landmark Forum section and the Current Operations section, I will take a look and see whether I can make adjustments to address your concerns. I would agree that there is an excessive number of wikilinks, several of which are not helpful. However, if there is going to be an article at all about this organisation, it seems to me that it is necessary to give some sort of account of what its activities are.

Regarding the Litigation section, I cannot disagree with your assessment that the source is acceptable, and that it does say what is summarised in the paragraph. What I am questioning is whether it is a sufficiently significant fact to be incorporated into this page. What I am more concerned about is that it appears to me to be a trojan horse to incorporate unsubstantiated and defamatory (and in fact false) allegations into Wikipedia, thereby giving them wider currency. It may well be in accordance with WP:BLP to detail these on the Rick Ross page, but does that justify including them here?

What is your opinion regarding the summary removal of the entire 'Influence and impact' section? - especially in the light of the fact that I pointed out above that the objections to the sourcing (by a different editor than the one who did the removal) were erroneous.

Incidentally my removal of the reference to 'vitality' in deference to your remarks about it was summarily reverted by user:Polygnotus, who is also accusing me of having a COI on this topic, and implying that I may be a paid contributor. DaveApter (talk) 17:03, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

"motivated by strong personal views about Landmark"... "unsubstantiated and defamatory (and in fact false) allegations"... Sounds like you have pretty strong personal views about this company. You've been editing this page for 18 years. Polygnotus (talk) 17:11, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Kinda funny how you write about another editor as if you were uninvolved, but you forget to mention your role. The fact you broke the rules (e.g. WP:MAINTENANCEDISAGREEMENT), editwarred to keep your preferred version and removed the warning about 3RR.. Polygnotus (talk) 17:16, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

These remarks are irrelevant to the process of discussing how to improve this article. I will respond to them on your talk page. DaveApter (talk) 20:36, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

But you did post remarks about me above, which were also irrelevant to the process of discussing how to improve this article. It is not very complicated to figure out what your goal is. Polygnotus (talk) 20:45, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Regarding the "Influence and impact" section, it was not neutrally written and I think the article is better off without it. I do not view such content as "essentially factual" nor is it adequately sourced in this context. Asking these loaded questions undermines your case.

Since you asked and this is part of the article's ongoing issues, I will elaborate: WP:WEASEL words should be avoided, so talking about how "some writers" have so-and-so is not going to work, and I dispute that it is a neutral summary of those sources. Also, these ref-template quotes are long and include multiple elided section, which suggests to me that they were curated to support this wording, instead of being neutrally summarized on their own merits. Additionally, the sources for that section, yet again, appear to include WP:SYNTH issues. Grayfell (talk) 21:13, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

I am happy to go along with your judgement on those points, and to leave it out if you think the page is better without it. If the editor who removed it had made that case here first and allowed a few days to see whether anyone produced any counter arguments, I would not have raised an objection. My complaint was that it was done peremptorily without discussion. It was the advice of the Arbitrators at the close of the 2014 case that discussion should be held first, before making major amendments. DaveApter (talk) 11:19, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Oh, as for Ross's opinions, they are clearly presented as his opinions, with a source, and are not falsifiable, so calling this "defamatory" is not a valid justification for their removal. If you somehow think that Wikipedia is being defamatory for repeating these properly-sourced, non-falsifiable opinions from a notable third party about a business entity, with attribution, than... no, that's not how any of this works, at all. Perhaps you may wish to review Wikipedia:No legal threats and also chilling effect and maybe Streisand effect for good measure. There are reasons to discuss removing this lawsuit, but calling it "defamatory" is non-productive, to put it mildly. Grayfell (talk) 21:30, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

You seem to have misunderstood my remark. I was not threatening anyone with legal action or intending to imply that I or anyone else might do so. I am aware of the other three guidelines you mention, and again cannot see how they relate to my comment.

The point I was making was that the remarks that Ross was being held to account for - "which characterized Landmark as a cultish organization that brainwashed their clients" were self-evidently "defamatory" (in the normal everyday sense of that term, not necessarily any technical legal sense; I am not a lawyer). Similarly with Ross's further comments that " he considers them harmful because subjects are harassed and intimidated, causing potentially unsafe levels of stress". My main reason for objecting to the inclusion of the report about the lawsuit is that it is (IMHO) a piece of trivia, but I have the further concern that it seems to be serving as a flimsy excuse for introducing the aforementioned opinions into the article. DaveApter (talk) 11:49, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

On another matter, do you consider that the the COI tag is currently justified, and if so, under what circumstances do you feel it would be appropriate to remove it? DaveApter (talk) 11:52, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Again, please stop using legal terms. Grayfell understood your remark perfectly, but you do not seem to understand that on Wikipedia we should refrain from using such terms unless necessary (e.g. when discussing actual legal action). If people threaten to sue they get swiftly blocked to protect the encyclopedia. And please read Help:Maintenance template removal. Polygnotus (talk) 16:18, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

If the article were in better shape, I would suggest the part about litigation be integrated into a reception section, or a history section, or similar. Right now, it would sort-of make sense in the "Public reception and criticism" section, but not yet. Just for starters, that section title is painfully non-neutral. Not only because of WP:CSECTION, but also because it implies that "scholars" are part of the public. The subtle implication here is that their expertise should be doubted. Since this is based on reliable and independent sources, it's unpersuasive dismiss this as "trivia". At this point, a near total rewrite of the article will be necessary for the article to be in decent-enough shape to not justify any tags. If not COI, an NPOV tag or ADVERT tag would make just as much sense. Presumably, this rewrite is going to involve a hell of a lot more edits which will be made peremptorily without discussion, which is how Wikipedia articles typically get built. Grayfell (talk) 22:20, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

I support having the tag at the top of the article; when I first came to this article I was astounded by how little real information was in this article, it seemed to be a "sanitized" article which had barely any more info than what one would expect to find on Landmark's site. I haven't reviewed the history, but the COI seems appropriate for Alex Jackl, based not only on what he might have added, but what he might have removed or kept out of the article. ---Avatar317^(talk) 23:29, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

In reading through the current talk page and the listing on the NPOV notice board, it appears to me that the editor who started the NPOV thread has a definite negative POV about the subject of the article. I also looked at the version of the article just prior to the current round of edits and my opinion of that version of the article is that it already contained substantial amounts of what could be considered critical academic and media views on the subject. The addition of the Rick Ross litigation section is beginning to shift the article towards WP:UNDUE. Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 18:22, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

But, as you must be aware; I didn't write the article. When looking at the version of the article just prior to the current round of edits; did you not notice the POV-pushing and the promotional text? Have you not read the talkpage archives that shows a bunch of WP:OWN and WP:COI and WP:TAGTEAM and WP:PUSH and WP:IDHT problems? Currently, the article is still far from neutral. But if you want to improve it, you need more than "some guy who didn't write the article does not like Landmark". All I did was remove some promo/puffery/pov/weasel stuff and I changed part of this sentence:

is a company, headquartered in San Francisco, that offers personal-development programs.

to this:

is an American company that offers personal-development programs. Polygnotus (talk) 18:48, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Negative POV Pushing

I commented in the background thread, but now I am starting a new topic because it looks to me that there is now a distinct effort to represent this company in a negative light. I point to the recent changes to the history section that includes a new paragraph on the prehistory of the company using weasel words and wiki-links such as mental illness and placebo. Nearly all of this new addition is sourced to single article that appears to be an opinion piece. Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 18:06, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

I agree that there is no need to wikilink the words mental illness in this context. I have unlinked those words. I did a quick Google search and here is a snippet from landmarkwordwide.com:

"...people who have a history of mental illness or serious emotional problems personally or in their immediate family may be more vulnerable to stress and may experience additional and very severe physical, mental or emotional problems. In people who have physical, mental or emotional problems, even normal amounts of stress from any source may generate severe physical, mental or emotional problems. If you have any history of mental illness or emotional problems personally or in your immediate family, whether temporary, occasional or intermittent, and whether treated or not, or have concerns about your ability to handle stress, OUR ADVISORS STRONGLY RECOMMEND THAT YOU DO NOT PARTICIPATE in the Programme..."

So it seems that Landmark does indeed warn people with a (history of) mental illness. Can you list the weasel words here so we can take a look? Not everyone know what a placebo is so I did not unlink that wikilink. Hope that helps, Polygnotus (talk) 18:55, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Dave Apter - where does your knowledge about Landmark come from?

@DaveApter: I notice in the old edits (where most of the article was COMPLETELY unsourced) that you have often added LOTS of information (many times very specific, with percentages) about Landmark (all unsourced, but the majority of the article was that way, so I'm not complaining about that.)

Where/how did you get all this information/knowledge about Landmark? ---Avatar317^(talk) 00:49, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

I'm surprised that you need to ask that question, since I have been completely transparent in stating on several occasions that I'm a former customer of Landmark's (along with two or three million other people). I did the Landmark Forum over twenty years ago, followed by a few other courses and found them valuable. I don't know what specific information you are referring to, so I can't comment on that, but I would imagine it would have been things that were in the public domain somewhere. Unless you are talking about content which is in the article today, this hardly seems relevant. DaveApter (talk) 15:48, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

People seem to think that carefully dancing around COI questions is a genius tactic. We don't have to rehash all that. It has been discussed many times.

In reality it does not matter if you work there or if you are a shareholder or if you are Werner Erhard or his gardener. Denying or openly declaring that you have a COI changes nothing.

COI means that you have two interests: one is the topic of an article (in this case Landmark) and another is editing Wikipedia.

The conflict between those interest arises from the inability to accept that Wikipedia articles contain criticism if reliable sources contain criticism. This makes editing collaboratively impossible and turns every discussion in a WP:CPUSH and if that fails sealioning and WP:IDHT. I do not care if you break the ToS. Please just let us try to fix the damage caused. Go do something more fun. Go on a walk. Feed the squirrels. Ignore us. Forget Wikipedia exists. Move on. 18.77 years will soon be 19. I ordered "Werner Erhard: The Transformation of a Man, the Founding of Est" from Amazon. Polygnotus (talk) 14:41, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Elmmapleoakpine

@Elmmapleoakpine: repeatedly made an edit 1 & 2 that moved criticism to its own section at the bottom.

The edit summary that was used was: "restoring a reverted edit that addressed WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Article_structure".

This is the place to get consensus for that edit.

I do not think mentioning the accusations that Landmark is or was a cult is UNDUE because those have been mentioned in pretty much all reliable sources that mention Landmark. Polygnotus (talk) 01:33, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

That is not what my edit addressed. Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 02:19, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

What do you mean? I am referring to your edit summaries. Polygnotus (talk) 02:26, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

I do think the section header is really clunky. "Cult-ish accusations and litigation". But creating a criticism section is an obvious violation of NPOV (hiding all criticism in one section near the bottom is the opposite of NPOV). Changing the section header to "Criticism and litigation" may be less clunky; but its not perfect. Is "Accusations of being a cult" better? Polygnotus (talk) 01:38, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

This topic belongs in the reception section not the history. Moving it back to where it and calling it Criticism and Litigation avoids violating NPOV/Article Structure as stated here: https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Article_structure. My doing so was expressly following that policy Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 02:12, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

I do not know why you claim that Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Article_structure is a reason to make the edit you did. Can you please explain why you think that section is a justification for the edit you've made? It literally says: "Try to achieve a more neutral text by folding debates into the narrative" which is the opposite of what you are trying to do. Thank you, Polygnotus (talk) 02:23, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

If you say it does not belong in the History section, do you mean there are still accusations being made and there is still ongoing litigation? Polygnotus (talk) 02:27, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

@Elmmapleoakpine: What do you think of "Accusations of being a cult" as a section header? The accusations and litigation are part of Landmarks history (right? or are there more recent accusations?). Polygnotus (talk) 01:40, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

First, I apologize for the clunky section header name; I think of Wikipedia as a work-in-progress and I often can't come up with the best section header names (fully descriptive yet concise for a table of contents) so I name it the best I can think of. That's why the section was first named "Litigation" and was its own section, as the article was getting built/improved. I'd be fine with "Accusations of being a cult" or something else as well.

Second, from the sources I have seen so far, the litigation is now historical but the descriptions where the reputation among everyday people that its graduates and the program is cult-ISH/cult-like still persist. (2017 and 2019 sources talk about cult perception as current.)

Third, while the "Reception" section might make sense as a good location for the cult-allegations, the "History" section probably makes better sense for the Litigation, so it could be split up, but I don't know whether that's the better option, because the reason for the litigation would be confusing without the allegation "introduction". ---Avatar317^(talk) 22:58, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Use of quotes in reference templates.

Regarding this edit, Template:r doesn't appear to support including multiple quotes for a single reference. To demonstrate this, one of the removed quotes had the word "displace", but this word is not found in on that version of the page via a word-search. In effect, these quotes were hidden in the code of the article, but were not displayed to readers. For obvious reasons, this is not a practical approach. For quotes which do display, it appears that many of these quotes are unnecessarily long for the cited content. It's good to make sure each source supports the attached statement, but the length of these quotes makes both editing and reading the article more difficult, so if a more succinct approach can be found, that would be helpful. Thanks. Grayfell (talk) 06:54, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

I’ve been away from Wikipedia for a while. Part of what is drawing me back is the current activity on this article. This use of quotes is reminiscent of a number of years ago when the article was placed under discretionary sanctions following an attempt to turn it into an attack piece led at the time by the disgraced Admin, Cirt [8]. Nwlaw63 (talk) 17:46, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

This problem is something that I've had and not found a good solution to. The quotes I included which you deleted are visible to the reader on mouse-over of the page number of the quote (for webpages, that is the small "1" (page one) which appears after the reference number. Try it, you have to get the mouse position just right for the quote to display.

I use this R template with DIFFERENT quotes than the ones included in the normal reference "quote=" parameter (which as you show with "displace" are listed in the reference section) because I often edit on contentious topics (like this article) and feel that quotes help other editors to easily see specifically which statements in the reference most support that statement in the article, and so readers can have some confidence that the references are being reasonably summarized/paraphrased. Sometimes I have used lengthy quotes (and seemingly unrelated quotes) in the "quote=" section because the same source is used for several unrelated statements, as a way around this issue, if I'm only using the source for two or three statements.

The other idea I had is that we could put the quotes in a comment, so they would be visible to editors, but less cumbersome for readers.

If you have a better suggestion on how to have only the quote appropriate to the specific statement display, withOUT duplicating the reference (and thereby hiding how many times the reference is used, and making it appear that the article has more references than it has) I'd love to hear it. Thanks! ---Avatar317^(talk) 22:46, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

For me, mouse-over does not show these quotes. Instead, it again shows the reference itself and any quotes in the main ref template. Perhaps this varies by browser or some other setting, but this information should be consistent for all viewers, so the issue is the same either way. I do not think hiding these quotes in a wiki-comment is appropriate. If these quotes are important enough to be included, they need to be visible to regular readers, not merely experienced editors.

I appreciate the use of quotes, as it does make things clearer, but there is a very substantial trade-off with such a large volume of added material. Perhaps it's obvious, but I don't think these specific quotes are vitally important, otherwise I would not have removed them. Quotes can sometimes, but not always, prevent confusion or disagreement. Quotes are also a great convenience, (especially for non FUTON sources) but they are only strictly necessary in exceptional circumstances. If a source needs so much interpretation and editorial guidance that it only makes sense with a specific, lengthy quote, it starts to introduce WP:OR issues.

With that said, I believe switching to Template:Harvard citation would resolve this, as each individual citation can contain a quote and page number in a 'Citations' section while also linking to a shared reference in a separate 'references' section. The article does use some Harv refs, but not consistently, and switching would be a time commitment and would also make future editing slightly more difficult and significantly more intimidating to newer editors.

If you strongly feel this is necessary, feel free to revert my edit and use that as a starting point for this change. Grayfell (talk) 23:45, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

I'll use the harvnb or harvtxt to try to improve this situation. Thanks for that suggestion. I'm still planning to do much more reading of sources and work on this article, (I figure I'm barely half way through, probably a couple months more of work) so I'll switch to the Harvard style and fix and trim the existing ones in the process.

I feel that quotes help resolve disputes when new editors read a statement they feel is non-neutral and modify it without looking at what the source says; quotes allow another editor unknowledgeable in the subject to easily determine whether the statement represents the source (as well as editors like me who may have written the statement but forgot where in the source it says that, or specifically what it says). That said, easily findable facts like total yearly revenue probably don't need quotes, so I'll try to reduce the amount of quotage. Thanks for the help and explanations. ---Avatar317^(talk) 01:46, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Clean-up of various recent edits

Litigation section

I am not really convinced that there is any merit to including this section at all - surely any business that has been operating for several decades is likely to have been involved in a handful of lawsuits? Why is this significant enough to include in the article? In any event there were definitely smears and insinuations in this section that are non-encyclopedic in tone. I have edited the first sentence to be less clumsy and convoluted. I have removed the reference to the non-fact that Margaret Singer 'would not comment...'. I have clarified the wording regarding Rick Ross' statements so that it is clear that these are claims and opinions, rather than having them appear to be stating established facts. Also removed the weasel word 'purportedly'.

History section

The opening paragraph recently added was problematic for several reasons. For one thing it deals with events prior to the formation of Landmark, but more importantly it contains much speculation and editorialising, as well as assertions for which the cited sources do not provide clear links to any primary information. I have condensed the relevant points.

If editors do not agree with these changes, please discuss here rather than resorting to edit-warring. Thank youo DaveApter (talk) 16:16, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

The litigation section has already been discussed above, and the consensus was against you.

The references which talk about history are sources describing Landmark, and are therefore part of its history. ---Avatar317^(talk) 23:16, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

@DaveApter: You have spent 18, almost 19, years here defending the topic of this article. Can you please stop now? Please move on. Please stop using Wikipedia to defend or promote Landmark. Please stop it. Don't even respond to this message. This is a giant waste of your time. Please just go do something more useful and fun. I don't want to waste my time defending NPOV against people who are willing to spend decades on something this unimportant. How can we believe that it is not a cult when people spend decades defending it against any and all criticism no matter how tame or justified? Polygnotus (talk) 02:36, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

Please try to remain civil, and cut out the personal attacks. To put your insinuations into perspective, I should point out that - prior to the onslaught on this article over the past month or so - I have made about three dozen edits to the article in the previous eight years, out of a total of about 400 edits on the article in that period. Conversely, over that eight year period I have made over 500 edits on a wide variety of other subjects, many of them substantial good-quality contributions DaveApter (talk) 16:20, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

Your tactic of repeatedly falsely accusing everyone who disagrees with you of being incivil and personally attacking you is getting old fast. I haven't looked into your edits to other articles and I do not want to. But I did spend some time looking into the history of this article and how it got to the point it is at. If it is true that you have made good edits on other articles then it would be time for a topicban. Polygnotus (talk) 23:28, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

It looks like Polygnotus has been uncivil, and DaveApter is being personally attacked. Nwlaw63 (talk) 20:43, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Clean-up of various recent edits

Litigation section

I am not really convinced that there is any merit to including this section at all - surely any business that has been operating for several decades is likely to have been involved in a handful of lawsuits? Why is this significant enough to include in the article? In any event there were definitely smears and insinuations in this section that are non-encyclopedic in tone. I have edited the first sentence to be less clumsy and convoluted. I have removed the reference to the non-fact that Margaret Singer 'would not comment...'. I have clarified the wording regarding Rick Ross' statements so that it is clear that these are claims and opinions, rather than having them appear to be stating established facts. Also removed the weasel word 'purportedly'.

History section

The opening paragraph recently added was problematic for several reasons. For one thing it deals with events prior to the formation of Landmark, but more importantly it contains much speculation and editorialising, as well as assertions for which the cited sources do not provide clear links to any primary information. I have condensed the relevant points.

If editors do not agree with these changes, please discuss here rather than resorting to edit-warring. Thank youo DaveApter (talk) 16:16, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

The litigation section has already been discussed above, and the consensus was against you.

The references which talk about history are sources describing Landmark, and are therefore part of its history. ---Avatar317^(talk) 23:16, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

@DaveApter: You have spent 18, almost 19, years here defending the topic of this article. Can you please stop now? Please move on. Please stop using Wikipedia to defend or promote Landmark. Please stop it. Don't even respond to this message. This is a giant waste of your time. Please just go do something more useful and fun. I don't want to waste my time defending NPOV against people who are willing to spend decades on something this unimportant. How can we believe that it is not a cult when people spend decades defending it against any and all criticism no matter how tame or justified? Polygnotus (talk) 02:36, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

Please try to remain civil, and cut out the personal attacks. To put your insinuations into perspective, I should point out that - prior to the onslaught on this article over the past month or so - I have made about three dozen edits to the article in the previous eight years, out of a total of about 400 edits on the article in that period. Conversely, over that eight year period I have made over 500 edits on a wide variety of other subjects, many of them substantial good-quality contributions DaveApter (talk) 16:20, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

Your tactic of repeatedly falsely accusing everyone who disagrees with you of being incivil and personally attacking you is getting old fast. I haven't looked into your edits to other articles and I do not want to. But I did spend some time looking into the history of this article and how it got to the point it is at. If it is true that you have made good edits on other articles then it would be time for a topicban. Polygnotus (talk) 23:28, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

It looks like Polygnotus has been uncivil, and DaveApter is being personally attacked. Nwlaw63 (talk) 20:43, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Clean-up of various recent edits

Litigation section

I am not really convinced that there is any merit to including this section at all - surely any business that has been operating for several decades is likely to have been involved in a handful of lawsuits? Why is this significant enough to include in the article? In any event there were definitely smears and insinuations in this section that are non-encyclopedic in tone. I have edited the first sentence to be less clumsy and convoluted. I have removed the reference to the non-fact that Margaret Singer 'would not comment...'. I have clarified the wording regarding Rick Ross' statements so that it is clear that these are claims and opinions, rather than having them appear to be stating established facts. Also removed the weasel word 'purportedly'.

History section

The opening paragraph recently added was problematic for several reasons. For one thing it deals with events prior to the formation of Landmark, but more importantly it contains much speculation and editorialising, as well as assertions for which the cited sources do not provide clear links to any primary information. I have condensed the relevant points.

If editors do not agree with these changes, please discuss here rather than resorting to edit-warring. Thank youo DaveApter (talk) 16:16, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

The litigation section has already been discussed above, and the consensus was against you.

The references which talk about history are sources describing Landmark, and are therefore part of its history. ---Avatar317^(talk) 23:16, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

@DaveApter: You have spent 18, almost 19, years here defending the topic of this article. Can you please stop now? Please move on. Please stop using Wikipedia to defend or promote Landmark. Please stop it. Don't even respond to this message. This is a giant waste of your time. Please just go do something more useful and fun. I don't want to waste my time defending NPOV against people who are willing to spend decades on something this unimportant. How can we believe that it is not a cult when people spend decades defending it against any and all criticism no matter how tame or justified? Polygnotus (talk) 02:36, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

Please try to remain civil, and cut out the personal attacks. To put your insinuations into perspective, I should point out that - prior to the onslaught on this article over the past month or so - I have made about three dozen edits to the article in the previous eight years, out of a total of about 400 edits on the article in that period. Conversely, over that eight year period I have made over 500 edits on a wide variety of other subjects, many of them substantial good-quality contributions DaveApter (talk) 16:20, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

Your tactic of repeatedly falsely accusing everyone who disagrees with you of being incivil and personally attacking you is getting old fast. I haven't looked into your edits to other articles and I do not want to. But I did spend some time looking into the history of this article and how it got to the point it is at. If it is true that you have made good edits on other articles then it would be time for a topicban. Polygnotus (talk) 23:28, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

It looks like Polygnotus has been uncivil, and DaveApter is being personally attacked. Nwlaw63 (talk) 20:43, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Unexplained blanking of entire 'Concepts' section

This entire section was blanked without discussion or explanation on 7th November by a 'drive-by' editor with no previous (or subsequent) history of editing this page [9]. When it was restored four days after that, it was again deleted within one hour by Avatar317 [10].

That section is clearly relevant and adequately sourced. It has been in the article for over eight years without any suggestion here that it ought to be removed. In the course of recent civil discussions above Grayfell suggested that it needed some stylistic improvements, and I agreed and indicated that I would make some attempts at doing so, but there was no suggestion of removing it entirely. I suggest that it should be restored, unless anyone can provide a compelling reason otherwise. DaveApter (talk) 16:01, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

That section was poorly written in my opinion, and if anything there is necessary for this article, it would be much better to start-over from scratch so that it could be explained in a more neutral fashion. It would need far more than just stylistic improvements, but yes, it would also need stylistic improvements. The over-use of the phrase "Landmark suggests" to describe extremely basic concepts was not doing this article any favors. The use of jargonization via the term "new possibilities" is a red flag, also. Grayfell (talk) 21:03, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

I also agree with Grayfell that a total re-write of the piece may well be the way to go. The article is a mess, largely as a result of its history as an uneasy compromise from the battle between two factions with widely varied viewpoints on the subject. It is also handicapped by the fact that most of the "sources" are lifestyle and opinion pieces rather than factual reporting. Also many of them are written from a sensationalist and biased perspective, and rarely give clear indications of the primary sources on which they are based. DaveApter (talk) 09:51, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

I agree with Polygnotus that you shouldn't be editing this article AT ALL, based on your history and comments like the one you just made: "most of the "sources" are lifestyle and opinion pieces rather than factual reporting. Also many of them are written from a sensationalist and biased perspective, and rarely give clear indications of the primary sources on which they are based." - So any source that doesn't give Landmark glowing positive reviews seems biased to you? If you edit this article directly, (not the Talk page) I will support Polygnotus's suggestion for a topic ban, I feel that whether or not you believe that you have a COI, you are behaving like you do.

Without the sources you criticize, we'd have ZERO sources for this article. There are some mentions in academic papers about Religions and New Religious movements, and books about similar subjects, but no other sources that I have seen.

I challenge you, post sources here that YOU see as "acceptable" for use in this article. ---Avatar317^(talk) 20:41, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

I think DaveApter is merely paraphrasing something from the Administrator’s findings at the conclusion of the 2014 Arbitration agreement, which would indicate exercising caution when using these kinds of sources [11]: ‘‘As discussed by editors providing evidence in this arbitration case, rigorous academic sources for the topic are few and far between, meaning claims more often rest on weaker sources or claims from the organization in question.’’Nwlaw63 (talk) 18:00, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

That Arb discussion seems to point out that the major dispute was about whether to state in Wikivoice that Landmark is an NRM. The article currently APPEARS to have that stated to Wikipedia standards with "Some scholars have categorized ..." and "Others, ... question some aspects of these characterizations". I have not yet read the sources behind those statements, but I feel that section should be expanded for more clarification (what makes an org an NRM?, which "characteristics" are we talking about?). "Some classify it as NRM, while others do not" is the type of short statement that should be in the lead, as a summary of these academics' views. As I get a chance, I intend to read through those sources and try to expand that set of statements.

Looking back to how this article originally started, it does seem that was written WP:BACKWARDS, and in a contentious subject, that would of course make for edit-warring. I agree with Grayfell that this whole article (as it stood before I started working on it a couple of months ago) should be re-written, and that's what I've been attempting to do slowly and gradually, by reading sources and adding content from those, and removing content unsupported by sources. ---Avatar317^(talk) 23:10, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Actually, the Arb discussion was primarily about tendentious editing, of which, one aspect was the NRM categorization. By the way, I did research those references and made the point, at that time, that they were largely circular. Nwlaw63 (talk) 16:11, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Can you explain or provide a link to your research showing those sources to be "largely circular"? (Truly circular references couldn't exist without people agreeing to reference each other.) If we exclude references because of this it should be documented in a Talk page discussion, or with references that explicitly say: Source J references Source Q, like when newspaper journalists make a statement and hyperlink to the source for their statement. Thanks! ---Avatar317^(talk) 19:25, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

That section also duplicated SOME (but not all) of the content in the "Landmark Forum" section. Since pretty much ALL sources I've read so far talk about the concepts used in the FORUM rather than ALL of Landmark's classes, my preference and intention is to look at the sources for that removed section and add any useful content from those sources into the Forum section.

I also agree with Grayfell.

Also, having looked into the history of this article, it does really appear that this article was written WP:BACKWARDS, whereby almost nothing in the article was sourced and over time "sources" were added. This generally leads to a very poor representation/summary of what those sources intended to say.

As an improvement, after I have finished reading and summarizing more sources into the Forum section, it may make sense to have a sub-section of that section for the Concepts, which now start as "Various ideas are proposed for consideration and explored during the course. These include: " ---Avatar317^(talk) 23:32, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps a "methodology" section would be better than a "concepts" section? Polygnotus (talk) 04:38, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

LEBD USC study statements

I have removed these two statements because I think that they mislead the reader about the findings. I was not able to find an online copy of the USC study: "Transforming the Network of Conversations in BHP New Zealand Steel", but some summary info is available on Landmark's site [here]. During a period of several months, BHP New Zealand management asked Vanto Group to construct a consulting engagement that would result in much stronger teams and working relationships in the company, as well as greater ownership within the BHP workforce. The specific goal was an intervention that would complement other initiatives under way, including process improvement, reorganizations, and training on rational decision making. The Vanto Group change process was a critical part of an integrated change process that New Zealand Steel created and accelerated. Conclusion - The set of interventions in the organization produced impressive measurable results: MY bolding. Note here that these results are attributable to BHP's OVERALL program, of which LEBD was a PART. Unless the study states more clearly what results are attributable to Landmark's programs and which to BHP's, than stating the numbers here are misleading the reader and inappropriate WP:SYNTH. ---Avatar317^(talk) 01:09, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

158.51.81.86

The significance of the lawsuits, are that Landmark Worldwide was accused of being a cult, and regardless that the accusers definition did not include any practices they considered cult-like, (with one important exception, which is left as an intellectual challenge) the accusers continued, and published copy written work. Landmark Worldwide sued them for liable, and won, basically reducing the accusers to bankruptcy. ( Margaret Singer carefully trying to avoid labeling Landmark, but was still a member of the group of accusers ). It should all be in the links, but then again, this is Wikipedia were the loudest voice, no matter how uninformed gets to write the history.

So very little in this article is in fact factual. The only thing is the doors open, people go in, and the doors close. Later the doors open, and people are laughing, so much so that Landmark Worldwide continues to improve their programs much faster than computer technology, and everyone out side the doors, still forms the same old tired uninformed opinions, some dating far back before the training even ever began. To view Landmark education programs as entertainment has the air of simplistic absurdity:

Wikipedia is most-known for "reflecting the bias and influence of media that are seen as reliable due to their dominance, and for being a site of conflict between entrenched or special institutional interests." Can we consider the words 'most-known' to be a weasel word? Subject to manipulation?

"Wikipedia is not a “bad” source, they are not really a source at all."

Margaret Singer lost in court so many times, that despite her legal insignificance, accusers still hold her up as the purported truth, much like the Krimmel painting. "The Village Politicians" by John L. Krimmel Rick Ross, and the Cult Awareness Network, ( now wholly bankrupt, because of the lawsuit ), claims were found to be Libelous, which if the United States legal system was charged with finding facts, which it is not, would have invalidated their claims and opinions, but still the CAN and the detractors are still fervently dragging the disinformation around, were as, Mr Ehard himself just says "The truth when believed is a lie." The hope that you have that Wikipedia will ever find the truth, while irrelevant, is a noble pursuit of a unobtainable goal. Best of luck.

The courses list ONE course, and of course, just in one curriculum, they offer 13.

The closest thing I can find is a meme on 4chan that is a quote from Galatians 4:16: Am I therefore become your enemy, because I tell you the truth?" 158.51.81.86 (talk) 17:00, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Sigh. Polygnotus (talk) 20:16, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Non-verifiable claim

The statement "Landmark paid Erhard $3 million as an initial licensing fee, with additional payments over the next 18 years not to exceed $15 million." fails WP:V since it merely quotes the assertion made by the author of the NY Magazine article, who provides no reference or citation for the claim and therefore does not qualify as a reliable secondary source. Furthermore, this accusation is explicitly denied in sworn court documents from Landmark's legal counsel. DaveApter (talk) 13:44, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

It is not clear which of those claim you disagree with. We have consensus that the NY Magazine is a reliable source. It is not an "accusation". You can pay a lawyer to say whatever. Polygnotus (talk) 18:56, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/84/1994_Ney_v_Landmark_Education_Werner_Erhard_WEA.pdf page 2 Polygnotus (talk) 19:08, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Ney_v._Landmark_Education_Corporation_and_Werner_Erhard

The parties calculated the value of WE&A's assets at $ 8,600,000. Landmark also acquired Erhard's stock in WE&AII, which was valued at $ 1,200,000. Landmark agreed, as payment for the WE&A assets and WE&AII stock, to assume liabilities in the amount of $ 6,800,000 and to pay an additional $ 3 million to Erhard. The agreedon downpayment of $ 300,000 was paid out of the account of WE&AII, whose stock was sold to Landmark. The $ 2,700,000 balance was to be paid by January 30, 1992, but payment was later extended and the due date delayed.

Landmark obtained from Erhard a license to present the Forum for 18 years in the United States and internationally with the exception of Japan and Mexico. Erhard retained ownership of the license. The license was not assignable without Erhard's express written consent, and was to revert to Erhard after 18 years.

Furthermore, under the Agreement, Erhard was promised 2% of Landmark's gross revenues payable on a monthly basis and, in addition, 50% of the net (pre-tax) profit payable quarterly. Such payments to Erhard were not to exceed a total payment of $ 15 million over the 18 year term of the license.

Polygnotus (talk) 02:15, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia itself, seeks to uncover a coveted business sale, for which, the details were made public by their legal council, and also thoroughly researched and published by its fervent and vehement detractors, and Wikipedia asks, in this rare case to second source for the information. You cannot ask them directly, No one else is party to the agreement. No one else would be able to verify it so it is hearsay, and needs to be removed, if not for the fact that the information is published on Wikipedia. Did anyone care to look?

The source itself is a copy of a publicly available court filing, handed to a Judge in New Jersey, and published on Wikipedia.

Simple reading folks can go a long way to resolving these types of bias and close the huge gap in credibility.

Please help Wikipedia close the credibility gap.

To wit:

https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Werner_Erhard

"But Arthur Schreiber's declaration of May 3, 2005 states: "Landmark Education has never paid Erhard under the license agreements (he assigned his rights to others)." it says: "[non-primary source needed]"

and then the non primary source is literally printed on Wikipedia itself.

It may help to know just who Arthur Schreiber is.

The reference is "Declaration filed May 5, 2005 at the US District Court of New Jersey, civil action 04-3022 (JCL)"

Which is in fact ON Wikipedia.

A copy of this very declaration is available on Wikipedia itself.

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:2005_Landmark_v_Ross_May_5_Landmark_letter_to_Judge_Falk.pdf

It may also help to start to read the thousands of sources of information that does not support your personal POV.

My main intention of participating on Wikipedia was to have it reflect reality, and it was clearly stated multiple times, in the rejection of my application for admin, that reality is not the aim, so much is sacrificed for edification and simplification, for which both of my interests have been subjected to the very worst concerted attacks, God forbid a virgin writes an article about sex or an agnostic writes about Religion.

"Many forms of Buddhism stress divinities, but because Zen does not, Zen is often called a spiritual philosophy rather than a religion. The focus is on self-realization by transforming the psychological structure of the mind." which actually in fact is the most apt description I have heard of the training at Landmark, with the important exception that the contents of the courses change faster than computer technology, much faster. 158.51.81.86 (talk) 17:58, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Where is your Requests for adminship? Polygnotus (talk) 18:47, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

I deleted them long ago, but since you asked, another IP I had was 207.53.252.58.

Still looking for any citation on 'My style.' Sorry If I appear rude, some people walk away, others, like George Gallowy call disinformation "Howlers" and others like the people who authored "Everything you know is wrong." despite enormous amounts of studies, science, proof... just gave up.

I vacillate between indifference, and a brewing annoyance.

Reality, and our relationship to it, makes a difference: Both George Galloway, and Landmark Worldwide both have a significant disinformation, and a large collection of people who are committed to using what ever tool they can find, to discredit them. When you provide people freedom, you instantly create enemies of the people who want to control them.

I have a degree in Math, and have lectured at NASA Ames, and MSRI. 158.51.81.86 (talk) 21:31, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

My Erdős number is three, I have a second degree of separation from Buckmister Fuller, and met Mr Steven P Jobs 4 times, but Jean Louis Gasse only once. 158.51.81.86 (talk) 21:35, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

One time I scored a birdie when I was 14. I also own a dozen spoons. I've yet to meet mister Jobs but one time I saw some guy get arrested for stealing which is kinda the same thing. I can count to 25. Ducks are rarely frightened by me. Polygnotus (talk) 21:37, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Questioning the reference to cults

I am relatively new to Wikipedia, but it’s my understanding that the intention behind it was to create a communal resource to capture history; that contributions are meant to be relatively scholarly and neutral – opinions are not only frowned upon, but edited out. In reading this page about Landmark, I am concerned that opinion has intruded in two areas.

First, placing the section “Accusations of being a cult” up high in the article lends a high weight to that section – in effect, expressing an opinion. If it must be included, then shift the section “Accusations of being a cult” to “Reception.” The accusations do exist, and I would leave it up to others to argue their validity.

But more the point, the very use of the term “cult” expresses a point of view that is less than scholarly, as can be seen throughout the Wikipedia article on “Cult” (https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Cult#Usage_of_the_term_cult), Indeed, the initial sentence “Cult is a term, in most contexts, pejorative” is reiterated throughout the article. Interestingly enough, if Landmark was indeed widely recognized to fit that term, one would expect to see it in the extensive list in the article. And it does not appear. That in and of itself seems to me to be a comment on the inappropriate use of the term to describe a business that’s been a going concern since 1991. Ndeavour (talk) 20:51, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi, on Wikipedia we follow reliable sources. Wikipedia is not censored. Because reliable sources have often reported on the fact that Landmark is considered a cult we have to include this info in the article. We do include opinions in articles in certain cases, both negative and positive. Polygnotus (talk) 21:21, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

I once again must mention my lack of editorial skills since I am unable to provide links in my response, but everything I am mentioning comes from following the blue links in the article.

I find myself questioning your reference to "reliable sources" when, after reading three of the four articles cited, not only was the use of the term "Cult" minimal (an attention grabbing headline that the author explicitly denied; "Having thoroughly researched the company over the past month I have come to the conclusion that they definitely aren’t a cult, despite the weird conversations you tend to have with Landmark advocates.") and with the other two accessible articles making mention that "some have accused..."

That suggests less-than-rigorous research on the part of whoever did the work. In the next paragraph, the Wiki link to Margaret Singer contains the following: "Singer mentioned Landmark Education in Cults in our Midst; it was unclear whether she labeled Landmark Education as a cult or not. Singer issued a statement stating that she did not intend to call Landmark a cult, nor did she consider it a cult.[25] Singer removed the references to Landmark Education from subsequent editions of the book."

Thus, I am left questioning your argument instead of simply accepting it. I have reviewed the link to Reliable Sources and my reading suggests the citations are not only NOT reliable sources, but in most cases they seem to violate the Wiki point of view posting that I found. Ndeavour (talk) 17:39, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Please read WP:INDENT and WP:SIGN. I left a message on your talkpage, please respond there. There has been rigorous research done on this topic, and Wikipedians have spent far more time on this article than on other articles of similar length and complexity. Do you know why? Because we have a bunch of Landmark supporters who keep creating new accounts and repeating the same talking points over and over again. They did succeed in wasting a lot of time and effort from editors who protect the neutrality of the encyclopedia. It is very sad, because Wikipedians are trying to do something good for this planet and people attack them only because the Wikipedia articles reflect what is written in reliable sources. Margaret Singer got sued for defamation by Landmark. But you knew that already, right? Quote from the article: "She also stated that she would not recommend the group to anyone, and would not comment on whether Landmark used coercive persuasion for fear of legal recrimination from Landmark.". She was 75 years old at the time she got sued. Maybe focus your attention on improving Landmark so that reliable sources describe it more positively so that the Wikipedia article becomes more positive. Wikipedians are not really in control of Wikipedia articles; the reliable sources are. Stop doing stuff that could be perceived as cultish. Feed the hungry. Help the poor. Make sure reliable sources report on it. Polygnotus (talk) 17:48, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

I recently read parts of Heaven's Gate's website, heavensgate.com, and they were also really opposed to, and offended by, being called a cult. Polygnotus (talk) 18:18, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Ndeavour makes several valid points. Clearly the issue of whether Landmark is a "Cult" is a matter of opinion rather than fact. Therefore the guidelines at WP:OPINION would be relevant. These state: "...the article should represent the POVs of the main scholars and specialists who have produced reliable sources on the issue." None of the sources referenced are from "scholars and specialists" - but rather, they are general interest magazine articles written by journalists with no particular relevant expertise. Furthermore, the guideline goes on to state that:

"Each POV should be clearly labeled and described, so readers know:

:::Who advocates the point of view

:::What their arguments are (supporting evidence, reasoning, etc.)

None of these sources identify any specific individual who advocates the POV that Landmark is a "Cult", and neither do they provide any indication of any supporting evidence or reasoning etc. Rather they are merely reports of unattributed hearsay or rumour. Furthermore, these articles generally comment that the writer did not find the accusation convincing. Unless sources can be found that named experts support this viewpoint, and indicate their evidence and reasoning, I cannot see that this section is justified in an encyclopedia entry. DaveApter (talk) 15:40, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Please stop repeating yourself. The consensus is against you. Reliable sources report on the fact that people consider Landmark to be a cult. Nothing you can say or do here will change what reliable sources say. So you are just wasting time. Polygnotus (talk) 17:09, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Have you read the Wiki on the Flat Earth Society, where "reliable sources report on the fact that people consider" the Earth to be flat? I think you would agree (or at least, I hope you would agree) that just because many people share an opinion or point of view does not equate to fact. Judging by the number of cited sources (without even dealing with their validity), a total of six "reliable sources" are noted. But as I noted, three of those sources disclaim the cult label; and Singer explicitly denied it. So 4 of the six say no - yet you continue to maintain a position in the face of unreliable sources. What's your beef, sir? Ndeavour (talk) 16:55, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

The world is literally flat. That's not a joke by the way. Anyway, that's not how it works. And we both know I can stick 20+ sources in there that all use the word cult. Polygnotus (talk) 16:58, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

"If I were wrong, then one [author] would have been enough!"

Einstein’s retort with regard to his theory when he heard that a book titled 100 Authors against Einstein was published in Germany. Quoted in Stephen Hawking, A Brief History of Time (London: Bantam, 1988), 178*

Um, this is sourced:

https://books.google.com/books?id=oZhagX6UWOMC&pg=193#v=onepage&q&f=false

So many instances of things that are just not real about either Mr Erhard or the training. It was found in a court of law in the United States that a group calling Landmark was libelous in calling them a cult, and the group lost more money than they had, so Landmark literally owned them. Not that reality every made even the tiniest slightest difference here, where chest thumping, seems to win the day. Who can scream the loudest. Apprently you feel you can scream the loudest.

You may not think that a court of law is the definitive reality, since the Holocost and Pi=3 have both been declared legal, but calling Landmark a cult is defamation.

Here is what George Galloway said about defamation:

"Now I know that standards have slipped in the last few years in Washington, but for a lawyer you are remarkably cavalier with any idea of justice. I am here today but last week you already found me guilty. You traduced my name around the world without ever having asked me a single question, without ever having contacted me, without ever having written to me or telephoned me, without any attempt to contact me whatsoever, and you call that justice."

How about looking at sources? There are books FULL of reliable sources. FULL. 100s of them, uncited. Looks like there is both a complete and utter failure of NPV, as well as a lot of vengeful control issues ( and I thought National Geographic had a lot of issues. Whew! ).

The DESIGN of Landmark is controversial, like air flight, the shape of the Earth, and the educational standards of schools you attended. We get to freely discuss these things in the talk pages in a civil way, not slam the books shut at the truth. 158.51.81.86 (talk) 19:36, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

the educational standards of schools you attended sick burn bro. Polygnotus (talk) 23:59, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

For the sake of accuracy, I am not 'repeating myself' - this is the first time that I have drawn attention to this Wikipedia guideline, which is clearly not being followed. None of your sources identify any "scholars and specialists" who advocate the point of view that Landmark is a cult, much less give any indication of what is their "supporting evidence and reasoning". All that any of them do is refer to the fact that various comments have been made by (unspecified and anonymous) commentators, and almost all of them go on to express the opinion of the writer that the assertion is unjustified. The section is clearly undue weight, taking up over 10% of the article with meandering editorialising, when - if it needs to be mentioned at all - a single sentence would suffice. DaveApter (talk) 10:55, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

For the sake of accuracy, WP:OPINION is an essay, not a guideline. Polygnotus (talk) 13:42, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

You simply degrade Wikipedia by taking this position. So be it. Take that position, and everyone who argues for the accuracy of Wikipedia can simply be pointed to these fallacies and defamations, and think less both of Wikipedia and you. 158.51.81.86 (talk) 19:39, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass. Polygnotus (talk)

It should be noted that MANY sources talk about Landmark as being ACCUSED of being a cult, (and in Wikipedia we follow sources) and that is what we are saying in this article, not that they ARE a cult.

We aren't saying IN WIKIVOICE that they ARE a cult, we are instead stating what MULTIPLE RS's say: which is that lots of people have thought of them as a cult (they have a reputation among the public that way). If you don't like that, contact the reporters at the RS's. If they all issue corrections/changes to their articles, than we'll follow the revised sources.

I have not finished working my way through reading the sources in the "Scholars" section, but after I have finished that, a lead statement pertaining to this that I think is appropriate would be something like: "Because of reasons X, Y, and Z, Landmark has been accused of being a cult. (or maybe has a public perception as being a cult) However, sociologists and religious scholars that have studied it have stated that it does not fit the characteristics of a cult, and instead characterize it as a New Religious Movement (NRM), corporate religion, A, B, and a C, or [whatever best summarizes scholars' views]."---Avatar317^(talk) 22:48, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

@Avatar317: I don't think this is an improvement. The sources pretty much all use the word accusation or some variant of that like accused. And not even one percent of the public knows of Landmarks existence. Also, "has had a perception" is very unconventional English (5 results on Google). The only scholar who explicitly said it wasn't a cult did so under duress after having her life threatened, being stalked and sued despite her being an grandmother. See Fair_game_(Scientology). Most experts say it fits some criteria, and not others. Its like the DSM, check X of the Y boxes and the person has been diagnosed. Polygnotus (talk) 19:25, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Fair enough, that was my ATTEMPT at improvement, and my wording was definitely poor/clunky. ---Avatar317^(talk) 20:38, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

"The only scholar who explicitly said it wasn't a cult..."

https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Michael_C._Jensen

Dr Michael Jensen worked with Mr Erhard, and published papers. I believe a cited Harvard professor of Economics has a bit more credibility than almost ALL the people at bus stops who claim otherwise.

https://www.erhardjensen.org/academic-papers/

Please, go ahead and disparage Michael C. Jenson too. 158.51.81.86 (talk) 19:45, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

You don't speak ill of the dead. Deirdre McCloskey wrote some interesting stuff https://www.deirdremccloskey.com/docs/pdf/McCloskey_ErhardAndJensenAug2016.pdf And https://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2015/11/the-michael-jensen-to-werner-erhard-connection.html is also interesting. Polygnotus (talk) 21:44, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Interesting? Ms McCloskey's writing is severely disingenuous and even more uninformed than usual. It would take years just to begin to clearly show how the enemy of erudition is ignorance.

"Enter the Harvard economist Michael Jensen. Dr. Jensen, who is famous in financial circles for championing the concepts of shareholder value and executive stock options, had taken a Landmark course in Boston at the suggestion of his daughter, who mended a rocky relationship with Dr. Jensen after taking the course herself."

That is not what started his interest. Dr Jensen would... well... since your expertise seems to be in digging dirt, why don't you find the real reason? 158.51.81.86 (talk) 17:25, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

The sock- and meatpuppets will really go wild if you call it an NRM. Landmark being called a New Religious Movement was basically the inciting incident for much of the old drama, if I read the archives correctly. Polygnotus (talk) 19:32, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

I got that also from reading the archives, but my goal is (AFTER I've finished reading and summarizing the "Scholars" section) to put a one or two sentence summary of scholars' views in the lead, again with whatever best summarizes scholars' views. Properly sourcing and attribution are of course important. ---Avatar317^(talk) 20:44, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Although much of the previous drama may have come from the fact that the whole article appeared to be written WP:BACKWARDS, where it was almost ALL unsourced, so editors would add whatever statements they wanted to add, and then they (or other editors) would try to find "sources" to back up those statements. ---Avatar317^(talk) 20:51, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Funny how the cause of something is also sometimes the result of that same thing. It is the feedback loop of shitty Wikipedia articles. The Broken windows theory of Wiki. Bad articles invite bad edits. Polygnotus (talk) 20:57, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

"Bad articles invite bad edits." - You're absolutely correct. That's why I generally remove unsourced content, even if it makes up the bulk of an article (unless it seems to sourced from some books or academic literature listed but not explicitly cited to each paragraph) because unsourced content invites new editors to add their own unsourced content, ESPECIALLY when most (or large sections) of an article is/are unsourced. ---Avatar317^(talk) 22:40, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

You say 'meatpuppets' like its a bad thing: I have heard them called blood bags, but only in the kindest and gentlest way. 158.51.81.86 (talk) 17:26, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Landmark Forum section

It is my understanding that Wikipedia is about presenting an impartial, balanced view of the subjects it documents. After reviewing the policy guidelines, I cannot see that they rule out the addition of this reference. The company’s terms and conditions are informational, not promotional. Self-published material may be used as a source of information as long as said material is not self-serving. The reference contains no claims referencing third-parties or events, and the article itself is not based on primary sources. Further, ‘onus’ is not relevant here as the reference meets the verifiability requirement. One might reasonably question whether pointing to these policies that have little to do with the reference and its intent amounts to ‘Wiki lawyering.’Coalcity58 (talk) 21:11, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

1) Self-sourcing should not be used for contentious info or responses to criticism; it can be used for simple facts, like when the org started and who started it.

2) TIMING: The statement you added is falsely leading the reader to the belief that Landmark ALWAYS had that disclaimer on their site. They may have added it some time after the 2011 Time magazine author published their story, IN RESPONSE to the criticism. If that statement was in their TOS when the author wrote the story, he/she would likely have mentioned that. ---Avatar317^(talk) 20:20, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Why are you making it so hard to add a simple edit to this article? What you've said here is simply inaccurate. There is nothing in the policies you quoted to support the statement. Your first point merely states your own opinion. To the second point, the statement in this firm's terms and conditions is a simple fact, and nothing in the edit attempted to mislead the readers. It's just a statement pointing out that the company has a disclaimer about this. I invite you to declare your interest in this matter. What exactly is going on that has you wish to prevent an edit that contributes to a more balanced view of this organization rather than a negative one? Coalcity58 (talk) 21:29, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

What is your interest in sourcing material FROM THEIR WEBSITE to try to a rebut a reporter who has criticized them. If you want balance to that statement, find a RS that says something to that effect. ---Avatar317^(talk) 00:51, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

I have no problem answering your question, even though you seem unwilling to answer mine. My interest is in fairness and accuracy. And the material in question is sourced from the Landmark website because that's where it is available. If you know of any other place it's available, please feel free to point it out. Also, one more question: What qualifies you as the arbiter of what is a reliable source? Coalcity58 (talk) 15:41, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

You said: It is my understanding that Wikipedia is about presenting an impartial, balanced view of the subjects it documents. You are wrong, Wikipedia is here to present whatever Reliable Sources say about a subject. If the sources are universally critical of the subject, so will be the Wikipedia article. Please see WP:BALANCE ---Avatar317^(talk) 00:54, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Actually Coalcity58 is not "wrong" in stating that Wikipedia is 'about presenting an impartial balanced view': that is simply another way of saying 'Neutral Point of View', which is a central policy here.The two nitpicking responses above reveal a determination on the part of Avatar317 to eliminate any attempts to restore accuracy and balance to the article. Point (1) is irrelevant, since the self-sourced reference is to establish an entirely factual point to correct a misapprehension on the part of the quoted journalist that Landmark was offering some sort of therapy. Incidentally the Time article was broadly positive about Landmark, but readers here would not suspect that as - like much other material on this page - the extracts from the sources have been cherry-picked to fit with Avatar317's viewpoint. Point (2) is simply an assertion of Avatar317's assumption, which is incorrect. Landmark has always made clear that its training is not therapeutic in nature, and this was made clear in its terms long before 2011.

It is an entirely reasonable request to make that Avatar317 clarify their position with regard to Landmark and to explain their obsessional activity here in making 143 edits in the past few months, including instant reverts to any contribution which counters their position. DaveApter (talk) 12:42, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Polygnotus (talk) 13:12, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

That last is an interesting point since the editor didn't seem to have any issue with an earlier edit I made that was critical of Landmark. Coalcity58 (talk) 16:03, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

More 'lawyering?' Coalcity58 (talk) 15:42, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Its called baiting in court, its called edit wars on Wikipedia, and its called nonsensical muttering by educated people.

"I tame every bear. I make even buffoons behave" -Frederich Nietzsche.

"What is the Standard Training?" Be a good idea just to ask. What is it?

"Many accounts of its details and circumstances have been published. The best of these is the novelist Luke Rhienhart's dramatic re-creation in The book of est. https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/The_Book_of_est

"The est Standard training is a new form of participatory theater that incorporates Socratic method, the artful interrogation that is midwife at the birth of consciousness. " -Pg 198ff. https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Werner_Erhard_(book)

I am wondering if I am causing some kind of rift in reality, if I quote sources documented on Wikipedia already? Or do you guys just not read Wikipedia?

Read.

Wikipedia. 158.51.81.86 (talk) 19:56, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Hm, I recognize your style. Welcome back. What other accountnames and IPs have you used? Polygnotus (talk) 19:58, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

158.51.81.86 is not an IP I have used before. What proof do you have? If you are all about the "Truth" and "Facts" much like the wet-behind the ears Senator from Minnesota that questioned Galloway, Sen Norm Coleman, then you can present facts, unless you are allergic. 158.51.81.86 (talk) 17:31, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

What is your favorite book and why? Polygnotus (talk) 18:05, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Interesting. So, exactly how do you know this, and where do you think you've seen this person before? Coalcity58 (talk) 19:06, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

Do the sources even exist to make this article "neutral"?

Or will it be tagged like this forever? I don't even know if it's tagged due to being pro or anti-landmark. PARAKANYAA (talk) 06:24, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Yup, sources exist. Improving this article is not easy. But we also have articles about other controversial subjects. If you read about, for example, Scientology you'll also find that Scientologists are very very very positive about Scientology, and sources unrelated to Scientology are not. Of course, neutrality does not mean bothsidesism; Wikipedia follows reliable sources. Polygnotus (talk) 06:38, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Accusations of Being a Cult & Marketing Practices

It seems to me the material under the sections 'Accusations of being a cult' and 'Controversial marketing practices' would be more appropriate for presentation under the 'Reception' section. Some examples of articles organized in a similar manner are: Tony Robbins, Personal Development, Lifespring, and Alcoholics Anonymous. Coalcity58 (talk) 19:04, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

We should follow WP:LEAD and add the criticism of it being a cult to the lead section. Also those articles you list are far from perfect. Polygnotus (talk) 21:48, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Actually, it has no place in the lead unless you're committed to presenting the organization in a negative light and reinforcing the idea that the company is a cult. Positioning the information in that manner introduces de facto bias. As for the articles I pointed to as examples, what qualifies you to determine how perfect or imperfect they are? Make your case for them being imperfect. Coalcity58 (talk) 16:51, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

I will donate 100 USD to a charity of your choice if you send me a perfect Wikipedia article. To qualify it should at least do my taxes and some light chores around the house. Polygnotus (talk) 17:29, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

You have not answered my question. But you get some points for a marginally creative dodge. Coalcity58 (talk) 15:19, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. I hate unloading the dishwasher. Polygnotus (talk) 15:20, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Yes, it does belong in the lead, per policy. Per WP:MOSLEAD: "In Wikipedia, the lead section is an introduction to an article and a summary of its most important contents." ... "The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic. It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies." ---Avatar317^(talk) 22:43, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

@Coalcity58: A debate about content doesn't have to be "settled" to include or remove it. Due to its nature, much of the content on Wikipedia is constantly debated. But that doesn't mean we delete all the content that someone might disagree with or object to. See for example WP:NOTCENSORED. The beatings debates will continue until morale improves the heat death of the universe. Polygnotus (talk) 20:59, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

I think the recent addition to the lead is POV pushing plain and simple. It has been turned into a "prominent controversy" by the two primary editors over the last year through what appears to be a concerted effort to paint this organization in a negative light. I have been checking in periodically on this article since User:Polygnotus posted on the NPOV notice board asserting this organization was a "weird cult" (Hardly Neutral). I tried to make some completely reasonable neutral and sourced edits that were reverted almost immediately and personally lost any enthusiasm for trying to improve the article. In the last year, this article has been bent in a highly negative direction. Rather than engage other editors as collaborators, two editors, Polygnotus and Avatar317, have pushed their negative POV of Landmark removing sourced material from the article that doesn't conform to this POV. This has taken place while while Polygnotus bites newbies, makes uncivil and personal attacks on other editors, and claims that other editors have COI without evidence. I do not think they have been editing in good faith. This really warrants an RFC. Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 21:29, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

@Elmmapleoakpine: If you make accusations you better have some WP:DIFFs. Accusations without evidence are no better than personal attacks. So lets see the diffs. Polygnotus (talk) 21:40, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

I have been checking in periodically on this article since User:Polygnotus posted on the NPOV notice board Interesting. That was September 2023 but according to your contribution list you were already defending Landmark in August 2009. It is 2024. Polygnotus (talk) 22:14, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Indeed, and to be clear, and contrary to the editor's statement in the history recent edit that was made to the lead section was not made from consensus. I support an RfC on this article. Coalcity58 (talk) 21:41, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Last time the wider community took a look at these articles a bunch of Landmark sock- and meatpuppets got banned. An RFC would not make sense, but I already predicted another ARBCOM case which might be a good idea. Polygnotus (talk) 21:44, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Yet another edit war sigh

@Coalcity58: even when you feel you are righting great wrongs you can't just editwar to get your way. You will get blocked. What is your relationship with Landmark? Polygnotus (talk) 21:38, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Should probably mention the Abgrall bribery scandal from the documentary

This is partially related to the documentary, but is also covered in the 2011 book The New Heretics of France by Susan J. Palmer. I'm not quite sure how to add this, but I added it to Jean-Marie Abgrall's page a while back (because it's related to my interest in the Solar Temple); I do feel like the fact they bribed a cult expert to declare them not a cult to be relevant information about their tactics so to speak. This page is very intimidating to edit so I'm not sure how I feel about adding it myself. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:06, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Good point, that would indeed be a great addition. It may also be contrasted with how they treated that other cult expert, Margaret Singer. Bullying a grandmother is not a good look. See the litigation archive. Polygnotus (talk) 01:10, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

@Polygnotus I tried to add it. Might not have done very well but hey. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:41, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

@PARAKANYAA Excellent, thank you. Polygnotus (talk) 01:57, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

@PARAKANYAA What do you think about this edit? Perhaps not everyone knows who Guyard is. Polygnotus (talk) 02:01, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

@Polygnotus That makes sense, I edited it to be clearer as well. I think the auditing may have been in the late 90s, since that's when they were taken off the list, and they only paid him later?? the sources are unclear I may have to watch the documentary later since IIRC he talks about it there. PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:23, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Also, unrelated, but the reason I said Guyard commission instead of Parliamentary Commission on Cults in France is that there were actually three "Parliamentary Commission on Cults in France", of which we only have an article on one for some reason. Guyard is the 1995 one. PARAKANYAA (talk) 04:27, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

It could be interesting to look for sources for the other two. I think "the 1995 Parliamentary Commission on Cults in France" is easier to grok than "the Guyard commission". There is also activity on a European level btw. I'll take a look. Polygnotus (talk) 04:43, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Fair enough as long as we specify the year. That whole page is kind of a mess. Someday I'll rewrite it. PARAKANYAA (talk) 04:44, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Documentary notability

For context there was a deletion discussion in 2014 that came to the consensus to merge the documentary to this article. See here. This article was an utter disaster so honestly I can't blame anyone for deleting it, it was a coatrack where almost none of the sources in the article actually talked about the documentary, it had random unsourced asides about the BLPs contained in the documentary, was full of OR and was generally a disaster (also the writer was later topic banned from NRMs and alleged NRMs). However I think it might be notable and an article about it that doesn't suck can be written. I just want to see what people think of these.

Some sources were brought up in the nomination that were not yet in the article, but, they were assessed as merely pre-release pieces which is not true (for some of them). For the purposes of notability we can count all the lawsuit related pieces about the eff/google as one source, though there are a lot of them, so I am not going to address those.

Here are the sources brought up in the afd and my assessment

• Le Parisien - short statement, pre release announcement), doesn't cover content that well so not helpful, maybe good for a few details
• Le Point short but still evaluative imo, better than the above piece, contributes to notability i think, but not amazing
• L'humanite provides context, sigcov, but little evaluation on the documentary
• Le Soir not very long, but an actual review with commentary, and definitely long enough to be sigcov.
• Huffpost there is sigcov but this is kind of weirdly personal so idk how we would use it in the article

I am pretty decent at finding French sources, so are additional reviews/sources I have found:

• a 450 word piece from Le Monde, probably the most reliable paper in France; not very evaluative annoyingly, but discusses it and the context
• this from tele-satellite, reliable and sigcov but not very evaluative
• about a one paragraph mention in The New Heretics of France (OUP book) about a different lawsuit that resulted from this documentary, not sigcov but interesting
• some sigcov (partly about the censorship admittedly, but some not) in a phd thesis (?)
• retrospective article from telerama in 2010, discusses the documentary and its effects on Landmark in France, listing it among "The documentaries that changed the world"

It's not really a pressing need but I think an article that doesn't suck could be written from it. Thoughts? PARAKANYAA (talk) 08:10, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

I read the AfD you linked (the third attempt). I don't know whether it would be worth (re-)creating an article about the documentary; I think it would be easier/better to improve/grow the current paragraphs we have in THIS article, as the notability of that specific documentary in itself is still probably borderline notable. A large bit of the publicity/notability that the documentary received (at least in the US) was because of Landmark's attempt to suppress the internet distribution of it, the Streisand effect.

The US sources I've seen document Landmark's attempts to suppress the wider internet distribution of the video because it was critical of them, even though they had no copyright to the content, which is why the EFF got involved and why Landmark withdrew its case. The fact that Landmark had no IP rights to the documentary, yet they were suing as if they did purely to suppress negative publicity, should be elaborated on and explained in this article, and was part of the motivation for the creation of the Anti-SLAPP laws.

We might be able to find some legal sources (not court cases but papers by legal scholars) which mention this case as a motivation for the Anti-SLAPP laws.

Here's an LA Times source (listed in the AfD discussion) [12]. ---Avatar317^(talk) 17:35, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Popular culture

Should each article have its own popular culture section, or should we consolidate all of it in EST and The Forum in popular culture? I think chronologically its EST => The Forum => Landmark Forum => Landmark Worldwide.

We got EST_and_The_Forum_in_popular_culture#Six_Feet_Under and Landmark_Worldwide#In_popular_culture. Polygnotus (talk) 01:01, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Chronology: you are correct.

Consolidation: it is already consolidated in that article, I put this here as a mini-excerpt, rather than a "See also" link since that article was not linked from this one. But we could just have a "See also" link if you'd rather. ---Avatar317^(talk) 01:06, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

To be honest I don't really have an opinion on what is best, and I am not even sure what the convention is on Wikipedia. I think this is fine, because the {{main}} template is similar (in function) to a "See also" link. I was thinking more along the lines of renaming the article to make it more clear that it also encompasses Landmark, but that is probably a bad idea because it would end up with a very long and clunky title like Est and The Forum and Landmark in popular culture or Werner Erhards New Religious Movements in popular culture or whatever. Polygnotus (talk) 01:11, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

"Is this a cult?" book by Anne Peterson

"After nearly twenty years inside a popular self-help organization, Landmark Worldwide, Anne Peterson finally confronted the big lie behind the transformative work she believed in. What she had taught as empowerment, it turned out, was also being used to exploit.Is This a Cult? offers hope to all who wonder whether their quest for growth has a dark side. If you’ve ever questioned leaders you once believed in, you’ll find insight in Anne’s inspiring tale of rebuilding integrity in the shadow of charismatic leaders." https://isthisacultbook.com/ https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0CWZG6R39/ Kistano (talk) 07:32, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Interesting, however it is self published and not considered a reliable source on Wiki. Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 19:31, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Citation style

The citation style used here drives me mad. it's inconsistent, and also a mixture of short form and long form citations, which can be justified sometimes for sources that aren't paginated but we are using them inconsistently with no rhyme and reason for whether they are or aren't paginated. Some of the sources are in the footnotes section, some are in the references section, some are in both duplicated, some are in one when they should be both. While given the contentious nature of the topic I can see why quotes are needed even more contentious topics don't have quotes on everything, much less free to read online news articles that you can click on (and maybe the same problem could be dealt with by holding POV pushers to account). Is anyone in agreement with me that there is an issue here? PARAKANYAA (talk) 06:44, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

@PARAKANYAA: I had to use wikEdDiff to see what actually changed. Of course more consistency is always good. Have you seen https://en.wikipedia.beta.wmflabs.org/wiki/Sub-referencing ? They say it will be made available soon. Polygnotus (talk) 08:24, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

@Polygnotus "soon" can mean many things for the WMF. Could be six months could be ten years. Not holding out hope.

As far as I see it, the standardization options we have are

1 - Standardize as sfns (harvnbs for citations that need quotes, which we should only be using for offline sources). The page uses a handful of these. Has the advantage of being able (with harvnb tags) to use multiple quotes for different references, however using non-paginated sources with this is weird to me

2 - standardize with r templates. I personally do not like r templates, but they are usable, and what most of the page uses already.

3 - mix of either r or sfns for paginated sources and long cites for non paginated ones, e.g. web sources. For an example of what this looks like with sfns, see any of the Order of the Solar Temple pages which I have worked on. Some people hate this, but I think it looks good

I would contribute to this page more if it didn't use the most cursed referencing ever. I am willing to do work to get it to whatever we want to standardize on, but we have to choose something. I personally would prefer option 3 with sfns. Thoughts?

I also think we should cut down on the amount of quotes, especially for free to read online sources. For ones that are offline or hard to access it makes sense but do we need a quote for the ones that you can read in a click? The whims of bad faith editors should not make it so we have to include a massive quote on every. single. reference. PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:47, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Very true. I was led to believe it would happen this year, but no guarantees! I am here as a lightning rod for Avatar317; I haven't actually done anything with the article except remove some WP:PROMO. @Avatar317: what do you think? Polygnotus (talk) 03:28, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

I am the one who has included quotes on every. single. reference. - that is my work; my reason being that in contentious articles like this I have often seen well supported text removed by those who don't like it, (maybe IP editors) and withOUT source quotes, uninvolved editors who are unfamiliar with the topic are unlikely to revert such removals unless the supporting text (the quote) is readily available in the viewable diff. Articles like this often see NON-good faith edits, where an editor will remove something with an edit summary like "not supported in the source" when in fact it is clearly and indisputably supported in the source.

Yes, the citations are inconsistent. The inconsistent style is something I was hoping to fix, and had thought of moving to sfn style (because of my (over)use of quotes), but editor Grayfell had commented that the r style is easier for new editors, so I hadn't gotten around to consistentifying the references.

The reason for the reference mess, from what I've seen from the ancient history of this article, is that a lot of this article (before I came to it) was written WP:BACKWARDS, whereby someone added a statement, and later people would add "sources" and then someone else would move those sources around.

Maybe choice 3 above? The Footnotes and References sections do need cleanup, and I never got around to de-duplicating those sections.

Thanks for your help here! ---Avatar317^(talk) 19:39, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

One additional comment: in comparison to the Order of the Solar Temple article, about a group with ~70 DEATHS from mass suicides means that there have probably been 10-100x the number of academic investigations into that group, vs. Landmark with >2M attendees and 0 known deaths. Most of the mentions in academic sources I have found on Google Books have been just mere mentions of Landmark as to where or what type of org it is classified as. There is some Israeli study specifically on the group, and the book Evaluating a Large Group Awareness Training, but other than those, I've not seen academic research for which the entire focus of the work was a study of Landmark. ---Avatar317^(talk) 21:51, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

There used to be an article about this courtcase. https://horizonsmagazine.com/blog/estate-of-jack-slee-vs-werner-erhard-death-during-est-training-set-a-precedent-for-the-james-ray-lawsuits/ There were also a bunch of psychotic breakdowns attributed to the Landmarkians but they were mostly mine I think. Polygnotus (talk) 21:55, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

@Avatar317: Here ya go: Estate of Jack Slee v. Werner Erhard. Look at that AfD... now where do I remember those names from... Polygnotus (talk) 21:56, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Psychiatric disturbances associated with Erhard Seminars Training: I. A report of cases

Psychiatric disturbances associated with Erhard Seminars Training: II. additional cases and theoretical considerations

Observations on 67 patients who took Erhard Seminars Training

A psychotic episode following Erhard Seminars Training. Polygnotus (talk) 22:02, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Given the apparent bias AGAINST Landmark displayed by Polygnotus, Avatar317 and now PARANKANYAA, I feel compelled to question the intent of your edits. You found four abstracts from 1977 about participants in the now defunct est training - one of which even says that of 49 patients in treatment, 30 showed positive movement in their therapy following their participation. What point are you trying to make? You've moved the article from a balanced piece that includes mention of past controversy to one that has become heavily weighted with obscure references alleging evil intent. These arguments and citations all seem designed to prove a point - but nowhere have you been willing to state the rationale behind your continuing efforts. What are you trying to prove? Ndeavour (talk) 16:53, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Facepalm Thanks for dropping by after 5 months to let us know your opinion. Polygnotus (talk) 17:01, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

You're welcome. And thank you for once again refusing to account for your point of view and engage in any discussion of it. Ndeavour (talk) 20:32, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Check out the Wikipedia:Task Center for suggestions on how to improve Wikipedia. Polygnotus (talk) 20:45, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Oh, the biased editors aren't going to come out and account for their point of view, and a real discussion of that or the quality of the article is the last thing they want. Predictably, they will continue their tradition of replying to questions with sideways insults and nonsensical statements - and using Wikipedia policies to bully editors who do not support their POV. But if you keep standing for truth and accuracy, the gaslighting and manipulation will eventually fall down. Coalcity58 (talk) 16:52, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Cult explanation in body

Rather than discuss this in the RfC I'll start a new section:

@WhatamIdoing: What do you feel like is lacking in the BODY about the cult explanation? (I'm not saying you are wrong in any way.) Should we include what experts say are some central/defining features of cults? The current body statement Several commentators unrelated to Landmark have stated that because it has no single central leader, is a secular (non-religious) organization, and it tries to unite (and re-unite) participants with their family and friends (rather than isolate them) that it does not meet many of the characteristics of a cult. lists characteristics of cults but in the negative, (why Landmark isn't) which may be confusing...should we have a preceding statement listing the common characteristics of cults? (There is enough sourcing to do that.)

Do you have any other suggestions?

Additionally, here's what I see as a complication: Landmark has been described in media as having a public reputation as a "cultISH" organization, and that reputation seems to be more among the general public than among scholars; scholars have characterized it variously: NRM, etc., and many scholars have explicitly said that it does not meet cult characteristics, though Landmark did get kicked out of France and listed as a cult there.

Maybe once we improve the body wording, it will be easier to apply a concision function to that for the lead statements. ---Avatar317^(talk) 05:50, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

many scholars Who are we talking about? Singer said she did not consider it a cult after getting sued, but also that she would not recommend the group to anyone, and would not comment on whether Landmark used coercive persuasion for fear of legal recrimination from Landmark. And Abgrall got a decent sum of money: Abgrall wrote a report on the organization arguing that they were not a cult, arguing that they were a "harmless organization", though did conclude by recognizing that the group may have had some warning signs. They were removed from the list; from the period of 2001 to 2002 Abgrall had been paid €45,699.49 by Landmark.. We could also count Jensen, although he does not claim to be an expert in this matter he is a scholar, but Jensen credits Landmark with restoring the relationship with his daughter so I don't think he is independent. had taken a Landmark course in Boston at the suggestion of his daughter, who mended a rocky relationship with Dr. Jensen after taking the course herself. Pretty much every independent scholar considers it an NRM. People in academia don't really use the word "cult", they use "New Religious Movement". I don't think we have to include a list of defining features of a cult, that would be more ontopic in the article cult. We can simply say it meets certain criteria which is why some people and organizations consider it to be a cult, and it does not meet others which is why some disagree. Its a bit like the DSM, you don't have to check all the boxes in order to get a label. Polygnotus (talk) 05:58, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

What I noticed was much simpler than that. The lead says:

Landmark has sometimes been described a cult, because of their attempts to convert participants to a new worldview and their recruitment tactics: they do not use advertising, but instead pressure participants during courses to recruit relatives and friends as new customers.

but Landmark Worldwide#Accusations of being a cult says nothing about "attempts to convert", "a new worldview", "recruitment tactics", "advertising", "pressuring participants", or "recruiting relatives and friends".

There are complaints in the article about (e.g.,) recruiting pressure, but those complaints are not related to being a cult. It may be true (and explained in the body) that they have sometimes been described as a cult. It may be true (and explained in the body) that they try to change people's ways of thinking and pressure paying customers into recruiting more customers. But there's no "because of" in the body to connect the parts of this sentence. WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:10, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing: Sorry, I should be more clear. I agree with you, in the RfC section above, and here I responded to Avatar317's use of the words "many scholars". I did dive into the sources and for example people like Dinesh Bhugra (a well-known expert) describe Landmark as a NRM (in Psychiatry and Religion Context, Consensus and Controversies). Looking at the Sociology sources, the large majority uses "NRM". The only exceptions I can find is Renee Lockwood who describes Landmark as a corporate religious form, a religio-spiritual corporation and a corporate religion (which is less standard terminology). Outside of academia everyone (journalists, writers, cult experts, every Tom, Dick and Harry) uses "cult". If we want to give a reason why it is considered a cult, which I am not sure it is necessary, then it would be that it meets certain criteria to be classified as such. But its probably easier to leave that out. Polygnotus (talk) 07:19, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

We could separate the two halves of the sentence. Instead of "it's called a cult because recruiting pressure", we could say "It's called a cult. Also, there's recruiting pressure." WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:02, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Polygnotus (talk) 03:33, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps the next editor (whether you or someone else) who thinks this would be an improvement would implement that change. It should be pretty simple just to split it into two sentences. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:48, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

I’m very busy right now so I can’t be much help with this but I think it would probably be much clearer if we expanded on what it is they actually do that people don’t like, vs terminology. PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:29, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Your point - expanding on behaviors by Landmark that people have complained about instead of slapping a non-objective label on them - makes very good sense.  I find that in the sources cited, there are two primary issues: 1) asking participants to invite guests, and 2) asking participants to register into another Landmark program.  Are there any other constant and consistent complaints from reliable sources? Landmark claims over 3 million participants since its inception; one would expect that if those behaviors were truly insidious then volume of complaints would have taken the business down.  But it still exists. Ndeavour (talk) 16:50, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

What you are trying to do is WP:OR. The sources explicitly say that Landmark is "cultish" or "has characteristics of a cult", and because sources say that, that is what the Wikipedia article should say.

When doctors say that the symptoms mean that the patient has disease X, than that is what we report on here. Your attempt to say: but they only have symptoms of "sore throat and runny nose" doesn't mean you get to write a Wikipedia article that says things contrary to what the sources say.

You have clearly not read enough sources to understand that there are many more reasons that Landmark has been seen as a cult; some of those additional reasons are that they try to convert participants to a new worldview, and they use high pressure techniques to try to "break down" participants' resistance to change/acceptance of this new worldview.

Again, per policy, we paraphrase sources. ---Avatar317^(talk) 23:50, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

I haven’t read much of this, and am hellishly busy ATM, while I’m not disputing that, adding that they’re called a cult while not adding the reasons they’re called a cult is a bit of putting the cart before the horse. So that should probably be done to improve the article, why they are criticized. Will make more sense. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:03, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

@PARAKANYAA, no worries: we'll be here when you're back, even if that's weeks from now.

@Avatar317, I don't think I've quite understood your comment. You say The sources explicitly say that Landmark is "cultish" or "has characteristics of a cult". Are you arguing that it's a violation of NOR for the lead to say (as it currently does) "Landmark has sometimes been described a cult"? There is a gap between "cult-ish" or "cult-like" or "characteristics of a cult" and saying that it's actually been labeled a cult – a straight-up cult, with no "-ish" about it and no weaseling about it only having some "characteristics of". If we're going to say "cult" instead of something a little vaguer, then we do need sources that say this explicitly.

More relevant (to my original point above), we currently have some language in the lead that says "a cult, because of". The reasons given in the lead are flimsy (they're a cult because they don't pay for advertising? Seriously?) and are not described in the body per WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY.

I want to be clear: I've got no inherent objection to calling them a cult (assuming reliable sources support it, etc.). I'm primarily concerned about the "because of" part of the sentence. Are reliable sources seriously calling them a cult because of their choice not to pay for advertising? If not, then we should fix that so it sounds less like the Wikipedia article was written by some shadowy Advertising Illuminati. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:46, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. The only mention of the word "cult" in the sources cited are as follows:

The Colorado Springs article says:

"It is this rapid, often uncontextualized sea-change that friends and family see in Forum graduates that has led some to call Landmark a cult, a claim which Landmark has vigorously disputed... On this point, at least, I agree with Landmark. Having thoroughly researched the company over the past month I have come to the conclusion that they definitely aren’t a cult,"

The Observer article (possibly the only sober balanced piece of journalism in the list) says:

"Landmark has faced accusations of being a cult, but I saw nothing of that. Far from working to separate us from our families and friends, we were told there was no relationship too dead to be revived, no love too cold to be warmed."

The Eileen Barker essay doesn't actually mention Landmark, but says:

"Erhard Seminars Training (est) and other examples of the human potential movement joined indigenous new religions, such as the Emin, Exegesis, the Aetherius Society, the School of Economic Science, and the Findhorn community in the north of Scotland, and a number of small congregations within mainstream churches were labelled 'cults' as they exhibited some of the more enthusiastic characteristics of new religions and their leaders"

The Spears article says:

"And now to that important question: is it a cult, brainwashing and evangelical? Cross out the first two; tick the third (but not in a literal, bible-bashing way — it’s just that there’s a lot of American hard sell)."

The Mother Jones article, although generally disparaging, does not mention the word "cult" at all.

Does this amount to adequate support for the extensive editorialising on this issue, much less its inclusion in the lead?

It is worth mentioning that one of the findings of the Arbitrators ten years ago was that

"2) As discussed by editors providing evidence in this arbitration case, rigorous academic sources for the topic are few and far between,[35] meaning claims more often rest on weaker sources or claims from the organization in question."

These references are, indeed, mostly somewhat sensationalist and cynical in tone. Furthermore, this handful of source are cited for about a dozen assertions in the page, and not just the cult issue. DaveApter (talk) 11:38, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to check all those sources and post the quotations. I really appreciate it.

It sounds like the "because of" aspect is a complete {{failed verification}} problem. We therefore cannot say that. Whether we should use the word cult at all is a separate question, but since zero sources give a "because of" statement, we can't actually state our own conclusions about why this label was (sometimes?) applied. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:39, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

I agree with all of your improvements, Thanks!! and I think the article is better now, so I'm NOT suggesting any changes to the lead here.

I just wanted to point out though, that the quote from above It is this rapid, often uncontextualized sea-change that friends and family see in Forum graduates that has led some to call Landmark a cult, does give a "because of".

Also, this quote, which has to do with brainwashing, another characteristic the public often associates with cults: Even professional cult buster Ross agrees that Landmark isn't one. "I'm a relative conservative on the issue of defining a cult," he says. "In my mind, I look for an absolute authoritarian leader . . . I just don't see any parallel with that type of leader in Landmark." The company does not meet many of the conventional definitions of a cult. Landmark does not require its members to turn over their personal assets, except the cost of tuition. Landmark does not cut people off from family and friends, there is no communal living situation, nothing to worship, and participation must be voluntary. 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. [and more in the following paragraphs]" https://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/news/drive-thru-deliverance-6419949

Again, this is just to respond to the "failed verification" question, not a suggestion for changes. Thanks again WhatamIdoing! ---Avatar317^(talk) 22:28, 15 October 2024 (UTC)