Talk:Landmark Worldwide

Removing Weasel Word Tags

In response to Astynax, who has removed tags of weasel wording from phrases such as 'The company claims that more than 2.2 million people have taken Landmark's programs since its founding in 1991', it seems clear that Wikipedia doesn't inherently question sales figures from primary sources on privately held companies. You don't see things like 'Imperial Hotels claims it had $83 million in sales in 2012' - we would list the sales figure, and only use the term 'claims' if there were reasons in reliable secondary sources to doubt the primary source. Nwlaw63 (talk) 02:45, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

I think that is a fair point. DaveApter (talk) 11:19, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

POV - Controversies, Legal and Cult Accusation

Hello Wikipedia,

I think that this article needs to do a better job of addressing the criticism leveled against Landmark Worldwide. I can tell that this is a hot topic with a history of heavy-handed editing and lack of consensus. I'm hoping that we can find a way to add a little more criticism and critical sources without giving undue weight. Here are the only mentions of the word cult:

HuffPost and the Observe "concluded that, in their view, it is not a cult."

HuffPost again: "I found the Forum innocuous. No cult, no radical religion"

Wikipedia's own words: several lawsuits... against authors and journalists who have intimated that it is a cult

Neither a link nor a mention of Voyage au Pays des Nouveaux Gourous#Report of the 1995 French Parliamentary Commission of Inquiry into Cults and from this talk page it sounds like the State Department may have accidentally included Landmark in a list of religious organizations.

Reviews and Criticism only contains two sections of Criticism:

Some observers[who?] question whether and to what degree Landmark courses benefit participants. Others[who?] criticize the use of volunteers by Landmark; others[who?] highlight the connections with other groups and with Werner Erhard. Landmark has been criticized by some for being overzealous in encouraging people to participate in its courses.[39] There are no sources for anything except the last sentence. Maybe we can replace this with some real critiques based on actual sources.

Following a series of investigative articles in the national daily Dagens Nyheter[43][44][45] and programs on the private TV channel TV4, Landmark closed its offices in Sweden[46] in June 2004. The French office of Landmark also closed in July 2004 after labor inspectors, visiting the site noting the activities of volunteers, made a report of undeclared employment.[47] Sources 43 and 44 are marked as dead links. The article leaves confusion about why Landmark in Sweden closed following these investigations. The story of events in the French case seems to leave out details mentioned in Voyage au pays des nouveaux_gourous#Repercussions

It seems to me that somewhere there should be a link to the Voyage au pays des nouveaux gourous article. Perhaps in the legal controversies. I can appreciate that per WP:Undue Weight this might not deserve more than a sentence or two.

The last editors to suggest a more balanced article seemed to have lacked reliable sources WP:RS to back up claims or used these sources to support broad generalizations. Specific debate surrounded the use of Cult Awareness and Information Centre (which has been cited in reports on cults by the Canadian Security Intelligence Service). Beyond the numerous self-publication issues with this sources, it's also worth noting that Jan Groenveld the founder/spokesperson passed away in 2002 and the source has been directly involved in a legal struggle with Landmark.

Apologetics Index[1] looks like an equally dubious source for citation, but it could be a jumping off piece for finding critical opinions. For sources hinting at the cult accusations, you can see Mother Jones[2], Yahoo Voice[3] and Yelp[4] (highly reliable). There might be a wording that encompasses various sources description of "cult-like behavior and recruiting practices" without classifying Landmark as a full on cult.

Thanks for your consideration,

KonigProbst (talk) 21:11, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi KonigProbst, welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your comments. I do not agree that any more emphasis on cult accusations would be in accordance with Wikpedia policies as this is clearly a minority viewpoint – almost every reliable source we have says it’s not a cult, except for the France report, which has its own issues – see the Wikipedia article for some of these: Parliamentary_Commission_on_Cults_in_France#Commission_of_2005

There are almost certainly reliable sources for the unsourced claims (those ‘who?’ statements) – we can and should simply add those sources.

As you have noted, unreliable sources such as CAIC and Apologetics are not useful here. Others that you mention are either not reliable or don’t call Landmark a cult – Mother Jones does not refer to Landmark as a cult, the Yahoo Voices is both a dubious source, and says that Landmark is not a cult, and Yelp reviews, both positive and negative, are absolutely NOT reliable sources for Wikipedia.

There have been many attempts over the years by people with strong personal negative opinions regarding Landmark to incorporate their views into this article in violation of the policy guidelines 'what Wikipedia is not'. A former administrator named Cirt was desysopped in part due to his POV campaign against personal development programs and new religious movements – some of the material you mention was in the article as part of Cirt’s campaign, but was removed thereafter: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Cirt_and_Jayen466#Cirt_desysopped. DaveApter (talk) 10:23, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't here to answer or arbitrate on the question: "Is Landmark Wordwide a cult?" WP:Truth The question is about what second- and third-party sources have to say about Landmark. From the limited research that I've done, it seems that reliable sources agree that there are "cult-like aspects" (as might be true for any self-improvement group) while it is not an "actual cult" (brainwashing, money stealing and other such libel). I think that it's noteworthy that many sources address this "cult question." It's also noteworthy that they come to the same conclusion about Landmark not being a cult.

I'm sure that looking into the legal challenges that Landmark has brought against everybody who has ever accused it of being a cult would yield some strong sources for the assertion "Landmark has been accused of aggressive recruitment, silencing dissent through lawsuits and other cult-like behavior (like to accusers). However, many investigations (NYC or whatever) have concluded that it is not a cult."

I agree that Yelp is not a reliable enough sources to use for an encyclopedia, and Yahoo Voices is questionable. Not sure what the opposite of WP:Undue Weight is, but I feel like this article is not giving enough weight to the critical voices. If you look at the other WP articles on Landmark, you'll see that there is a majority voice saying "Landmark is a happy self-improvement group" and a minority voice saying "Landmark is questionable, although not actually a cult." The majority voice gets the majority weight and the minority voice get the minority weight. Why oppose including that like these other pages? KonigProbst (talk) 23:36, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't think anything I said implies that I think that 'Wikipedia is here to answer or arbitrate on the question: "Is Landmark Wordwide a cult?"', so I can't see the relevance of that remark to this discussion. Wikipedia's policies require that articles reflect the facts (including facts about opinions) on the subject in question as substantiated by reliable published secondary sources. Where facts about opinions are reported, they must be given due weight in proportion to the numbers and authority of those holding those opinions. A consensus has been reached over several years of sometimes heated editing and discussion that this article in its present form broadly meets these requirements.

I am relieved to see that you now acknowledge that some of the sources you suggested previously are not after all appropriate.

I'm a bit puzzled by your reference to "other WP articles on Landmark" - I wasn't aware that there were any? (apart from the Litigation article). As far as I can see, this article in its current form does accurately summarise both the majority and minority views on the subject and does give due weight to each. Of course if you can find specific references that add useful relevant information currently missing from the article in suitable reliable sources, you might consider adding them, or at least discussing them here. DaveApter (talk) 19:06, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Cults

I've only just discovered the existence of Landmark, and I'm rather confused by the fact that this article goes to such strenuous lengths to relate that the "consensus" is that Landmark is NOT a cult, and yet, the only mentions of it being a cult in the article at all, are those same refutations. Even if the "consensus" is that it's not a cult, some descriptions of the concerns/claims and the sources for those is highly warranted, otherwise, why refute them at all? Markushopkins (talk) 23:50, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. The issue is that the refutations come from reliable sources, while the claims do not. The reliable sources tend to be refuting unattributed gossip and non-reliable claims on the internet etc, not other reliable sources. Your summary of the issue seems to me to be a little strained: The word "consensus" does not even appear in the article, and I don't see the basis for your claim that the article "goes to such strenuous lengths" on the topic - the word "cult" only appears three times in the article, two of those within direct quotes from reputable journalists (expressing the opinion that it is not an appropriate description). I would think this is about the right degree of coverage for what is after all a peripheral aspect of the subject. DaveApter (talk) 08:55, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Uh, Dave, I was actually quoting you in your use of the word on the talk page. I really don't give a crap about the organization and whether or not it is a cult. My point was that it's weird to have something specifically pointed out as NOT being a cult, when that is the FIRST and ONLY time the idea is mentioned. Seems to me the one straining is you, since you feel it necessary to respond so forcefully to every comment. Markushopkins (talk) 07:09, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Promo?

I see someone has added a 'Promo' tag to the article. It doesn't read like an advertisement to me? What do others think? Are there any specific points that should be removed or added? DaveApter (talk) 11:19, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

• There is a ton of critical coverage in reliable secondary sources on Landmark. Almost none of it is represented in the article. It reads like it could have been written by a Landmark PR person. LHM^{ask me a question} 00:47, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
  • A quick look through the article history and referencing will likely only reinforce that perception. Even though several unsourced and sourced edits with content differing from Landmark's proclaimed viewpoint have been made (and summarily reverted) over the years, dismissing and minimizing reliable sources differing from the Landmark view under the guise of "consensus" seems to be the modus here. • Astynax ^talk 17:19, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

    That needs to change, but I'm not sure how to go about it. This article appears to have some very committed guardians that are intent on making certain no real non-favorable material gets into the article. LHM^{ask me a question} 23:25, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Neutrality

Periodically the the neutrality of this article is called into question. Ironically, there seems to be a symmetry between those who regard it as being biased in favour of Landmark Worldwide and those who see it as giving excessive weight to critical material. Each of these groups of editors seem to have difficulty in distancing themselves from their own personal viewpoint, and regard the other as violating the principle of neutrality, sometimes even to the point of failing to assume their good faith.

I sometimes wonder whether Wikipedia is structurally capable of generating sound articles on contemporary social phenomena such as this. The articles on subjects such as physics or mathematics are excellent, because there is no difficulty in referencing a well-established body of factual information. On the other hand, subjects where much material is in the form of strongly held subjective opinions which are highly polarised often lead to endless edit warring and constant dissatisfaction of one party or the other (or indeed both!).

Most of the editors who have been keen to insert more critical material have been extremely reluctant to declare their own interest or state their own experience or opinions regarding Landmark. There is of course no obligation for them to do so, but nonetheless it might be helpful to them in distinguishing their own point-of-view from a genuinely neutral one. (As I have declared on several occasions, my viewpoint is as someone who participated in several Landmark courses between 2002 and 2005, and found them beneficial and excellent value).

It is absolutely clear that in the past this article was a blatant attack piece, propagating scurrilous and defamatory material which did not meet Wikipedia's policies either for reliability or neutrality. Notwithstanding any shortcomings that may remain, its present state is a definite improvement.

Regarding the question of whether the recently-added 'Advert' tag is justified, I cannot see that it is. My analysis of the content is as follows:

• The lead section contains four sentences, each of them stating relevant objective facts.
• The 'History' section contains seven sentences, again stating objective facts. Only the last one is of dubious relevance, but could hardly be described as promotional.
• The 'Corporation' section contains nine sentences, again stating relevant objective facts.
• The 'Business Consulting' section contains nine sentences, again accurately reporting objective facts.
• I can understand why someone hostile to Landmark might perceive the 'Course Content' section as marginally “promotional”, but surely if we are to have an article on this organisation at all, it should include some indication of what it offers and how it works?
• The 'Reviews and Criticisms' section contains a mixture of positive and negative opinions, adequately sourced and giving – in my estimation – due weight to each in proportion to their prominence, in line with Wikipedia policies.
• The 'Legal disputes' section is in my opinion superfluous and misleading bearing in mind that Landmark has apparently not initiated any lawsuits or threats in the last eight years and there were only a dozen instances in the previous 15 years, but I would rather leave it in than get involved in a battle over it.

In view of the above, I suggest that the 'Advert' tag be removed, and I invite anyone disagreeing to make specific suggestions here as to what should be removed or added, with the sources. Thank you. DaveApter (talk) 11:38, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

As there have been no alternative suggestions I am removing the tag now - it is in any case inappropriate since the Wikipedia guideline on the use of this tag states clearly: "The advert tag is for articles that are directly trying to sell a product to our readers. Don't add this tag simply because the material in the article shows a company or a product in an overall positive light or because it provides an encyclopedic summary of a product's features." DaveApter (talk) 11:43, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

No response means WP:No consensus has been reached. As per policy: 'In discussions of proposals to add, modify or remove material in articles, a lack of consensus commonly results in retaining the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit.' The obvious exception being, under BLP, 'contentious matters related to living people'. Landmark isn't a person and that tag has been there since July. This wasn't a sudden need for revert. AnonNep (talk) 13:06, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

The tag was likely placed for reasons which have been raised here repeatedly. That Landmark's advocates don't see the point doesn't mean the tag has no merit. The article is transparently promoting the image Landmark projects in its own literature and materials. Less than flattering material has been minimized, or more often simply deleted. Other material has been content-forked off into sub-articles when this article's length does not come close to justifying this. Referenced info has been deleted under the pretext of consensus, and language which qualifies Landmark's claims has been dismissed and reverted using inappropriate application of WP:WEASEL. The article is overwhelmingly sourced to Landmark itself, while material cited to truly secondary and tertiary sources has either been removed, forked or minimized. The question of why Landmark is even treated separately from est, WEA and its other iterations and related entities (some of which are oddly fobbed off into the Werner Erhard article), when other reference works deal with them together rather than in separate articles has also been argued down by its advocates using claims that seem more to reflect a desire to distance Landmark from its history and critics, rather than anything in reliable references. • Astynax ^talk 07:36, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Astynax, I'm disappointed that you ignore my invitation to provide specific suggestions here as to what should be removed or added, with the sources, but continue to repeat vague generalised accusations. There are two entirely separate questions here: one is whether the Advert tag is justified, and the other is whether there is more work required to bring it up to Wikipedia's standards of neutrality. The first is an open-and-shut case; no-one can seriously justify the suggestion that this article is "directly trying to sell a product to our readers" (It is nothing to do with whether or not "Landmark's advocates".."see the point").

On the wider issue of neutrality, I have made an honest effort to open the debate with my remarks above, and I would appreciate it if you would engage with the points I made. I do not recognise the accuracy of your depiction of this article as "transparently promoting the image Landmark projects in its own literature and materials" - on the contrary there are 51 references, most of them entirely reputable and very few of them deriving from Landmark itself. As I pointed out above, the majority of the article comprises clear statements of fact. Which of these do you think should be removed, and why? Neither do I see it as fair comment that "Less than flattering material has been minimized, or more often simply deleted." There remains a significant amount of critical material. That which was removed in the past was generally because it was inadequately sourced gossip or rumour, or gave undue weight to a minority opinion. Please feel free to suggest factual, adequately sourced items which you think ought to be added. DaveApter (talk) 11:26, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

And, AnonNep, with respect you are mistaken on two aspects of Wikipedia policy: firstly 'no response' does not mean 'no consensus' -WP:CON actually says: "consensus can be assumed if editors stop responding to talk page discussions,"- and secondly WP:No_consensus states: "Often, people feel that "no consensus" should mean that the current status quo prevails, which, therefore, defaults to keep. That is not, however, always the case." DaveApter (talk) 11:26, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Important distinction - your first link is WP policy, the second, an essay or guideline. The policy quote is from the section 'Consensus-building in talk pages'. If a page has little or no editing history, or talk page activity, I'd agree that, after leaving it for a good while, an editor could go back and make that change. But this article is regularly edited, and you posted your suggestions on 21 August 2014 and made the change 25 August 2014, to a tag that had been there since July. Given that this isn't a BLP, and it wasn't an urgent change, the 'consensus-building in talk pages' process could have been given more time. AnonNep (talk) 11:51, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, but you are overlooking the fact that I queried the tag on 31st July, and left it for three weeks before raising the issue again. In that time there were comments from only two editors (one of them the person who originally placed the tag), neither of them advancing any substantive arguments to justify it. DaveApter (talk) 13:12, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

The consensus process is about building up agreement on what can be agreed on even if we come from different points of view in order to produce the best article possible. Given this isn't a BLP, and as long as there is anything in there that is legally actionable (and if there is, I completely support, as does WP policy, in immediately removing it), then patience is the best tool we have. If this isn't an advert for Landmark then let's take the time all involved need to get it right. AnonNep (talk) 15:42, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

I think it likely that no one responded to your points because they seemed to be dismissive of the issue which prompted the tag. The article simply does not reflect how the subject is treated in reliable sources. That the article cites sources outside Landmark does not change the fact that the bulk of the article's text is sourced to Landmark (a privately held LLC, not a publicly traded corporation with records open to scrutiny). Entire swathes of coverage in the literature have been ignored or minimized here, and efforts to introduce such material, or even to qualify statements sourced to Landmark, have been thwarted by a combination of immediate, and incremental reversions. The lead section makes no reference even to the limited non-Landmark views that have been mentioned in brief, though relegated to the "Reviews and criticism" (bizarre in itself) and "Legal disputes" sections at the very end of the article. Most of that material should have been explored (and much more thoroughly) in the context of the history of Landmark, and any positive and negative "reviews"—if used at all—should have been included in the section on the courses. The "Legal disputes" section mentions actions initiated by Landmark, but nothing about government actions and inquiries or individual actions against Landmark (pushing these as "criticisms" or relegating them to the sub-article fork). Anyone reading this article does not come away with an appreciation of the breadth of coverage this entity has received in scholarly lit over the last several decades (regardless that it has changed its names numerous times and spun off parts of itself). Pushing an image that a corporation or public figure wishes to present is certainly "selling" and falls squarely into the prohibition against marketing, CoI and public relations soapboxing. A PoV tag would also have been justified. • Astynax ^talk 18:58, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps it is more plausible that no one responded to my points in four weeks because no-one disputed them (apart from yourself and Lithistman)? The suggestion that this page is trying to sell anything is ridiculous, and clearly the tag is inappropriate.

Please confine your remarks on this page to constructive suggestions for improving the article, rather than extended rants about your personal dissatisfactions with it.

And please refrain from breaching civility by casting aspersions on the motives of other editors. DaveApter (talk) 14:06, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

No one has "breached" the civility policy here. Certainly nothing in what User:Astynax wrote merited your reply. Additionally, nothing he wrote was a "rant." This article has serious issues that need to be addressed. The obstructionism I see you engaging in is certainly not helpful, and needs to stop. LHM^{ask me a question} 21:36, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Request For Comment?

What about using the Request for comment process on the advert tag (or even the article as a whole)? Can we agree on 'a brief, neutral statement of the issue'? Then someone adds the appropriate section, RfC statement/question and template and, through that, invite other editors from across Wikipedia to give their feedback. Editors who do edit this page would be free to give opinions, but one advantage of the process is bringing in (through the template, and promotion on appropriate forums as per RfC policy) new, uninvolved editors, to look through things with fresh eyes, and give their point on view. Just a suggestion as a possible next step. AnonNep (talk) 14:26, 27 August 2014 (UTC)