Talk:Landmark Worldwide

Requested move 10 January 2015

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No consensus. There seems to be a good-faith disagreement on what this article should be about, the company or the products. If any resolution is found on that, a new move request might be submitted. One editor mentioned concern about COI, but it's unclear how that would affect a move discussion one way or the other. Their web site doesn't make their real name easy to discern. The URL is http://landmarkworldwide.com but the contact information wants you to write to 'Landmark'. The copyright notice says that the owner is 'Landmark Worldwide'. EdJohnston (talk) 02:48, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

---

Landmark Worldwide → Landmark Forum – The current official product name and the most recognized COMMONNAME for this topic. Ties into previous incarnations of the seminar product as well. This article was subject to an ArbComm case and suffers from COI POV pushing issues. Legacypac (talk) 19:06, 10 January 2015 (UTC) Legacypac (talk) 19:06, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

• Support pursuant to the discussion in the above section about merging content into a single article, and the comment made from one of our more knowledgable editors dealing with matters of corporate content in that discussion that maybe this would be the best name for an article on the primary product of the legal entities involved. John Carter (talk) 19:09, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
• Support not my idea, just listed the move request. Note the proposed title is currently a redirect to the current title. We would reverse that so Landmark Worldwide would redirect to Landmark Forum. Also since there are many Landmark subsidiaries and branches worldwide, a change of title to the official name of the primary product of these organizations makes a lot of sense. Legacypac (talk) 19:15, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose - The majority of the article content is about the company, not the product. WP:TITLE is clear that the article title "indicates what the article is about and distinguishes it from other articles". If there is sufficient content to have an article about the product (Landmark Forum) then that article should be created. At this point, it appears that most sources (and the majority of the content here) are about the company. --Tgeairn (talk) 19:28, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

According to the page history, your primary role here is removing anything negative about the company or the product. Therefore your opinion is quite expected. Some new non-Landmark related editors without a clear bias POOV are trying to have a discussion here. Legacypac (talk) 19:36, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

How does opposing a move that is against policy (specifically WP:TITLE) equate to removing something negative? Yes, I have edited this article somewhat frequently recently. Have you actually looked at the edits made? What do you base your statement on? The Arbitration Committee reviewed my edits as a part of the recent case and did not see any issues. The majority of edits were to incorporate the results of RfCs, merges, etc., and were fully supported by (and frequently reinstated by) admins and other editors. So, where is your clear AGF? Who has the bias here? What is the POV? Please check your facts and support your accusations in the future. This is not the venue to make attacks. --Tgeairn (talk) 19:45, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

I came here because the ArbComm requested more input from uninvolved editors. Now your buddy has dragged a bunch of us to ArbComm seeking to eject us from the article. I hope the move and merge requests pull in more uninvolved editors to comment. Pretty clear ArbComm felt there were COI editors here, and you are one of them evidently. You dodged my question about your connection to Landmark, pretty much confirming you are bias. Hence my comments. Legacypac (talk) 20:03, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

• Tentatively support If anyone can provide an in-depth profile story about one of these organizations, where the source suggests the company is substantially involved or known for matters not related to Landmark Forum, this would demonstrate that there is a substantial amount of material from secondary sources that would not fit on the product page. In that case I would change my mind. However, my limited knowledge of the subject matter from glancing at the articles suggests this is the right path to go. The new article should probably say "previously known as EST training" and the exact best structure may be difficult to figure out. CorporateM (Talk) 21:01, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
• Support. As the companies have always been closely held, with little information available in independent references for the corporate governance, structure, etc. (not so regarding the programs offered based in est), this seems a reasonable course. The company does have a multitude of follow-up courses and services based on the Forum, directed at different markets, but those would barely flesh out a stub. • Astynax ^talk 00:39, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

This also seems to be a reasonable application of WP:COMMONNAME. • Astynax ^talk 21:43, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Based on google searches, COMMONNAME would indicate "Landmark Education" - which makes sense, as that was the name before the company recently changed to "Landmark Worldwide". I opposed the rapid change of the article name from LE to LW at that time, but now "Landmark Worldwide" appears to be consistently used (again, just based on COMMONNAME criteria). --Tgeairn (talk) 05:39, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose I'm confused as to why we would want to change the name of a company article to that of one of its products. It seems about as sensible as changing the name of the Apple article to iPhone. This article seems to be mostly about the company, not the Landmark Forum course, which would make the name doubly strange. Nwlaw63 (talk) 14:32, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

@Nwlaw63 Is the Landmark Forum "just another product" or is it the primary product they are known for? When I go to their website, it seems heavily focused on the Landmark Forum. I'm guessing they are private though, because I cannot find an annual report, which would be helpful as it would offer a revenue breakdown that might establish the significance of its other training programs. The New York Times says "The Forum is the cornerstone workshop of Landmark Education". The source seems to be about the Landmark training and covers its prior corporate owners in that context. CorporateM (Talk) 21:54, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure about "main" - it's their first, introductory course, so the one talked about most often, but I don't think it's the dominant or "main" thing about the company. Maybe there should be a section about their other courses. Nwlaw63 (talk) 03:43, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose The article is clearly about the organisation. 'Landmark Forum' is the name of one of the several dozen courses it offers. In any case, Landmark Forum redirects to here. DaveApter (talk) 17:26, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Landmark, as a corporation, may not like it but Wikipedia works on the basis of what reliable secondary sources say as we don't do original research. If enough reliable secondary sources say that Landmark has clear links to other corporate bodies then we write and structure things as per those sources. AnonNep (talk) 21:34, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

The redirect will be reversed, so Landmark Worldwide redirects to Landmark Forum. Considering the company website barely mentions its name while heavily emphasizing Landmark Forum, DaveApter's superiors should like this move as it promotes the groups major product, from which all other products are derived. You want to check on that and get back to us Dave?Legacypac (talk) 04:06, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Referring to "my superiors" is a deliberate and unwarranted smear. Please retract it and apologise. DaveApter (talk) 10:43, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Interesting you did not say "I'm not employed or a volunteer with Landmark." Thank-you. Legacypac (talk) 10:53, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Actually I've already said on numerous occasions that my sole relationship with the company is as a customer who did several of their courses some years ago. Since no-one has produced any evidence to the contrary there's nothing to respond to. Naturally if the Arbitrators had any questions for me I would have answered them. DaveApter (talk) 15:13, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

You have also, repeatedly, pointedly refused to address the issues of whether you are related to individuals who are or have been employees. It is also, of course, possible that, given your habit of rigorous definition, you might be a contracter assigned to Landmark, but not employed by them directly, or perhaps in some way some sort of shareholder, particularly if you were an employee under an early version of the organization. Given the tendency to very deliberately parse words which you have displayed, including in the recent arbitration, I think it is reasonable that your words be taken to say only what they absolutely literally must mean, and that's all. John Carter (talk) 15:35, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Another carefully parsed answer only adds to the impression of COI. Everyone here should be aware by now that WP:COI guidelines encompass a host of interests apart from employment. As I recall, arbs suggested that the matter of COI be brought to WP:COIN, rather than them indicating that there was no COI. After this matter being raised repeatedly by different editors over the years, that is likely the place further discussion should occur. • Astynax ^talk 18:55, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

• OK y'all--DaveApter's possible COI need not be elaborated here. The only thing that the closer of this move request should care about is the strength of his argument; the rest is neither here nor there. To all: please be mindful of WP:NPA--play the ball, not the man. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 16:51, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose Reading through the article as-is it is more about the company than about the product, and it feels more natural in this case to have an article about a company that also mentions a specific product than it does to have an article about a product with information about the company in it. Specifically the Corporation and Litigation are far more relevant to the company than to the product, and the History and Religious Characteristics sections are somewhat more relevant to the company. The Course content and Public reception are product specific, but on the balance I still think the article has the appropriate title already.

I think a separate question is whether we should have an article about the company at all or only about the product. I don't currently have an opinion about that, but I'm basing my opinion on what the article is now. Chuy1530 (talk) 21:46, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

@Chuy1530: The reason for the proposed move is to allow for the merger of the content in the three extant articles which, in one form or another, deal with what has been called the "Landmark Forum" among other things in a single article, as that seems to be the primary topic to which the individual companies which have separate articles are more or less subtopics. That merger is proposed separately above. I acknowledge that there might be some basis for keeping est as a separate article, maybe, if there is sufficient difference in content between it and the later incarnations, but according to the sources produced above there doesn't seem to be much difference between the various forms that have been clearly documented in independent reliable sources, and several sources which seem to indicate that the various companies and forms are basically continuations, to some degree, of the original. John Carter (talk) 22:00, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

I've stricken my !vote, because reading into it what you say makes sense and an article focused on the forum (haven't read enough to have an opinion on est) is probably the best outcome. I think it'll need worked on once it is moved because the current article doesn't make much sense at what would be the new title but in the grand scheme of things we'll get to the right place. Chuy1530 (talk) 23:37, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose: This article is about the company, this company (Landmark). Per the Search results section below, COMMONNAME might indicate moving to "Landmark Education", but that is the old name of the company. The discussion above is confusing as some editors are talking about companies and some are talking about products. --23.25.38.121 (talk) 19:02, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Search results

"Landmark forum" = 161,000 results while "Landmark Worldwide" = 46,200 results. At 750% 350% greater search results, WP:COMMONNAME is "Landmark Forum" Legacypac (talk) 22:20, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

The current article seems stuck in "its about THIS company" loop that has prevented a proper presentation on the product. The product, not the assorted versions of the company is what most readers are interested in. As in, "I got invited to attend Landmark Forum - what is it about?" If this does not pass, how about we develop a separate article about the Landmark Forum at what is now a redirect only. Legacypac (talk) 22:14, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

There is certainly actual (if not for the purposes of legal liability) continuity between both the various product{s} over the years, and between the various iterations of the organization. Reliable sources report that there was/is continuity, the convoluted method of the buyout between WE&A and Transnational Education (aka, Landmark) notwithstanding. • Astynax ^talk 09:25, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

There is also continuity of people. The founder continues to be involved (in some ways anyway) and his brother is the CEO of Landmark today, not withstanding the corporate name changes. Legacypac (talk) 03:07, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

And "Landmark Education" yields 394,000 results. I have no idea what calculator you're using that says that 161k is 750% greater than 46k, but I can certainly see that 394k > 161k. So apply COMMONNAME, and then change it to reflect the name change of the company. --Tgeairn (talk) 04:48, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Obviously the wrong key. The company still uses metatags that say Landmark Education on its website. Legacypac (talk) 05:50, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

My comment looks a little snarky from here, I apologize for that. I only meant to point out that it was not 7.5x. On the meta tags, are you talking about the Landmark Worldwide website? I randomly checked a few pages and did not find "Landmark Education" in the source other that a link to their twitter feed. Can you provide a link? It shouldn't matter much though, we're still left with a significant majority for "Landmark Education" in search results. Thanks --Tgeairn (talk) 06:18, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Let's stick to the facts

During the recent Arbitration case, one of the Arbitrators suggested that the article would be served best by concentrating on facts rather than opinions. In recent days there has been a flurry of intense activity in the opposite direction. Perhaps it would be helpful in creating a neutral informative encyclopedia item if we trimmed it back to matters of fact, and then discussed how much in the way of opinions should be added and in what balance?

It seems to me that key factual statements might include the following:

• Landmark is a business founded in 1991 which offers personal development training courses.
• It offers courses in 115 locations in 24 countries around the world.
• It has had over 2.2 million customers since its foundation.
• Some of its customers are satisfied with the results they got from the courses, and others are not.
• Independent surveys demonstrate that over 90% of the customers report being “highly satisfied”.

Perhaps other editors can suggest other firm facts that they feel should be included? DaveApter (talk) 19:04, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Facts include that Landmark is a direct continuation of the business founded in the 1970s with the brother and the lawyer of the founder now at the head. All the name changes and reorgs don't change that fact. Another fact is that there have been many critical things said and written about this organization, it's product and founder/management. We need balance and I fear that connected editors here are unwilling to allow either the history or the balance. Legacypac (talk) 00:40, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

It has been pointed out to you (repeatedly) that making unfounded accusations such as "connected editors" is a personal attack. Please cease. --Tgeairn (talk) 00:48, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

There has never been any secrecy about the sequence of companies and courses, this article has always stated it clearly and explicitly. Of course there have been "many critical things said and written", (although much of this is uninformed, and a good deal of it deliberately malicious) and it is entirely correct to report that with due weight - alongside reporting the many positive things that have been said and written (which there seems to have been a concerted drive to remove lately). DaveApter (talk) 15:14, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

If there is a lot of negative stuff published about a topic we report it accurately, especially when written by academics, journalists and experts. We don't whitewash the topic because you think it is uninformed or deliberately malicious. I have yet to see anything positive deleted here. Legacypac (talk) 09:30, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Why has all of the source-full material at http://www.cultnews.com/category/landmarkeducation/ not included here? Mr. Ross has compiled a lengthy list of wrongdoing by this group. The page won't allow edits right now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JoltAsResearch (talk • contribs) 02:58, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Before you edit further on this article you should read this

I used to edit on this article and other related articles and much of what is happening right now is why I lost interest.

I am breaking a long silence because I think it is important for current editors to be aware of the following.

Much of the material that editors are attempting to add to the article in the name of balance has a significant problem. These items have been removed by the community in the past for poor and inaccurate sourcing as well as undue weight. These were originally added by a now notoriously de-sysoped and topic banned editor named CIRT/Smee/Smeelgova and a second sanctioned and now inactive editor Pedant17. The two single biggest contributors to the article by a wide margin. You can see some of their history:

here. Arbcom said:

“Cirt, According to statements in Evidence, and by his own admission, Cirt has, against policy, placed "undue negative weight in topics on new religious movements and political BLPs" and followed poor sourcing practices.

And Cirt admitted the following:

“I agree that my sourcing practices were inadequate, and that I’ve unwisely included undue negative weight in topics on new religious movements and political BLPs.”

The second biggest contributor[1] to the article was also sanctioned for endentious and disruptive editing.[2][3] Both Cirt/Smee/Smeelgova and Pedant17 had a similar level of involvment on the Werner Erhard article[4] The Est Article[5] The Werner Erhard and Associates Article[6]

Please Note: I am not making any accusations about anyone currently editing the article. I do believe that the history I have provided is relevant to current discussions on the article. Spacefarer (talk) 00:29, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the timely and convenient link to what I assume is the case that some editors have been hinting at to users who disagree with their PoV. Yes, there are some things that can be taken from reading through the accusations on that case, although I am not sure which items the arbs thought compelling and which they dismissed. The problems identified where that case touches on Landmark seem to rest on things like mischaracterization of both sources and what sources say, blanking referenced edits under various pretexts, and intransigent resistance to reflecting the weight found in reliable references. Blanking sourced statements that do not fit with one's PoV is not "restoring balance", but rather, pushing an unbalanced version. If there is reliably sourced (even from the same reliable source) information that depicts another significant point of view, then as I have said before the solution is to add that material; not to blank referenced information. Not all viewpoints, however, have significant, reliably sourced counterpoints, and it is not legitimate to demand that alternative viewpoints not based in significant reliable sources be included. Using WP:OR to advocate one's PoV is equally invalid.

In the history section, for example, either significant reliable sources say something happened, did not happen or disagree. The article can and should include the information, no matter what editors' viewpoints may be. There is frankly, little disagreement among sources regarding the history. It does get more complex when approaching the product ("Forum"), as there are widely differing views that need to be included when that topic is reworked to address its current sorry state. The same principles, however, should apply.

Despite repeated statements here, there are many reliable sources for the subject of this article, both explored and cited in academic literature. Some sources portray the subject in what appears to be an over-rosy light, some in darker tones. Regardless, the point is to factually report all significant points of view resting in reliable sources, not to ignore them. It is invalid to second-guess reliable sources, critique them based on personal editorial criteria, or twist what they say or dismiss them because of what they report. What we are not to do is use the encyclopedia's voice to present a skewed picture that does not reflect all significant viewpoints as reported by reliable sources. Repeatedly and incrementally blanking, information that does not sit well with a particular point of view can leave encyclopedia users with a biased article, such as existed last July. Expunging wide swaths of significant reportage does readers who come to the encyclopedia no favor. • Astynax ^talk 04:21, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Looking through the history of this article and related articles I agree that there seems to be cycles where it approached a NPOV and then any balance was worn out by a continuous process of attrition. It is probable that this will happen again but it is our duty to ensure that the article can be improved to where it is reasonably balanced.Cathar66 (talk) 22:49, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

This is not a new problem with this article and suggest interested editors should read this | Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal 2007-05-21Cathar66 (talk) 04:44, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

I can't figure out whether Astynax and Cathar66 have completely missed the point of Spacefarer's comments, or whether they are deliberately "playing dumb". The editors who were blocked, de-sysopped, and/or topic banned (eg Cirt/Smee, Pedant17 and Jeffrire) were the ones who were POV-pushing the anti-Landmark line similar to the one favoured by Astynax and his collaborators now, not the ones who were trying to establish a factual and fairly-balanced account. DaveApter (talk) 11:50, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

...and I'm unsure why DaveApter continually and uncivilly brings up sanctioned editors here. Having read the decision provided, it doesn't appear that their bans were at all prompted by content edits here. Nor are past editors relevant to current discussions. Repeatedly bringing up these lists of sanctioned editors to suggest that other editors may be banned due to including material that runs counter to Landmark's PoV is itself highly offensive, as is your current impugning the motives of editors. • Astynax ^talk 19:00, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

I just stated the facts; the assumptions of what is "suggested" are just that: assumptions. For the record, Cirt's topic ban and de-sysop was explicitly for NPOV editing and source misrepresentation in relation to, inter alia, Landmark, est, WEA, numerous related articles, and may other items relating broadly to the Human potential movement. DaveApter (talk) 13:08, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Re-read the case. There was no such finding with regard to Landmark, est, WEA, related articles or the Human potential movement. Unless you have evidence that these editors have been making edits here, your continued and irrelevant harping on these users is WP:HARASSMENT and an explicit violation of civility policy. Moreover, the perceived implication that editors here will be topic-banned because of the unsubstantiated linkage between adding material which runs counter to your PoV and other editors' behaviors is equally unwarranted and irrelevant to discussions here. Please stop it. • Astynax ^talk 19:02, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Article Review

I have been reviewing this article since I came back across it last week and going through some of the history. It is clearly contentious (as it has been since back a few years ago when I last was involved). It seemed like it had reached a fairly tolerable level of balance- not perfect but not over representing any particular POV until the last six months or so when it began to be targeted by what appear to me to be POV warriors.

Below is what I think the current issues with the article are from a Wikipedia policy standpoint. I believe these need to be handled fairly quickly to even get the article to a place where it can be worked on by people together.

I will make some of these changes - not with new material but material from the page when it was stable and prior to these radical changes. Before I did that though I wanted to get some responses and comments before I did anything.

Here are my thoughts as to some of the issues:

Wikipedia: Relevance and Wikipedia: Coatrack

Much of the material on Werner Erhard and est predates the actual creation of Landmark Education. A good clue that content is not relevant if a majority of the content in the article is dated BEFORE the creation of the subject of the article. :-)

In fact that leads me to think that in fact most of these recent edits have been "coatrack" edits. They are ostensibly about Landmark Education but seem primarily a venue for them to grind an axe about one of the founders of previous organizations to this one. (speaking of course about Werner Erhard and est).

Wikipedia: Reliable sources and undue weight

In the page on reliable sources and undue weight it says:

As an example, the entire section on the religious aspects of Landmark's programs does not even belong in this article at all- it is given far too much weight. Even the references that mention it often end with qualifications like "well it clearly is not religious but it has some attributes of it" or it turns out that that organization had to remove it from its sites. Many of the sources are websites from people who make their living by generating fear and worry in order to do their business. The fact that most of the references are from the last century and pre-date the formation of the organization that the article is about put the final coffin nail on this in my opinion.

Wikipedia: Synth

The leads me to the whole question of original research and the synthesis of that. These edits - as past ones have been- appear to be driven by fringe thinking that somehow these three organizations are the same organizations and that Werner Erhard is somehow still involved lurking behind the scenes like a sinister puppet master. There is no question that the organizations are related or that there is a common thread and evolution of content, product and people linking them but the record is also clear that Werner Erhard dissolved Werner Erhard and Associates and that some of the employees created a new company. This seems to be classic Synth thing. There are no reputable or majority sources supporting these theories and indeed there are considerable counter facts to it.

Wikipedia: Biographies of Living Persons

On top of the above Werner Erhard is a living person not currently in the public eye and not formally associated with Landmark Worldwide in any way except a historical and familial one (his brother and sister hold senior leadership roles in the company). Much of the added content tends to focus on the issues like accusations made against Werner Erhard (that were later recanted) and tax issues (which the IRS later publically acknowledged involved no wrong doing by Mr. Erhard, and indeed settled with Werner Erhard) . It will often include paragraphs on the accusations and then one small sentence saying "and oh yes it turns out that none of that was true" after going on about it for paragraphs.

This seems to be a direct smear against a living person who is not really directly relevant to the article in the first place. None of that stuff belongs here, and I wonder if it belongs on Wikipedia at all!

All of these combined lead me to believe that this article needs to be returned to the stable state it was in and had been arrived at by long fought for consensus.

Comments welcome.

Respectfully, Alex Jackl (talk) 03:18, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

I agree with most of the points you're making here, particularly regarding the undue weight of the 'religious' material - as I've already said at great length here, the argument for Landmark as 'religious' doesn't hold up to close scrutiny of all the available sources - it's more an issue of how new religious movements are classified by writers than any serious claims that Landmark fits any reasonable definition of religion or religious.

Regarding your other points, the one that stands out to me is relevance. There's now a history section that seems twice as long as any other part of the article that devotes itself entirely to complex tax structures that predated Landmark's existence. It's of no relevance to Landmark and turns the article into an unreadable mess. I assume it's been put there to grind some kind of POV axe, but all it does is put the reader to sleep. Nwlaw63 (talk) 14:51, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Can you identify a date on which you consider the article to have been "stable"? As to the other points in your review:

• The history of an entity is relevant, both things that led up to its formation, its formation and subsequent development. It is not undue weight for an entity's history to occupy a large portion of an article, especially where this is the coverage in sources. That does not mean that coverage of other aspects should not be reported for expanding other sections. Even Landmark, in its early days, explicitly acknowledged itself as the continuation of WE&A (regardless of whether it later denied inheriting the legal responsibilities incurred by WE&A). No one is "grinding an axe" by reporting what reliable sources state.
• The suggestion that the references regarding the treatment of Landmark as a NRM are insignificant or predate the formation of Landmark is false. Take another look.
• You say that it is obvious that Erhard and Landmark are related, yet are somehow opposed to detailing the relationship. Again, the references used are not fringe, and you have not pointed to any instance of synthesis. If there is material that you believe to be synthesis, question it or ask that a direct quote be footnoted.
• In fact, Erhard has a continuing association with Landmark (as a paid consultant, licensor, speaker at company functions, etc.). The situation regarding his relationship with Landmark Worldwide is similar to his previous association with EST Inc. and EST, An Educational Corporation, where Erhard seemingly had no ownership participation or control. Regarding the tax issues: there were multiple investigations, and WE&A was required to pay back deductions based upon circular loans and other invalid deductions. The article already reports that Erhard was cleared of personal responsibility in a later tax fraud investigation. The latter is noted in several sources as one of the reasons for his transferring WE&A assets to TEC/Landmark and leaving the United States, and is thus a significant part of the narrative. It is not a slur against Erhard.

None of the items in the review support indiscriminate blanking of cited material. • Astynax ^talk 19:38, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

• The last paragraph particularly is simply wild speculation. It is well known and undisputed that Erhard owned the various EST and WEA businesses, led the management of them, and led many of their training programs, and trained the other program leaders. It is well established (and nowhere contested) that he consults from time to time with Landmark's development team and that he licensed certain intellectual property to the company, and has no involvement with the ownership and management of it. The rest of what is stated above is pure speculation, whether on the part of Astynax, or on the part of others who could not conceivably be party to relevant information. What RS supports these assertions? As for the farrago of confused comments about taxation matters, what is the relevance of any of that to the subject of this article, and what could be the motivation in dwelling on it, if not to leave a misleading impression of wrongdoing and sleaziness? DaveApter (talk) 13:08, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

• No, it is not speculation at all. As the article describes, Erhard never directly owned the EST entities. As he later did when Landmark was formed, he only retained ownership of the est/Forum product "technology" through overseas shell companies, and thus reaped the profits through a licensing arrangement, but had no direct ownership of EST, Inc. or EST, An Educational Corporation. At first, he only acted as a consultant to EST (again, as at Landmark), and later became a mere employee when his employment contract was transferred from Presentaciones Musicales S.A. to EST. He also controlled substantial loans to both EST and Landmark, so of course, he exercised considerable influence over EST, but it is completely fictitious to claim that he exercised direct ownership of EST, Inc. or EST, An Educational Corporation. He only took direct ownership when WE&A was formed to buy out EST using a circular loan to EST to fund the transfer. The material was cited in the article. As you appear to agree that he has indeed continued to have considerable involvement with the company, it is also disingenuous to claim that he has had no involvement. The relevance of the 2 separate tax investigations is that the first regarded the means of financing his buyout of EST (using a circular loan to reap tax benefits in the process of buying out a company he only controlled indirectly up to that point), and the second regards the widely acknowledged reasons for selling up and leaving the US. You are the person suggesting painting this as wrongdoing and sleaziness, not the article. • Astynax ^talk 18:48, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

In Response to non-RS assertions

I have not seen any RS that establishes as fact that Erhard is paid as a consultant or has ever spoken at a company function. And to state that Erhard was not involved in est has no basis in reality at all. In anything I've ever read it says Erhard was very hands on with est, he created it, led all the initial courses, trained others to lead the course and no one to my knowledge has ever said otherwise. But what really stands out in your statement the most is that you allege that Erhard was investigated for tax fraud and this is simply untrue. Erhard was never accused of nor investigated for tax fraud. That there was false reporting in the media about tax problems was actually the crux of the lawsuit that he filed and won against the IRS.

"...several IRS spokesmen were widely reported as saying that Erhard owed millions of dollars in back taxes, that he was transferring assets out of the country, and that the agency was suing Erhard. The implication was that Erhard was a tax cheat who refused to pay his taxes that were lawfully due. In fact, Erhard, 61, contended that he never refused to pay a lawfully due tax and has not refused to pay millions in back taxes. He alleged that not only did the IRS spokesmen illegally disclose confidential tax return information, but that their statements were false. The founder and head of San Francisco-based Erhard Seminars Training Inc., popularly called est, filed a wrongful disclosure suit against the IRS in 1993. IRS spokesmen subsequently admitted that statements attributed to them about Erhard's supposed tax liability were false, but that they did not ask the media to correct the statements." (http://www.thefreelibrary.com/LEADER+OF+EST+MOVEMENT+WINS+$200,000+FROM+IRS.-a083966944)

In other words, the IRS agents admitted that their statements about Erhard's supposed tax liabilities were false and they also admitted that they didn't go back to the press to ask them to correct their false statements. Their false statements are the same ones you are now trying to cite. We can't now cite those old media reports of tax misdeeds that the IRS has since admitted were false.

This is also all talking about a living person in a negative manner and has little relevance to the article about Landmark Education. Thanks, Alex Jackl (talk) 05:49, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

In light of all of this I will make some modifications that are consistent with what we have been speaking about.

That you have not looked at the references is no reason to blank cited information. You have also twisted what I said in my previous response. I never said anything faintly suggesting that Erhard was not involved with EST, but only that he was not the owner of EST, Inc. or EST, An Educational Corporation. I urge you to re-read my posts, as you are tilting at non-existent issues. Nor, as I previously explained, did the article state that Erhard was convicted of tax fraud, and in fact, explicitly stated that he was cleared of personal responsibility in the matter you mentioned. • Astynax ^talk 10:43, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

If your version of the article "explicitly stated that he was cleared of personal responsibility", what was the point of mentioning tax issues in the first place, if not in an attempt to smear Erhard by implication? And what is the relevance of all that to the subject of Landmark Worldwide? And what is the relevance of whether he did or did not technically "own" the est companies ten years or more before the formation of Landmark? And - while the various feature articles in free newspapers and satirical magazines may be reliable as sources for the opinions and impressions of their authors - they cannot possibly be reliable as sources for supposedly factual assertions about offshore companies, asset transfers, recruitment numbers and other details which few outside the company would know? DaveApter (talk) 11:13, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Yet again, the tax investigation was a significant factor in triggering Erhard to look to dissolve WE&A. It is relevant because it directly contributed to the formation of the current iteration of the company. Nor is your mischaracterization of the sources either accurate or appropriate. Much information in reliable sources is based upon interviews with those directly involved and upon documentation that is part litigation involving Landmark. Using original research again to dismiss and raise doubts about reliable sources is not a function of editors, nor a justification for re-inserting blatant puffery. • Astynax ^talk 19:38, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

In particular, to assist with the establishment of a consensus, could you please indicate what are the reliable secondary sources for the following statements in your controversial edits, and what are the primary sources on which they draw? Also could you indicate how these sources establish the relevance of these assertions to the subject of this article?

• ”Erhard was employed at a very modest salary while and license fees were made to offshore companies”
• ”At the same time his intellectual property was transferred from the Panamanian company to, a new company in the Netherlands named, Welbehagen. which licensed the foundation to present the seminars.”
• ”A Jersey Charitable Settlement to own the foundation with a Swiss entity, the Werner Erhard Foundation for est, was set up to control it.”
• ”Werner Erhard and Associates (WE&A)was established,... which purchased the assets of the various corporations and charities. This was arranged through a series of loans”
• ”In its first 18 months, Transformational Technologies licensed over 50 franchises at a $25,000 licensing fee with revenue based royalties”
• ”Erhard replaced the est seminars with a slightly modified and less authoritarian program which he "rebranded" as The Forum.”

Pending clarification of these points, I think it best that the article be reverted to the version of Alex Jackl, which I will now do. Please address these issues before re-reverting. Thanks. DaveApter (talk) 16:20, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

The citations were in the article before you again blanked the fully-referenced material. Reverting to what is represents the same PoV status that existed prior to the article being tagged for puffery by Lithistman last July. In the process, you and AJackl have blanked significant and fully sourced material and other interim edits. • Astynax ^talk 19:38, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Updates to Page

I made some updates to restore the page based on the breaches of Wikipedia policies that the page seemed to be full of. See the above statements. If you want to tlak about any of those please discuss here . Thank you! Alex Jackl (talk) 06:13, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

I have reverted most of the material you blanked. No "breaches of Wikipedia policies" have been shown, and the material blanked was fully-cited. I retained some of the material you pasted from older versions, though this has removed by several editors in the past for various rationales. Again, if you have reliably referenced material to insert, do not use this as a pretext to blank cited material. • Astynax ^talk 10:59, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

After reading the discussion here on the talk page, it is increasingly clear that claims that all this newly added history material regarding taxes and corporate structures is somehow relevant to Landmark ride on the extraordinary and dubious assertion that Erhard plays the same role with Landmark as he did with est. In fact, we have overwhelming reliable sourcing that says that for al intents and purposes, Erhard ran est and its later iterations until he sold it in 1991, and after that, he left the country and has had no control over Landmark's operations since that time. Therefore, I have removed this material that would only have relevance under this clearly false assertion. I have also removed a couple of sources that were either blogs, newsletters or primary sources, which are wholly inadequate for making factual claims. Nwlaw63 (talk) 14:59, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

It is increasingly clear that you are mistaken. Theobald Tiger (talk) 15:10, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, you are mistaken. The sources say what the sources say, and the article reported it. Please stop using speculative OR as a pretext for blanking cited material yet again. • Astynax ^talk 18:53, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Nwlaw63 is indeed mistaken, and should not be blanking sourced material that does not fit with his version of reliable or important. Erhard is obviously very involved in Landmark, despite the corporate reorgs. It is the same business through various incarnations. Legacypac (talk) 05:51, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Erhard ran est - he doesn't run Landmark. This is what the reliable sources say. There is no denying it - black is black and white is white. Even the cursory look for sources I made makes this abundantly clear:

From Cosmopolitan, June 1975, quotes Erhard's most senior employee as saying: “If Werner disappeared tomorrow, we’d disappear the day after. Pressmen, who is being relied on for the majority of the history section, makes it abundantly clear that, in his words “everything revolved around Werner”. He goes out of his way to make the point that whatever the tax structuring is, Erhard is the one running everything.

Contrast this with Erhard's dealings with Landmark Landmark, where there is zero reliable sourcing saying anything similar. According to the sources, Erhard sold the property to Landmark, left the country, and “went into exile”. The Skeptic’s Dictionary says “Apparently, however, Erhard is not involved in the operation of LEC.”

All we do know from reliable sources regarding Erhard’s current involvement with Landmark is that (according to Landmark) he consults with them from time to time. That he is somehow in charge or "very involved" is an idea that appears to be pure speculation on the part of a couple of editors on this talk page.

This speculation is just a weak attempt to justify the relevance of Erhard’s taxes to the Landmark article. Specifically, the comments by Astynax that “The situation regarding his relationship with Landmark Worldwide is similar to his previous association with EST Inc. and EST, An Educational Corporation” and the one by Legacypac that “Erhard is obviously very involved in Landmark, despite the corporate reorgs” appear to have no basis in reality. If you have reliable sources saying Erhard is somehow pulling the strings at Landmark, now would be the time to produce them, or else stop asserting your opinions as fact. Nwlaw63 (talk) 03:46, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Again, you have twisted what the article and sources indicate, which is simply that he did not have any direct ownership of EST, Inc. or EST, An Educational Corporation. What he did own (through a foreign entity) was the "technology" that EST licensed, and the same relationship was again employed when WE&A was dissolved, with Erhard again licensing his "technology" to TEC/Landmark. The straw man assertion that the article says that Erhard is "pulling the strings" is irrelevant, as is mischaracterizing what the article says about the tax case, which is an important part of the history in establishing the combination of factors that led to the transition from WE&A to TEC/Landmark. • Astynax ^talk 06:27, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Additions deleted?

Hello, all! I had added some additional references to this page the other day, and it seems they were deleted? I'm not sure why? Thanks for your attention! Captkeating (talk) 20:56, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

See the edit summary here. This material had been previously deleted. You may want to ping the editor who removed for further information. • Astynax ^talk 01:44, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Well the fact that something was previously deleted begs the question of whether or not the original deletion was justified or not (something Astynax should be the first to acknowledge, given the frequency with which he re-inserts deleted material!). In this case the original deletion [7] was not justified (it was claimed that the Irish Daily Mail was not a reliable source, wheras it was agreed at a recent Reliable sources noticeboard thread [8] that it was entirely adequate for establishing the opinion of the writer, which is what is being asserted.

The other deletion made at the same time was even more wide of the mark: the deleting editor jumped to the conclusion that the source was the 'Mayfair' porn mag, wheras actually it was The Mayfair Magazine, the upmarket London Lifestyle journal [9]! DaveApter (talk) 15:45, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Sent to WP:AN/I from WP:COIN

The problems here were referred to WP:COIN, as a conflict of interest issue. This article has been a long-term headache and a subject of ArbComm sanctions. That's more than we can handle at WP:COIN. So I passed the buck to the administrators' noticeboard, at WP:AN/I#Landmark Worldwide heating up, again. They have the big hammers that will probably be needed to resolve this. Thanks. John Nagle (talk) 20:48, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Minor changes to incorporation and history section

I made some minor factual cleanups and weasel word removal from the incorporation and history section of the article. There is a lot more unreliable and POV stuff in there but I removed the most egregious just to make it more factual and accurate. Also - I don't know what some of these editor's fascinations are with Werner Erhard but they should go to the Werner Erhard or some other page about that guy to air their grievances or keep it off Wikipedia entirely given WP:COATRACK and WP:BLP.

Thanks, Alex Jackl (talk) 21:27, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Also removed a small paragraph that was talking about some history about the EST and Werner Erhard that was at least a decade before Landmark was even formed. I agree there needs to be some historical context in this article- but this article is very little about Landmark itself and mostly about things that happened before it even existed, Undue weight, relevance, etc. I am trying to make only absolutely obvious no-brainer edits. Any issues- please comment. Thank you Alex Jackl (talk) 04:32, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

• In the same section, I have removed three citations (a blog and two self-styled "investigative" websites). In two of the three cases, the article already had another source cited for the passage. Thank you, Tgeairn (talk) 17:47, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Apart from the doubtful relevance of almost all of the material in this section, it contains a good deal of editorialising and blunt statements of supposed facts which are not adequately established by the sources referenced. I will make a start on tidying this up. DaveApter (talk) 11:48, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Could you please discuss your "tidying up" on this talk page first? Theobald Tiger (talk) 14:30, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

The entire section, as I said, is basically irrelevant to the topic of this article, dealing with alleged events which supposedly happened years before the formation of this company. I actually think that the whole paragraph should be removed, but I left a factual account of the sequence of events, shorn of editorialising and spin. Not only that, but the items included have clearly been cherry-picked to cast a certain impression, and at. Furthermore, on several points, the sources quoted could not have access to the alleged facts which they are supposed to substantiate, and - since they themselves cite no references - they can only be regarded as hearsay or speculation. In other respects, I simply tidied up clumsy and ungainly constructions. In detail:

1. "The predecessors to The Landmark Forum - the Forum and est (Erhard Seminars Training) had been presented by a succession of companies beginning with Erhard Seminars Training, Inc. in the early 1970s" What's your objection to that - a simple straightforward factual sentence replacing a convoluted one? What is the justification for "direct" to qualify "predecessors"? Or for "continuum" rather than "succession"? And what are these "other, related, iterations"?
2. "Erhard had no formal training in psychology or psychiatry and had previously been a successful salesman" So what? He never said he did.,
3. "became involved with Zen Buddhism, Scientology and Mind Dynamics." Why pick out these from the vast range of disciplines and philosophies that he studied during that period? And what's the relevance to Landmark?
4. "He considered setting up est as a church, but instead chose a for-profit model," My version gives a more accurate summary of what the source actually said.
5. "with a complex web of onshore and offshore companies." How could Pressman of Hukil know these things? This is just speculation or hearsay. These are assertions made by Pressman for which he provides no evidence or references.
6. "These were set up by the "controversial" corporate attorney Harry Margolis." So what? Who cares? Adn what's the relevance to Landmark?
7. "In 1979, EST Inc. was dissolved and replaced by a charitable foundation named "est, An Educational Corporation". At the same time his intellectual property was transferred from the Panamanian company to, a new company in the Netherlands named, Welbehagen. which licensed the foundation to present the seminars. to "est, An Educational Corporation". A Jersey Charitable Settlement to own the foundation with a Swiss entity, the Werner Erhard Foundation for est, set up to control it." Speculation again, and irrelevant. These are assertions made by Pressman for which he provides no evidence or references.
8. "By 1981 Erhard decided to simplify the complicated structure of est-related entities. ... This was arranged through a series of loans." ditto - how could Pressman know what Erhard's thought processed were?
9. "In its first 18 months, TT licensed over 50 franchises at a $25,000 licensing fee with revenue based royalties." How would this be known, and what's the relevance? These are assertions made by Pressman for which he provides no evidence or references. DaveApter (talk) 10:00, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
10. "Erhard had experimented with a modified version of est as early as 1983. By 1985, faced with increasing controversy and drastically falling recruitment numbers,... " Speculation.
11. "Erhard replaced the est seminars with a slightly modified and less authoritarian program which he "rebranded" as The Forum." What's the justification for the "slightly", or for the weasily "rebranded" in scare-quotes over the neutral "named"?
12. "Later, managers realized that there was significant revenue generated from signing up participants for follow-up courses." More spculation.
13. " With the same staff WE&A was able to reduce the cost and increased the throughput of recruits, which also increased the number of the acquaintances to whom participants marketed The Forum. period. More recruits resulted in increased enrollment for the higher-priced follow-up courses." Synthesis or supposition. DaveApter (talk) 17:07, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

First: to call a historical paragraph "irrelevant", is a sure sign of a non-encyclopedic attitude. This is not a webpage to promote the products of Landmark Worldwide, but an article that should provide encyclopedic information about the subject, including a historical paragraph that (in a sense) rectifies the promotional talk of the Landmarkians (of course many kinds of advertising and branding are wholly legitimate activities for a commercial enterprise): there is and always has been an uninterrupted succession of enterprises, delivering basically the same products.

Second: It is no use quarrelling with reliable sources. What you call 'speculation' or 'hearsay' or 'synthesis' or 'supposition' is well-documented in books and articles published by reputable publishers. The expression 'tidying up' is an ominous euphemism for eliminating information that you obviously think repelling or disconcerting. In some respects you are right: the historical paragraph is not particularly flattering in all its details, but by and large the writer of that paragraph is not to blame for his unflattering accuracy.

Third: I will address your criticisms point by point:

1. Convolutedness is not the issue here. Your sentence mistakenly excludes Landmark Forum from the list. Since 1971 and up to the current date there has been an uninterrupted (or barely interrupted) succession of companies, delivering basically the same products, inluding the latest product manifestation (Landmark Forum) proffered by the latest company occurence (Landmark Worldwide).
2. Of course, his lack of formal education is relevant. It provides the context for the incoherence of many of Erhard's utterances, the hotchpotch philosophy behind his seminars training, the tricks of the keen salesman (which he undoubtedly was).
3. This set of origins could possibly be extended, but it is as such frequently mentioned in scholarly literature. Erhard acknowledged Zen as an essential inspiration. His indebtedness to Scientology and Mind Dynamics is - it is true - sometimes denied or belittled by Landmarkians, but it is not controversial at all in whatever reliable source you consult. Even the books that describe Erhard as an infallible genius mention those three sources of inspiration. See for example the paragraph Self Education in the article Werner Erhard (a blatant hagiography throughout, by the way). To mention an example of scholarly literature: Steven M. Tipton, Getting Saved from the Sixties: Moral Meaning in Conversion and Cultural Change, University of California Press, 1982, p.176, p.329(n.3).
4. Yes, but the consideration to set up est as a church, is left out. As the religious aspects of est are frequently disputed by Landmarkians, this is a regrettable omission.
5. See Tipton (1982), p.328-329 (n.2)
6. I agree that this statement could better be crossed out.
7. Well-sourced and relevant: it sheds light on the way Erhard has set up the business.
8. Well-sourced and relevant.
9. Well-sourced and relevant: it sheds light on Erhard's commercial instincts, the tax controversies, and the decline of the popularity of est in the eighties.
10. Well-sourced and relevant: why call this 'speculation'? This is wellknown to everyone vaguely familiar with the subject.
11. Well-sourced and relevant: you might contest 'slightly' - the seminar training was adapted to the whirligig of time, but remained essentially the same - but "rebranding" is exactly what happened.
12. I have no objection to leave this out.
13. Well-sourced and relevant.

Thank you for your attention. Theobald Tiger (talk) 12:15, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

I stand by my assessment that this is substantially irrelevant to the subject of this particular article, and appreciate that your opinion differs. I also think that depending so heavily on Pressman is problematic; firstly for the obvious reason that he is clearly biased and the simplistic caricature he paints of Erhard is absurd, but more importantly because he gives no references or citations and thus can hardly be regarded as a secondary source. He is merely repeating what some anonymous person told him. The essence of a secondary source is that its claims can be traced back to primary sources which have been evaluated. Your point about my first sentence is mistaken; I did not "exclude Landmark Forum from the list" - I clearly stated that its predecessors were The Forum and est. Your remarks above about "the incoherence of many of Erhard's utterances" and "hotchpotch philosophy" clearly demonstrate a degree of partiality in your own view of the subject. DaveApter (talk) 14:41, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Astynax' section not only dealt with "the predecessors" but also with Landmark Forum, the current incarnation of the seminars training. In your edit Landmark Forum had disappeared. The history section has many sources apart from Pressman. But Pressman (who is not an unqualified admirer of WE) is frequently used as a source for the richness of its factual information, as is W.W. Bartley, III (who not seldom exhibits enthusiasm for WE's achievements). With both of them we should be invariably careful to separate facts from opinion. My remarks do not "demonstrate clearly a degree of partiality on my part". Erhard's incoherence and the idiosyncracy of his utterances have been described (and mocked) in extenso. The same applies to his 'eclectic' and 'pragmatic' compilation of notions with an appearance of profundity and the ability to impress, which underly and constitute his intellectual inheritance. Theobald Tiger (talk) 15:09, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Please stop deleting while we are discussing the relevance of the section. Theobald Tiger (talk) 15:54, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Why do you keep saying editors are "deleting while discussing" You show in your above section that you clearly have a personal POV against Werner Erhard. That is fine but your beef against this guy does not belong in Wikipedia.

1. I don't know if some of the things you opine about him are true and, frankly, I personally don't care.

2. You keep adding content that focuses on events that happened before Landmark was even started AND

3. You keep adding in content that is about a man who sold the rights to some IP that Landmark bought 24 years ago

4. You keep perpetuating some urban myth that Werner Erhard is behind the scenes at Landmark when in fact (and by all the evidence) he sold his IP and disbanded Werner Erhard and Associates and moved on.

I believe you to be sincere in your dislike of the man and I believe you actually believe the fringe theory you have about it- but what is happening is you are now using the Landmark article as a WP:COATRACK to push your point of view. Please stop edit warring on this. Perhaps there is a better article for you to discuss Werner Erhard on.... ?

Sincerely, Alex Jackl (talk) 16:06, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Point by point. I follow your numbering:

Ad 1. Your displayed ignorance, disinterest, indifference and contempt for the facts do no prevent you from drawing false conclusions about my supposed POV and my position in encyclopedic matters. You had better devote yourself to the study of the subject.

Ad 2. Landmark is a rebranding of est as everyone who is vaguely familiar with the subject knows.

Ad 3. Erhard has never sold anything of the kind; he has licensed his intellectual property.

Ad 4. How do you know that it is an urban myth? All reliable sources agree that Erhard has been and still is a real presence behind the scenes.

Greetings, Theobald Tiger (talk) 18:51, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Dear Tgeairn (& others): Reply, individual edits, etc

Given that this page is under Arbcom oversight I'm adding my response to your post on my user page here: There's a content dispute, anyone, regardless of who they are, making multiple edits that could have been explained as individual edits (as I earlier suggested on the talk page) is pushing good faith. Talk FIRST, later add individual CONSENSUS edits. And I'm yet to see bulk edits agreed by consensus on the Talk page. I won't defend every edit but the way this started and continued needs to be highlighted. (P.S. Don't sidetrack to a user page - it is arguable bullying & intimidation by singling contributors out when talk page discussion is continuing. Please don't. Article issues should be discussed on the article page). AnonNep (talk) 20:19, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

@AnonNep: I apologize for the sidetrack. You haven't edited here on the talk page in over a month and you just made a large revert on the article that included material without consensus for its inclusion. Yes, individual edits are preferred (although other editors here have called making multiple small edits problematic as well). As you said, the idea here is at least BRD and given the contentious nature should probably just start with D. Thanks, Tgeairn (talk) 20:40, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Aside from possible WP:BLP I completely disagree on 'delete first'. Any obvious BLP issues can be removed by anyone without discussion. What we're dealing with is content. Even worse than that, editors doing 'reverse original research' - i.e. deciding WP:RS doesn't suit their POV and suggesting we should debate that WP:RS or remove it. We don't have that right. We can argue on the phrasing of that WP:RS, we can add alternative WP:RS for weight/balance to add to it, but short of it being defamatory (and this isn't a BLP), we can't remove it because some don't like it. IMHO, that's where this page is getting bogged down - on what editors don't 'like'. It isn't policy. AnonNep (talk) 21:14, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

My attempt at humour didn't land. I meant to start with "D - Discuss", rather than "B - Bold". Otherwise, I agree with everything you said. However, there is also no policy that says just because something exists then it needs to be included. That's why we have content policies to deal with weight and fringe and such, and why we ultimately depend on consensus. What you have here are editors forcing material into the article without consensus to do so. Thanks, Tgeairn (talk) 22:14, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Consider a BLP. General rule is, if in doubt delete but, equally, no matter how much the subject & their fans may dislike it, if it is an RS statement, it remains. Additional RS can always be added but never enough to make it 'disappear' entirely. ('Due Weight' can take a section, to a paragraph to a RS sentence with RS rebuttal but not complete removal. The 'due weight' policy doesn't allow that.) That's why every addition and deletion should be done one at a time and discussed on the Talk page, first, for a contentious article. Especially one under Arbcom oversight. AnonNep (talk) 22:41, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

And there is similarly no policy or guideline which says it shouldn't be. And consensus, unfortunately, can and sometimes is hard to determine, as consensus is more or less determined on the basis of possible conduct which might run contrary to WP:GAME, WP:TAGTEAM, and any number of other standards of behavior. Particularly if there might exist evidence of a flawed consensus, other steps can and should reasonably be taken. John Carter (talk) 23:06, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

The chilling demand to get consensus prior to posting an edit was not a remedy applied in the arbcom decision. The only remedies passed were to invite additional editors to input, and that all edits (including reversions) be based in sources.[10] Editing through deletions/reversions of cited material, based upon nothing more than uncited personal research, personal views and/or say-so (aka, WP:OR) is as much a direct violation of arbcom's injunction as would be inserting uncited statements into the article. There have been repeated episodes of blanking and reverting cited material going on here, and these have continued since the arbcom decision. If you cannot produce better sources to show why a statement cannot be retained, do not blank. If you have reliable sources expressing alternative viewpoints, then add that material without blanking material already there and referenced. • Astynax ^talk 19:22, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Religion Stuff

I consolidated the regligion stuff into one public perception and criticism section. The religion stuff in the lead give too much weight to a what I think is a fringe view that a company can be a religion. Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 00:12, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Your opinion of the "fringe view that a company can be a religion" shows to my eyes, unfortunately, little understanding of the Church of Scientology or many or most of the more recent new religious movements, many of which have incorporated in some way under the laws of their countries. It is certainly possible that a company can be organized for the primary if not sole purpose of putting forward a belief. Also, I very much think that the ultimate related issue, regarding whether Landmark is a new religious movement, in much the same way as the New Age and other fairly clearly less-than-primarily-religious topics have been described as new religious movements. So far as I know, in fact, at least within the Catholic Church, most parishes or local churches are also companies or independent corporations or something along that line, depending on the laws of the individual country. There may well be an issue whether such material should be included in the lede on other bases, but, I regret to say, this particular reason is probably not a good one. John Carter (talk) 00:17, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

As stated in edit summary its important gain consensus on significant changes, such as this, on this page before making them, not after. I've reverted again. Explain why and why and allow time for discussion (not all of us log on every hour let alone every day). Please make your case here first and ensure you have the majority of editors in support of the change. AnonNep (talk) 00:39, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

That material was added here without any prior discussion or consensus. It was immediately removed, and has been consistently removed since then. The burden here is to get consensus to add that material, not to remove it. --Tgeairn (talk) 00:44, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Under the circumstances, based on the original comment of this thread, the argument to remove the material had no basis in fact, as I pointed out in my own comment. I do not believe any policy or guideline places a consensus which clearly disagrees with established fact as reasonable or necessary acceptable. However, I do believe it may well be appropriate to file an RfC on this in the near future to determine the opinions of a greater number of uninvolved editors. John Carter (talk) 00:47, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

RfCs are probably the way to handle some of this. However, the most recent RfC on this material closed with the result of the article in this state. So, there has been a relatively recent RfC and the outcome was without the "religion stuff in the lead" the OP brought up. Again, since that RfC closed there has been a concerted effort to effectively overturn the RfC without starting a new one. That's not how RfCs (are supposed to) work. --Tgeairn (talk) 01:01, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm not too sure what you are talking about with this (your link above) but I'm talking about this. Where is the thread that offers definitive Talk consensus on that? AnonNep (talk) 01:05, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

I was reverted before I even made a comment on the talk page so here is a little more of an explanation. Forgive me John Carter, but I respectfully disagree. Religions have a legal tax status as non-profits. Corporations/companies private and public have a legal tax status as for profit corporations. Please show me where the Catholic church is set up as a for-profit corporation. I have read about Scientology and I do know that their status varies from country to country. They however (as odd as they are) also call themselves a religion. That is why I considered the idea that a company is a religion to be fringe. Another reason I do not think it should not be in the lead of the article is that I participated in an RFC about Landmark's inclusion in the list of NRMs and that RFC was closed saying that it did not belong on the list. Why then should it be in the lead of the article about Landmark? Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 00:55, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

And, I regret to say, your disagreement is rather clearly based on faulty reasoning. You seem to be acting on the assumption a "corporation" can be a "religion," taking both as comparatively absolute terms. They are not. It is also possible, and, indeed, regularly the case, that the more recent "religions" (or new religious movements, a term which does not necessarily imply "religion", even if the word itself is included in the term) are also "corporations." There is a chicken or the egg question here. You also seem to be making the rather regular mistake that a broadly social movement cannot have religious characteristics. I regret to say that in a number of recent social movements have been found to have what would historically be called broadly "religious" or ethical concerns. Ethics not being in any way absolute, but based on fundamental principles which receive in effect the same support of religious dogma, the difference in the modern era is much less pronounced or obvious than we tend to think, despite the unfortunate use of the word "religious" in the term new religious movement. John Carter (talk) 01:17, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

@Elmmapleoakpine: To answer your question, it should not be in the lead. There was an RfC as to whether or not we (Wikipedia) consider Landmark to be a religious movement, and the answer was "no, we do not and we will not say that it is". There was also at least one recent RfC on how the article should be structured and what belongs in the lede, the outcome of that RfC did not include the religion "stuff" in the lede. That other editors are edit warring to force material into the lede without consensus and against the outcome of those RfCs is a problem. Sorry you've run into it face-first. Cheers, Tgeairn (talk) 01:05, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

This has been discussed ad nauseam. Any RFC can be changed by the same community that created it. When was this definitive RFC? Is there a link? If it so definitive why has the Talk discussion continued and the lede to have been more reflective of that content than not? AnonNep (talk) 01:12, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Tgeairn, I'd like to see that too: you previously linked to an entire talk page--that's like pointing at a wooly mammoth and saying "that hair, on that animal". Elmmapleoakpine, please don't go around saying that something is only a "religion" if it has tax-exempt status with some government or other. And the lead didn't say "Landmark is a religion"; it said "Landmark's programs have been categorized by scholars and others as religious or quasi-religious in nature". Big difference. Drmies (talk) 01:18, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

@Drmies and AnonNep: I apologize... yes, pointing to the whole mammoth didn't clear things up much - and with this article, there never seems to be just one thread to point to. This RfC followed this discussion of this massive undiscussed edit by Astynax. Following the "Deja Vu" discussion, the RfC asked if the preferred version was pre or post the massive single edit. The consensus was that the "pre" version was preferred, and a number of edits primarily by Drmies and Begoon brought the article into roughly that version as of this version, and the RfC was closed (twice, if I recall). The Arbcom case began soon after this, and various editors have attempted to force their preferred version without another RfC or first getting consensus. The modus is to make a massive undiscussed edit (look at the history), and fight for it to remain by saying consensus is needed to remove material. Hopefully those links help clear things up - particularly which version(s) of the article actually had consensus. --Tgeairn (talk) 06:10, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

I have no wish to become deeply involved in this endless back and forth, but since I was pinged, I will clarify that my last substantial comment can be found here: [11], where I said:

• "Frankly, Dave, I don't see much of a problem with the "Religious characteristics" section, or its mention in the lead. The section itself seems well balanced. Many of the sources are summarised above, in the "in summary" section ^(permalink), and it certainly seems significant enough, indeed necessary, to cover in the article, if we are to achieve balance. The lead summarises the article, so it needs to be there. Some readers only view the lead when visiting a page, and to remove it would do them a disservice, and contravene WP:LEDE. This certainly should not be a hit-piece, nor, equally, should it omit relevant, well sourced "criticism" or academic views on the topic."

This was the (then) current version of the article when I made that comment: [12] That's still my preference for how these issues should be presented, and I'm firmly opposed to "losing" that specific subsection and to the removal of its mention from the lead. Begoon ^talk 14:49, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Begoon, thanks for the comment, and for agreeing with me of course. :) Drmies (talk) 19:30, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

• John Carter, if you're going to edit-war over the passage, PLEASE tweak that " some, though not all, scholars" bit: "though not all" is painfully redundant, and some English professor may come by and block you for it. Drmies (talk) 01:21, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
• Thank you Tgeairn. Since, apparently, Begoon and I produced, one way or another, this version, that must be a great version. It mentions but does not overburden the matter of controversy, as the lead should, and as is verified in the article, and does so in fairly neutral terms. I have restored that version, just now. If needs be we can have another RfC on the narrow question of "do we keep it this way", but I also think there was broad agreement on it as a middle way. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 18:41, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
• Hmmm... I think even this adds a little too much weight to the religion section. I think it really doesn't belong in the lead- because the vast majority of the sources listed say something like "some people call it a religion, and it may have attribute X or attribute Y but it really isn't". It is almost entirely non-relevant from my standpoint- verging on fringe. I would delete the entire religion section. But I am certain that the mention of religion does not belong in the lead given all that. Let's leave it off the lead- the way it was before it was re-introduced recently. Alex Jackl (talk) 19:01, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

• @AJackl: I thought the purpose of the lede was to, well, summarize the article. If something is deserving of a separate section in the article, in all honesty, I have very, very serious questions whether there is any reason not to mention it in the lede, in some fashion, one editor's personal opinions notwithstanding. Can you provide any sort of argument based on something more directly relevant to wikipedia policies and guidelines than your own personal opinion as to why it should not be discussed in the lede? John Carter (talk) 19:10, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
• John:The lead is not supposed to cover every little thing - it is supposed to be a summary that gives the user a sense of the article. You apparently did not read what I wrote since you think I was giving you just my "personal opinion". (there is no need to be rude by the way- the condescending tone does little for civil discourse) This reference to religion is not substantiated, it is not referenced and I directly referenced undue weight and relevance. What makes you think this fringe theory should cover 40% of the lead space on this article? It is certainly not 40% of the story about Landmark. So I would remove it entirely and bring the article a little closer to an encyclopedic state. I suggest re-reading [WP:LEAD] to get clarity on that- particularly CLUTTER. I am curious what other editors think since Mr. Carter and I seem to be on opposing sides of this thinking? Alex Jackl (talk) 19:59, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

• The lede is supposed to be able to effectively summarize the article. It is also certainly possible to expand the lede to the four paragraphs allowed. I cannot believe any reasonable person looking at the matter objectively would say that something which is the sole subject of two of the only 28 paragraphs in the article, particularly considering the relative length of those other paragraphs, would be able to count discussion of that subject in the range of "every little thing." I also strongly resent your appearing to make unfounded accusations about me in the post above. It is one thing to reduce the coverage, it is quite another to eliminate it altogether. According to policies and guidelines the article should summarize the content, presumably proportionally to the weight given the material in the body of the article itself. John Carter (talk) 20:53, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

• Jackl, it's not a little thing. There seems to be some agreement here that the material is relevant enough to warrant mention in the lead; just driving by and removing it is a bit not done. Notes 51 through 55 cite a half a dozen or more sources from really impeccable publications, so saying that it shouldn't be in the article at all makes little sense. If you wish to argue otherwise, you can do so of course, but this has been going on for a while (bull, china shop) and I do believe there's some consensus for some mention in the lead. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 21:12, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

There has never been agreement or consensus for any ‘religion’ mention to be in the article lede – it’s been a point of ongoing argument/discussion for the better part of two years since the editor Astynax has attempted to make it a major focus of the article, and was at the heart of the content dispute for which Astynax took several editors to Arbcom. I see this as unwarranted for several reasons:

1) We have literally hundreds of news sources that discuss Landmark and its courses in detail and as far I’ve seen, exactly zero of them have made the claim that there is anything religious happening there. If Landmark was religious in nature, wouldn’t the New York Times, Time Magazine, The Guardian, Mother Jones or any of other reputable news organizations that have covered Landmark in detail have made some mention of this?

2) This leaves the academic sources you mention, most of which don’t discuss Landmark in great detail, but simply have Landmark on a list of New Religious Movements. This is problematic, because the writers that do this are operating from a definition of ‘new religious movement’ that doesn’t actually require a group to actually be ‘religious’ in the dictionary definition of the word in order to be included – any group that these writers which to study, or that is about self-actualization in any form can be included.

3) The main source we have that does make the detailed case for Landmark’s religiosity, Lockwood, does so in a way that acknowledges that it is challenging more established scholarship (Chryssides) about what we actually consider spiritual. In other words Lockwood goes against far more cited writers to make her claims, clearly making this a minority view. As such, it probably merits a brief mention in the article, but not a part of the lead of the article. Nwlaw63 (talk) 00:35, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

A few responses.

1) It would really, really be useful if editors made some effort to familiarize themselves with all of our relevant policies and guidelines. WP:SCHOLARSHIP comes to mind, particularly regarding the relative weight we are to give to what "news sources" say seems to ignore the fact that we tend to base our content more on what academic sources say.

2) This comment seems to me anyway to be attempting to redefine a standard term based on a single word included in that term. New religious movement, for better or worse, is a standard term used within the relevant sociological and related fields. I cannot see any rational basis for saying that we are obligated to not describe something in the way academic sources do simply on the basis of personal reservations about the applicability of words. I acknowledge myself that the term is less than ideal, but it is not and never has been our place to try to place our own views before those of the most reliable, generally academic, sources.

3) This statement is actually the most reasonable of the lot. However, I am far from sure that it necessarily conforms to our guidelines regarding LEDE sections. There is also a question about choosing one academic over another. I am myself less than sure, off the top of my head, the specific fields of both Lockwood and Chryssides, but if one is an academic in one field or subspecialty and the other in another, then it would probably be reasonable to take the opinion of the person whose field most directly relates to this claim as being more authoritative. However, that also seems to relate to matters of relative weight within the article itself, and it would make much more sense, and probably be more useful, to try to directly deal with that more central matter than arguing about the weight in the lede.

Also, honestly, as I have said before, I think it would be reasonable for us to abide by WP:LEDE, which specifically and pointedly says it is possible for the lede to run up to four paragraphs. The most reasonable way in the eyes of most, at least I think, would be to try to structure the lead to have proportional weight to the article itself. Based on what I've seen, given the current content of the article, roughtly 1/2 of a paragraph in a 4 paragraph lede could reasonably be devoted to religious/NRM matters on that basis. Exactly what might be contained in that paragraph is a separate matter, but some sort of significant summary discussion of the religious/NRM issues in the lede seems to me to be both reasonable for inclusion in the article, and, honestly, more or less required by our existing guidelines and policies. John Carter (talk) 01:34, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

You seem to dismiss my first point without considering it. WP: Scholarship notes that the superiority of academic sources applies to academic subjects - Modern companies and events such as this are covered far more thoroughly in news sources - Arbcom pointed to the relative lack of academic coverage in the case. While there are at first glance a good number of academic sources, if you look at them, like I have, they are almost all extremely brief, and often out of date. There is nothing wrong with referring to the complete lack of religiosity mentioned in our extensive news sources about the subject.

Regarding the second points, it's not parsing words to make sure we are reflecting the sources accurately. If a writer puts a group on a list of new religious movements, but uses a definition of new religious movement that doesn't call for actual religiousness, as is the case here, then we shouldn't use this mention to establish religiousness. Nwlaw63 (talk) 14:40, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

First, I guess I should thank you for having made it clear in your very first sentence that AGF is a problem in your comment. The fact is that in the modern world, with the abundance of newspapers out there, virtually everything is covered more frequently in newspapers and such than in the rarer academic and scholarly sources. Your first paragraph itself raises, I regret to say, concerns regarding WP:TE and particularly WP:IDHT. And, frankly, simply saying that there are comparatively few academic sources does not mean that we are free to ignore the ones that exist. I am also rather stunned at the last sentence of your first paragraph, which seems to explicitly make a statement which is clearly in violation of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. I would have assumed that by this point you were aware that our rules say that we repeat what sources say, not that we draw our own conclusions about what they say. Also, honestly, including a statement such as the one you propose could only be made if the effort to prove "the complete lack of religiosity mentioned" as per WP:BURDEN, which would mean, basically, finding every source out there and proving that none of them say such a thing.

And, perhaps, while the second paragreph seems to my eyes to be very strongly straining to make a point, it is true that NRMs are not necessarily religious. The term was chosen because it was a more politically correct version of the early terms (in the US) "cult" or (in Europe) "sect". While on that basis it would clearly and reasonably be possible to refer to the "Cultish characteristics of Landmark," and the characteristics of such groups are rather clearly defined, or even "Sociological characteristics..." However, we are also supposed to, in general, use the most clear and directly applicable terms as per WP:EUPHEMISM. If the characteristics are of a broadly "religious"/"cultism" nature, then by that page the terms we should use should as clearly as possible indicate that nature. John Carter (talk) 16:09, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

I must admit to being a bit baffled by the fact that John Carter seems to be simultaneously asserting two incompatible propositions. On the one hand he tells us that the phrase New Religious Movement is a technical term which doesn't necessarily require organisations so classified to be "religious" in any way that speakers of English would understand the word. On the other hand he wants the fact that some scholars have categorised Landmark as a NRM to justify the statement "Landmark's programs have been categorized by some scholars and others as religious or quasi-religious in nature." Which is it? DaveApter (talk) 18:07, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

First, I believe that the comment above seems to be making allegations which are at this point completely unsubstantiated regarding what I "want." I also note how the comment seems to basically ignore several of the points I made, as per WP:IDHT, which, perhaps, might not be particularly surprising. First, it is worth noting that, at least in our religion article, as per its first sentence, "A religion is an organized collection of beliefs, cultural systems, and world views that relate humanity to an order of existence." There is no indication that a "religion" is necessarily something that must absolutely fall within the rather strict definition which is generally used for that word, and that it also seems to incorporate all Weltanschaungs. So, by that definition, the term NRM, using the broader definition of "religious" can be reasonably used to describe any group which has a common weltanschaung, which, presumably, includes the belief that attendance of a rather strictly structured groups of meetings will in some way be able to help that person receive some form of inspiration, particularly if that conclusion has not necessarily received any independent support in academic sources. So, if someone were to perhaps familiarize themselves with the relevant literature regarding [new religious movement]]s, it is rather obvious, and sometimes clearly stated, that it is more or less a basically less inflammatory term than the words "cult" and "sect" which had previously been used. The first sentence of cult in its current form specifically states, if anyone were to bother to look, that "a cult is a religious or social group." There is no explicit mention of it being necessarily religious in the widely construed narrow sense of that word. The first sentence of "sect" in its current form says, "A sect is a subgroup of a religious, political or philosophical belief system..." There is no clear indication that a sect is necessarily religious as per that narrow definition either. Therefore, it is not unreasonable to say specifically both that a group is a NRM, broadly construed, and also, if applicable, that some of its characteristics might be of a specifically religious nature as per the narrow definition of that word. While I acknowledge that certain editors who might have little if any familiarity with the broad topics involved might be basically unaware of and of dubious competence to speak of them, I would have thought that they might make some form of noticeable effort to familiarize themselves with the topics by at least looking at the easily available pages here first. John Carter (talk) 18:20, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

• Nitpicking here is a bit silly. I've just looked at half a dozen sources, and while some of the mentions/discussions are shorter than others, they are published in impeccable sources, and not giving them any weight at all would be...well, wrong. John, there is no need to explain at length what "cult" and all that means; the word isn't in the article now, and it isn't in the sources I looked at--let's not follow that path, since this talk page is already long enough.

  For those of you who have followed this program, I have fought to get an overdose of what one might call negative material out of here, but to remove the whole NRM thing altogether, an appellation confirmed by plenty of high-quality sources, is not acceptable. And that means it should be in the lead as well. Any claims of UNDUE should be met in other ways than removal from lead and article; anyone claiming "undue" can look at earlier versions of the article, like this one or this one; look in particular for the sourcing. The current version isn't so bad, but if we want to get picky, "while some researchers question that categorization as well" might be undue, since the sourcing (in note 53) is unclear--it's not clear which of the three sources goes with the "Others, such as Chryssides..." comment or with the parenthetic statement questioning their categorization. The next full paragraph, with statements from Observer and HuffPo, might well be called "undue" given the status of peer-reviewed books vs. first-person newspaper articles (the first one isn't even cited). So if there's anything unbalanced, it's not on the side of those who call it an NRM. Drmies (talk) 19:01, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

  • OK, Hill is cited elsewhere; whoever came up with this awful system of documentation needs to add the proper footnote to that sentence in the "Criticism and response" paragraph. Drmies (talk) 19:05, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
    • Doc, I'm sorry, but I'm pretty sure that Rick Ross's new book "Cults Inside Out," which apparently has substantial coverage regarding Landmark, might raise the use of the word "Cult" again. It seems to have been printed in December, and at this point I haven't even looked at it, and I haven't seen any published reviews in academic sources yet, although China seems to love the book because it is also apparently critical of Falun Gong, but, depending on the support or lack of same the book receives, that word may well become a bit more of a problem in the future. Not yet, thank anything and everything you can think of, but maybe in, well, a month or less. John Carter (talk) 21:08, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
      • Baby steps, John. Drmies (talk) 02:11, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
      • I do not understand why Mr. Ross is not respresented here. He has written numerous passages on landmark and their cult. And none of those passages are in this article. Thank you John for making sure to bring the anticult message to this discussion.

@Nwlaw63, A few comments:

• First: What you wrote 14:40h, 5 March 2015 (UTC) seems to me a complete misconception of what the relevant policies and guidelines say: of course we should never, never resort to newspaper reports (neither pro nor contra) when there are academic sources of some merit available. And we should also never ignore or even dismiss reliable sources written by academics on the grounds that the critic disapprove of the academic typology of social phenomena.
• Second: Of course Landmark/est is not a church, mosque or religious institution, and it has never been; it is also not a religious movement in any traditional sense, and nobody has ever described it as such, not in a volatile newspaper piece and not in a reputable academic publication. The religiousness of Landmark/est is of a completely different kind, reason why reliable sources call Landmark/est almost without exception a New Religious Movement, including a sacralized Self as the bearer of divine truth, some kind of ritual, founder worship, a form of community building, proselytizing, the promise of enlightenment and salvation (made palatable to a post-religious generation), and even a kind of transcendence.
• Third: Lockwood is but one of the RS that treat Landmark as a NRM. Upon request I will provide twenty quotations from independent reliable sources that classify Landmark/est as a NRM. But everyone who is willing to search for it in Google Books or the nearest university library, provided he/she has some elementary abilities of judgment and understanding, will be able to find the relevant literature. I must confess that it is very hard to find serious literature that contradicts this classification.
• Fourth: With respect to encyclopedic writing it is important that we formulate in a clear, unambiguous and understandable manner. What we perhaps can do - if considered appropriate by the congregation of Landmark combatants - is to clarify in the article that the qualification NRM means something completely different from what the man in the street would call 'religious': regular church- or mosque- or synagogue-going, praying before dinner (or several times a day), rather strict rule observance, being neatly dressed on sundays (saturdays), etcetera. I am not opposed to such clarification beforehand.

With kind regards, Theobald Tiger (talk) 09:30, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't have time to respond to everything here right now, but I will say a couple of things. Firstly, with respect, I don't think your reading about how we can use news sources is accurate, at all. It's simply not what WP:Scholarship says. Secondly, regarding the classification of Landmark, what you say about the 'divine self' is a theory by Heelas that can be called a minority view in that it's not how most of these writers are talking about Landmark. When they bother to say at all why Landmark is on such a list, and it's not often, because much of the writing is scanty here, it usually comes down to a matter of categorization and what they wish to study, rather than asserting that Landmark is truly religious. I'll see if I can dig up such quotes when I have more time. Nwlaw63 (talk) 15:36, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

I think Theobald makes the point a bit too strong, but that we should prefer peer-reviewed material published by reputable presses and in reputable journals over newspaper articles should be common sense and will, no doubt, be supported in any decent forum you find here. What that means for individual sources is a different matter--but Nwlaw, your characterization of what these publications (the ones that "list" Landmark as cult, sect, NRM, whatever) claim is unfair, at least for the half a dozen that I looked at. Just because it's just a sentence, in some cases, doesn't mean it can be neglected. And likewise, just because a ton of newspaper articles don't call it a sect or whatever doesn't mean we don't have to discuss it in the article. I'm thinking about setting up an RfC to settle this, but I'm afraid that all of you will use this as an opportunity to fill up another talk page. Drmies (talk) 16:16, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

A religion or religion like group can be incorporated, or structured various ways. http://www.npr.org/2014/04/01/282496855/can-a-television-network-be-a-church-the-irs-says-yes Legacypac (talk) 01:12, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Full protection

I have fully protected this article for a month as an arbitration enforcement action in accordance with the Landmark Worldwide discretionary sanctions. I strongly suggest that all parties take this as an opportunity to resolve the recent disputes on this article as best they can. Casting aspersions or other misconduct, including edit-warring after the protection expires, is unacceptable and may well result in sanctions. Editors may wish to consider an RfC or some other form of formal or semi-formal dispute resolution. Any queries about this action or the standards of conduct can be directed to my talk page, it can also be formally appealed to AE. Note that this action cannot be reversed without my consent or consensus at a noticeboard. Any admins watching should remember that they are expected to respect the full protection and should only edit when doing so is entirely uncontroversial or supported by a clear consensus. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:19, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Flippant

Dave Apter, this edit was unwise (and led to the protection). The piece may be "flippant", in your words, but that statement is hardly personal opinion and you know it: some evidence is given. Whether that's enough to warrant inclusion here is another matter, but this does not make you look good, esp. since you are obviously neutering a highly critical piece by making it a source only for the most innocent of statements (in note 7). Drmies (talk) 21:15, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Drmies: I don't quite understand that. It is undoubtedly true that Werner Erhard had no formal training in psychology - but he also had no formal training in geology. At that point in the article the ONLY reason to include that statement if it is meant to imply something negative about Werner Erhard and his qualifications to start the business. The statement itself contains only facts but you and I both know that which facts you choose to include completely change the communication. Is this an encyclopedia article on Landmark or is it an attack piece on Werner Erhard? That is the question. The relevance of Werner Erhard's educational background when founding a company 20 years before Landmark existed is really REALLY hard to explain as a relvant part of this article. I thin kthat stuff probbaly doesn't belong in Wikipedia at all but if it does it certainly shouldn't be here but in a Werner Erhard article.

HJ MItchell: I appreciate you locking the page, although it is in pretty bad shape. I would love to see some neutral parties look at this and help us sort out the design of this page. There is a lot of POV editing going on and I, while interested, do not want to engage in edit wars or revert chains with people. By the way Thanks, Alex Jackl (talk) 22:09, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

A failure to understand Drmies' point could not unreasonably raise more questions about the person saying that than anything else. Landmark is a form of Large-group awareness training and Personal development. Both of those groups are pretty much rooted in individual Psychology. It is hard for me to understand why anyone would think it would make any sense whatsoever to even introduce geology into the discussion, which, clearly has no relevance to the topic whatsoever. The fact that you seem to as per your statement think that adding such information makes this, and I quote, "an attack piece on Werner Erhard," raises very serious questions in my eyes whether a person who would think such questions even remotely reasonable would be able to contribute much in the light, rather than heat, department. The principles of psychology and psychiatry were, admittedly, maybe less well defined at the time Erhard created the structure of the seminars which the current corporation seems to more or less rather clearly continue, and if the subject of the seminars is the broad field of personal development, which has a huge psychological component, then if reliable sources discussing this topic indicate that he had no training in that field, even given the nature of the field at that time, depending on the length of the coverage and amount of weight given in the original source, there is no reason to believe that it might not at least conceivably qualify for discussion here as well. John Carter (talk) 22:25, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

John, please comment on content and not contributors. Any value in what you said above gets lost in the remarks about editors. --Tgeairn (talk) 23:04, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

@Tgeairn: And, praytell, what value whatsoever can be found in your own comment then, which is apparently exclusively about an editor? John Carter (talk) 23:12, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

John: Let's not lie on this page. The comment you made: "whether a person who would think such questions even remotely reasonable would be able to contribute much in the light, rather than heat, department. " is condescending, rude, and is clearly a personal attack. Don't go attacking Tgeairn because he pointed out that you were breaking Wikipedia policies. It is this kind of behavior that led to the page being blocked. But I don't want to engage in any kind of battle with you even if it is to defend myself or others against your behavior. Let's talk about content: Alex Jackl (talk) 01:45, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Taken at face value, this conflict seems to represent a misunderstanding of the nature of the Landmark Forum. The reason the comments on Erhard's lack of formal training in psychiatry and psychology are irrelevant is because the Landmark Forum has much more in common with management consulting than psychology. It is probably better described as applied philosophy than psychology. It has ZERO relationship with psychiatry (no drugs are dispensed in any classes I ever heard of) and have as little relationship to psychology as a management consulting seminar. It is absolutely WP:RELEVANCE. That is why it occurred for me that many of these comments were not based on the courses and content of what Landmark Worldwide does or is (which is obviously what an encyclopedic article on it should primarily reflect) but some WP:COATRACK to air some grievance with Werner Erhard. I am not saying that he shouldn't be mentioned in the article - I just think having more than half the article be about him is a BLATANT case of WP:UNDUE WEIGHT. The article used to have a section on the nature of the content of Landmark's courses but it got taken down in the many edit wars that have scarred this article. I would be happy to re-introduce it with appropriate citations if the admins thought that would make sense. Thank you! Alex Jackl (talk) 01:45, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for expressing your opinion as per WP:POV. And please read WP:POT regarding your rather extensive lengthy use of an article talk page, rather than a personal user page, to discuss others. In some regards, I might not disagree with some of your suggestions, particularly mentioning the nature of the courses. However, I notice that Astynax has said above that there seems to be little if any mention in independent reliable sources of them. From what little I have seen myself, in the numerous documents I have downloaded from subscription newsbanks, I would have to agree with him, although I don't think anyone would object to seeing non-promotional discussion of them if it can be found in independent reliable sources. Regarding your statements about its relationship to psychology, etc., please provide sources that substantiate those claims, as I think at this point it is in all of our interests to realize that article talk pages are intended for the improvement of the article, and not general discussion of the topic. Improvement of the article generally involves discussing sources, what the sources say, and the relative weight they give them. It does not involve the sometimes absolutist and often unsourced statements of individuals. Personal opinions without sourcing about what should or should not be on the article, or its talk page, are probably better placed somewhere else. John Carter (talk) 01:53, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

John, Ajackl, let's all take it easy and notch it down. Ajackl, I didn't say anything about geology, nor was I pointing at any specific text other than (indirectly), the topic of recent discussion--the question of the "religious character". Now, that something is a hit piece is really irrelevant if the hit piece is published in what is considered a reliable source; what we would choose to reproduce from that text is a matter of editorial judgment. You're jumping to conclusions in what appears to be a pre-emptive strike: claiming that something should be discarded automatically because the author has a strong opinion runs counter to what we should be doing here. By which I mean it's wrong. As for the "content" of the courses: it's there in one of the diffs I linked above (in a statement about "undue") and what's in that version is clearly undue, but that's another matter, and I'd appreciate if if you didn't muddy the waters. Again, I was talking about this edit, in which some text was removed and an edit summary was given; please do not railroad a discussion by bringing in a bunch of unrelated material. It's counterproductive, even disruptive. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 02:10, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

@Drmies: I do appreciate your attention in trying to bring some order to this mess which would try the patience of a saint, but I respectfully disagree with your assessment of my removal of Sciosia's comment. The quotation marks round the statement "freely threatens or pursues lawsuits against those who call it [a cult]" is presumably intended to indicate that it's report of what someone said rather than a factual assertion (whilst leaving the casual reader with the impression that it is factual). A cheap journalistic ploy and unencyclopedic. As a factual claim it's poorly supported by the evidence, as I would expect you to know from the work you did a few months ago on the former 'litigation' page. Is a dozen or so libel cases in 24 years - and none at all in the last eight - unusually litigious?

And the other edit I made seemed to be the justified removal of a cheap straw-man jibe aimed at Erhard. DaveApter (talk) 11:30, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Dave, I didn't say anything about a salesman. But I think you need to be very careful: if the source is a reliable source, and if the piece can be judged to be not just some editorial but an investigative article, then the statement has weight. This is somewhat relevant: just because a journalist says it doesn't mean it's "just" some opinion. If that were the case, you should be the first one to remove the HuffPo and Observer articles that praise Landmark. You can't have it both ways. Dave, I think I like you fine, and I do not wish to rake anyone over the coals, but this is precisely the thing that can lead to a topic ban: a misinterpretation of policy seemingly based on a specific perspective (or POV, to use our jargon). Drmies (talk) 15:44, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Point taken Drmies. This is a good point. Thank you. Alex Jackl (talk) 16:50, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

I agree with most of what Drmies, DaveApter and AJackl are saying here. On the one hand, I don't think dismissing the article as a flippant feature was at all an appropriate argument for whether or not this statement should be included - it would depend on what the weight of reliable sources say about this topic, which I haven't thoroughly investigated.

On the other hand, the removal of the mention of Werner Erhard as having no training in psychology and being a salesmen seems completely appropriate - these facts seem irrelevant to the article and simply designed to cast the subject in a dubious light. In fact, the addition of extensive content about Erhard and the structuring of his companies to this article seems to be based on an opinion (not supported by reliable sources) expressed by editors here that Erhard is somehow running or deeply involved with Landmark today. Nwlaw63 (talk) 15:28, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Let's leave that for another day. Personally, I don't know whether he is or isn't; I haven't read the material. What I was trying to get accomplished with this thread is a bit more care in how things get reverted here. These waters need oil. I'm also trying to get at least some of the noses pointed in the same direction (which is "decent article"), so that Big Bad Harry may someday unprotect the article. Drmies (talk) 17:04, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

I think one of the biggest things keeping anyone from trying to improve the article is, unfortunately, as you said, the seeming obsession on the part of some on going out of their way to argue, seemingly to the death almost, any point which might disagree with their own often predetermined views on this topic. As a case in point, I remember on this page some time ago trying to start a discussion to determine what the main article for the set of interrelated articles here should be. Policies and guidelines would seem to indicate that there is a probability that these articles about est, Erhard and Landmark and various related topics are closely related enough to have one article which serves as the main article. It also seems to me to make sense to determine just how many articles on the topic there should be for optimum encyclopedic content, and what those articles should be about. However, the apparent lack of interest in such discussions can, I think not unreasonably, be seen as being off-putting and probably to some degree make those so interested wonder if there is any point in trying to make the effort to do so.

I still think the primary focus in the short term should be to determine points (1) what subtopics or related topics merit as per notability and weight substantial coverage somewhere here, (2) what subtopics or related topics are broad enough to include subtopics as subsections, which would be useful in determining what related articles should exist, and (3) once the basic organization of the topic is accomplished, it would be much easier to determine what is included in which articles. Several extant wikiprojects around here, including Religion, Psychology, Sociology, Pseudoscience, and Companies, at least, would seem to possibly or probably have some people well enough acquainted with those specific topics as they are covered here and in reliable sources to be useful here. However, frankly, speaking for myself, and possibly others, including @Astynax:, who has also indicated at least the preliminary stages of burnout regarding the disputational atmosphere here, we may have already, more or less, thought there were better things to do with our time than continue to try to, basically, rehash variations on the same basic points and areas ad infinitum. John Carter (talk) 20:05, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 6 March 2015

This is a cult and we came here to edit the page to say so. Request that we can update the page. Thank you. JoltAsResearch (talk) 02:21, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

This seems to me a mere attempt to disrupt (by someone who employs the majestic plural). Theobald Tiger (talk) 09:27, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Not done: requests for decreases to the page protection level should be directed to the protecting admin or to Wikipedia:Requests for page protection if the protecting admin is not active or has declined the request. --Redrose64 (talk) 14:28, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

• Now blocked by User:HJ Mitchell--thanks. Drmies (talk) 15:48, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

The challenge of creating a satisfactory article on subjects like this

The problems we face here are not restricted to Landmark; similar issues arise in the Wikipedia articles on a wide range of contemporary social phenomena. Examples that come to mind are Transcendental Meditation, Silva Mind Control, Neuro Linguistic Programming, Anthony Robbins (none of which I have much detailed knowledge of, or any strong opinions about). It is clear from the recurrent battles in all these areas that these topics face difficulties that simply do not arise with articles on subjects within well established academic disciplines such as Physics, Biology or History.

The source of these difficulties is threefold:

1. There is a serious shortage of adequate, impartial, authoritative, informed factual source material on the subject (either primary or secondary)..
2. Editors drawn to contribute arrive with strongly held polarised viewpoints on the topic, either in favour of it or against.
3. Editors without such preconceptions are not strongly motivated to join in, and often disengage after a short while, having been disillusioned or frustrated by the wp:battleground mentality that prevails.

The 30 pages of archived talk bear witness to this, with about half the comments claiming that the article is too biased in favour of Landmark and the other half arguing that it is too biased against it. The same ground is argued over and over again, with newly arriving editors re-inserting and removing material that had been agreed over in the past.

An additional complication is that there is a considerable amount of comment in circulation which is uninformed, inaccurate, biased, and sometimes vindictive or malicious. This has in many cases been widely propagated (unattributed and often anonymous) through channels such as internet forums, bulletin boards, blogs, and unmoderated (or moderated to further a partisan agenda) web pages such as anti-cult movement sites. A further complication is that journalists and even academics sometimes use material from such sources as background, or even quote them directly, thus providing an appearance of reliability to claims that were of dubious provenance.

It is ironic that there is a definite symmetry between the opposing viewpoints - all parties stridently claim that they are the ones upholding WP:NPOV and countering the blatant advocasy of the others.

On the other hand it does seem that a majority of those arguing for a more favourable treatment are people with first-hand experience of the subject in question, whereas those arguing for a more critical treatment have in many cases acquired their preconceptions at second hand.

At the outset, the page appears to have been written by advocates who regarded Wikipedia as an extension of the unmoderated bulletin boards. It was created and substantially edited from anonymous IP accounts and was blatantly biased, and devoid of refs or citations as this version from 31st March 2004 illustrates.

During the Arbitration case, I did put forward a suggestion that topics such as this may benefit from some specific guidelines Arbitration/Requests/Case/Landmark_Worldwide/Workshop#Guidelines_needed_for_"Contemporary_social_phenomena". Although there was nothing done in this regard at that time, I still think it may be helpful. DaveApter (talk) 11:12, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

• Quick thoughts on this: Landmark Worldwide is here to inform readers with no views and offer a summary and further reading (through sources) to those both for and against, but this should be proportional to the (mainly) secondary sources (while not entirely excluding primary sources) that are WP:RS on this topic. Given all that, it won't be a promotional page or an attack piece, it will include history prior to Landmark Education that is directly relevant to understanding how LE became what WS:RS says it is now (not what LE, supporters/opposers say it is now). BLP issues must be observed when mentioning individuals within the article but this article is not a BLP in itself. Balance, and a article that meets the needs of Wikipedia while also observing WP policy, will result in an article that is relatively stable but doesn't quite suit any of the alleged support/opposition positions. So, how do we get there from here? AnonNep (talk) 12:56, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

• There is no "serious shortage of adequate, impartial, authoritative, informed factual source material on the subject (either primary or secondary)"—not even remotely. Those sources should simply be reported, rather than the constant attempts to WP:OR undermine, mischaracterize and/or reject what they say. The practice of blanking statements cited to reliable sources needs to stop. Speculating as to how a reliable source came to a conclusion or discounting reliable sources based upon WP:OR needs to stop. Mischaracterizing or misrepresenting what reliable sources needs to stop. Inventing a new category or new guidelines will go nowhere toward addressing the problem of advocates (or counter-advocates) trying to circumvent the V and NPOV requirements that articles report "all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic". • Astynax ^talk 21:04, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

RfC: Are these comments justified?

Is it appropriate to include this remark: "Erhard had no formal training in psychology or psychiatry and had previously been a successful salesman"? DaveApter (talk) 01:29, 10 March 2015 (UTC)