Talk:Landmark Worldwide

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)

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 [1] 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 [2] 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 [3]! DaveApter (talk) 15:45, 19 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.[4] 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: [5], 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: [6] 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)

I agree with Astynax' criticism of DaveApter’s first point.

The second point of DaveApter’s analysis is, in my view, also ill-judged. I, for one, do not hold a “polarized viewpoint”.

It is a cheap trick to suggest that when two quarrel both are in the wrong. The one and only problem here is the COI-induced POV of the Landmark adherents. Two examples: (i) the RfC DaveApter started not long ago (one thread below): it is a huge waste of time and energy to get such elementary facts established; (ii) Some time ago I have criticized the opening statement of the opening sentence of the Werner Erhard article (whatever Erhard is, he is not first and foremost a ‘critical thinker’). I have so far not succeeded to get my criticism accepted. That it is obvious from the very start that my criticism is completely justified, that the sources to adstruct the ‘critical thinker’-statement are very, very poor (an ill-informed piece of journalism, an advertisement, a selfpublished book), doesn’t seem to count anyway. There is no denying the determination of the Landmark adherents; they do not shrink back from defending the untenablest of positions.

DaveApter’s third arrow, however, hits the bullseye: the terror that is going on on this and other talk pages is deterring uninvolved editors. There is a simple solution, as I am allowed to do a modest proposal: everyone who has specific ties with the subject, emotional, relational, political, ideological, artistical, financial, business-wise or in any other sense, should refrain from editing.

I am an uninvolved editor, without any Landmark-connection whatsoever in past or present, who entertained no preconceived ideas, neither pro nor contra, on the subject when I started one year ago to study the relevant literature, triggered by content disputes I happened to come across. But as soon as I dared to open my mouth on this very talk page, I was nailed unto the cross twice by the Landmark adherents. It were saddening spectacles, received mostly with either indifference or applause by a lazy crowd that firmly believes in holding forth piously on good manners and proper conduct, being hypercorrect in the application of rules and guidelines, enjoying a strong aversion of content issues, being resolutely determined to stay non-judgmental unto the last syllable of recorded time. Among the spectators were also several members of the Arbitration Committee and some supervising admins. Apart from some participants in the debate, nearly all of them failed to see what is going on just in front of their noses.

I do not think we are in need of specific guidelines governing controversial topics. Editors with a COI should simply devote themselves to tasks in which no COI will disrupt article development. Those who watch over encyclopedic integrity should dedicate oneself to content study and take the appropriate measures.

I think Drmies will come and say that I am making my point a bit too strong. Theobald Tiger (talk) 10:34, 10 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)

• Support using this phrase - Nearly all short biographical sketches I have read (about 50 in number) mention these things. I will quote the opening sentences of a biographical sketch of Erhard from a reliable source that is accepted by all combatants as such, George D. Chryssides, Exploring New Religions, New York: Continuum 1999, p.303:

"est was founded by Werner Hans Erhard, who was born as John Paul (Jack) Rosenberg in 1935. Rosenberg did not enter higher education, and has no formal training in philosophy, psychology or counselling; as a young man he started his career selling used cars and encyclopedias."

The main thing (apart from 'psychiatry') that is not supported by the source is the adjective 'successful' (I do not deny, for that matter, that Erhard had at least some success as a salesman). Kind regards, Theobald Tiger (talk) 08:31, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

PS1 This quote is from a section in Chryssides' book that is titled: est (Erhard Seminars Training) and its successors. Chryssides has deliberately included a biographical sketch of Erhard in a section that brings est and its successors together under one heading. Theobald Tiger (talk) 22:58, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

PS2 The word 'psychiatry' could better be replaced by a term like 'counseling'. Theobald Tiger (talk) 23:15, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Oppose use of this phrase.

There's no argument about the facts here, but their relevance is very much in question, and the fact that they are being cherrypicked to give a deliberately negative impression.

Theobald Tiger claims that this is merely where the sources lead us - however, one only has to scroll up the talk page to see that this editor actually wants to use these terms to deliberately reinforce their own negative opinion of the subject:

"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."

In fact, one can go through the sources and find all kinds of things written as a summary sentence about Erhard - the first one I stumbled on, from journalist Jane Renton, read:

"Known as John Paul Rosenberg before inventing his name and his life, Werner Erhard is widely regarded as the man who gave the human development movement its popular appeal and one of the most significant influences behind coaching".

I wouldn't recommend a summary sentence based on that either; my point is that you can find whatever you are looking for. In an article that isn't fundamentally about Erhard, we shouldn't be trying to define him here, particularly with cherrypicked facts designed to try to give a negative or positive view of the man. Nwlaw63 (talk) 14:22, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

It is primarily an outgrowth of Erhard and a historical context about what it is outgrown from would clearly be relevant for an encyclopedic view of the subject. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:45, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

• Just to be clear, I wasn't suggesting that all references to Erhard be suppressed! The question is about the dismissive nature of the comments, and possibly their relevance. DaveApter (talk) 15:17, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

However reputable the publisher actually is, however reliable the source may be, Nwlaw63 will stubbornly maintain that it is nonsense what I say. Theobald Tiger (talk) 14:56, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Oppose use of this phrase. Alex Jackl (talk) 18:05, 10 March 2015 (UTC) As I stated earlier those qualifications are not relevant to the discussion and borne out of alack of understanding of what Landmark actually does. It is also cherry picking (to use someone above's phrase) particular references to drive a particular point of view about a person who has questionable relevance (except historically where he does have relevance) to the subject of the article. Alex Jackl (talk) 18:05, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose inclusion of this phrase.

1. If we have reliable sources that say that "Erhard had no formal training in psychology or psychiatry and had previously been a successful salesman", and we have reliable sources that indicate that Erhard's training is in some way relevant to this (Landmark Worldwide) article, then it would possibly be appropriate to include. Right now, the article lacks sources indicating the relevance of Erhard's profession in the 1960's to Landmark’s founding in 1991.
2. BLP also comes into the discussion, particularly WP:PUBLICFIGURE, and since there is obvious controversy and a lack of "multiple reliable third-party sources documenting" the relevance here, we should not include it.
3. Finally, from a weight standpoint, WP:MNA comes to mind: "There is probably not a good reason to discuss some assumption on a given page, if that assumption is best discussed in depth on some other page." We have a BIO article where the statement might be relevant, and we have an article about the primary product of the company Erhard founded in 1971 where it might be relevant. I see no reliable sources indicating significant enough relevance to include here. I don't see how what someone did or did not do before forming a company in 1971, 20 years before Landmark Worldwide was formed, is a relevant part of the company history. Remember, Erhard didn't even found Landmark - he founded a company that sold some of its intellectual property to its employees, who then went and started Landmark well after his rather public departure. --Tgeairn (talk) 18:47, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

• Support --I did oppose but I have changed my mind based on John Carter's points below. I don't think BLP is very relevant as an argument against, because the description isn't damning. The inclusion just isn't very relevant it seems. Thanks for others pointing out the funny business going on here too.. I thought it was merely straightforward :) Prasangika37 (talk) 21:10, 13 March 2015 (UTC)Prasangika37 (talk) 14:57, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

• Unfortunately, this Rfc, as with others in the past, has been used by the same claque to restate previous arguments rather than allowing uninvolved editors to offer input. In the current state of the article, the statement may seem to have only minor relevance, but it does have relevance if the section on The Forum is ever allowed to be fleshed out with material from the fields of sociology and psychiatry. As has been noted, references repeatedly make this historical point as background before taking a look at The Forum and claims made for it. • Astynax ^talk 17:50, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose I see it the same as Prasangika37 Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 18:43, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Support inclusion of bulk of the material There is an indication of possible tendentious editing here. And I am more than a bit amused by the use of the straw-man word "psychiatry" which is in no way even implied in the original quote. Psychology and psychiatry are rather specifically different disciplines in any event - the latter deals much more strongly with disorders which benefit from some sort of medical treatment. My reasons are as follows:

1) For whatever reason, there seems to be an ongoing effort to try to cast Landmark as being substantively different from est, even though there seems to be rather a pronounced lack of evidence in independent reliable sources to substantiate that claim. Landmark was clearly founded by Erhard, and its activities are primarily in what could, not unreasonably, be seen as being the broad area of Applied psychology. It is reasonable to indicate whether or not someone who engages in activity in a specialized area has any particular qualifications in that area. The fact that Erhard had no particular qualifications in that field is, therefore, I think relevant.

Numerous reliable sources have stated that The Forum was a derivation of est with substantial changes, eg Puttick, see the discussion in the section below. DaveApter (talk) 15:59, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

2) The material about his being a salesman is also I think rather clearly relevant, because successful salesmen tend to be talented in a form of Popular psychology, perhaps specifically the "psychology of salesmanship" as per William Walker Atkinson. Given that salesmanship is seen, evidently with some question, as being a form of some form of applied or popular psychology, even if not necessarily what might be called academic psychology today. On that basis, I think it not unreasonable to also indicate the specific area in which he did have some expertise, sales, and to indicate it as a separate field, on the basis that its being included as a form of general psychology is apparently open to some question.

3) However, as the sources themselves do not seem to directly mention psychiatry, it seems to be that there is no particular reason to mention that at all. John Carter (talk) 18:58, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

• It is unclear what John Carter is referring to with his statement "There is an indication of possible tendentious editing here." John, please elaborate. --Tgeairn (talk) 19:54, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
• It is also unclear what is meant by John Carter's statement "I am more than a bit amused by the use of the straw-man word "psychiatry" which is in no way even implied in the original quote." The statement is a direct quote from the article, which DaveApter is asking for comments as to whether or not it should be in the article. John, please clarify. --Tgeairn (talk) 19:54, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
• John Carter says above "there seems to be an ongoing effort to try to cast Landmark as being substantively different from est, even though there seems to be rather a pronounced lack of evidence in independent reliable sources to substantiate that claim". The statement compares a company (Landmark) with a product (est) and ignores the majority of sources, which (if they address the issue at all) say some flavour of that they are clearly different. See, for example, the Encyclopedia of New Religions piece DaveApter provided below. --Tgeairn (talk) 19:54, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
• John Carter says above "Landmark was clearly founded by Erhard". This is not supported by the sources in the article. John, on what basis do you make this claim? --Tgeairn (talk) 19:54, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
• John Carter says above "...its activities are primarily in what could, not unreasonably, be seen as being the broad area of Applied psychology". John, what is the basis (source) for this claim? --Tgeairn (talk) 19:54, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Please indicate to me how any of this attempt at what seems almost an inquisition is even remotely relevant or germane to this RfC. I believe some of the articles I linked to, if individuals were to actually follow them, would answer some of the questions. John Carter (talk) 22:20, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

A few remarks:

• I share John Carter's amusement: the word 'psychiatry' seems to be chosen by someone who either made a mistake or had at the time of writing no clear idea what the difference between psychology and psychiatry actually is.
• The majority of sources treat est, The Forum and Landmark Forum as (either slightly or profoundly) modified occurences of the same phenomenon.
• See for example (it also answers Tgeairn's question about psychology) Andrew M. Colman (2015), Oxford Dictionary of Psychology, OUP, p.256: "est abbrev. Erhard Seminars Training, a technique of *group therapy designed to raise self-awareness and foster psychological growth. (...) In 1984 the name was changed to Landmark Forum, but it continued to be called est by many people. (...)" And sub voce Landmark Forum (p.411): "The official name, since 1984, for est".

Kind regards, Theobald Tiger (talk) 23:02, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

If Theobald Tiger thinks that the word 'psychiatry' is in appropriate and unsupported by the sources, why did he block-revert to re-insert it during the collaborative edit wars on 30th January and 12th February [7], [8], [9] ? DaveApter (talk) 15:59, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Because this point is a minor one. Theobald Tiger (talk) 16:09, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Note to closing admin: I also believe it may well be relevant to review the history of some of the editors involved, to see whether they may or may not have been said to perhaps have by others to have demonstrable POV and/or COI issues, and to take such matters into account in the closing of the RfC. John Carter (talk) 22:08, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

I would oppose the inclusion of this sentence. I cannot see the relevance of the fact that Erhard had at times been a salesman. As for the statements about his lack of qualifications, there are an infinite number of things that anyone has not done and has not been. What is the point of enumerating them? Unless it is for the purpose of disparaging them or belittling them? DaveApter (talk) 15:59, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Oppose I would oppose the inclusion of the statement as it does not appear to be relevant to and seems to be disjointed from the remainder of the article. Madeinmontana (talk) 01:22, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Source material misrepresented in the article

I've now bought a copy of the Encyclopedia of New Religions edited by Partridge (2004 edition from Lion Publishing), and had a look at the entry for “Landmark Forum(est)”, a one page essay written by Elizabeth Puttick. It's generally accurate on points of fact, apart from a few details such as having the date of Landmark's foundation as 1985 rather than 1991.

The first thing I noticed is that, whereas Puttick is given as the source for the sentence: “Landmark has denied that it is a religion, cult or sect”, that is not actually what she says. Her text is:

”They are also adamant that Landmark Forum is not a religious movement, or sect of any kind, but that they are solely an educational foundation.”

Subtle but important difference; firstly she doesn't mention the word "cult" at all; secondly the substituted word deny in this context is a breach of the WP:SAY guideline:

Similarly, be judicious in the use of admit, confess, and deny,... because these verbs can convey guilt when that is not a settled matter. (of course we are not dealing with “guilt” here, but the point remains that using this verb prejudices the issue).

Several other passages caught my eye:

1. "The Landmark Forum is a direct descendent, with substantial changes, of est (Erhard Seminar Training)."
2. "est was one of the most successful manifestations of the human potential movement (HPM)."
3. "It provided short highly intensive programs lasting a few days, which were described by participants as being intense, confronting and verbally abusive. However they also had a significant philosophical ethos behind them."
4. "Up to three quarters of a million people underwent the est seminar training, and many gave glowing testimonials to their transformative quality."
5. "Landmark Forum was founded in 1985 by a group of people who purchased the training methods and materials ('the technology') from Werner Erhard, and modified these into the softer, more didactic techniques still in use."
6. "...participants emphasise goals of success and self-improvement rather than spirituality."

Point #2 above is significant in view of the section on the HPM a few pages earlier (also written by Puttick):

• "The human potential movement (HPM) originated in the 1960s as a counter-cultural rebellion against mainstream psychology and organised religion. It is not in itself a religion, new or otherwise, but a psychological philosophy and framework, including a set of values that have made it one of the most significant and influential forces in modern Western society."

It's also worth noting that this final section of the book - on "Modern Western Cultures" - contains discussions on a variety of groupings which wouldn't normally be viewed as "Religious" in any normal sense of the word. For instance Feminism; football fandom; celebrity worship (eg Princess Diana); Psychedelic spirituality; and Neuro Linguistic Programming. The same applies to many of the other books and papers cited. So it is clear that academics who study this field have an eclectic range of interests, and the discussion or mention of a group in this context does not necessarily imply that it is regarded as Religious, or even that it is considered to be a NRM.

So what this reference establishes is that (in the view of this authority):

1. est - and Landmark - are manifestations of the Human Potential Movement.
2. The HPM is not religious, nor is it a NRM
3. Landmark is not religious, nor is it a NRM
4. The Landmark Forum is derived from the est training, but is substantially different (not slightly modified as Astynax's version had it)
5. It differs specifically in being softer and more didactic (this is especially significant, as it differentiates the Landmark Forum from est in regard to the most frequently criticised features of the latter)
6. The ownership and management of Landmark is different from that of the earlier enterprises
7. Despite being described as “intense, confrontational and abusive”, est had many hundreds of thousands of participants, and many of them expressed satisfaction with the results.

All of these points are also confirmed in a number of other references, and should be made clear in the article. DaveApter (talk) 11:09, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

DaveApter's contribution is a biased interpretation of the source.

With respect to his conclusions:

Ad 1. I agree - nobody has ever stated otherwise.

Ad 2. I agree - nobody has ever stated otherwise, but it is a trivial observation, as HPM is the sociological abstraction that encompasses several manifestations, some of which are categorized as a NRM.

Ad 3. This is not in the source. What's more: upon request I can give you twenty reliable sources that categorize Landmark Forum as a NRM.

Ad 4. Landmark Forum is substantially different from est, but its basic aims and its way of reaching those aims have been fundamentally the same over the years. Upon request I can give you several reliable sources.

Ad 5. I agree.

Ad 6. This has never been denied by anyone, but it is significant that Erhard has not sold his intellectual property, but licensed it, and that the successor companies have been a kind of family business ever since Erhard seemingly retired, but in fact remained a presence behind the scenes, about which both the company and Erhard has lied in the past. All this has been described in extenso in reliable sources.

Ad 7. This is a matter of fact, and I am pleasantly surprised to read that you think the est-history should be included in the article.

Kind regards, Theobald Tiger (talk) 12:02, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Please read references for what they say, rather than through a filter. First, the article is on "Landmark Forum" which she states is the "direct descendant" of est. The Forum started in 1985, not 1991, so at least give her credit for not swallowing the ridiculous marketing contention that Landmark popped into existence fully formed with little connection to its past iterations. As to your other points:

1. No one has argued that est and Landmark are not outgrowths of HPM.
2. That the HPM is often used as an umbrella term for a variety of other movements (some secular and some religious), and that Puttick does not view HPM as religious per se, is irrelevant here.
3. Puttick does not say that Landmark is "not religious, nor is it a NRM". She only says that Landmark itself makes that disclaimer, and this source already is cited to support Landmark's repudiation of any religious character. Certainly more citations for that sentence could be provided.
4. Puttick nowhere says that Landmark Forum is "substantially different" from est. She has only noted that there have been "substantial changes" (which is not at all the same thing). The only changes she mentions are the modification of extreme confrontational methodology of the original est sessions.
5. See previous point. No one has contended that the Forum was not changed to be a less harsh version of its est predecessor.
6. Puttick says nothing about the current ownership. WE&A was formed at the same time as The Forum, a "direct descendent" of est, was launched. Attempts have been made to explain in the article that people at WE&A eventually formed Landmark, licensed the Forum technology and bought other assets from Erhard. So, you are now dropping your objection to explaining this in the History section?
7. That some people come away satisfied with their est/Forum experience has never been in question. This would certainly be a better citation than some of the anecdotal sources that have been used previously.

Your offensive contention that this reference has been "misrepresented" is without foundation. • Astynax ^talk 18:38, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

I have been trying to stay out of this but the rancor and the inaccurate statements keep piling up. It doesn't help that some editors keep using language like "offensive contention" and categorizing an entire line of (accurate) thought as a "ridiculous marketing contention". Not to put too fine a point on it these are all just weasel words to try and legitimize a fringe-theory that has no basis in citation or reality. I will use the same numbering model as above to reference the points made. There are many issues but I will focus on the ones that I believe to be obvious: Alex Jackl (talk) 16:48, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

AD4. agrees that Landmark Forum is substantially different from est but then asserts that the "aims" and the "ways of reaching those aims" are substantially the same. Based on what do you claim to understand the "aims " of Landmark. Is it based on its mission statement, on interviews with stakeholders? Or is it based on 10, 20, 30 and 40 year old information some of which predates the entire organization?

AD6. The term "ever since Erhard seemingly retired" is weasel words. The phrase "but in fact remained a presence behind the scenes, about which both the company and Erhard has lied in the past." is a total lie and unsubstantiated by any facts. Fringe theorists and people with a POV apparently against Werner Erhard (I don't know what is in their minds so I don't want to speak too strongly about their aims or internal state) have maintained this fictions that somehow Werner Erhard is pulling the strings. There is no evidence for this at all. It constantly gets refuted and then- a few weeks or months later it gets recycled with comments like "it ha sbeen described in extenso in reliable sources" which is simply not true. Are there sources? Certainly! Have they been debunked or deemed unreliable over and over again? Also certainly.

AD7. I have never seen anyone reject the idea that the history of est or even Werner Erhard have a place in the article. Just not half the article. It is given UNDUE WEIGHT. Alex Jackl (talk) 16:48, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Renee Lockwood, 'Religiosity Rejected: Exploring the Religio-Spiritual Dimensions of Landmark Education', International Journal for the Study of New Religions 2.2 (2011) p.227–228, writes:

"Landmark Education today insists that the Landmark Forum is entirely distinct from est, claiming that it is not based on or a derivation of Werner Erhard’s original program. Certainly, there are profound differences between the methodologies, pedagogies and praxes of the est training and those of the contemporary Landmark Forum. However, it is argued here that there are also significant similarities, particularly in regard to the ultimate aim of the training."

As I wrote before, in 2002 Landmark Education told us straight away:

"Since Landmark Education purchased Mr. Erhard's educational methodology, from time to time Landmark uses him to consult with its Research and Design team."

Kind regards, Theobald Tiger (talk) 21:58, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

From Astynax:

6. I have also not heard anyone object to describing - as you just did that former employees of WE&A made up most of the founding members of Landmark and that they licensed the FOrum and acquired other assets from Werner Erhardt. That is a known matter of public record. That is not in contention. WHat seems to be unclear to the fringe theorists is at that point Werner Erhard's involvement with Landmark ends except historically as the creator of the originally-acquired assets and methodologies. As far as I can tell he has the same relationship to Landmark as anyone who has sold their stuff and IP to another company but is not employed by them nor owns any portion of them. This is the point where there is no or only poor evidence that needs to be bent to try and make this point. It would be good for us to put this to bed because most of the contention on this site would probably end if people just understood that Werner Erhard is NOT involved with Landmark Worldwide except historically. Alex Jackl (talk) 16:48, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

In 2002 Landmark Education told us straight away: "Since Landmark Education purchased Mr. Erhard's educational methodology, from time to time Landmark uses him to consult with its Research and Design team." If this practice has continued to the present date, I do not know, but it does not matter very much: Erhard is the creator/compilator of the "educational technology", as he himself is inclined to call it, behind est, The Forum, Landmark Forum. His life and work are therefore the core of the history section. Theobald Tiger (talk) 21:37, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

I just want to be clear - your argument that Werner Erhard is pulling the strings of Landmark Education is that over the last 24 years from "time to time" Landmark has brought him in as a consultant? That is IMO a really really weak argument. Noone argues that Erhard should not be part of the history section. But should probably not be the majority of it- Landmark has a history of which Erhard only is peripheral (although initially critical) as the creator of the organizations that preceded it and the "technology" that Landmark acquired from him.Alex Jackl (talk) 07:09, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Where did Theobald Tiger (or the article) ever state that Erhard "is pulling the strings"? Your accusation itself misrepresents, as would having the article state that Erhard "only is peripheral". Erhard may or may not have direct control so, but no one has suggested that such a statement be included in the article without a source. That Erhard continued to own the intellectual property that is the essence of the product being marketed by Landmark is also significant involvement. That Erhard's companies and trusts continued to receive income from Landmark is significant involvement. That Erhard continued to consult is significant involvement. That Erhard continued to hold ownership of Forum operations in Mexico and Japan is significant involvement. That Erhard continues to develop his philosophies in conjunction with Landmark employees is significant involvement. That this type of involvement is exactly the same murky setup that existed under Erhard Seminars Training, Inc. prior to 1985 is notable as well. The "really really weak argument" here is the POV attempt(s) to make the article reflect Landmark's long-time marketing attempts to distance Landmark and its offerings from Erhard and est. Nor is the History section anything like WP:UNDUE, which simply says that the weight in articles should be proportional to the coverage given in reliable references. In this case, there are other sections that need to be fleshed out based on independent sources, notably the section on The Forum itself, but it is a perversion of policy to use UNDUE as an excuse to go around slashing cited material from other sections. It is also misreading to argue that WP:UNDUE means the article should be "balanced" based upon editors' points of view, biases or conclusions from original research, self-published marketing materials, etc. • Astynax ^talk 16:07, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Lockwood clearly unreliable

Theobald Tiger's quote from the Lockwood paper above clearly shows that she can't even be relied on to get simple statements of demonstrable fact right. It's not remotely true that "Landmark claims that it is not a derivation of Werner Erhard's original program". On the contrary their website clearly states"Based on a methodology and ideas originally developed by Werner Erhard, Landmark has evolved its unique breakthrough methodology through years of continuous research and development.", and similar statements have been on the company website for at least the last twelve years. No-one is trying to suggest that est or Erhard should not be mentioned in this article, only that the comments should be accurate, proportionate and relevant. DaveApter (talk) 15:21, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

That is a ridiculous slur. That Landmark has gone to great pains to distance itself from est has been noted by other reliable sources as well. Landmark's carefully parsed, self-published website claim does not even mention est, let alone "clearly state" anything of the kind. There is a huge difference in "based on a methodology and ideas originally developed" and claiming to be "a derivation of" est. • Astynax ^talk 16:22, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

I would kindly recommend to DaveApter, who is apparently groping around without the veil of his ignorance ever being lifted, to read something about the subject. Even Google Books can be of some help. And even to consult the Internet Archive Wayback Machine ([10]) to find out what Landmark Education has revealed about its relation with est and Werner Erhard in 2010 might be useful to discover the correct answer: about this relationship LE remained at the time as silent as the grave. That LE changed policy in later years - lying costs a lot of energy and also causes damage to your credibility - does not make this any different. Lockwood is not clearly unreliable; Lockwood has told us in 2011 the unadorned truth, however unpleasant this truth might be for some of us. Theobald Tiger (talk) 17:59, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

The Lockwood paper is not a reliable source for anything other than her non-notable opinion. It is a piece of primary research at best.

• WP:SCHOLARSHIP - "Masters dissertations and theses are considered reliable only if they can be shown to have had significant scholarly influence." This is not even a dissertation or thesis, it is a paper by an graduate student.
• Lockwood acknowledges that this is primary research: "gaining primary information on the group through personally participating in the Landmark Forum enabled the author to filter the publicly available information"
• Lockwood disregarded existing reporting: "several articles have been published online and in print media detailing the experiences of journalists who have participated in the Landmark Forum. (These have proved to be valuable resources, and are referenced here only when their account can be supported by the author’s experience"
• The paper is largely based on first-hand reporting: Of the 37 citations in the paper, 20 are the authour's direct experience ("Author’s experience of the Landmark Forum, Sydney 2007")

The paper is being used as a source along with several other, possibly better, sources. Without comment on the quality of those sources, given the above issues there is no need for this one. --Tgeairn (talk) 14:59, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

It is not "a paper by a master student", it is a publication in a scientific journal. That it is written by a master student is not important. That is only relevant for POV-pushers. Tgeairn obviously has not the faintest idea what a primary source is in a sociological context. For a researcher of the sociology of religion participation in a Landmark Forum course is not reprehensible at all. Tipton, for instance, has also participated in an est-course. Theobald Tiger (talk) 16:32, 17 March 2015 (UTC)