Talk:Landmark Worldwide

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)

The serious points I raised above are still not being resolved: see the discussion of the misrepresentation of sources below. DaveApter (talk) 06:19, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

RfC: Are these comments justified?

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the debate may be found at the bottom of the discussion.

---

Closed as Opposed - At face value, I suppose one could presume the result is due to commenters saying (among other things) that it is unnecessary to add biographical info concerning Werner Erhard, as apparently, per this page, he or one of his businesses/organisations "merely" licensed "stuff" to Landmark Worldwide (the latter being the topic of this page). The broader issue though, from doing some reading of several (semi-)related discussions, including the arbcase noted at the top of this page, appears to be the ongoing contention concerning the merging of various pages and/or the content thereof, such as Erhard Seminars Training, Werner Erhard and Associates, Landmark Worldwide, etc., for several various reasons. Currently, my reading of past recent discussions is that there as yet is apparently no consensus to merge, so we're left with the pages as they are. So with that in mind, this is closed as Opposed to add to this particular page. And to (hopefully) prevent next steps of editwarring, I will remove other personal biographical info of Werner Erhard (but not of his businesses/organisations), from this page as well. This should not be considered any sort of precedent for any other pages, as it may (or may not) be appropriate to add such info on other pages. Please feel free to positively discuss the appropriateness of the inclusion of such biographical info to this page in the future. - jc37 21:35, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

---

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 [1], [2], [3] ? DaveApter (talk) 15:59, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

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

In addition to Theobald Tiger's repeated reinsertion of the 'psychiatry' phrase, it may be valuable to find out why Astynax initially added the phrase. --Tgeairn (talk) 19:17, 17 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)

• Oppose More relevant to an article about the man, as oppose to the org. CorporateM (Talk) 09:30, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose — summoned by bot. That he does not have formal training in psychology/therapy etc does not seem relevant. As far as I can tell, he is not offering psychology or therapy services, correct? It seems to me the service is more like a motivational speaking seminar? Many people who are "life coaches" have no training whatsoever and many sought-after public speakers are simply successful people or just know to motivate people. Tony Robbins is one example (I don't think he even went to college). I have no knowledge of whether Landmark is some kind of cult or what but slipping in that the founder has no training in psychology seems definitely undue. —Мандичка^YO 😜 01:14, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Good comments. Just a friendly reminder: We're not here to state personal viewpoints, experiences or opinions but to present what reliable, third-party sources relate about the subject. Cheers. -The Gnome (talk) 09:23, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose The sentence reads unnecessarily polemical, in contravention of rules about neutral presentation of subjects. Erhard should be presented simply as "est founder" with all other relevant information about his person offered in Erhard's own Wikipedia entry. -The Gnome (talk) 09:23, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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 ([4]) 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)

I agree that being a customer does not exclude or degrade ones ability to write about a company (such as Tipton or even Lockwood). However, "Primary sources are original materials that are close to an event, and are often accounts written by people who are directly involved." In the case of the Lockwood paper, she explicitly states that she is basing the paper on her personal experience. She says this more than 20 times throughout the paper. --Tgeairn (talk) 17:01, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Participative research creates its own kind of problems, but, if properly executed, it does not depreciate its results. But alas, to cast doubt on the reliablity of this particular source, however unjustly, does not free Landmark, always fond of rewriting its own history in flattering terms, from the blame of lying. Moreover, Lockwoods observation is not the fruit of participation. Theobald Tiger (talk) 17:24, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

I apologize, but I'm not following your argument. What is the lie here? You (Theobald Tiger) already provided a link to LE saying on their website in 2002 "Landmark Education's programs are based on research and technology originally developed by Werner Erhard." and "Since Landmark Education purchased Mr. Erhard's educational methodology, from time to time Landmark uses him to consult with its Research and Design team." I imagine that LE materials exist prior to then which essentially say the same thing (for instance, the oldest LE page found on archive.org is from 23 January 2000 and says "Landmark Education's programs and initiatives are based on research and a technology originally developed by Werner Erhard."). Are you saying this is a lie? Thank you for clarifying. Tgeairn (talk) 17:33, 17 March 2015 (UTC) Modified 17:43, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Tgeairn thinks it is good for me to let me swallow one red herring after another: on its website LE kept silent about its past, what amounts to lying in this particular case. But what Lockwood said was the plain truth. Theobald Tiger (talk) 18:53, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

I ask again, you provided - twice above - links to Landmark's website showing their clear statements that "Landmark Education's programs are based on research and technology originally developed by Werner Erhard." and "Since Landmark Education purchased Mr. Erhard's educational methodology, from time to time Landmark uses him to consult with its Research and Design team." I further provided a link from 2000 (which appears to be the first time archive.org archived the site) saying effectively the same thing. Where is the lie? How is overtly linking to a whole page on the subject from their website's homepage keeping silent? I am genuinely asking, what is the lie? Tgeairn (talk) 19:28, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

I provided a link to the LE-website in 2010. Erhard is not mentioned at all. Again, what Lockwood said in 2011 was the plain truth. Theobald Tiger (talk) 21:43, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

On the 2010 archive you provide, you say that Erhard is not mentioned at all. Yet:

• clicking on "fact sheet" took me to here, which says "Based on a methodology and ideas originally developed by Werner Erhard, Landmark Education has continued to evolve this unique and extremely effective educational methodology through years of continuous research and development."
• clicking on "company history" took me to here, which says "In January of 1991, Landmark Education was formed with a commitment to provide seminars and courses that made a profound difference in the quality of people's lives and work. Landmark began with a dynamic group of leaders, a powerful operations team, and a body of intellectual properties originally developed by Werner Erhard."
• clicking on "media q&a" took me to here, which has an entire section on Erhard and the relationship.

There are probably other references too. Again, what is the lie? You say Erhard is not mentioned at all, yet here's three links to the 2010 archive you provided that clearly show he is not only mentioned but talked about at some length and even has his personal website linked to. I don't know what "plain truth" you are saying Lockwood said. Please explain, what is the lie? Tgeairn (talk) 22:00, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Theobald Tiger It seems like quite a stretch to construe changes to a website over a long period of time to be an attempt at a lie. This is especially hard to see when the site currently says the very thing you say they are claiming to hide. Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 23:08, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

No, I just refer to Lockwood, but with the agressiveness of the true Landmark adherents, everything that is not appreciated by Landmark is disputed, legally or otherwise, ad nauseam. Theobald Tiger (talk) 07:02, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Nor is Lockwood the only reliable source who has stated that Landmark has made efforts to distance itself from est and Erhard. Art Schreiber, Landmark's general counsel wrote "Landmark Education was not formerly known as EST and The Landmark Forum and other programs delivered by Landmark Education are not EST programs." (Art Schrieber, letter to editor, Cayman NetNews, 6 April 2006). He earlier (3 May 2005) had stated: "Defendants constantly conflate Landmark and its programs with programs delivered in the 1970s and 1980s by Werner Erhard, popularly known as 'est.' Defendants are either being deliberately misleading or grossly negligent in doing so[...] Landmark's complaint stems from defendants' posting of disparaging materials on their websites about Landmark's educational programs (and linking us to est)" (Art Schrieber, "Declaration of Arthur Schreiber", United States District Court, District of New Jersey, civil action 04-3022 (JCL), page 3). Noseweek (a monthly print magazine run by one of South Africa's most eminent journalists) noted that "Landmark's links to Erhard are a big touchy point." (Rachel Jones, "A Landmark Encounter", December 2003). "Landmark says that Erhard has nothing to do with The Forum[...] Despite the obvious links, Landmark executives take pains to separate the organization from Erhard and almost all things est, other than to acknowledge its roots." (Traci Hukill, "The est of Friends", Metroactive, 9–15 July 1998). The San Diego Union Tribune reported, "However, Landmark's chairman, Art Schreiber, says Erhard now has no involvement with Landmark, despite his brother's prominence[...] Landmark markets self-help programs 'based on technology generated by Mr. Erhard,' says Schreiber – but not est, which Erhard abandoned in the mid-1980s." (Don Bauder, "Firm Turns to est Guru, Still Slides", 7 August 1994). There are certainly other references to this out there. Lockwood's statement is borne out by other reliable reporting, inappropriate OR critiquing of reliable sources notwithstanding. • Astynax ^talk 09:26, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Let's concentrate on the common ground and work from there

The protracted discussion in the section above seems to be going round in circles. Let's focus on what we can agree on:

1. The owners of the newly-formed corporation in 1991 acquired the rights to "The Forum" from Werner Erhard.
2. Their main offering at that time - The Landmark Forum - was closely based on that, and it has been modified and developed further over the years.
3. Erhard had previously designed and delivered the est training.
4. "The Forum" was derived from est with modifications (described as "substantial" by several sources).
5. The modifications had the effect of reducing the confrontational and abrasive nature of the est training, which had been a major focus of criticism.

So far as I am aware, there is no dispute about the broad accuracy any of the above, and no suggestion that these points should be excluded from the article. I think they always have been mentioned in one form or another.

The accusation that Landmark has misrepresented Erhard's legacy (or as TT puts it "lied") is demonstrably unfounded. As noted above, the connection is clearly stated on their current website; and as TT's own 2002 version from the Wayback Machine shows, it was clearly stated then. They may not go out of their way to labour the connection, but who says they are under any obligation to do so?

Actually it is a monumental irrelevance - almost no-one cares who designed the program 30 years ago from which the current course eventually evolved. Nor do they care what was the tax structure of his companies ten years before that. Or what profession he followed another ten years further back still. Nor do they care how much he is or isn't involved in running the company (as the guy is 80 years old now, I'd be surprised if he was very active in anything). It's not surprising that Landmark don't give it prominence, as prospective customers are only concerned with whether the course is likely to deliver the promised benefits and to be worth their time and money. In fact very few people under the age of 55 have even heard of either Erhard or est. Of people who do recognise the name, few have strong feelings about him, and even fewer share the intense antagonism and hostility which is demonstrated by some editors here. DaveApter (talk) 12:24, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

• There does not appear to be any serious objection to the five points DaveApter lists above. I suggest that they be rearranged into historical order: Erhard designed and delivered est, "The Forum" was derived from est with modifications reducing the confrontational nature, employees formed Landmark in 1991 and purchased the technology (possibly purchased the rights rather than outright?) of "The Forum", Landmark began delivering the "The Landmark Forum" which was derived from "The Forum" and has modified it over time. While this is probably not the whole story, it appears to provide an agreed-upon basis for the history section. --Tgeairn (talk) 16:29, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

The five points are not particularly controversial, but they do not sum up the full story, and there are also quite a lot of references that call the modifications 'slight' (or recognize no differences at all). The accusation that Landmark has misrepresented Erhard's legacy is not demonstrably unfounded, quite the contrary. What people already know, or what they want to read, is not relevant, and certainly does not make a fact-based, well-sourced history section "monumental irrelevean[t]". That DaveApter's opponents suffer from an "intense antagonism and hostility" towards Erhard, is a total misjudgment. Neutral and uninvolved editors are forced by involved and biased editors to direct our attention to that side of the story that is either swept under the carpet or grotesquely distorted by the Landmark defenders. My antagonism, for instance, is only directed against proposals and edits that I consider non-neutral, unbalanced and/or censorious with respect to information that is labeled unfavorable by Landmark. Theobald Tiger (talk) 22:03, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

• To focus only one what editors who have been not unreasonably found by admins and others to have a strong bias in favor of a given view of the topic would be at best counterproductive. And I regret the rather obvious refusal to assume good faith on the part of one editor above to believe anyone could, in good faith, hold opinions different than his own. What we would need to do to bring the content on this topic up to a good level is to decide what the questions upon which there do not seem to be real agreements are, what the sources themselves say about those contested matters, and how to bring resolution to those disputes. I said in the past that I thought the best and easiest way to achieve this would be to start a serious of RfC's regarding the individual points of contention, and I still believe that. And frankly the argument based on what "few" know made above is so far as I can tell OR of the most transparent kind, given the lack of any sourcing, and raises questions as to whether this apparent attempt to seek "common ground" is just an attempt to get people to agree with one individual's slanted presentation of the questions involved. Those concerns are perhaps made greater by the fact that, as at least one comment on a related talk page has indicated here, it may well be true that fewer people who do not have strong ties to Landmark specifically may recognize that name than the name of est or possibly of Erhard himself. John Carter (talk) 22:26, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you both for your comments, each of you have made your own viewpoints and opinions clear in previous remarks, and I am under no illusions whether they differ from mine.

May I ask that we keep contributions on this page to its intended purpose; ie to discuss how to improve the article, and avoid the temptation to speculate about the motives of other editors?

So in the interests of building on the modest progress so far: we have agreement that these five points should be included in the article? Moving on from there, Theobald you mentioned that this does not "sum up the whole story" - perhaps you would like to suggest additional facts to add to the History or Background sections to complete that story? And maybe you too John? And do either of you have any suggestions for content in the article which should be removed or modified? Thanks. DaveApter (talk) 09:52, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

From an encyclopedic viewpoint, the whole thing is in a dreadful state. Even if I could believe that constructive editing would be possible - quod non - I would have the greatest difficulties to decide where to start and when to stop. For now, an argument about the tiniest of details takes the size of a ten-volume reference book, and the result is either compromizing with POV pushers or warfare until the end of time - I can't tell what is worse. Theobald Tiger (talk) 23:11, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Dave, I regret to say that what you insistently call in others "viewpoints" is, at least in my case, based on no prior history with the group, and, frankly, no particular interest in it beyond the fact that it is something that we cover and so something we should try to cover as well as possible. I also am under no illusions regarding the fact that this stated driving opinion of mine differs strongly from that of others here either, although I am grateful to see a fairly explicit statement that the driving force of at least one editor here regarding his edits is his own views. And I regret to say that should I see any attempt to use what you declare as being a form of consensus, when there doesn't seem to my eyes to be any such, it may very likely perhaps be taken to AE. I also note what seems to me to be the obvious WP:IDHT nature of DaveApter's response to discussing the possibility of an RfC, which I find unfortunate. I believe I already said what I saw as the priorities in the previous discussion of attempting to solve this through RfC. But, in order of descent, rather than paying attention to only perhaps just a single article, the priorities might be (1) determine what if anything should be the main article on the topic of Werner Erhard's philosophy and related groups, preferably through RfC, (2) determine the main topics which need to be covered somewhere in the related articles, basically based on reference sources and/or academic or highly-regarded popular sources, (3) determine where to place the bulk of the information of each of those potential subarticles and where to place links or SS to them, (4) determine relative weight in each article, and (5) determine how much prominence to give the "dult" allegations as probably the last and most controversial point. Most of this would, probably, be best done through RfC, I would think. I guess one question which might occur to some is whether certain editors may be so unduly prejudiced toward one specific article in the group of articles related to Erhard that their personal POV's might be beyond their personal capacity to acknowledge or effectively deal with. John Carter (talk) 23:35, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Getting back to the five points raised in DaveApter's proposal, I agree that they don't seem controversial at all and would make a good starting point here, recognizing that these points wouldn't necessarily cover everything that should be covered in this section. Nwlaw63 (talk) 13:19, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Except that these very points have been repeatedly stripped out of the article, the claim of "no suggestion that these points should be excluded from the article". Moreover, and as you hint at, they not only don't tell the whole story, but are inaccurate. 1) The only thing Landmark "acquired" in 1991 was the office equipment, leases, customer lists and other assets required to take over and continue the ongoing operations. Werner Erhard did not sell, but only granted a license, to Landmark to conduct The Forum. 2) While changes to the Landmark Forum have continued over the years, it was not "closely based on" Erhard's Forum, it WAS Erhard's Forum. Minor changes were only introduced later, not at the beginning. 3) Erhard not only "previously designed and delivered the est training", he also developed and delivered The Forum. He also owned the "technology" (jargon for the intellectual property) for both, though he only directly owned the company (WE&A) that delivered the latter program. 4) While it is accurate that the changes between est and The Forum have been "described as 'substantial' by several sources", there is significant literature that describes the changes as minor, and excluding that information is biased reporting. 5) That the confrontational aspect "had been a major focus of criticism" does not tell anything like the entire story. There were many factors involved in the controversy surrounding the company and its programs. Moreover, the controversy and criticism did not cease with the transition from est to The Forum, nor did it ever focus entirely on "confrontational" techniques. Far from it. Progress would be to simply agree to report all significant viewpoints based in reliable sources, rather than excluding material that doesn't fit this or that bias. • Astynax ^talk 17:57, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

I can follow what Astynax is saying. I agree there is clearly no consensus ala John Carter also. Particularly, I would like to go forward with this: "Progress would be to simply agree to report all significant viewpoints based in reliable sources, rather than excluding material that doesn't fit this or that bias." as long as there are relevant, RS. Including the information about Erhard's background seems extremely relevant re WP:WEIGHT. Prasangika37 (talk) 23:22, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

I am disappointed to see that none of these comments have included positive specific suggestions for improvements of the article. DaveApter (talk) 07:53, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

I think that the reason no specific suggestions for changes to this article have been made is that many of the editors seem to agree that the problem is not limited to this specific article, and that on that basis it would be at best less than productive and maybe directly contrary to basic logic to devote attention to attempting to fix only one section of the problem without addressing the more fundamental issues regarding the existing problem which cross multiple articles. Despite some editors perhaps being primarily if not solely interested in one or more individual articles relating to this topic, any attempt to address issues on one article without taking into account the broader issues would be, basically, at best less than useful. John Carter (talk) 15:47, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Suggestion from uninvolved editor

Long posts create longer responses and even longer discussion threads that go round and round in circles. Even the points that everyone supposedly agrees on need to be broken down into small components and discussed and agreed upon individually. When an agreement is reached on one minor point, then move on to the next minor point. Consensus needs to be built and that means, going slowly step by step and standing on the shoulders of prior agreements and compromises, however small they may be. This approach is slow and laborious but it is the only way (in my opinion) that an article and a group discussion like this will make any progress. Peace! -- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:05, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

@Keithbob: It is worth noting that there was a previous request for MEDCOM involvement which seems to have been not accepted because several of the parties who might have been involved chose not to participate, and at least one, me, who was theoretically unable to say anything at the time. Under the circumstances, that might make even some individuals who might have considered accepting mediation opt not to, as it would be unlikely to be accepted with as many people rejecting it as it had. And, has been said repeatedly, even in this thread there are questions regarding whether individuals who may have demonstrated or been accused of having POV/COI issues which might make their input potentially problematic. I would be interested in knowing whether you think that perhaps MEDCOM might be, perhaps in conjunction with an RfC or perhaps group of RfCs, perhaps effective in helping to determine such matters. John Carter (talk) 17:45, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi John, Since your post brings up administrative, procedural and behavioral matters I'm going to respond on my user talk page so this space can remain dedicated to discussion of content.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 20:39, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 3 April 2015

Per the consensus established at this RfC [5], I request removal of the sentence: "Erhard had no formal training in psychology or psychiatry and had previously been a successful salesman" DaveApter (talk) 10:44, 3 April 2015 (UTC) DaveApter (talk) 10:44, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose making any such changes until and unless an independent administrator, reviewing the RfC in question, particularly including the relative strength of arguments as opposed to the numerical count, closes the RfC and makes a judgment based on policy and guidelines primarily as opposed to simple statements of opinion. John Carter (talk) 16:57, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Ponzi Scheme

Landmark is a Ponzi scheme to discipline the working class and profit off of their vulnerability. The "Criticism" section is in reality a defense of Landmark — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:7:8500:982:D184:8B97:800F:74A6 (talk) 21:27, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Cited sources misrepresented in the article

The contentious statement in the lead "Landmark's programs have been categorized by some scholars and others as religious or quasi-religious in nature" is an inaccurate paraphrase of the sentences to which it relates within the body of the article.

The references cited fail to substantiate those body statements themselves: "Some scholars have categorized Landmark and its predecessor organizations as new age, self religion or a new religious movement. Other observers have noted relationships between the training programs and a spiritual experience, including a lack of religious elements in the programs and the compatibility of the programs with existing religions. Others, such as Chryssides, classify Landmark as either quasi-religious or secular with some elements of religion (although various scholars have disputed this characterization)".

• None of the sources use the term "New Age"
• None of them use the term "quasi-religious"
• Those that refer to it as a NRM, make it clear that they are using "NRM" as a technical categorization which does not necessarily imply being "religious" in any normal sense of the word.

There are no sources which support the assertion "...many of the company's customers deny such characterizations...". There is no evidence that the company's customers discuss its alleged religious characteristics, or that they would find such a suggestion as anything other than bizarre.

What these references do say is summarised below:

Barker 1996, p. 126

"Any movement that offers in some way to provide answers to some of the ultimate questions about 'meaning' and 'the purpose of life'... would be included in this broad understanding of the term 'NRM'... To illustrate... among the better-known NRMs are... the Landmark Forum."

Beckford 2003, p. 156

"Meanwhile, other commentators such as Tipton (1984) and Foss and Larkin (1976, 1979) detect a tendency for post-countercultural religious movements such as Erhard Seminars Training (now the Landmark Forum) to recombine instrumentalism and expressivism in ways that could help their participants to fit into the routines of mainstream social life."

Beckford 2004, p. 256

"Werner Erhard [has] confidence that the state of the entire world would improve if a sufficient number of people became sufficiently energetic and disciplined about thier spiritual practice." Nothing to indicate why he attributes this belief to Erhard, which is not indicated in other references. And he got the name of the corporation wrong.

Clarke 2012, p. 123

“The Forum and/or est, whose origins are in the United States (Tipton 1982) holds to the belief that the self itself is god.” Unclear why he is able to assert that est or Landmark "hold to [this] belief", for which there appears to be no evidence whatsoever.

Heelas 1991, pp. 165–166, 171

"And the founder of est (the highly influential seminar training established by Erhard in 1971) observes that 'Of all the disciplines that I studied, Zen was the essential one"..."With reference to est, what is offered is 'a sixty hour educational experience which allows people to realize their potential to transform their lives'."

Puttick 2004 pp 406-407

"[Mentions Landmark in a list]... These organizations are sometimes classified sociologically as new religions, though they tend to describe themselves in secular terms. Most of these trainings do not focus on spirituality directly..."

"The Landmark Forum is a direct descendant, with substantial changes, of est (Erhard Seminars Training). est was one of the most succesful manifestations of the human potential movement"

"...There are undertones of Eastern philosophies, particularly in the aim of looking at the familiar in new ways, but participants emphasisze goals of success and self-improvement rather than spirituality."

Earlier in the book Puttick had written: "The human potential movement (HPM)... 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."

Ramstedt 2007, pp. 196–197

"A well-known example of spiritual management trainings..." No indication of how he arrived at the opinion that it is either "spiritual" or a "management training". And he got the name of the corporation wrong.

Discussion of the above refs

Perhaps we should work towards a form of words that more accurately reflects what the sources say? DaveApter (talk) 12:00, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

• Misuse of references and WP:OR mischaracterizations of what sources say go nowhere toward either improving the article or toward legitimizing the biased Landmark advocacy POV. NRM = "New Religious Movement" and it is treated as such by many scholars. Barker (1996) defines it neatly, and in a way that encompasses the "normal sense of the word". Beckford (2003) calls est/Landmark Forum a "postcountercultural religious movement. Beckford (2004) again includes est/Landmark as a NRM and points out one of the religious aspects. That you don't know, acknowledge or understand the details that went into a statement made by Clarke (2012) in no way means that the reference or his statement is invalid or that the source does not say what the source says. The snippet quoted from Heelas (1991) conveniently leaves out the context, which is a discussion of new religious expressions. The misrepresentation of Puttick similarly ignores that Landmark and the others are specifically being discussed as new religions. The comments on Ramstedt (2007) are again WP:OR second-guessing of a reliable source. Finally, the list contentions is false that none of the sources use the term "New Age", that none use the term "quasi-religious" and that sources do not imply that NRM is not used to denote anything recognizably religious. The sources say what the sources say, and they do support the statements in which they are cited, sophistic twisting of selective sentences notwithstanding. • Astynax ^talk 18:56, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

• Looking as DaveApter does at what the sources actually say raises some interesting points, particularly in terms of what definition of ‘religious’ we are using here. Barker categorizes as religious any system that examines the meaning and purpose of life, as quoted above. This clearly falls outside the most commonly used dictionary definition of religion, which involves faith, worship and belief in the supernatural.

There is another, more modern definition of ‘religious’ which applies to any pursuit one holds to be supremely important, which is what is meant when one says ‘I follow my local football team religiously’ that some researchers are using. Puttick and others in Partridge’s encyclopedia seem to be using this casual definition for human potential movements and Landmark – such movements are called in this book ‘implicit religions’, (a term said to be similar to ‘secular religions’) in which are included passionate devotion to sports teams and political movements. (“Devotion to soccer is often likened to religious worship”, reads a caption from this source). I think there’s a real danger in using this casual definition of ‘religious’ in this article without being explicit about what is being said - it misleads readers who naturally assume that ‘religious’ means something to do with worship or the supernatural. Nwlaw63 (talk) 16:48, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

• Your WP:OR narrow definition of "religion" is far less than what the term commonly encompasses. There are religions that have no structured "worship" (most shamanistic and other types), religions that have no concept or reverence of "the supernatural" (UFO cults and others), etc. It is a non-starter to religiously repeat the straw man arguments that a purported "casual definition" of religion might be out there that by some twisted illogic means that when the scholars who study "religion" categorize something as a "religion" or "religious" that their work should be parsed to death and their statements be ignored. • Astynax ^talk 18:42, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

• @Nwlaw63: your bringing up the definition of 'religious' is a rather good point here. The word is pretty simply defined as "a) relating to or manifesting faithful devotion to an acknowledged ultimate reality or deity", "b) of, relating to, or devoted to religious beliefs or observances", or "c) scrupulously and conscientiously faithful". It seems clear that any stretch of the definition to include a company or product that doesn't include faith, devotion, beliefs, or observances would be going well beyond any normal sense of the word. As DaveApter points out, the sources used in the article are not making this kind of stretch. The sources (at best) discuss a sociological categorisation and carefully state that they aren't talking about religion. I recommend working out much clearer language for the article, coming up with something that is directly supported by the sources rather than the existing poorly synthesized passages. --Tgeairn (talk) 08:41, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

• More WP:OR advocacy nonsense. Rather than being anything like your claim, what you are advocating is synthesis to whittle out a definition to support Landmark's stated public relations position. Of course, a corporation can be religious or hawk spiritual/religious products—many religions are incorporated to further their worldviews, and there are secular corporations that promote religion-based worldviews. There are scholars other than the one quoted (and in various academic fields) that regard est/Forum/Landmark as religious in nature. Though Landmark advocates who seem incapable of thinking outside the corporate line refuse to acknowledge basic English, Landmark does inculcate belief/worldview that fits perfectly well into your cited definition (and other common definitions) of the word "religion". It is bizarre to attempt to impugn scholars by accusing them of synthesis (which according to policy is what they are qualified to do, but we cannot) as a tactic to push for instead using editors' WP:OR synthesis in violation of policy. • Astynax ^talk 17:48, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

• Nwlaw63 and Tgeairn make a good point that I think has been missed in a lot of the prior discussion on this. The use of the word "religion" is likely to invoke in the reader the traditional thinking about religion such as a belief in faith, divinity of some kind and usually involved worship of some kind. It also runs the risk of immediately invoking the kind of religious partisanship that is often associated with religion- you are only one thing- Islamic or Catholic or Anglican. It is clear - looking at Landmark's content and curriculum- that faith, divinity, and worship are not in the curriculum at all. It is also clear that people of MANY diverse religious practices attend Landmark's seminars just as they go to Harvard, play soccer, and study psychology. Calling Landmark a religion therefore is a misleading term without putting the kind of context that can be found in many of the source materials. As DaveApter showed some of the sources used to promote the POV that Landmark is a religion even contradict that or are very clear that they mean "religious " in that broad term as people will use for their favorite football team. I appreciate the clarity of this conversation and looking at the term "religion" from a neutral, and common meaning, lens rather than the POV of trying so hard to prove Landmark is a religion. This conversation I think can lead to a lot of good clarification of the article and have us be able to generate a rubric to avoid the misuse of sources out of context to justify or push a narrow POV. Good conversation. Alex Jackl (talk) 02:45, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Suggested Wording

It is becoming increasingly clear in the discussion above that the current wording in the article is either a misunderstanding of the sources, or a deliberate distortion of what they say to synthesize an account which is in accordance with the editor's own point of view.

I propose that the current wording:

• Some scholars have categorized Landmark and its predecessor organizations as new age, self religion or a new religious movement.[50] Other observers have noted relationships between the training programs and a spiritual experience, including a lack of religious elements in the programs and the compatibility of the programs with existing religions.[51] Others, such as Chryssides, classify Landmark as either quasi-religious or secular with some elements of religion (although various scholars have disputed this characterization).[52] Landmark has denied that it is a religion, cult or sect,[53]

should be replaced with:

• Some scholars have categorized Landmark and its predecessor organizations as part of the Human potential movement, and some have discussed these under a broadly-defined heading of "New Religious Movements" [refs 50 & 51]. Landmark's position is that it is purely an educational corporation without religious implications of any kind [53].

Furthermore, the segment ... and "freely threatens or pursues lawsuits against those who call it [a cult]".[54] is a non-sequitur to anything said in the academic sources and should be deleted. DaveApter (talk) 16:15, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't see how the second improves what is said in the first other than it is a bit more concise. I agree that he last bit you mentioned about lawsuits shouldn't be included unless there is a RS directly citing it. The second, which you're offering, includes 'broadly-defined heading', which seems like your own original research, no? That seems a bit like a weasel word to me which is being used to manipulate the meaning of the clear categorization of NRM? Prasangika37 (talk) 19:17, 14 April 2015 (UTC)