Jump to content

Talk:Landmark Worldwide: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 72: Line 72:


Googling after the most recent deletion (have a habit of doing that as arguably biased edits need checking) I came across a [http://allthingsvice.com/2015/01/18/did-silk-road-plagiarise-landmarks-charter/ blog post] (non WP:RS) that suggests similarities between the [[Silk Road (marketplace)|Silk Road]] & Landmark charters. Nothing WP:RS to add with minimal media coverage but worth noting here for possible future use. [[User:AnonNep|AnonNep]] ([[User talk:AnonNep|talk]]) 15:28, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
Googling after the most recent deletion (have a habit of doing that as arguably biased edits need checking) I came across a [http://allthingsvice.com/2015/01/18/did-silk-road-plagiarise-landmarks-charter/ blog post] (non WP:RS) that suggests similarities between the [[Silk Road (marketplace)|Silk Road]] & Landmark charters. Nothing WP:RS to add with minimal media coverage but worth noting here for possible future use. [[User:AnonNep|AnonNep]] ([[User talk:AnonNep|talk]]) 15:28, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

== Cult status and pseudoscience. ==

This article is starkly sanitised given the Landmark Forum is akin to Scientology (in fact it's creator had a tussle with Scientology and ended up fleeing to Europe after Scientology began a campaign exposing him as a child molester) and I understand that clearly the organisation itself has a financial interest in keeping it's article sanitised, however this is Wikipedia, surely we can enforce NPOV realistic addressing of the organisation enough to be able to address the fact that it's a pseudoscientific cult in it's lede? [[Special:Contributions/121.211.33.244|121.211.33.244]] ([[User talk:121.211.33.244|talk]]) 04:00, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Revision as of 04:00, 18 January 2016

Error: The code letter lw for the topic area in this contentious topics talk notice is not recognised or declared. Please check the documentation.

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Landmark Worldwide. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 07:20, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

More on the Concepts Section

I've got another possible addition to the Concepts section. "Possibilities" is something Landmark talks a lot about, so a line or two about how they use it seems right here. How about something like this (sourced to Zaffron):

Landmark uses the term "new possibilities" in a way different from the traditional sense of something that might happen in the future, instead using it to refer to a present moment opportunity to be and act differently, free from interpretations of the past.

Thoughts? Nwlaw63 (talk) 14:25, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This makes a great deal of sense to me. This is one of the core concepts of the Landmark pedagogy and addressing it briefly like this with an attribution to Zaffron would make an excellent addition! Alex Jackl (talk) 03:34, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Citation found for quote

I found a citation source for a quote in the section "Public reception and criticism", but I don't know how properly to format it. I did look at the templates. If a more experienced editor would please add this, I'd appreciate it. Here's the Wikipedia passage:

>>The chairman of Föreningen Rädda individen, a support organization for those affected by cults and destructive movements, told Dagens Nyheter that his opinion was that Landmark was "one of the most dangerous sects in Sweden".<<

Here's the source URL dated June 3, 2002: http://www.dn.se/arkiv/nyheter/kursforetaget-landmark-kursen-ledde-till-psykos

Last paragraph:

>>Den svenska organisationen för anhöriga till sektmedlemmar, Föreningen Rädda individen (FRI), anser att Landmark är en av landets farligaste sekter och får varje år cirka 1 500 rådgivningssamtal från anhöriga till Landmarkdeltagare.<<

Google Translate result:

The Swedish organization for relatives of cult members, the Society Save the individual (FRI), believes that Landmark is one of the most dangerous sects and receive each year about 1500 counseling calls from relatives to Landmark Participants.

N.b. "Sect" in many European languages has the connotation of "cult", e.g., sektmedlemmar = cult members. Scandiescot (talk) 02:05, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've added the citation using Template:cite news. Thanks. Grayfell (talk) 03:30, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Removed unreliable sources

I've removed a few sources that are clearly unreliable, and two sentences where I was unable to find a reliable source to verify the content. Clearly, websites like 'I Love Possibility blog' or the 'Religion News blog' aren't anywhere close to Wikipedia's definition of a reliable source. Nwlaw63 (talk) 15:26, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Googling after the most recent deletion (have a habit of doing that as arguably biased edits need checking) I came across a blog post (non WP:RS) that suggests similarities between the Silk Road & Landmark charters. Nothing WP:RS to add with minimal media coverage but worth noting here for possible future use. AnonNep (talk) 15:28, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cult status and pseudoscience.

This article is starkly sanitised given the Landmark Forum is akin to Scientology (in fact it's creator had a tussle with Scientology and ended up fleeing to Europe after Scientology began a campaign exposing him as a child molester) and I understand that clearly the organisation itself has a financial interest in keeping it's article sanitised, however this is Wikipedia, surely we can enforce NPOV realistic addressing of the organisation enough to be able to address the fact that it's a pseudoscientific cult in it's lede? 121.211.33.244 (talk) 04:00, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Landmark_Worldwide&oldid=700377157"