Talk:Landmark Worldwide

Merge from Voyage au pays des nouveaux gourous

I saw that Zambelo did the initial merge from Voyage au pays des nouveaux gourous. Thank you!

I have further integrated that material into the article, combining with what was already here regarding the DMCA, and attempted to avoid undue weight while keeping the crux in place. There is probably more to do in refining the citation and language, including possibly integrating this completely with the rest of the review/criticism section. Tgeairn (talk) 11:31, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

• I'm sorry, I had to revert your multiple edits. While some were constructive, others were not, and need to be discussed here before they are made. Making multiple small edits in succession without referring to the consensus over at the Voyage au Pays des Nouveaux Gourous article isn't constructive editing - for one it makes it impossible to revert any given edit: which is why I've had to revert the lot. Please consider discussing, gaining consensus for your changes, and then making them in future. Zambelo; talk 01:58, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

• I don't know what was done and what was reverted, but this material was far from clean. It was clearly written by someone who didn't read French very well; in addition, what valid material there was in the sources was hardly mined for gold. I removed the redlinks and unlinks from the list of participants: this is in keeping with Wikipedia's conventions all over the place. And now it's more cleanup: missing wikilinks, incorrect italicization and capitalization, quotes that probably fall foul of fair use guidelines, incomplete citation templates, etc. Drmies (talk) 03:03, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

• Well I do apologize for the atrocious formatting. If you recall, I was in a hurry to find references to save the article from deletion. The sources could probably be used further to improve and build upon the content. Zambelo; talk 03:25, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

• No apology necessary, but I've spent thousands of edits on Wikipedia on such cleanup, so pardon me if I get a little irritated at it sometimes. "Cite web" instead of "cite news", that's a pet peeve, and websites cited for the source when we have complete names and wikilinks. The first casualty of an edit war is always the formatting... Drmies (talk) 03:29, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

• I was using a browser plugin that only allowed for that kind of source, and I figured it would be easy enough to change down the line if the edits stuck. I'm also slightly OCD about these things, so I probably would have gone through and cleaned up if you hadn't (and thank you) - Zambelo; talk 03:37, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

• The quantity of material on this is completely out of proportion and violates WP:UNDUE. All the editors who suggested in the deletion debate that it be moved here suggested "a sentence or two". This is currently much longer than any other section in the article. DaveApter (talk) 17:39, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

• Stop misrepresenting the discussion there. There were, quite literally, no recommendations to merge only "a sentence or two" as you claim. It is completely unhelpful for you to make false and misleading statements regarding that discussion. LHM^{ask me a question} 18:04, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

• It appears that this section is getting out of hand. I do not think that the intention of those contributing at the AfD were suggesting that the majority of the content be moved here. The section on this video is now over a third of the total byte size of the article - including having brought over the questionable sourcing and synth. Editors above have reverted and reinserted material into the article that duplicates other parts of the article (why would someone revert my edits to combine the two separate parts of the article that talk about the exact same DMCA actions in almost exactly the same language??). It does not work at all to blindly revert other editors without even reading what you are reverting to.

I recommend that someone take a thorough look through this and find a way to get it to a neutral paragraph that is well sourced. I had it close at one time (see this version), but it was blindly reverted without regard for duplication and other errors. Now we have three paragraphs to say that Landmark went for a subpoena, the EFF stepped into oppose it, and Landmark apparently withdrew it. That's a lot of coverage for a subpoena about a video that went nowhere, and it's partially covered again in the Litigation section of the article.

Regarding the !votes for merge, there were NONE: the nominator Drmies suggested that maybe something useful could be merged to Landmark Education litigation and said "What content is to be merged, though, needs rigorous secondary sourcing: I notice with some trepidation and dismay that the litigation has, at best, 3 1/2 secondary sources--the rest is all primary material and various website.", Cwobeel !voted Delete and said to merge what was useful to here (again, I don't think he meant to make a third of this article about the tv show), and Begoon !voted Delete and said to merge any worthwhile content here. None of these were Merge !votes. The consensus at that AfD was pretty clear, and Black Kite's closing statement doesn't say to move the bulk of this here - it says that the article (tv programme) should be referenced in the parent article, which seems to me consistent with a paragraph or so at most (not this wall of poorly sourced synthesis).

Obviously we need to get outside eyes on this, as the reversions and blind cut/paste editing styles are overwhelming those of us who spend the time to thoughtfully articulate ideas in a neutral and well-sourced manner consistent with the policies and guidelines of the project. Tgeairn (talk) 01:18, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

• Since I was pinged, I'll clarify. When I !voted "Delete...merge any worthwhile content here", I meant exactly that. It certainly was not my intention that the content from that article be inserted en masse, overwhelming this article. The suggestion of a well-worded and carefully sourced paragraph above was what I had in mind as the outcome of that, really. Looking at what is there now - to me, that's too much. Maybe around a third of that would seem balanced. The suggested version [1] does, indeed seem fairly close to the level of merge I anticipated. Begoon ^talk 01:41, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
  • I did some cutting, and I have a very solid rationale: WP:RS. Nothing that I cut was reliably sourced. Drmies (talk) 01:42, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

That's an improvement. Does it need a subheading, bearing in mind there are no other subsections at that level to distinguish it from? Begoon ^talk 01:48, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

That's a good point, Begoon. Probably not! And what's funny, by the way, and the Voyage keepers should like it: what was synthesis in the Voyage article and thus wholly inappropriate, that Landmark packed up and left France, is now perfectly alright since it concerns the main subject, Landmark. Yes, that subheading should go--or, really, if the subheading is kept, the statement that Landmark left France should be cut since one cannot explicitly connect it to the documentary. Drmies (talk) 01:55, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Ok, I removed the subhead. I think this bit, and the "leaving France" portion flow ok now, but if someone wants to tweak it, that's cool. Begoon ^talk 02:07, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

• While I spoke out above against the wrong characterization DaveApter made about "a sentence or two" being the result of the AFD, I also have to say that I concur with those above who note that the cut-and-paste of basically the entire article was also not the result of the AFD. The close (a tough one, IMO, but fairly made by BK) was to merge any useful content--not the entire article, or nearly the entire article. I think either one or two paragraphs can adequately summarize the film, and the effects it has had in the years since. Perhaps one short graf about the content of the film, and one about the legal issues that stemmed from it would be about right, in my opinion. LHM^{ask me a question} 07:51, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
  • As I noted above, merging it in here actually provides the opportunity for a better chronology. "A sentence or two", yeah, that's a bit brief; two paragraphs is certainly reasonable. The lawsuits and all that, by the way, were cut because of sourcing problems, not because they can't be in or something like that. The moment there is reliably truly secondary sourcing, they can be mentioned (briefly, I suppose). Frankly I was surprised at how poor the sourcing/coverage was, as if time stood still and no verdicts or settlements ever came out of it. I wonder if Google Books has something to offer, and maybe I'll have a look later. Drmies (talk) 18:45, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

• I've restored the section about the publicised court battles. This is relevant, and well-sourced. Zambelo; talk 09:11, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

• And I've reverted that (and the re-addition of the article tags). Please see the above discussion. Also note that the "court battles" (which none of the sources would call what happened a "court battle") duplicate material in the existing Litigation section of the article (and the Landmark Education litigation article, but that's not so relevant here). --Tgeairn (talk) 20:30, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

• Exactly, this is being discussed. Please wait for consensus. Duplicate content does need trimming, but does deserve at least a mention in the Voyage au Pays des Nouveaux Gourous section. Zambelo; talk 22:44, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

  I did some reworking here, and I think I've removed all the duplicate portions. I also reorganized the sections a bit, and removed the COI tag, since DaveApter has said he won't be editing the article for now. I also re-dated the NPOV tag, to reflect that it is Zambelo's concern, and not my own, as I do not currently agree that the article doesn't reflect a neutral POV. LHM^{ask me a question} 23:12, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Just for the sake of clarity I do not have any conflict of interest in respect of Landmark (although I am accused of such with tedious regularity, mostly by people who edit with a clear anti-Landmark slant), nor by any standards am I a 'frequent contributor' to the article - I have made under 20 edits to it in the past year and under 30 in the past 3 years; around 6% of the total number of edits to the page). DaveApter (talk) 11:39, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Equally for the sake of clarity, it was Drmies that placed the COI tag. And that you call those who challenged the puffery originally in the article "people who edit with a clear anti-Landmark slant" confirms that fact. LHM^{ask me a question} 14:50, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

I trimmed the material to be more in line with the length of coverage given by Drmies and Begoon. In fact, it could probably be reduced to a single paragraph as per Randykitty's suggestion at the afd. The EFF stuff was confusing and repetitive, and the long quote from the volunteer at an anti-cult group seemed out of place. Nwlaw63 (talk) 05:01, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

I support removing the long quote, but not your removal of "the EFF stuff." Additionally, reducing it o "a single paragraph" would not be preferable, as it's too complex for such a summary. LHM^{ask me a question} 14:53, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

This still seems like an excessive amount of coverage of a minor issue. DaveApter (talk) 17:24, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

I am unsurprised that you feel that adequately covering a less-than-flattering episode in Landmark's history "seems like an excessive amount of coverage of a minor issue." That's been the problem with your editing this article all along. LHM^{ask me a question} 04:47, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

I have condensed and reworded the merge somewhat, moving from three paragraphs to two. --Tgeairn (talk) 18:05, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Landmark's community efforts

I've deleted a paragraph apparently intended to sing the praises of the organization's advocacy: at best, the newspaper reports were feelgood stories that mentioned that someone got the idea for some supposed good deed from attending a Landmark session. Such reports cannot prove the general statement that Landmark promotes this and that, and they certainly cannot support the suggestion of communityfriendliness and all that. Drmies (talk) 01:57, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

• I'd like to say how delighted I am that at long last some genuinely uninvolved editors have stepped in to clean up this mess. The article still has way to go, but I'd say the current version (Revision as of 02:03, 30 September) is the best it's ever been so far.
• I'd also like to give a bit of historical perspective for those coming newly to this topic. Originally the article as created was a blatant advocacy piece by anti-Landmark propagandists, as you can see from this version from 2004: [[2]], shortly before I began editing here.
• Also a clarification regarding the history of the “Reviews and Criticisms” section – originally it was headed something like “Criticisms and controversies”, and was completely stuffed with anti-landmark opinions. The more positive quotes that had been added over the years were not intended (by me anyway) to turn it into a pro-Landmark advocacy page, but rather to provide some balance by giving a range of the various opinions on the subject. But I'd always felt that the whole thing was unsatisfactory an I welcome the improvements made by Drmies and Begoon in this latest crop of edits.
• Finally I request that some of the uninvolved editors take a look at the vexed question of “Religious characteristics”. Personally I don't think that this should be in the article at all. From my own attempts to wade through the welter of refs that Astynax has provided, none of them appear to have made any detailed specific study of Landmark (or even of est, which is what most of them were talking about), or even to have discussed it at any length, or delivered a considered judgement. All that they did was make some passing mention of it. Even if it does merit some mention in the article, it certainly doesn't call for a paragraph in the lead – as I argued above. Yet Astynax immediately reverted that removal without any attempt to answer my points.
• Personally I'm stepping back now from editing the article itself for a couple of weeks at least and leave it to others, but I'll probably have more to say in the debate here. Thanks. DaveApter (talk) 09:51, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

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. Begoon ^talk 10:16, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

When you look in detail at those refs, you will find that they do not actually claim any detailed research or observation of est, let alone Landmark. DaveApter (talk) 17:24, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Dave, thanks for your comments; I appreciate it. I'm mostly with Begoon, I think--and I think that it's maybe time to pull the POV tag. As far as I'm concerned, the COI tag can go too--but maybe it's a good idea to ask a truly uninvolved person (not just uninvolved with Landmarks or NRMs or cults or anticults, but uninvolved with these articles) to judge that. Drmies (talk) 18:40, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Nah - bugger that. You can't get more uninvolved than me, except by making 0 edits - I've made 1. I looked at the tags earlier, and thought they could go now. I'm removing them. I don't think they're necessary now. Begoon ^talk 18:56, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

As the person who initially placed the POV tag, I agree with removing it as well. While still far from perfect, it is a much more balanced article now than it was when I first placed that tag. LHM^{ask me a question} 20:19, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

The article still needs work, though much of the puffery has been removed. Some things are still contribute to the impression of a whitewash (such as the bit about stock ownership, a murky business when talking about a privately held company, since ownership in these types of setups typically cannot be transferred, usually expires when employment ends, does not say anything about who controls the company, etc.). More pressing is that there is much material in reliable psychology and sociology sources that has been excluded and which should be restored or added. • Astynax ^talk 23:10, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Would the stock ownership be better served with an independent source (other than the company itself)? Given a privately held company, it may not be possible to definitively source it elsewhere though. --Tgeairn (talk) 18:10, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

"Religious characteristics"

Well it's great to see some measure of agreement here, and I'm sorry to spoil the party by saying that I'm still unconvinced about the 'Religious' categorisation. I've been thinking about this all day on and off since I read Begoon's comment this morning. It certainly gave me pause for thought as s/he's clearly both fair and unbiased. I had another read of the RfC from a year ago at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_new_religious_movements/Archive_2#Rfc_regarding_Landmark_Worldwide and a very careful look through the extracts from the sources in the section above. Other editors studied the full works in much more detail during the debate last year and may have more to say than I can. I'm not objecting to it on the grounds that it's a "criticism", but on the grounds that it is factually inaccurate. This is a personal development training company that every month serves thousands of customers who are from every religious background on the planet, as well as atheists, agnostics and humanists. This would hardly be likely if it were a religious movement of any type, in any sense of the word that a normal English speaker would understand it. Such an extraordinary claim would require really solid sources and IMHO these are nowhere near convincing:

• Not a single one of them refers to any research or cites any primary sources, so it's dubious whether they even qualify as secondary sources at all.
• They don't even give any criteria for selecting the organisations they have listed, or even describe any research or investigations into Landmark they have carried out themselves.
• Several of them make sweeping generalisations or dubious factual assertions (including in two cases getting the name of the corporation wrong!).
• In some cases they seem to be attributing beliefs and judgements to some unnamed consensus, without saying who holds these views or how they assessed them.

I'd appreciate it if you took a closer look and see whether you still find the assessment compelling. Thanks. DaveApter (talk) 21:11, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Landmark has also been studied as a New Religious Movement, or as "New Age" and has been referred to as a "cult" - and not to forget - Werner Erhard was influenced by Hinduism. Zambelo; talk 14:42, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

In his period of intensive self-education in his late 20's and early 30's, Erhard studied an enormous range of philosophies, both Eastern and Western. There is no indication in the biography that Hinduism was particularly prominent, or that it significantly "influenced" him. DaveApter (talk) 07:10, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

I have changed the name of the reviews and criticism section to 'Public Reception', which seems more standard and inclusive than the previous name. I've also moved the religion commentary into this section. The religion material doesnt seem to merit its own section in the article. The claim that a seminar company is a religion doesn't seem much in evidence in the dozens of firsthand accounts of the course we have from reliable secondary sources (you would think the New York Times or Time Magazine or any other press account would probably mention it if a course were religious). While it does make it on some scholarly lists of NRM's, most without explanation, as I have noted before, scholarly NRM lists often use vague, broad inclusive criteria that don't even require any overtly religious elements (Chryssides, perhaps the leading scholar in the field, both puts Landmark on an NRM list while at the same time noting the lack of overtly religious elements in the programs). This makes these religion claims an interesting footnote, but again, not something worthy of its own article section. Nwlaw63 (talk) 01:25, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

• It's sourced reliably, and pretending otherwise is counterproductive. The fact that people who have had good experiences with Landmark defend them is unsurprising, but does not make the fact that others have had different experiences, and view LW as having some religious characteristics, a moot point. Let's not open up this can of worms again. LHM^{ask me a question} 01:30, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

It's missing the point to talk about people "defending" Landmark in this context - saying that it has religious characteristics is simply false, not a "criticism" to be defended. It does the readers a disservice to have such a flagrantly misleading statement in the article, and especially when it is given such prominence. And it is damaging to the reputation of Wikipedia to be baldly stating something that many readers will know to be untrue. As I very clearly pointed out above, the sources simply do not justify the statements in the article. Not a single one of these refs points to any research (either their own or anyone else's) to establish the absurd conclusion that Landmark is religious - or even that it is a "movement", which it is not either. All that any of them do is give it a casual passing mention.

The statement "Landmark and many of the company's customers deny such characterizations," is particularly problematic. Firstly the use of the word "deny" violates WP:SAY, and secondly it is actually false. It simply is not the case that 'many of the customers deny...'. They simply do not discuss it because the question does not arise, and they would be somewhat baffled if it did. DaveApter (talk) 07:10, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Please respond to the actual argument made above, rather than simply reverting a change based on an assumption of bias. No one is denying that a few sources put Landmark on an NRM list - that was never in dispute. What is under consideration is how much weight that holds in giving this material its own section in the article, given the above points regarding the lack of religious characteristics mentioned in the countless firsthand accounts we have, and given that the scholarly definition of NRMs being used by most of these sources doesn't actually require overtly religious characteristics. I invite reading Chryssides' comments on Landmark to get a better sense of this. Nwlaw63 (talk) 13:58, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

• I did respond "to the actual argument." The first-hand accounts of participants that found their Landmark experience useful and rewarding should be given no more weight than the first-hand accounts of those whose experience was different, as well as the researchers who have noted "religious characteristics" of the program. There is significant debate on the matter, and removing the section head that identifies where this article discusses that fact simply confuses the issue, rather than clarifying anything. (Note: The section is not titled "Overt religious characteristics", so you point about NRM researchers not requiring that is moot.) LHM^{ask me a question} 15:19, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Where is this significant debate that you are referring to? I have never met anyone (customer or non-customer, admirer or critic of Landmark) who is debating whether it is in any sense religious. Nor have I seen any reference to such a debate in any of the numerous newspaper or magazine articles on the company. DaveApter (talk) 16:04, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Just because you refuse to acknowledge that there are serious people who have discussed Landmark's religious characteristics doesn't mean it hasn't happened. And no, I'm not going to make a list of them, and rehash what Astynax has outlined clearly elsewhere. LHM^{ask me a question} 16:09, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

The persistent mischaracterization of Landmark/est being discussed as a religion by only a "few" scholars is simply a false premise. It is actually strange to repeatedly cite Chryssides as support for Landmark not being religious in nature. While Chryssides himself does not regard Landmark as a full-fledged religion (though he admits that it has religious elements and has engaged in promoting religion), only 2 pages prior to the page linked, Chryssides states that Landmark is regarded as a new religion by both other academics and anti-cult authors. Cherry-picking Chryssides to support an OR position is mind-boggling. • Astynax ^talk 18:15, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

"...is regarded as a new religion" by whom specifically? And on the basis of what research? And where published? And by whom peer reviewed? Without that, this remark is just a case of Somebody says.... DaveApter (talk) 16:04, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Incredible! Now you are disputing the exact reliable source you cited as an example of a scholar who doesn't class Landmark as a full-fledged religion, just because he also states that there are other academic books that do class it as a new religion. • Astynax ^talk 17:14, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

I am bewildered by some of the responses here. No one seems to be responding to the discussion of undue weight regarding it having its own section. There is no differentiation between eyewitnesses who 'liked' Landmark and those who didn't - none of the reliably sourced eyewitness press accounts (of which we have dozens), regardless of whether they 'liked' Landmark or not, seem to indicate any religious elements whatsoever. I also fail to see how discussing the specific remarks of a top scholar in the field constitutes 'original research' - I have simply noted how this scholar notes the lack of overt religious elements in Landmark's programs, saying study of them is "useful" (his word) regardless of whether they can be fully considered religions. Given this qualification, and given that the researchers who put Landmark on an NRM list generally use a definition of NRMs that doesn't actually require overt religious elements to qualify as an NRM, it's fair to question whether this material is worthy of its own section in the article. Nwlaw63 (talk) 22:33, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

• There is a vast difference between "overt religious elements" and "religious characteristics." There can exist "religious characteristics" without having "overt religious elements." And there's just no doubt that a debate does exist regarding what some call "religious characteristics" of the Landmark system. LHM^{ask me a question} 23:07, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Splitting hairs between 'religious characteristics' and 'overt religious characteristics' seems like sophistry to me. DaveApter (talk) 17:24, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

No, DaveApter, it's called being precise with one's language. You should try it. LHM^{ask me a question} 04:44, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

• As noted by Nwlaw63, there doesn't appear to be much discussion here regarding the possible WP:UNDUE weight of a separate section for this. The mainstream sources don't discuss this as a religion, and there is a dearth of modern reliable academic sources - particularly any that claim to have examined the company in any depth. --Tgeairn (talk) 18:15, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Proposed decision template

The purpose of adding a template to a page is to provide information to the reader. The template which was added to this article provides, in its current state, no discernible information. That may of course change when there is a decision, but considering that the decision will be about conduct of editors regarding this article, and honestly says nothing whatsoever about the article itself, I tend to think that even when there is a decision there would be no particular purpose in adding the template to the article page. I have seen several such templates added to article talk pages indicating some of the ArbCom decisions specifically relating to content issues, but I at this point have no particular reason to believe that this decision will necessarily include any such statements. I think it would make much more sense to indicate on this, the article talk page, any information regarding the decision. Also, honestly, as I think pretty much everyone who has ever been regularly involved in this article is already aware of the ArbCom case, I think it unlikely that most people who would likely be interested in it doesn't already have the pages watched. John Carter (talk) 16:04, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Case closed

The case was closed on 29th December. Nobody was found guilty of bad behaviour and nobody was sanctioned. You can read the summary of the decision here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Landmark_Worldwide#Final_decision

The whole discussion and voting process is here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Landmark_Worldwide/Proposed_decision

In summary, the key points are:

1) Whereas Astynax brought the case with accusations against Nwlaw63, Tgeairn and myself, all of these were rejected decisively.

a) The drafting arbitrators did not find evidence sufficient to propose either a finding of fact regarding me, or any proposed sanction

b) They did draft a finding that Nwlaw63 and Tgeairn were Single Purpose Accounts, and propose that they be topic-banned for six months, but the findings were voted down 2-8, and the topic bans rejected by 2 votes to 6.

2) They did draft a finding that Astynax was guilty of Tendentious Editing, and propose a topic ban of six months. The decision on these was very close and hung in the balance until the last vote, but neither passed. The voting on the finding was 5-5, and on the ban was 4-5 with one abstention.

3) There was a finding that "rigorous academic sources for the topic are few and far between, meaning claims more often rest on weaker sources or claims from the organization in question." This passed by 6 votes to 2.

4)The proposal that "The Arbitration Committee urges that editors having no prior editing history on Landmark Worldwide and no strong views on the underlying controversy review and edit this article, helping to ensure that our policies governing neutral point of view and reliable sources are followed." was passed by 7 votes to 0 with 2 abstentions. DaveApter (talk) 20:28, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

To move forward?

Now that the Arbitration case is closed, any suggestions for the best way to move forward in improving the article? Or for encouraging uninvolved editors to contribute here as the Arbitrators suggested? DaveApter (talk) 18:33, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm a previously uninvolved editor now watching the page as a result of the Arbitration. My real life involvement with Landmark has been limited to attending one meeting some years ago they held in a home. After that I did a little reading on them. The article needs a cleanup. Legacypac (talk) 18:39, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks - would you like to say a little more about the sort of things that the "needed cleanup" would involve? DaveApter (talk) 20:48, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps avoiding 'bundled' edits in light of "Parties to the case are reminded to base their arguments in reliable, independent sources and to discuss changes rather than revert on sight."[3] 'Bundled' being multiple changes under one edit. If changes are made individually it makes them easier to discuss and agree on as opposed to a contentious edit in amongst a group of otherwise generally agreed ones. Make exactly the same edits you feel are fair but make them one by one. Just a courtesy suggestion 'to move forward'. AnonNep (talk) 21:07, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

That's a really good suggestion. The battling over this article in September and October kicked off with this bundled edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Landmark_Worldwide&diff=624044865&oldid=624040771 , and was aggravated by this one: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Landmark_Worldwide&diff=627007814&oldid=626534795 . I think further cleanup is required on the remnants of both of these. DaveApter (talk) 16:13, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

While, I see only content stating it is not a cult, yet there are longstanding allegations that Landmark is a cult. Where is the balance in those opinions? See Cult Awareness Network for example. What is its connection to Scientology? No discussion of that. For a group that is so controversial the article seems to contain mainly positive and defensive info. I'll need to do some additional research befor proposing any specific changes. Legacypac (talk) 09:10, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

• While it is true that there have indeed, been allegations that Landmark is a cult, there is currently no mention in the article because - despite the best efforts of those who have repeatedly inserted such claims, no reliable references have been produced for identifiable authoritative individuals who are on record as having made such judgements. As has been discussed ad nauseam on the 29 archives of this talk page, the suggestion is ridiculous and Landmark exhibits none of the characteristics of being a cult. Attempts to trace back these allegations usually arrive sooner or later at anonymous postings on chatrooms, blogs and unmoderated anti-cult websites etc. Mostly by people who have no direct personal experience of the organisation.
• Re the "connection to Scientology" - that's easy: there is none whatsoever. What had you think there might be one? DaveApter (talk) 16:13, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

• There are certain definite similarities between Scientology and Landmark, in that both have been counted as for-profit entities in the broad field of NRMs, and the fact that they both had some sort of prominence in the early days of the anti-cult movement as "cults" of a sort, but there is no direct linkage between the two entities or ideas other than perhaps being in somewhat the same area of "self-improvement" through involvement in for-profit groups. John Carter (talk) 16:24, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

I would suggest we maybe try to do what I indicated in the arb, specifically, get some people who have perhaps some good, proven, experience with wikipedia policies and guidelines and, possibly, some basic familiarity with topics of this nature involved. I also think it would be a very good idea if we discussed merging this article into the articles on the other iterations of est, although the major problem there would be determining which title to merge the content into. I've had some computer problems for the past week, and have also, honestly, been taking some time off in general, but have a basic idea as to at least some good editors who might be capable and with luck willing to spend some time with the content here. Give me a few days to finish thinking it through, and contacting those individuals to see if they really are interested. Of course, I want it understood that anyone else, not just those I have been thinking of, who has some interest in helping to develop the content, is more than welcome, including Legacypac above. I'm also going to over the next few days try to find any recent reference sources which deal with the topic of Landmark and its predecessors in any sort of specific way, and indicate what they say. John Carter (talk) 15:43, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

My observation is that Landmark and Scientology are often discussed together and seem to steam from the same technology. I'l look through the archives. The article currently contains a few sentences saying they are not a cult but no sentences quoting anyone to say they are a cult. That is just weird. Obviously there have been accusations of cult status or there would would not be the denials, but the article only presents the denials. It would be equally inappropriate to only list the accusations without the denials. Legacypac (talk) 16:42, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Agreed that it is weird to include the denials but not the accusations; this is a side-effect of the battling over the balance of the article. I think that both should come out. Part of the problem is that clearly both the accusation and the denial are in the realm of opinion rather than fact, and it has seemed virtually impossible to estimate numbers of either persuasion. DaveApter (talk) 17:20, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Part of the problem is based on the existing group of articles about the group Werner Erhard formed. I know of several books which called Erhard Seminars Training a NRM/cult, but Landmark has seemingly gone out of its way to try to distance itself from that prior group. The fact of there being at least three separate articles relating to the group Erhard founded, and the content relating to those closely similar topics broken up into those three articles, is I think one of the most problematic aspects here. It's one of the reasons I suggested a merge discussion earlier. I still intend to start such a discussion, but am not sure at this point whether it would be best to start activity with that, or to maybe first try to involve other previously uninvolved editors first, and then later have them all involved in a potential merge discussion. John Carter (talk) 16:50, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy provides guidance on dealing with controversial subjects. Yes it is all Opinions so the article should reflect the Fact that many people have the Opinion that the group is a cult and the Fact that the group (and supporters) denies it is a cult. WP:NPOV Appropriate weight needs to be given to both sides. The article is always going to give most of its space to describing the group as they describe themselves, so that tips the balance toward Landmark already. It is not remarkable at all that Landmark denies being a religion or a cult, its fully expected, so that just needs a short mention and some refs. What is significant is that many people call Landmark a cult, but no one calls businesses like University of Phoenix (to name just one private provider of education) a cult. So there needs to be a Criticism section detailing this. Using quotes helps maintain Wikipedia's NPOV. Rather than saying "Landmark is a cult.[1][2] we say "John Smith, the author of Cults Today wrote "blah blah blah"[1] while Mary Jones, a professor of religious studies at Harvard wrote ...." Sound ok?