Talk:Landmark Worldwide

Please discuss here before making contentious changes to this article

I have reverted a flurry of very dubious edits to the article which have appeared suddenly. If you want to make radical alterations please discuss them here and secure a degree of consensus first. Thank you. DaveApter (talk) 16:56, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

• Could you clarify? 'Dubious' and 'radical' are interpretable based on POV. If, for example, an edit accurately reflects reputable sources why would it need to be discussed here first? AnonNep (talk) 18:38, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

From what I can see the changes made here are dubious in they make sweeping generalizations not supported by the given sources or using non-reliable sources, and that they give undue weight to minority POVs. For instance, I see a number of edits with strong POV claims sourced to non-notable blogs, or in one case to a government document that then reversed itself a year later (as shown by the given sources), or in the case of the 'religious' elements, edits sourced to scholars who don't actually claim that Landmark is a religion or religious. I can find dubious sources that make all kinds of claims about almost any company, but that doesn't mean they deserve a prominent place in the lede of an article. Nwlaw63 (talk) 20:10, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Generally agree. I can see the issue with 'sweeping generalizations not supported by the given sources or using non-reliable sources'. However, presented in context, direct quotes or neutral summaries of reputable sources shouldn't require discussion first (or immediate deletion). AnonNep (talk) 20:34, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Your blanking of adequately referenced material in the recent edits seems overly zealous, particularly considering the state of the "stable" article to which you reverted. As to Landmark's alleged religious characteristics, this is covered widely in NRM scholarship and literature. It is unreasonable to exclude reliable sources from being presented in a balanced way within the article. Balanced does not mean that we editors get to decide what is "balanced", but rather that we present the material in proportion to its quality and preponderance in scholarly lit. It is also a huge misreading of the blanked sources and others to claim that they do not "don't actually claim that Landmark is a religion or religous." • Astynax ^talk 08:18, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

There are several issues I see here with the edits recently made and the sources used to support them:

1) The lede of the article is not the place to make dubious assertions and give weight to minority POVs. As discussed many times previously, the allegation that Landmark is a cult is a minority POV and thus doesn't deserve time in the lede of the article. In fact, 'Minority POV' is probably generous - there is literally only one reliable source that I know of - the France list - that makes this allegation, and this list is controversial in that its criteria were uncertain, the commission that continued them discontinued, and its accuracy and worth questioned by the U.S. State department (even the CAIC site - see below - doesn't appear to make this claim).

In addition to the cult claim, there is a claim of manipulation, coercive techniques and sleep depriviation, which is only supported by the CAIC website, which is not in any way a reliable source. This doesn't belong in the the article at all; that this is being used to promote an extraordinary claim in the lede of an article is egregious.

Finally there is the line that Landmark is characterized by scholars as religious. More on this below, but to make such a claim about a personal development course in the lede of the article would certainly require clear and definitive evidence, which does not exist.

2) Before getting to scholars, there is the line that "Various governments have also classed Landmark as new religions" - in fact, as far as I can tell, the France list is the only one in existence. The State Department listings appear to have been in error, as they were removed in the 2006 list, and I cannot find any evidence of their existence anywhere else - that they were obviously removed speaks to their dubiousness.

3) Regarding the opinion of scholars and the sources listed, I find the evidence that these sources are making a strong case for Landmark as a religion to be extremely thin. There's one that or two that are nothing more than a name on a list. There are two or three that mention Heelas' view that Landmark and other human potential groups are forms of 'self-religions'. Bromley doesn't mention Heelas, but states that Landmark and human potential groups are a kind of NRM. While an interesting view, it doesn't appear to be in line with the scholarship that delineates human potential movements from religious movements. Wikipedia's sourced lists on NRMs and human potential groups have no overlap (other than Landmark!). A few of the sources come back to Beckford, who makes the equivocal comment that groups that could fall under the purview of NRM might include Landmark, then saying immediately thereafter "perhaps we could start to redraw the boundaries of what constitutes an NRM", implying that human potential groups are not currently considered NRMs by academic consensus.

Then there's Chryssides, who is every bit as equivocal if not more so - he's in fact the only one of these sources that really has much to say about Landmark and the question of whether it's religious in nature. He writes for a good while about how Landmark isn't really a religion under the standard definition of the term and shouldn't really be considered a religion, and that some of the groups he's discussed aren't really religions. He then says why it's in his book - because it's been talked about a lot by anti-cult groups, it has a "spiritual dimension", and is useful for "determining where the edges of religion lie".

In other words, like Beckford, he seems interested in discussing new age groups which might not usually be considered 'religions'. This is all well and good, but all of this constitutes an extremely weak argument for making the extraordinary claim in the lede of the article that scholars consider a personal seminal course to be religious - it's misleading in the extreme, as what Chryssides means is not what any reader would take from that claim in the lede - Chryssides is looking at spiritual implications of self-actualizations, while a reasonable reader would take this to mean actual religious elements.

And why are a few brief, equivocal or non-consensus comments by scholars noteworthy enough to claim a place in the lede of the article as well as the title of the article's largest heading? It seems like a trivial footnote, worthy of the brief mention that was already in the article but no more. After all, the recent, extremely reliable secondary sources that describe Landmark and its courses in depth (New York Times, Time Magazine, Huffington Post, etc.) don't mention this at all, except for several sources that take a brief sentence to emphatically say that Landmark isn't religious. In other words, a great deal of undue weight is being given to these equivocal and dubious claims. There also seems to be an unspoken assumption that scholarly sourcing is king, when in fact, on this subject, it appears to be thin, dated and often inaccurate (two of the sources I read invented new names for Landmark). Landmark is one of those subjects where the reliable secondary sourcing is much richer and more recent in the media, as it is for many modern things. Sorry for the wall of text! Nwlaw63 (talk) 01:35, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Earlier, I removed a new passage from the lede and explained that edit in the summary (and at further length on the editor's talk page). Reviewing the article, I see that a number of changes have been made which include some contentious labels and unsupported attributions. While a number of sources have also been added, I question whether these sources directly address the exceptional claims they are intended to. A cursory review of the sources I have available from this list appears to indicate that the sources are not directly on point, and that many amount to a passing reference to the company or its predecessors. The edit history indicates that there are at least a few active editors with much better understanding of these sources and the history than I; and I have not modified any of these passages yet, but prefer to hear from others first - particularly on the reliability, suitability, and context of these sources. --Tgeairn (talk) 16:16, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Certainly the use of caic.org.au as a source doesn not pass muster as a WP:RS - it's a self published website. If the 'cult' label is going to be brought up at all, it needs to be by direct quotation from specific recognised authoratitive individuals and balance by opposing direct quotes of similar stature of the alternate opinion. In fact there are few if any attributable judgements to this effect - tracing back claims usually just leads to anonymous comment, gossip, or rumour. The French list is of little help, it is sweeping in its inclusions (even extending to the Quakers!), never published its criteria and had no review or appeal mechanism. DaveApter (talk) 21:21, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Given Nwlaw63's review of the sources (above), as well as my own further review since my edit yesterday, I do not see evidence of "multiple high-quality sources" making the exceptional claims currently found in the lede.

To say in Wikipedia's voice that "...programs have been categorized... as religious in nature.", or "...classed as a cult", or "...manipulative and coercive techniques." are all not supported by the sources. Where there is some disagreement between sources, we need to examine both the context, the quality, and the type of available sources. When we have a source that consists of a mention in a list in an isolated or non-peer-reviewed source, contrasted with definitive, attributed statements in peer-reviewed materials or mainstream publications, then we should take those differences into account. Much of the religion and cult discussion appears to be supported only by an inferred relationship (inferred either by an editor here, or by the author of non-reviewed sources) between Landmark and other earlier entities. None of the sources I have found, and none of the sources discussed above, constitute a high quality source stating that Landmark is a cult or a religion, etc. There are a number of sources (already cited in the article) which are either non-opinion pieces in mainstream press, or published in peer-reviewed journals by reputable academic organizations which explicitly say that Landmark is not a cult or religious in nature.

Further, to use the opinions of journalists (non-experts in the field) to support claims of fact when actual experts exist disputing those facts is not appropriate. At best, we could note the opinions but we cannot give undue weight to them. We should also examine whether presenting those options actually improves the article. We should include reliably sourced material from reputable sources, and if there are any conflicts between sources we should give weight to the sources that are relevant, in-context, and independent (neutral).

Therefore, I recommend the following changes:

• Assertions of a religious nature, cult, manipulation, and coercion be removed from the lede as they give undue weight to unsubstantiated or very narrowly substantiated claims.
• The Disputed religious character section be merged into the Evaluations and reviews section. This will balance that section. In the process, the content be rewritten to reflect the nature and weight of the sources.
• Contentious labels such as cult or sect be rewritten to reflect the nature and weight of the sources. (The word cult currently appears at least ten times in the body of the article, while all reliable sources say that Landmark is not one... I find this rather unbalanced)
• Unsupported attributions be resolved. Some of these are flagged, others were recently introduced. "The company claims...", for instance. Can we not find a source that meets the requirements for a company to say how many customers it has? Is this disputed in another source?

I will make a pass at some of the clearly policy or maintenance related changes to this article. Other editors here are clearly familiar with the sources and subject and may be better suited to substantial content changes.

--Tgeairn (talk) 18:08, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Seems like a very sound set of proposals. Also it is worth pointing out that the Evaluations and reviews section did, until a few days ago, contain a balanced selection of both positive and negative opinions (as reported in various reliable sources). The negative reviews were moved into the newly created Disputed religious character section, and then the same editor added the 'Advert' tag to the Evaluations section which he had just unbalanced. Furthermore, in the Legal disputes section, the previous quantified note regarding numbers of lawsuits has been replaced by the less explicit "several" (see also the above discussion on this section).DaveApter (talk) 09:22, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

I endorsed the inclusion of the statement "Landmark Worldwide is widely accused of being a cult" and justified it in the following way: - The referenced site, caic.org.au, contains no less than twenty-three cases that reached the mainstream media, such as the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, 60 minutes, the New York Times, France 3, a PhD Thesis on the subject, the Boston Globe, and Argus Magazine. - I claim specialty knowledge in this field. I am on the executive of Australia's largest Cult monitoring organisation, CIFS. I can attest many, many people have come to CIFS after appalling experiences with Landmark. We conclude Landmark have the hallmarks of a manipulative organisation. - Claims Landmark are not a religious organisation do not exempt it from criticism it is a cult. The identifying markers of a cult are various; manipulative behavior, weaning people from the affection of their families, a rapacious intent towards adherent's finances. Landmark, in the view of our watchdog organisation and backed by professionals who work with our organistaion (intellectuals, mental health experts and counsellors), meet the criteria. - Wikipedia is not in the business of being partisan or to take an overt POV. However, when an organisation is known primarily by the controversies it generates rather then this properly becomes reflected in the lede of its wikipedia article (as is the case with innumerable other Wikipedia articles eg Scientology).

On this basis, I am concerned at any reversion of changes that correctly and appropriately identifies the nature of the controversy that dominates Landmark's existence. Apart from a special section or parnter-article, this is appropriately mentioned by way of one sentence in the lede. Further, given Landmark's renowned litigiousness and the extraordinary lengths to which it will go to sanitise its public reputation, I will continue to revert changes that seek to cleanse this scholarly and independently verified fact from the article. baliset 10:59, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you baliset for your contribution to the debate, and for your frank declaration of a possible conflict of interest. I respectfully suggest that you acquaint yourself with wikipedia's core policies, especially regarding reliable sources, neutral point of view and undue weight. The opinions of editors are of no relevance to wikipedia, and entries must be backed up by citations from acceptable sources, which the CAIC website is definitely not. Also, in view of your remarks above, I suggest that you consider that your opinions may be suffering from confirmation bias. If you are basing your conclusions on information gained from the tiny proportion of Landmark's customers who are dissatisfied and contact your organisation, you are unlikely to reach realistic conclusions. In particular your assertion above that it "wean[s] people from the affection of their families" is contradicted by numerous accounts (including those in responsible mainstream media) averring the exact opposite: reuiniting families and healing long-standing estrangements. DaveApter (talk) 13:33, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Just because Wikipedia has a firm NPoV policy does not mean that it forbids report all significant points of view (in fact, policy requires it). My only concern with the edit is to the lead is that the information must also appear on down in the body of the article, which is hardly grounds for a revert. Nor is the flagging of CAIC as non-relaiable an established fact. Indeed, it is quoted elsewhere on Wikipedia and in scholarly sources. • Astynax ^talk 18:50, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

I find it difficult to understand how CAIC could be considered a reliable source at all, let alone for the statement in the lede. As near as I can tell, CAIC is now a self-published aggregation of material presumably published elsewhere. The site is clear that it has an agenda and that it (CAIC) is not saying anything listed in their voice. Any of those things alone disqualifies this as a source, let alone as a source that meets WP:Exceptional.

Further, the site does not have clear ownership (the site copyright actually includes the phrase "Yada yada yada"!). A Whois search shows that the site is registered to an individual, not an organization; and our own article on the only "source" for CAIC's voice says that she passed away nearly 13 years ago (over six years before the domain was registered). These are not the hallmarks of a reliable source.

Given the above, are you saying that CAIC is a reliable source?

The lede paragraph being discussed was only recently added. WP:BRD governs here, once the addition was reverted it should have been discussed at the talk page until consensus was reached. There is clearly not consensus, and there has been (still is) active discussion. Continuing to revert or re-add the material under discussion is definitively not how Wikipedia works, and it is edit warring. The material should be removed until consensus is reached. Thanks --Tgeairn (talk) 20:05, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

CAIC has been cited in scholarly lit, therefore it has some standing and is not to be summarily dismissed. I am certain that additional backup citations can both be found and should be added to support a strong statement. It would have been proper to add a note requesting additional citations rather than simply blanking this multiple times. Consensus does not trump policy, especially there is no "consensus" in evidence and when blanking is being used to retain article structure, content and sourcing which seem very sloppy at best. You and others here are quite aware of policy, and this article does not get any special exemption to those standards. • Astynax ^talk 20:37, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

The CAIC website fails to meet criteria on at least three counts of the WP:RS policy, namely:

1. "self-published media—whether books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, personal pages on social networking sites, Internet forum postings, or tweets—are largely not acceptable."
2. "Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts, or with no editorial oversight. Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, that are promotional in nature, or which rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions. Questionable sources are generally unsuitable for citing contentious claims about third parties, which includes claims against institutions, persons living or dead, as well as more ill-defined entities. The proper uses of a questionable source are very limited."
3. ' Editors should also consider whether the bias makes it appropriate to use in-text attribution to the source, as in "According to the opinion columnist Maureen Dowd..." or "According to the opera critic Tom Sutcliffe..."'

I would ask you to remove these contentious edits unless you can find acceptable sources. Also - whilst it is acceptable to include facts that certain opinions are held on a particular matter, it should be made clear that these are opinions rather than facts, the opinions should be attributed to a (notable) individual or to a definable group, some indication of the spread of alternative opinions should be given, and each view should be given due weight in proportion to the numbers adhering to it. This topic has come up numerous times over the last seven years or so, and in each case the evidence that the opinion that Landmark is a "cult" is anything other than an extreme minority viewpoint has not been produced. DaveApter (talk) 12:10, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Since these disruptive and defamatory edits - unsupported by adequate reliable sources remain in place, I am now deleting them. DaveApter (talk) 18:58, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

So if the CAIC link is replaced by direct references to the multiple reputable sources that the CAIC website acts as a clearinghouse for then the problem is resolved? That's more constructive for the balance of the article that a delete. (And it can always be edited to add rebuttal from reputable sources.) AnonNep (talk) 20:25, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

That is correct - if the references in the CAIC site do meet WP:RS criteria they should be cited directly. But bearing in mind the tendency of sites like CAIC to cherry-pick submissions to support their own POV and to suppress contributions that do not, it would be wise to research other sources to help you in editing from a neutral standpoint. Thanks DaveApter (talk) 18:58, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

I put the reviews and the criticisms back in one section, which should address any balance issues, and also removes the religious heading to a section which also contained non-religious criticisms and controversies. Nwlaw63 (talk) 01:29, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Removing Weasel Word Tags

In response to Astynax, who has removed tags of weasel wording from phrases such as 'The company claims that more than 2.2 million people have taken Landmark's programs since its founding in 1991', it seems clear that Wikipedia doesn't inherently question sales figures from primary sources on privately held companies. You don't see things like 'Imperial Hotels claims it had $83 million in sales in 2012' - we would list the sales figure, and only use the term 'claims' if there were reasons in reliable secondary sources to doubt the primary source. Nwlaw63 (talk) 02:45, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

I think that's a fair point. DaveApter (talk) 11:19, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

POV - Controversies, Legal and Cult Accusation

Hello Wikipedia,

I think that this article needs to do a better job of addressing the criticism leveled against Landmark Worldwide. I can tell that this is a hot topic with a history of heavy-handed editing and lack of consensus. I'm hoping that we can find a way to add a little more criticism and critical sources without giving undue weight. Here are the only mentions of the word cult:

HuffPost and the Observe "concluded that, in their view, it is not a cult."

HuffPost again: "I found the Forum innocuous. No cult, no radical religion"

Wikipedia's own words: several lawsuits... against authors and journalists who have intimated that it is a cult

Neither a link nor a mention of Voyage au Pays des Nouveaux Gourous#Report of the 1995 French Parliamentary Commission of Inquiry into Cults and from this talk page it sounds like the State Department may have accidentally included Landmark in a list of religious organizations.

Reviews and Criticism only contains two sections of Criticism:

Some observers[who?] question whether and to what degree Landmark courses benefit participants. Others[who?] criticize the use of volunteers by Landmark; others[who?] highlight the connections with other groups and with Werner Erhard. Landmark has been criticized by some for being overzealous in encouraging people to participate in its courses.[39] There are no sources for anything except the last sentence. Maybe we can replace this with some real critiques based on actual sources.

Following a series of investigative articles in the national daily Dagens Nyheter[43][44][45] and programs on the private TV channel TV4, Landmark closed its offices in Sweden[46] in June 2004. The French office of Landmark also closed in July 2004 after labor inspectors, visiting the site noting the activities of volunteers, made a report of undeclared employment.[47] Sources 43 and 44 are marked as dead links. The article leaves confusion about why Landmark in Sweden closed following these investigations. The story of events in the French case seems to leave out details mentioned in Voyage au pays des nouveaux_gourous#Repercussions

It seems to me that somewhere there should be a link to the Voyage au pays des nouveaux gourous article. Perhaps in the legal controversies. I can appreciate that per WP:Undue Weight this might not deserve more than a sentence or two.

The last editors to suggest a more balanced article seemed to have lacked reliable sources WP:RS to back up claims or used these sources to support broad generalizations. Specific debate surrounded the use of Cult Awareness and Information Centre (which has been cited in reports on cults by the Canadian Security Intelligence Service). Beyond the numerous self-publication issues with this sources, it's also worth noting that Jan Groenveld the founder/spokesperson passed away in 2002 and the source has been directly involved in a legal struggle with Landmark.

Apologetics Index[1] looks like an equally dubious source for citation, but it could be a jumping off piece for finding critical opinions. For sources hinting at the cult accusations, you can see Mother Jones[2], Yahoo Voice[3] and Yelp[4] (highly reliable). There might be a wording that encompasses various sources description of "cult-like behavior and recruiting practices" without classifying Landmark as a full on cult.

Thanks for your consideration,

KonigProbst (talk) 21:11, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi KonigProbst, welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your comments. I do not agree that any more emphasis on cult accusations would be in accordance with Wikpedia policies as this is clearly a minority viewpoint – almost every reliable source we have says it’s not a cult, except for the France report, which has its own issues – see the Wikipedia article for some of these: Parliamentary_Commission_on_Cults_in_France#Commission_of_2005

There are almost certainly reliable sources for the unsourced claims (those ‘who?’ statements) – we can and should simply add those sources.

As you have noted, unreliable sources such as CAIC and Apologetics are not useful here. Others that you mention are either not reliable or don’t call Landmark a cult – Mother Jones does not refer to Landmark as a cult, the Yahoo Voices is both a dubious source, and says that Landmark is not a cult, and Yelp reviews, both positive and negative, are absolutely NOT reliable sources for Wikipedia.

There have been many attempts over the years by people with strong personal negative opinions regarding Landmark to incorporate their views into this article in violation of the policy guidelines 'what Wikipedia is not'. A former administrator named Cirt was desysopped in part due to his POV campaign against personal development programs and new religious movements – some of the material you mention was in the article as part of Cirt’s campaign, but was removed thereafter: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Cirt_and_Jayen466#Cirt_desysopped. DaveApter (talk) 10:23, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't here to answer or arbitrate on the question: "Is Landmark Wordwide a cult?" WP:Truth The question is about what second- and third-party sources have to say about Landmark. From the limited research that I've done, it seems that reliable sources agree that there are "cult-like aspects" (as might be true for any self-improvement group) while it is not an "actual cult" (brainwashing, money stealing and other such libel). I think that it's noteworthy that many sources address this "cult question." It's also noteworthy that they come to the same conclusion about Landmark not being a cult.

I'm sure that looking into the legal challenges that Landmark has brought against everybody who has ever accused it of being a cult would yield some strong sources for the assertion "Landmark has been accused of aggressive recruitment, silencing dissent through lawsuits and other cult-like behavior (like to accusers). However, many investigations (NYC or whatever) have concluded that it is not a cult."

I agree that Yelp is not a reliable enough sources to use for an encyclopedia, and Yahoo Voices is questionable. Not sure what the opposite of WP:Undue Weight is, but I feel like this article is not giving enough weight to the critical voices. If you look at the other WP articles on Landmark, you'll see that there is a majority voice saying "Landmark is a happy self-improvement group" and a minority voice saying "Landmark is questionable, although not actually a cult." The majority voice gets the majority weight and the minority voice get the minority weight. Why oppose including that like these other pages? KonigProbst (talk) 23:36, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't think anything I said implies that I think that 'Wikipedia is here to answer or arbitrate on the question: "Is Landmark Wordwide a cult?"', so I can't see the relevance of that remark to this discussion. Wikipedia's policies require that articles reflect the facts (including facts about opinions) on the subject in question as substantiated by reliable published secondary sources. Where facts about opinions are reported, they must be given due weight in proportion to the numbers and authority of those holding those opinions. A consensus has been reached over several years of sometimes heated editing and discussion that this article in its present form broadly meets these requirements.

I am relieved to see that you now acknowledge that some of the sources you suggested previously are not after all appropriate.

I'm a bit puzzled by your reference to "other WP articles on Landmark" - I wasn't aware that there were any? (apart from the Litigation article). As far as I can see, this article in its current form does accurately summarise both the majority and minority views on the subject and does give due weight to each. Of course if you can find specific references that add useful relevant information currently missing from the article in suitable reliable sources, you might consider adding them, or at least discussing them here. DaveApter (talk) 19:06, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Cults

I've only just discovered the existence of Landmark, and I'm rather confused by the fact that this article goes to such strenuous lengths to relate that the "consensus" is that Landmark is NOT a cult, and yet, the only mentions of it being a cult in the article at all, are those same refutations. Even if the "consensus" is that it's not a cult, some descriptions of the concerns/claims and the sources for those is highly warranted, otherwise, why refute them at all? Markushopkins (talk) 23:50, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. The issue is that the refutations come from reliable sources, while the claims do not. The reliable sources tend to be refuting unattributed gossip and non-reliable claims on the internet etc, not other reliable sources. Your summary of the issue seems to me to be a little strained: The word "consensus" does not even appear in the article, and I don't see the basis for your claim that the article "goes to such strenuous lengths" on the topic - the word "cult" only appears three times in the article, two of those within direct quotes from reputable journalists (expressing the opinion that it is not an appropriate description). I would think this is about the right degree of coverage for what is after all a peripheral aspect of the subject. DaveApter (talk) 08:55, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Uh, Dave, I was actually quoting you in your use of the word on the talk page. I really don't give a crap about the organization and whether or not it is a cult. My point was that it's weird to have something specifically pointed out as NOT being a cult, when that is the FIRST and ONLY time the idea is mentioned. Seems to me the one straining is you, since you feel it necessary to respond so forcefully to every comment. Markushopkins (talk) 07:09, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Promo?

I see someone has added a 'Promo' tag to the article. It doesn't read like an advertisement to me? What do others think? Are there any specific points that should be removed or added? DaveApter (talk) 11:19, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

• There is a ton of critical coverage in reliable secondary sources on Landmark. Almost none of it is represented in the article. It reads like it could have been written by a Landmark PR person. LHM^{ask me a question} 00:47, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
  • A quick look through the article history and referencing will likely only reinforce that perception. Even though several unsourced and sourced edits with content differing from Landmark's proclaimed viewpoint have been made (and summarily reverted) over the years, dismissing and minimizing reliable sources differing from the Landmark view under the guise of "consensus" seems to be the modus here. • Astynax ^talk 17:19, 1 August 2014 (UTC)