Talk:Landmark Worldwide

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by DaveApter (talk | contribs) at 11:49, 28 October 2023 (→‎Background: Reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Tactics and Methods

Does anyone mind if I create a section on methods or technology used within the forum? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dabrams13 (talk • contribs) 16:43, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That would be fine as long as the info is sourced from Independent Sources WP:IS, NOT Landmark's website or course materials. ---Avatar317(talk) 19:44, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to add that this section on their teaching methods still reads as a puff piece, it doesn't contain any information on the fact that they use behaviour modification methods and coercive control techniques that many reports (many articles on Rick Ross website and this entry on Ney vs Landmark:https://en-academic.com/dic.nsf/enwiki/11816406) have shown are extremely dangerous how can I flag this or edit without it then all getting edited out as happened last time? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Albert8879 (talk • contribs) 19:51, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Questions on POV

How to add more balance in line with NPOV and using verifiable sources if many sources are blogs or survivor testimonials and will be seen as not verifiable enough?

I have to say I agree that this page still sounds very much like a puff piece. I am a survivor of their 'training' (2009-2014), training which left me with a lifetime of trauma and PTSD and who has had to swallow whole their propaganda in training course after course. So believe me when I say that quite a bit of this Wiki entry reads like one of their promotional booklets in uncritically and basically saying that is transformational personal development training that has been used and endorsed by orgs such as Reebok, PandaExpress, LuluLemon etc.

With no mention of the fact that they use dangerous behavior modification tools and thought reform techniques like NLP, encounter and attack therapy (which includes long sessions of verbal abuse of participants who've often just shared very vulnerable details of their life such as abuse, bullying, troubled relationships etc etc) and guided regression exercises without knowing consent from participants and without any trained licensed mental health professional present.

As I really think we need to add more balance and in line with the policy which states: 'that does not stop us from describing the majority views as such and using the words of reliable sources to present strong criticisms. Fairly explaining the arguments against a pseudoscientific theory or verifiably describing the moral repugnance that people feel toward a notion is fully permitted by NPOV.'

As at the moment someone looking at this Wiki entry would think that this is just a personal development company that offers transformational training to change your relationship to the present and future etc etc. Yes there is some criticism but it's buried and not enough to counter-balance the uncritical reproduction of what Landmark says they are about.

When this training in actual fact has lead to people's: severe depression, anxiety psychosis, psychiatric hospitalisation, triggered suicide, depersonalisation syndrome, PTSD and implants in people a loyal evangelical attitude to Landmark which means they try to convert everyone around them and literally cannot see Landmark in a critical way (other than it can be a bit too intense on sales etc). See: https://en-academic.com/dic.nsf/enwiki/11816406, https://www.win.tue.nl/~aeb/secul/landmark/landmark6.html, https://www.philosophyforlife.org/blog/attack-therapy-and-the-landmark-forum, https://culteducation.com/group/1020-landmark-education/12497-mind-game-courses-aimed-at-public-sector-workers.html, https://forum.culteducation.com/read.php?4,76435,76546)

The only thing I can think of is to quote/cite from Rick Ross's book Cults Inside Out (https://cultsinsideout.com/) as counter-arguments to what Landmark claims to do/be about in their content, with details on the behaviour modification techniques that Landmark uses fro example. As I guess that would count as a verifiable source?

There are also a few media articles but not many because mostly the media have has been really biased in reporting on Landmark for example not talking to survivors and only talking to people who are uncritical whilst only referring in a few lines to criticisms, or else Landmark has many articles taken down and journalists also fear lawsuits so remove references to it being a cult for example. There's some articles in Mother Jones and have quoted some above.

But don't know if they would be counted as too dated as some are from the 90s and I don't know if it matters that the text is not on the original print publication but hosted on different blogs/Rick Ross' website as the publication may be out of print or the articles taken down from the original website.

Rick Ross also did a podcast The Unmistakable Creative (https://play.acast.com/s/the-unmistakable-creative-podcast/thecultofpersonaldevelopment-deprogrammingwithrickalanross) about Landmark but I'm not sure if that would be considered verifiable.

If I could get some advice on this would be much appreciated.

History of litigation section?

I would like to add a section on the history of litigation as I think it's important to show readers the facts of Landmarks' long history of using lawsuits against critics, similar to Scientology. This could also help add to NPOV in understanding the lack of mainstream critical reporting, acting as a counter-balance to the reporters section which only shows positive commentary.

See: https://culteducation.com/group/1020-landmark-education/12303-landmark-education.html#Litigation, https://culteducation.com/group/1020-landmark-education/12390-introduction-to-the-landmark-education-litigation-archive.html, https://www.dmlp.org/threats/landmark-education-llc-v-ross#node-legal-threat-full-group-description and https://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Controversial_development_training_cited_in_religious_discrimination_lawsuits.

Please let me know if this is possible?

Response to Questions

Please sign and date your comments on talk pages; you can do this by typing four tilde ~ characters. I suggest you review Wikipedia's relevant policies, especially what Wikipedia is not and undue weight. I am very sorry to hear that you personally are unhappy with the experience that you had in participating in a number of Landmark courses, but Wikipedia is not a forum for venting your dissatisfactions. If you look at the history of this article, you will see that all of the issues you mention have been entertained at some point in the past and that the consensus of editors was that they were either inadequately verified by reliable sources or expressions of opinions by non-notable individuals. Rick Ross's site is not regarded as a reliable source for example, as has been concluded in discussions on a large variety of topics. As far as I am aware, Landmark has not been involved in litigation for more than ten or fifteen years, and the fact that they took action in several cases in the distant past where they felt that they had been slandered or libelled is adequately covered in the article. The case you mention of Stephanie Ney related to an event before Landmark was even founded, and the court concluded that she had not established that she had been harmed by her participation in a course held by a predecessor organisation. DaveApter (talk) 19:20, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Section update tag

The 'update needed' tag added without comment in June 2021 presumably refers to the change to online delivery of courses due to covid restrictions. I have added a couple of sentences about that, and removed the tag. DaveApter (talk) 09:57, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV

Whatever NPOV is; this ain't it. Wikipedia is not censored, we should describe weird cults as weird cults. Plenty of criticism online, but none seems to be mentioned in the article? Polygnotus (talk) 04:39, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It is undoubtedly correct to say that there is "plenty of criticism" of Landmark on the internet. Most of it is unsubstantiated gossip or rumour, and some is vindictive defamation. Very little of it passes muster as Reliable Source. The suggestion that it is a "Weird cult" is of course a matter of opinion rather than a matter of fact. The assertion that "it uses tactics similar to Scientology" is factually inaccurate. Incidentally, there is also a great deal of enthusiastic endorsement of Landmark's programs on the internet (which is equally irrelevant for Wikipedia purposes). None of the three previous cases on the NPOV noticeboard that Polygnotus cited resulted in a conclusion that this article violated WP:NPOV in favour of Landmark (if anything, the reverse). I am removing the tag. If you wish to re-instate it, please discuss it here first to make out the case. DaveApter (talk) 11:24, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You spammed this rant also on that other page. Please read Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. COI editing is strongly discouraged on Wikipedia. It undermines public confidence and risks causing public embarrassment to the individuals and companies being promoted. Editors with a COI are sometimes unaware of whether or how much it has influenced their editing. If COI editing causes disruption, an administrator may opt to place blocks on the involved accounts. Polygnotus (talk) 10:01, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please remain civil and assume good faith. As I requested above, please discuss the matter here before reinstating the tag, with references to reliable sources that support your opinions which you wish to see included in the article, if you can find any. Thanks. DaveApter (talk) 14:55, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You think a quote from the relevant guideline is incivil?? Please fix the article before removing the tag; using reliable sources. My opinion should not be included in the article. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Maintenance_template_removal#When_not_to_remove Do not editwar to remove the template. Fix the problems instead. Here you claim the article, at that point, contained "40% Criticisms and Controversies". In the years since all criticism has been removed. The talk page archive is full of npov problems. This looks like WP:OWN and WP:PROMO problems. Please read How to disclose a COI. Thank you. Polygnotus (talk) 15:39, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Polygnotus: Do you have some proof of the COI of which you are alleging? Because without proof, we can't really do anything.
Some articles on Wikipedia are biased toward/against the subject because one editor who loves/hates the subject wrote most/all of the article. The way to fix this is to find RS's and use those to add content to the article. Some articles will be nothing but critical, when the RS's are all critical.
If you can post sources which you think will add balance to the article, than myself and others can read and summarize those sources and add content to this article. ---Avatar317(talk) 00:21, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is the person with a COI who should do anything (e.g. declare their COI and use the talkpage to suggest improvements instead of directly editing the article). On Wikipedia, a duck is a duck is a duck. If an account spends the period between 2005 and 2023, so 18 years, defending a topic then it quacks like a duck. I have some people over but when they are gone I'll have a look around for some sources because pretty much all criticism has been surgically removed. Polygnotus (talk) 08:00, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of Tag

Tag removed as this has been rehashed on these pages over and over again. Please review the history on this talk page and then discuss what issues you might have here before tagging the main page. Thank you so much! There are plenty of contributors who would be happy to engage on any questions you might have. Alex Jackl (talk) 17:21, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@AJackl: But you are not allowed to remove the tag without fixing the problem. Read WP:MAINTENANCEDISAGREEMENT and then revert yourself. Polygnotus (talk) 17:22, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You appear in the talkpage archive since 2006. 17 years. What is your COI? Polygnotus (talk) 17:27, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You wrote: "I have participated in Landamrks programs and am an ex-staff member. That does not make an conflict of interest". You have been making sure that no criticism appears on the Landmark article for the past 17 years. This means you have a COI, whether you claim to have one or not. Polygnotus (talk) 17:30, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That is correct I have been editing on Wikipedia for decades - I have been involved with Landmark and not involved with Landmark throughout that time. I do not claim to not have a COI- I am AM following the COI guidelines. On my account page I clearly am very public about who I am and my affiliations. An inappropriate tab can be removed if it is inaccurate. From my vantage point , and clearly from some of the other editors, you incorrectly put that tag up. Instead of going after editors please discuss salient facts and referenceable sources here. I will let other editors continue this conversation with you! Please be respectful and follow the community guidelines. Alex Jackl (talk) 17:42, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You wrote: "I do not claim to not have a COI". Please check your edit dated 19:01, 24 August 2009 (UTC). At that point, you did claim you did not have a COI. Please stop asking me to be respectful when I clearly am. You edited the article directly but you have a COI so you should've used the talkpage to request changes instead. You claim to be following the guideline, but the guideline says you cannot article directly. So you broke the rules, right? Polygnotus (talk) 17:46, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This will be my last post on this matter. In 2009 - 14 years ago I did not have a COI. I would NOW be considered to have an interest. Please talk about the issues and not editors. The COI policy is about being responsible for COI not NOT having any or not contributing. I am an open book on Wikipedia and very public. Please talk about the topic instead of the editors. Thank you! Alex Jackl (talk) 17:51, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I notice you haven't answered my questions. That is not very kind and respectful. Do you agree that this edit broke the rules? Why have you not disclosed your COI before (or while) editing the article? Do you agree you also broke the rules over at WP:MAINTENANCEDISAGREEMENT? Would you be so kind to refrain from editing the article from now on? Polygnotus (talk) 17:53, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I also note you wrote: "In 2009 - 14 years ago I did not have a COI" but you admitted you were an ex-staff member and (ex)participant in 2009 so you already had a COI back then. Polygnotus (talk) 18:32, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, you did have a COI in 2009, because you described yourself as a Seminar Leader for Landmark Education on your userpage even all the way back in 2005. Polygnotus (talk) 23:49, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Would you be so kind to please follow the procedure outlined in WP:DISCLOSE? Thanks in advance, Polygnotus (talk) 17:51, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@AJackl: I agree with Polygnotus that you did not follow policy on this recent edit: [1] for which you gave NO MEANINGFUL EXPLANATION and NO MENTION OF YOUR EMPLOYMENT BY LANDMARK.
Not only should you not be editing this article page, you should disclose your COI when you engage in discussions on the Talk page. You definitely have NOT behaved in a way which would convice me to treat you or your edits with good faith. WP:GF ---Avatar317(talk) 00:38, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

https://www.win.tue.nl/~aeb/secul/landmark/landmark.html lists a bunch of sources including https://skepdic.com/landmark.html Polygnotus (talk) 18:11, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.eff.org/nl/deeplinks/2006/11/landmark-forums-internet-censorship-campaign-goes-down-under An "internet censorship campaign" Polygnotus (talk) 18:14, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

https://web.archive.org/web/20131203020829/https://culteducation.com/reference/landmark/landmark193.html

https://culteducation.com/group/1020-landmark-education/12434-a-landmark-encounter.html

https://web.archive.org/web/20090913100315/http://88.80.16.63/leak/suppressed-french-documentary-on-landmark-forum-cult--24-may-2004.txt

Relevant information from the eff.org link is already included in the article. Neither culteducation.com nor CAIC nor skepdic.com are generally regarded as reliable sources of established factual information for wikipedia purposes. DaveApter (talk) 20:05, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I looked at all of the links on the "...tue.nl" website, and all the others here, and I agree with DaveApter's comments. If we can find RS's (newer ones would be nice, since all those provided links are ~ 20 years old) that would be helpful.---Avatar317(talk) 00:32, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Recent activity on this page

Background

This page has been a wp:battleground for many years. There have been numerous edit wars between those who feel that the page was at times overly critical of Landmark and those who felt that it was insufficiently so. Both sides claimed that the other was violating the wp:npov policies and that they were attempting to restore neutrality. Many of the editors were blocked for violations of Wikipedia policies, in some cases indefinitely. There have been many resorts to mediation and other dispute resolution procedures, including an extended arbitration process in 2014, which resulted in a number of editors pushing anti-Landmark material being blocked or otherwise sanctioned, and the page being placed under restrictions for a time. A good deal of work by non-partisan editors and admins resulted in an article which had a broad degree of consensus, and it has been largely stable for some time now. It is a well established Wikipedia practice that significant edits to a page with a history of controversy should be discussed beforehand to check whether or not there is a broad consensus for the proposed changes. Recently there has been a flare-up of wp:contentious editing on the page, all without prior discussion here.

NPOV tag and edit warring

An NPOV Tag was placed on the article on 25th September, without discussion, apart from the editor clearly stating his own viewpoint at the head of the section above. Apart from refusing to provide a justification, the editor proceeded to edit war by replacing the tag when it was removed.[[2]],[[3]], [[4]], [[5]]. Arguably this was a violation of the wp:3RR policy, although it maybe escapes that on a technicality, since the third reinsertion was of a COI rather than the NPOV one.

Breaches of civility and wikiquette

I would say that the conduct of the above section on this page headed 'NPOV' speaks for itself...

Recent edits to the article (all without prior discussion and consensus seeking)
Wholesale removal of section

The entire section influence an impact was removed [[6]], despite its being essentially factual, relevant and adequately sourced.

New 'Litigation' section

This added section [[7]] appears to me to give undue weight to a civil case that was opened 19 years ago and then abandoned. What is the relevance of this to the topic of this article?

And this addition [[8]] of a reported comment by Rick Ross is surely even more irrelevant? Who knows whether he was really disappointed that the case did not proceed, or whether he was just putting a face-saving gloss on matters? Who knows what he would or would not have uncovered if the case had been processed? DaveApter (talk) 15:44, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Wholesale removal of section
Well you seem to be biased toward attempting to remove any negative content, no matter how well sourced and relevant, and pushing the positive content. I'd like to note the entire last paragraph of this removal you are contesting was SELF-SOURCED WP:SPS to Landmark, and can be seen as an WP:UNDUE inclusion of trivial content, the same argument you are trying to use against the Rick Ross comment below.
I'm not opposed to re-instating the sentence about the RUOK? Day sourced to the abc news source, and excluding the self-sourcing from the RUOK? Day's own website.
The first paragraph in that removal is not supported by the quotes from the sources, which talk about Ehrard, NOT Landmark's ideas.---Avatar317(talk) 23:26, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. I have reformatted this conversation slightly to comply with WP:TPG. Every statement should have a signature, and comments should not be placed in the middle of other comments. Having multiple subsections will make a mess of any future archives, as well. Grayfell (talk) 23:34, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
(Sorry about the location of my previous comment) This is a reply to the "New 'Litigation' section":
The relevance is that this organization is 30+ years old, and this Wikipedia article is pathetically small and sparse for the content that has been reported by RS's on Landmark and COULD be included.
You claim that because this happened 19 years ago it is not relevant, but that the above positive reporting on RUokDAy, 14 years ago is relevant?
You are making it clear that your bias is to keep as much negative information about this organization out of this article, and keep as much positive info included. ---Avatar317(talk) 23:39, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I guess I will re-involve myself in this article. Back in '21 (at #PR tag? above) I explained some of my concerns over the tone of the article. While it has improved in some ways, I don't think the problem has been fully resolved. The article still has WP:TONE issues, and uses far too much filler and softball PR. As just one of many possible examples, I still do not accept that "vitality" is meaningful enough to justify using without a definition. This is a small, subtle point, but I think it helps illustrate the deeper problem. Whether or not this is a buzzword depends on context, so provide enough context that it isn't a buzzword. Similarly, Landmark Worldwide#Concepts seems to be written from the perspective that "Landmark" is a single sentient entity capable of holding opinions and making arguments and proposing things and so on. This is obviously false, landmark is a business entity composed of many people and documents. The article should explain who, specifically, is making these claims, ideally with some indication of when they originated, instead of merely passing them along as bland truths from some unknown source.

As I said back in 2021, the article has many problems and merely fixing these examples would not, by itself, be enough to fix the entire article. Grayfell (talk) 00:01, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Responses

I don't really know how to address the threading with the structure that this section now has.

@Grayfell Thank you for returning to contribute to the debate. For what it is worth, I have removed the claim about 'vitality' since you objected to it, and I don't mind having a stab at re-wording the 'Concepts' section to avoid the vague attribution to 'Landmark' as an entity. I do appreciate that this will not satisfy all of your concerns since you say that these are only examples, and you feel that the article has more fundamental issues. However, unless we have specific concrete suggestions for changes that will improve matters, I don't see how we can move forward. DaveApter (talk) 16:00, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Avatar317

  1. Please don't make personal attacks, and confine your remarks to constructive suggestions for improvement of the article.
  2. Regarding the 'Wholesale removal' comment (which was not your edit, but you have rushed to defend), my main point was that this had been done without any prior discussion on this talk page. In fact both of your objections to the sourcing for this section are mistaken. The source for the first section did mention Landmark as well as Erhard. The source for the third section was The Times of India (and the ref does need fixing to cite the original publication, rather than its re-quote on Landmark's website).
  3. Regarding the addition of the 'Litigation' section, again, my main point is that this was added without any prior discussion. Why do you feel that this court action two decades ago is sufficiently noteworthy to add to this article?
  4. In any event, even if the case is worthy of mention, surely it is egregious to add the following material: postings on the Institute's websites which characterized Landmark as a cultish organization that brainwashed their clients .... Ross stated that he does not see Landmark as a cult because they have no individual leader, but he considers them harmful because subjects are harassed and intimidated, causing potentially unsafe levels of stress. These are at best non-notable opinions, and at worst malicious fabrications on Ross's part. What is the justification for using Wikipedia to propagate these viewpoints? DaveApter (talk) 16:00, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If the current arrangement is frustrating, you can use subsections for individual comments, but please add your signature to each comment in a section so that other readers can understand who is saying what. I personally recommend against this, however. Talk pages are intended to be a record, not just an ongoing discussion. It's not always realistic to expect a detailed response to many different points, so this approach can often feel frustrating and incomplete. This is why I have emphasized that my examples were examples, because I hoped that they would illustrate the deeper issues without having to enumerate all of them. If you understand the problem with the 'concepts' section, than you should also be able to recognize more subtle version of that same problem elsewhere in the article.
I have adjusted the formatting of the reference for the Ross case in the article (repeated here for convenience, with full archive link):
This source appears reliable and does specifically include Ross's comments regarding Landmark not being a cult, stress, and harassment. To me it would seem very strange to mention this without mentioning Ross's stated opinions, since they are obviously relevant to this lawsuit. Since Rick Alan Ross appears to still be living, including his opinion does help comply with WP:BLP. In this situation, if this is mentioned at all, the details help clarify the bigger picture.
If you would like additional suggestions for how to improve the article: The 'Landmark Forum' section is overly-detailed and includes some strange MOS:OVERLINKs as well as WP:SYNTH of multiple sources. The 'Current operations' section should adjusted to avoid MOS:CURRENTLY (which involves slightly more than just renaming the section) and to remove trivia and name-dropping which is only supported by passing mentions or primary sources. Grayfell (talk) 21:17, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you @Grayfell. It is helpful to have experienced editors who are not motivated by strong personal views about Landmark contributing to this discussion. My personal goal is for this to be a good quality accurate account fully in accordance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.
As regards your suggestions re the Landmark Forum section and the Current Operations section, I will take a look and see whether I can make adjustments to address your concerns. I would agree that there is an excessive number of wikilinks, several of which are not helpful. However, if there is going to be an article at all about this organisation, it seems to me that it is necessary to give some sort of account of what its activities are.
Regarding the Litigation section, I cannot disagree with your assessment that the source is acceptable, and that it does say what is summarised in the paragraph. What I am questioning is whether it is a sufficiently significant fact to be incorporated into this page. What I am more concerned about is that it appears to me to be a trojan horse to incorporate unsubstantiated and defamatory (and in fact false) allegations into Wikipedia, thereby giving them wider currency. It may well be in accordance with WP:BLP to detail these on the Rick Ross page, but does that justify including them here?
What is your opinion regarding the summary removal of the entire 'Influence and impact' section? - especially in the light of the fact that I pointed out above that the objections to the sourcing (by a different editor than the one who did the removal) were erroneous.
Incidentally my removal of the reference to 'vitality' in deference to your remarks about it was summarily reverted by user:Polygnotus, who is also accusing me of having a COI on this topic, and implying that I may be a paid contributor. DaveApter (talk) 17:03, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"motivated by strong personal views about Landmark"... "unsubstantiated and defamatory (and in fact false) allegations"... Sounds like you have pretty strong personal views about this company. You've been editing this page for 18 years. Polygnotus (talk) 17:11, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Kinda funny how you write about another editor as if you were uninvolved, but you forget to mention your role. The fact you broke the rules (e.g. WP:MAINTENANCEDISAGREEMENT), editwarred to keep your preferred version and removed the warning about 3RR.. Polygnotus (talk) 17:16, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
These remarks are irrelevant to the process of discussing how to improve this article. I will respond to them on your talk page. DaveApter (talk) 20:36, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
But you did post remarks about me above, which were also irrelevant to the process of discussing how to improve this article. It is not very complicated to figure out what your goal is. Polygnotus (talk) 20:45, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the "Influence and impact" section, it was not neutrally written and I think the article is better off without it. I do not view such content as "essentially factual" nor is it adequately sourced in this context. Asking these loaded questions undermines your case.
Since you asked and this is part of the article's ongoing issues, I will elaborate: WP:WEASEL words should be avoided, so talking about how "some writers" have so-and-so is not going to work, and I dispute that it is a neutral summary of those sources. Also, these ref-template quotes are long and include multiple elided section, which suggests to me that they were curated to support this wording, instead of being neutrally summarized on their own merits. Additionally, the sources for that section, yet again, appear to include WP:SYNTH issues. Grayfell (talk) 21:13, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am happy to go along with your judgement on those points, and to leave it out if you think the page is better without it. If the editor who removed it had made that case here first and allowed a few days to see whether anyone produced any counter arguments, I would not have raised an objection. My complaint was that it was done peremptorily without discussion. It was the advice of the Arbitrators at the close of the 2014 case that discussion should be held first, before making major amendments. DaveApter (talk) 11:19, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, as for Ross's opinions, they are clearly presented as his opinions, with a source, and are not falsifiable, so calling this "defamatory" is not a valid justification for their removal. If you somehow think that Wikipedia is being defamatory for repeating these properly-sourced, non-falsifiable opinions from a notable third party about a business entity, with attribution, than... no, that's not how any of this works, at all. Perhaps you may wish to review Wikipedia:No legal threats and also chilling effect and maybe Streisand effect for good measure. There are reasons to discuss removing this lawsuit, but calling it "defamatory" is non-productive, to put it mildly. Grayfell (talk) 21:30, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to have misunderstood my remark. I was not threatening anyone with legal action or intending to imply that I or anyone else might do so. I am aware of the other three guidelines you mention, and again cannot see how they relate to my comment.
The point I was making was that the remarks that Ross was being held to account for - "which characterized Landmark as a cultish organization that brainwashed their clients" were self-evidently "defamatory" (in the normal everyday sense of that term, not necessarily any technical legal sense; I am not a lawyer). Similarly with Ross's further comments that " he considers them harmful because subjects are harassed and intimidated, causing potentially unsafe levels of stress". My main reason for objecting to the inclusion of the report about the lawsuit is that it is (IMHO) a piece of trivia, but I have the further concern that it seems to be serving as a flimsy excuse for introducing the aforementioned opinions into the article. DaveApter (talk) 11:49, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Promotional text

I just removed this paragraph:

Organizations including Nasa, Apple, Microsoft, GlaxoSmithKline, Reebok, and Panda Express have employees who have participated in Landmark's programs through its corporate division, Vanto Group.<ref>{{cite web |url= https://books.google.com/books?id=h6MpAQAAIAAJ |title= The Believer, issues 1-4 |year= 2003 |publisher= McSweeney's Pub., LLC |page= 24 |access-date= August 3, 2021 |quote= Today, CEOs in companies including Reebok and Microsoft are fluent in the Landmark Forum teachings and its jargon. }}</ref>{{ r | Spears_2017-03-30 }}<ref>{{harvnb|Alford|2010}}: "Though Landmark is viewed by some as an incubator for overly assertive or blissed-out automatons who bear a strange predilection for the phrase “got it,” the eight-time Oscar-winning composer Alan Menken, the Boston Philharmonic conductor Benjamin Zander and Paul Fireman, the former Reebok chief executive, are all Landmark graduates, as are employees of Exxon Mobil, JPMorgan Chase, NASA and the Pentagon, who have been coached by the company’s consulting firm, the Vanto Group."</ref>

Note the wording, they "have employees who have participated". This is clear promotional content. Should we add to the McDonalds article that nearly all American Fortune 500 CEOs have eaten in a McDonalds at least once? Should we attribute their success, or that of their company, to that? JPMorgan Chase had 250.355 employees in 2022. Polygnotus (talk) 10:43, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Landmark_Worldwide&oldid=1182294506"