Talk:Landmark Worldwide

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

@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)

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)

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)

@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)

You appear in the talkpage archive since 2006. 17 years. What is your COI? Polygnotus (talk) 17:27, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

@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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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 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)

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)

(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)

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)

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)

@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)

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):

• Toutant, Charles. "Suits Against Anti-Cult Blogger Provide Test for Online Speech". New Jersey Law Journal. Law.com. Archived from the original on October 6, 2006. Retrieved October 26, 2023.

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)

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)

"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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

On another matter, do you consider that the the COI tag is currently justified, and if so, under what circumstances do you feel it would be appropriate to remove it? DaveApter (talk) 11:52, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Again, please stop using legal terms. Grayfell understood your remark perfectly, but you do not seem to understand that on Wikipedia we should refrain from using such terms unless necessary (e.g. when discussing actual legal action). If people threaten to sue they get swiftly blocked to protect the encyclopedia. And please read Help:Maintenance template removal. Polygnotus (talk) 16:18, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

If the article were in better shape, I would suggest the part about litigation be integrated into a reception section, or a history section, or similar. Right now, it would sort-of make sense in the "Public reception and criticism" section, but not yet. Just for starters, that section title is painfully non-neutral. Not only because of WP:CSECTION, but also because it implies that "scholars" are part of the public. The subtle implication here is that their expertise should be doubted. Since this is based on reliable and independent sources, it's unpersuasive dismiss this as "trivia". At this point, a near total rewrite of the article will be necessary for the article to be in decent-enough shape to not justify any tags. If not COI, an NPOV tag or ADVERT tag would make just as much sense. Presumably, this rewrite is going to involve a hell of a lot more edits which will be made peremptorily without discussion, which is how Wikipedia articles typically get built. Grayfell (talk) 22:20, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

I support having the tag at the top of the article; when I first came to this article I was astounded by how little real information was in this article, it seemed to be a "sanitized" article which had barely any more info than what one would expect to find on Landmark's site. I haven't reviewed the history, but the COI seems appropriate for Alex Jackl, based not only on what he might have added, but what he might have removed or kept out of the article. ---Avatar317^(talk) 23:29, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

In reading through the current talk page and the listing on the NPOV notice board, it appears to me that the editor who started the NPOV thread has a definite negative POV about the subject of the article. I also looked at the version of the article just prior to the current round of edits and my opinion of that version of the article is that it already contained substantial amounts of what could be considered critical academic and media views on the subject. The addition of the Rick Ross litigation section is beginning to shift the article towards WP:UNDUE. Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 18:22, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

But, as you must be aware; I didn't write the article. When looking at the version of the article just prior to the current round of edits; did you not notice the POV-pushing and the promotional text? Have you not read the talkpage archives that shows a bunch of WP:OWN and WP:COI and WP:TAGTEAM and WP:PUSH and WP:IDHT problems? Currently, the article is still far from neutral. But if you want to improve it, you need more than "some guy who didn't write the article does not like Landmark". All I did was remove some promo/puffery/pov/weasel stuff and I changed part of this sentence:

is a company, headquartered in San Francisco, that offers personal-development programs.

to this:

is an American company that offers personal-development programs. Polygnotus (talk) 18:48, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

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)

Please suggest your edits on this page first and allow a few days for discussion before making major changes to the article, in accordance with the suggestions of the Arbitrators at the close of the 2014 Arbitration. Thank you. DaveApter (talk) 14:08, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Unlike some people here, I do not have a COI and I know next to nothing about Landmark. I read a bit of the article and noticed npov problems. My plan was to notify others of the existence of these problems and move on. Please don't make me waste more time here. I do not care about Landmark. I only care about Wikipedia. People who have a COI should stop editing the article directly and use the {{Edit coi}} template instead. Polygnotus (talk) 15:53, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Please be specific, and state who are these "people who have a COI" to which you refer, with evidence to support your accusations. Please also desist from edit warring on this article. DaveApter (talk) 16:39, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Please stop talking to and/or about me. I only wanted to notify others of the npov problems and move on; please don't make me waste more time here. It would take me a long time to fix all the problems this article has; and I'd rather spend my time doing something more fun. Pretty boring stuff. I warned you against editwarring before and I'm not the first to do so. You seem to underestimate the intelligence of Wikipedians. They are pretty damn smart, on average. Polygnotus (talk) 16:52, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

I almost removed this content myself. It's bland PR. If reliable sources explain why these particular names are significant, summarize those sources. Otherwise this was just name-dropping. As with so much of the article, these sources were being wasted on tedious filler. The article in The Believer, for example, is available online and says a lot more than just 'well-known corporations have used this':

• Snider, Suzanne (1 May 2003). "Est, Werner Erhard and The Corporatization of Self-Help". Believer Magazine. Retrieved 28 October 2023.

As I've said before, the article gives the impression that someone wanted to add promotional tidbits, and then hunted around looking for sources to support that perspective. This is not a neutral approach. Grayfell (talk) 22:34, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

I recently discovered WP:BACKWARD. Excellent essay. Lots of promo or pov-pushing is written WP:BACKWARD. Polygnotus (talk) 08:26, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Good find. Grayfell (talk) 19:33, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Negative POV Pushing

I commented in the background thread, but now I am starting a new topic because it looks to me that there is now a distinct effort to represent this company in a negative light. I point to the recent changes to the history section that includes a new paragraph on the prehistory of the company using weasel words and wiki-links such as mental illness and placebo. Nearly all of this new addition is sourced to single article that appears to be an opinion piece. Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 18:06, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

I agree that there is no need to wikilink the words mental illness in this context. I have unlinked those words. I did a quick Google search and here is a snippet from landmarkwordwide.com:

"...people who have a history of mental illness or serious emotional problems personally or in their immediate family may be more vulnerable to stress and may experience additional and very severe physical, mental or emotional problems. In people who have physical, mental or emotional problems, even normal amounts of stress from any source may generate severe physical, mental or emotional problems. If you have any history of mental illness or emotional problems personally or in your immediate family, whether temporary, occasional or intermittent, and whether treated or not, or have concerns about your ability to handle stress, OUR ADVISORS STRONGLY RECOMMEND THAT YOU DO NOT PARTICIPATE in the Programme..."

So it seems that Landmark does indeed warn people with a (history of) mental illness. Can you list the weasel words here so we can take a look? Not everyone know what a placebo is so I did not unlink that wikilink. Hope that helps, Polygnotus (talk) 18:55, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Clean-up of various recent edits

Litigation section

I am not really convinced that there is any merit to including this section at all - surely any business that has been operating for several decades is likely to have been involved in a handful of lawsuits? Why is this significant enough to include in the article? In any event there were definitely smears and insinuations in this section that are non-encyclopedic in tone. I have edited the first sentence to be less clumsy and convoluted. I have removed the reference to the non-fact that Margaret Singer 'would not comment...'. I have clarified the wording regarding Rick Ross' statements so that it is clear that these are claims and opinions, rather than having them appear to be stating established facts. Also removed the weasel word 'purportedly'.

History section

The opening paragraph recently added was problematic for several reasons. For one thing it deals with events prior to the formation of Landmark, but more importantly it contains much speculation and editorialising, as well as assertions for which the cited sources do not provide clear links to any primary information. I have condensed the relevant points.

If editors do not agree with these changes, please discuss here rather than resorting to edit-warring. Thank youo DaveApter (talk) 16:16, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

The litigation section has already been discussed above, and the consensus was against you.

The references which talk about history are sources describing Landmark, and are therefore part of its history. ---Avatar317^(talk) 23:16, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

@DaveApter: You have spent 18, almost 19, years here defending the topic of this article. Can you please stop now? Please move on. Please stop using Wikipedia to defend or promote Landmark. Please stop it. Don't even respond to this message. This is a giant waste of your time. Please just go do something more useful and fun. I don't want to waste my time defending NPOV against people who are willing to spend decades on something this unimportant. How can we believe that it is not a cult when people spend decades defending it against any and all criticism no matter how tame or justified? Polygnotus (talk) 02:36, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

Please try to remain civil, and cut out the personal attacks. To put your insinuations into perspective, I should point out that - prior to the onslaught on this article over the past month or so - I have made about three dozen edits to the article in the previous eight years, out of a total of about 400 edits on the article in that period. Conversely, over that eight year period I have made over 500 edits on a wide variety of other subjects, many of them substantial good-quality contributions DaveApter (talk) 16:20, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

Dave Apter - where does your knowledge about Landmark come from?

@DaveApter: I notice in the old edits (where most of the article was COMPLETELY unsourced) that you have often added LOTS of information (many times very specific, with percentages) about Landmark (all unsourced, but the majority of the article was that way, so I'm not complaining about that.)

Where/how did you get all this information/knowledge about Landmark? ---Avatar317^(talk) 00:49, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

I'm surprised that you need to ask that question, since I have been completely transparent in stating on several occasions that I'm a former customer of Landmark's (along with two or three million other people). I did the Landmark Forum over twenty years ago, followed by a few other courses and found them valuable. I don't know what specific information you are referring to, so I can't comment on that, but I would imagine it would have been things that were in the public domain somewhere. Unless you are talking about content which is in the article today, this hardly seems relevant. DaveApter (talk) 15:48, 19 November 2023 (UTC)