Talk:Landmark Worldwide/Archive 31

Protected edit request on 6 March 2015

This is a cult and we came here to edit the page to say so. Request that we can update the page. Thank you. JoltAsResearch (talk) 02:21, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

This seems to me a mere attempt to disrupt (by someone who employs the majestic plural). Theobald Tiger (talk) 09:27, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Not done: requests for decreases to the page protection level should be directed to the protecting admin or to Wikipedia:Requests for page protection if the protecting admin is not active or has declined the request. --Redrose64 (talk) 14:28, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

• Now blocked by User:HJ Mitchell--thanks. Drmies (talk) 15:48, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Flippant

Dave Apter, this edit was unwise (and led to the protection). The piece may be "flippant", in your words, but that statement is hardly personal opinion and you know it: some evidence is given. Whether that's enough to warrant inclusion here is another matter, but this does not make you look good, esp. since you are obviously neutering a highly critical piece by making it a source only for the most innocent of statements (in note 7). Drmies (talk) 21:15, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Drmies: I don't quite understand that. It is undoubtedly true that Werner Erhard had no formal training in psychology - but he also had no formal training in geology. At that point in the article the ONLY reason to include that statement if it is meant to imply something negative about Werner Erhard and his qualifications to start the business. The statement itself contains only facts but you and I both know that which facts you choose to include completely change the communication. Is this an encyclopedia article on Landmark or is it an attack piece on Werner Erhard? That is the question. The relevance of Werner Erhard's educational background when founding a company 20 years before Landmark existed is really REALLY hard to explain as a relvant part of this article. I thin kthat stuff probbaly doesn't belong in Wikipedia at all but if it does it certainly shouldn't be here but in a Werner Erhard article.

HJ MItchell: I appreciate you locking the page, although it is in pretty bad shape. I would love to see some neutral parties look at this and help us sort out the design of this page. There is a lot of POV editing going on and I, while interested, do not want to engage in edit wars or revert chains with people. By the way Thanks, Alex Jackl (talk) 22:09, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

A failure to understand Drmies' point could not unreasonably raise more questions about the person saying that than anything else. Landmark is a form of Large-group awareness training and Personal development. Both of those groups are pretty much rooted in individual Psychology. It is hard for me to understand why anyone would think it would make any sense whatsoever to even introduce geology into the discussion, which, clearly has no relevance to the topic whatsoever. The fact that you seem to as per your statement think that adding such information makes this, and I quote, "an attack piece on Werner Erhard," raises very serious questions in my eyes whether a person who would think such questions even remotely reasonable would be able to contribute much in the light, rather than heat, department. The principles of psychology and psychiatry were, admittedly, maybe less well defined at the time Erhard created the structure of the seminars which the current corporation seems to more or less rather clearly continue, and if the subject of the seminars is the broad field of personal development, which has a huge psychological component, then if reliable sources discussing this topic indicate that he had no training in that field, even given the nature of the field at that time, depending on the length of the coverage and amount of weight given in the original source, there is no reason to believe that it might not at least conceivably qualify for discussion here as well. John Carter (talk) 22:25, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

John, please comment on content and not contributors. Any value in what you said above gets lost in the remarks about editors. --Tgeairn (talk) 23:04, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

@Tgeairn: And, praytell, what value whatsoever can be found in your own comment then, which is apparently exclusively about an editor? John Carter (talk) 23:12, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

John: Let's not lie on this page. The comment you made: "whether a person who would think such questions even remotely reasonable would be able to contribute much in the light, rather than heat, department. " is condescending, rude, and is clearly a personal attack. Don't go attacking Tgeairn because he pointed out that you were breaking Wikipedia policies. It is this kind of behavior that led to the page being blocked. But I don't want to engage in any kind of battle with you even if it is to defend myself or others against your behavior. Let's talk about content: Alex Jackl (talk) 01:45, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Taken at face value, this conflict seems to represent a misunderstanding of the nature of the Landmark Forum. The reason the comments on Erhard's lack of formal training in psychiatry and psychology are irrelevant is because the Landmark Forum has much more in common with management consulting than psychology. It is probably better described as applied philosophy than psychology. It has ZERO relationship with psychiatry (no drugs are dispensed in any classes I ever heard of) and have as little relationship to psychology as a management consulting seminar. It is absolutely WP:RELEVANCE. That is why it occurred for me that many of these comments were not based on the courses and content of what Landmark Worldwide does or is (which is obviously what an encyclopedic article on it should primarily reflect) but some WP:COATRACK to air some grievance with Werner Erhard. I am not saying that he shouldn't be mentioned in the article - I just think having more than half the article be about him is a BLATANT case of WP:UNDUE WEIGHT. The article used to have a section on the nature of the content of Landmark's courses but it got taken down in the many edit wars that have scarred this article. I would be happy to re-introduce it with appropriate citations if the admins thought that would make sense. Thank you! Alex Jackl (talk) 01:45, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for expressing your opinion as per WP:POV. And please read WP:POT regarding your rather extensive lengthy use of an article talk page, rather than a personal user page, to discuss others. In some regards, I might not disagree with some of your suggestions, particularly mentioning the nature of the courses. However, I notice that Astynax has said above that there seems to be little if any mention in independent reliable sources of them. From what little I have seen myself, in the numerous documents I have downloaded from subscription newsbanks, I would have to agree with him, although I don't think anyone would object to seeing non-promotional discussion of them if it can be found in independent reliable sources. Regarding your statements about its relationship to psychology, etc., please provide sources that substantiate those claims, as I think at this point it is in all of our interests to realize that article talk pages are intended for the improvement of the article, and not general discussion of the topic. Improvement of the article generally involves discussing sources, what the sources say, and the relative weight they give them. It does not involve the sometimes absolutist and often unsourced statements of individuals. Personal opinions without sourcing about what should or should not be on the article, or its talk page, are probably better placed somewhere else. John Carter (talk) 01:53, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

John, Ajackl, let's all take it easy and notch it down. Ajackl, I didn't say anything about geology, nor was I pointing at any specific text other than (indirectly), the topic of recent discussion--the question of the "religious character". Now, that something is a hit piece is really irrelevant if the hit piece is published in what is considered a reliable source; what we would choose to reproduce from that text is a matter of editorial judgment. You're jumping to conclusions in what appears to be a pre-emptive strike: claiming that something should be discarded automatically because the author has a strong opinion runs counter to what we should be doing here. By which I mean it's wrong. As for the "content" of the courses: it's there in one of the diffs I linked above (in a statement about "undue") and what's in that version is clearly undue, but that's another matter, and I'd appreciate if if you didn't muddy the waters. Again, I was talking about this edit, in which some text was removed and an edit summary was given; please do not railroad a discussion by bringing in a bunch of unrelated material. It's counterproductive, even disruptive. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 02:10, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

@Drmies: I do appreciate your attention in trying to bring some order to this mess which would try the patience of a saint, but I respectfully disagree with your assessment of my removal of Sciosia's comment. The quotation marks round the statement "freely threatens or pursues lawsuits against those who call it [a cult]" is presumably intended to indicate that it's report of what someone said rather than a factual assertion (whilst leaving the casual reader with the impression that it is factual). A cheap journalistic ploy and unencyclopedic. As a factual claim it's poorly supported by the evidence, as I would expect you to know from the work you did a few months ago on the former 'litigation' page. Is a dozen or so libel cases in 24 years - and none at all in the last eight - unusually litigious?

And the other edit I made seemed to be the justified removal of a cheap straw-man jibe aimed at Erhard. DaveApter (talk) 11:30, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Dave, I didn't say anything about a salesman. But I think you need to be very careful: if the source is a reliable source, and if the piece can be judged to be not just some editorial but an investigative article, then the statement has weight. This is somewhat relevant: just because a journalist says it doesn't mean it's "just" some opinion. If that were the case, you should be the first one to remove the HuffPo and Observer articles that praise Landmark. You can't have it both ways. Dave, I think I like you fine, and I do not wish to rake anyone over the coals, but this is precisely the thing that can lead to a topic ban: a misinterpretation of policy seemingly based on a specific perspective (or POV, to use our jargon). Drmies (talk) 15:44, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Point taken Drmies. This is a good point. Thank you. Alex Jackl (talk) 16:50, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

I agree with most of what Drmies, DaveApter and AJackl are saying here. On the one hand, I don't think dismissing the article as a flippant feature was at all an appropriate argument for whether or not this statement should be included - it would depend on what the weight of reliable sources say about this topic, which I haven't thoroughly investigated.

On the other hand, the removal of the mention of Werner Erhard as having no training in psychology and being a salesmen seems completely appropriate - these facts seem irrelevant to the article and simply designed to cast the subject in a dubious light. In fact, the addition of extensive content about Erhard and the structuring of his companies to this article seems to be based on an opinion (not supported by reliable sources) expressed by editors here that Erhard is somehow running or deeply involved with Landmark today. Nwlaw63 (talk) 15:28, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Let's leave that for another day. Personally, I don't know whether he is or isn't; I haven't read the material. What I was trying to get accomplished with this thread is a bit more care in how things get reverted here. These waters need oil. I'm also trying to get at least some of the noses pointed in the same direction (which is "decent article"), so that Big Bad Harry may someday unprotect the article. Drmies (talk) 17:04, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

I think one of the biggest things keeping anyone from trying to improve the article is, unfortunately, as you said, the seeming obsession on the part of some on going out of their way to argue, seemingly to the death almost, any point which might disagree with their own often predetermined views on this topic. As a case in point, I remember on this page some time ago trying to start a discussion to determine what the main article for the set of interrelated articles here should be. Policies and guidelines would seem to indicate that there is a probability that these articles about est, Erhard and Landmark and various related topics are closely related enough to have one article which serves as the main article. It also seems to me to make sense to determine just how many articles on the topic there should be for optimum encyclopedic content, and what those articles should be about. However, the apparent lack of interest in such discussions can, I think not unreasonably, be seen as being off-putting and probably to some degree make those so interested wonder if there is any point in trying to make the effort to do so.

I still think the primary focus in the short term should be to determine points (1) what subtopics or related topics merit as per notability and weight substantial coverage somewhere here, (2) what subtopics or related topics are broad enough to include subtopics as subsections, which would be useful in determining what related articles should exist, and (3) once the basic organization of the topic is accomplished, it would be much easier to determine what is included in which articles. Several extant wikiprojects around here, including Religion, Psychology, Sociology, Pseudoscience, and Companies, at least, would seem to possibly or probably have some people well enough acquainted with those specific topics as they are covered here and in reliable sources to be useful here. However, frankly, speaking for myself, and possibly others, including @Astynax:, who has also indicated at least the preliminary stages of burnout regarding the disputational atmosphere here, we may have already, more or less, thought there were better things to do with our time than continue to try to, basically, rehash variations on the same basic points and areas ad infinitum. John Carter (talk) 20:05, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Religion Stuff

I consolidated the regligion stuff into one public perception and criticism section. The religion stuff in the lead give too much weight to a what I think is a fringe view that a company can be a religion. Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 00:12, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Your opinion of the "fringe view that a company can be a religion" shows to my eyes, unfortunately, little understanding of the Church of Scientology or many or most of the more recent new religious movements, many of which have incorporated in some way under the laws of their countries. It is certainly possible that a company can be organized for the primary if not sole purpose of putting forward a belief. Also, I very much think that the ultimate related issue, regarding whether Landmark is a new religious movement, in much the same way as the New Age and other fairly clearly less-than-primarily-religious topics have been described as new religious movements. So far as I know, in fact, at least within the Catholic Church, most parishes or local churches are also companies or independent corporations or something along that line, depending on the laws of the individual country. There may well be an issue whether such material should be included in the lede on other bases, but, I regret to say, this particular reason is probably not a good one. John Carter (talk) 00:17, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

As stated in edit summary its important gain consensus on significant changes, such as this, on this page before making them, not after. I've reverted again. Explain why and why and allow time for discussion (not all of us log on every hour let alone every day). Please make your case here first and ensure you have the majority of editors in support of the change. AnonNep (talk) 00:39, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

That material was added here without any prior discussion or consensus. It was immediately removed, and has been consistently removed since then. The burden here is to get consensus to add that material, not to remove it. --Tgeairn (talk) 00:44, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Under the circumstances, based on the original comment of this thread, the argument to remove the material had no basis in fact, as I pointed out in my own comment. I do not believe any policy or guideline places a consensus which clearly disagrees with established fact as reasonable or necessary acceptable. However, I do believe it may well be appropriate to file an RfC on this in the near future to determine the opinions of a greater number of uninvolved editors. John Carter (talk) 00:47, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

RfCs are probably the way to handle some of this. However, the most recent RfC on this material closed with the result of the article in this state. So, there has been a relatively recent RfC and the outcome was without the "religion stuff in the lead" the OP brought up. Again, since that RfC closed there has been a concerted effort to effectively overturn the RfC without starting a new one. That's not how RfCs (are supposed to) work. --Tgeairn (talk) 01:01, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm not too sure what you are talking about with this (your link above) but I'm talking about this. Where is the thread that offers definitive Talk consensus on that? AnonNep (talk) 01:05, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

I was reverted before I even made a comment on the talk page so here is a little more of an explanation. Forgive me John Carter, but I respectfully disagree. Religions have a legal tax status as non-profits. Corporations/companies private and public have a legal tax status as for profit corporations. Please show me where the Catholic church is set up as a for-profit corporation. I have read about Scientology and I do know that their status varies from country to country. They however (as odd as they are) also call themselves a religion. That is why I considered the idea that a company is a religion to be fringe. Another reason I do not think it should not be in the lead of the article is that I participated in an RFC about Landmark's inclusion in the list of NRMs and that RFC was closed saying that it did not belong on the list. Why then should it be in the lead of the article about Landmark? Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 00:55, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

And, I regret to say, your disagreement is rather clearly based on faulty reasoning. You seem to be acting on the assumption a "corporation" can be a "religion," taking both as comparatively absolute terms. They are not. It is also possible, and, indeed, regularly the case, that the more recent "religions" (or new religious movements, a term which does not necessarily imply "religion", even if the word itself is included in the term) are also "corporations." There is a chicken or the egg question here. You also seem to be making the rather regular mistake that a broadly social movement cannot have religious characteristics. I regret to say that in a number of recent social movements have been found to have what would historically be called broadly "religious" or ethical concerns. Ethics not being in any way absolute, but based on fundamental principles which receive in effect the same support of religious dogma, the difference in the modern era is much less pronounced or obvious than we tend to think, despite the unfortunate use of the word "religious" in the term new religious movement. John Carter (talk) 01:17, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

@Elmmapleoakpine: To answer your question, it should not be in the lead. There was an RfC as to whether or not we (Wikipedia) consider Landmark to be a religious movement, and the answer was "no, we do not and we will not say that it is". There was also at least one recent RfC on how the article should be structured and what belongs in the lede, the outcome of that RfC did not include the religion "stuff" in the lede. That other editors are edit warring to force material into the lede without consensus and against the outcome of those RfCs is a problem. Sorry you've run into it face-first. Cheers, Tgeairn (talk) 01:05, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

This has been discussed ad nauseam. Any RFC can be changed by the same community that created it. When was this definitive RFC? Is there a link? If it so definitive why has the Talk discussion continued and the lede to have been more reflective of that content than not? AnonNep (talk) 01:12, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Tgeairn, I'd like to see that too: you previously linked to an entire talk page--that's like pointing at a wooly mammoth and saying "that hair, on that animal". Elmmapleoakpine, please don't go around saying that something is only a "religion" if it has tax-exempt status with some government or other. And the lead didn't say "Landmark is a religion"; it said "Landmark's programs have been categorized by scholars and others as religious or quasi-religious in nature". Big difference. Drmies (talk) 01:18, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

@Drmies and AnonNep: I apologize... yes, pointing to the whole mammoth didn't clear things up much - and with this article, there never seems to be just one thread to point to. This RfC followed this discussion of this massive undiscussed edit by Astynax. Following the "Deja Vu" discussion, the RfC asked if the preferred version was pre or post the massive single edit. The consensus was that the "pre" version was preferred, and a number of edits primarily by Drmies and Begoon brought the article into roughly that version as of this version, and the RfC was closed (twice, if I recall). The Arbcom case began soon after this, and various editors have attempted to force their preferred version without another RfC or first getting consensus. The modus is to make a massive undiscussed edit (look at the history), and fight for it to remain by saying consensus is needed to remove material. Hopefully those links help clear things up - particularly which version(s) of the article actually had consensus. --Tgeairn (talk) 06:10, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

I have no wish to become deeply involved in this endless back and forth, but since I was pinged, I will clarify that my last substantial comment can be found here: [1], where I said:

• "Frankly, Dave, I don't see much of a problem with the "Religious characteristics" section, or its mention in the lead. The section itself seems well balanced. Many of the sources are summarised above, in the "in summary" section ^(permalink), and it certainly seems significant enough, indeed necessary, to cover in the article, if we are to achieve balance. The lead summarises the article, so it needs to be there. Some readers only view the lead when visiting a page, and to remove it would do them a disservice, and contravene WP:LEDE. This certainly should not be a hit-piece, nor, equally, should it omit relevant, well sourced "criticism" or academic views on the topic."

This was the (then) current version of the article when I made that comment: [2] That's still my preference for how these issues should be presented, and I'm firmly opposed to "losing" that specific subsection and to the removal of its mention from the lead. Begoon ^talk 14:49, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Begoon, thanks for the comment, and for agreeing with me of course. :) Drmies (talk) 19:30, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

• John Carter, if you're going to edit-war over the passage, PLEASE tweak that " some, though not all, scholars" bit: "though not all" is painfully redundant, and some English professor may come by and block you for it. Drmies (talk) 01:21, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
• Thank you Tgeairn. Since, apparently, Begoon and I produced, one way or another, this version, that must be a great version. It mentions but does not overburden the matter of controversy, as the lead should, and as is verified in the article, and does so in fairly neutral terms. I have restored that version, just now. If needs be we can have another RfC on the narrow question of "do we keep it this way", but I also think there was broad agreement on it as a middle way. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 18:41, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
• Hmmm... I think even this adds a little too much weight to the religion section. I think it really doesn't belong in the lead- because the vast majority of the sources listed say something like "some people call it a religion, and it may have attribute X or attribute Y but it really isn't". It is almost entirely non-relevant from my standpoint- verging on fringe. I would delete the entire religion section. But I am certain that the mention of religion does not belong in the lead given all that. Let's leave it off the lead- the way it was before it was re-introduced recently. Alex Jackl (talk) 19:01, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

• @AJackl: I thought the purpose of the lede was to, well, summarize the article. If something is deserving of a separate section in the article, in all honesty, I have very, very serious questions whether there is any reason not to mention it in the lede, in some fashion, one editor's personal opinions notwithstanding. Can you provide any sort of argument based on something more directly relevant to wikipedia policies and guidelines than your own personal opinion as to why it should not be discussed in the lede? John Carter (talk) 19:10, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
• John:The lead is not supposed to cover every little thing - it is supposed to be a summary that gives the user a sense of the article. You apparently did not read what I wrote since you think I was giving you just my "personal opinion". (there is no need to be rude by the way- the condescending tone does little for civil discourse) This reference to religion is not substantiated, it is not referenced and I directly referenced undue weight and relevance. What makes you think this fringe theory should cover 40% of the lead space on this article? It is certainly not 40% of the story about Landmark. So I would remove it entirely and bring the article a little closer to an encyclopedic state. I suggest re-reading [WP:LEAD] to get clarity on that- particularly CLUTTER. I am curious what other editors think since Mr. Carter and I seem to be on opposing sides of this thinking? Alex Jackl (talk) 19:59, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

• The lede is supposed to be able to effectively summarize the article. It is also certainly possible to expand the lede to the four paragraphs allowed. I cannot believe any reasonable person looking at the matter objectively would say that something which is the sole subject of two of the only 28 paragraphs in the article, particularly considering the relative length of those other paragraphs, would be able to count discussion of that subject in the range of "every little thing." I also strongly resent your appearing to make unfounded accusations about me in the post above. It is one thing to reduce the coverage, it is quite another to eliminate it altogether. According to policies and guidelines the article should summarize the content, presumably proportionally to the weight given the material in the body of the article itself. John Carter (talk) 20:53, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

• Jackl, it's not a little thing. There seems to be some agreement here that the material is relevant enough to warrant mention in the lead; just driving by and removing it is a bit not done. Notes 51 through 55 cite a half a dozen or more sources from really impeccable publications, so saying that it shouldn't be in the article at all makes little sense. If you wish to argue otherwise, you can do so of course, but this has been going on for a while (bull, china shop) and I do believe there's some consensus for some mention in the lead. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 21:12, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

There has never been agreement or consensus for any ‘religion’ mention to be in the article lede – it’s been a point of ongoing argument/discussion for the better part of two years since the editor Astynax has attempted to make it a major focus of the article, and was at the heart of the content dispute for which Astynax took several editors to Arbcom. I see this as unwarranted for several reasons:

1) We have literally hundreds of news sources that discuss Landmark and its courses in detail and as far I’ve seen, exactly zero of them have made the claim that there is anything religious happening there. If Landmark was religious in nature, wouldn’t the New York Times, Time Magazine, The Guardian, Mother Jones or any of other reputable news organizations that have covered Landmark in detail have made some mention of this?

2) This leaves the academic sources you mention, most of which don’t discuss Landmark in great detail, but simply have Landmark on a list of New Religious Movements. This is problematic, because the writers that do this are operating from a definition of ‘new religious movement’ that doesn’t actually require a group to actually be ‘religious’ in the dictionary definition of the word in order to be included – any group that these writers which to study, or that is about self-actualization in any form can be included.

3) The main source we have that does make the detailed case for Landmark’s religiosity, Lockwood, does so in a way that acknowledges that it is challenging more established scholarship (Chryssides) about what we actually consider spiritual. In other words Lockwood goes against far more cited writers to make her claims, clearly making this a minority view. As such, it probably merits a brief mention in the article, but not a part of the lead of the article. Nwlaw63 (talk) 00:35, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

A few responses.

1) It would really, really be useful if editors made some effort to familiarize themselves with all of our relevant policies and guidelines. WP:SCHOLARSHIP comes to mind, particularly regarding the relative weight we are to give to what "news sources" say seems to ignore the fact that we tend to base our content more on what academic sources say.

2) This comment seems to me anyway to be attempting to redefine a standard term based on a single word included in that term. New religious movement, for better or worse, is a standard term used within the relevant sociological and related fields. I cannot see any rational basis for saying that we are obligated to not describe something in the way academic sources do simply on the basis of personal reservations about the applicability of words. I acknowledge myself that the term is less than ideal, but it is not and never has been our place to try to place our own views before those of the most reliable, generally academic, sources.

3) This statement is actually the most reasonable of the lot. However, I am far from sure that it necessarily conforms to our guidelines regarding LEDE sections. There is also a question about choosing one academic over another. I am myself less than sure, off the top of my head, the specific fields of both Lockwood and Chryssides, but if one is an academic in one field or subspecialty and the other in another, then it would probably be reasonable to take the opinion of the person whose field most directly relates to this claim as being more authoritative. However, that also seems to relate to matters of relative weight within the article itself, and it would make much more sense, and probably be more useful, to try to directly deal with that more central matter than arguing about the weight in the lede.

Also, honestly, as I have said before, I think it would be reasonable for us to abide by WP:LEDE, which specifically and pointedly says it is possible for the lede to run up to four paragraphs. The most reasonable way in the eyes of most, at least I think, would be to try to structure the lead to have proportional weight to the article itself. Based on what I've seen, given the current content of the article, roughtly 1/2 of a paragraph in a 4 paragraph lede could reasonably be devoted to religious/NRM matters on that basis. Exactly what might be contained in that paragraph is a separate matter, but some sort of significant summary discussion of the religious/NRM issues in the lede seems to me to be both reasonable for inclusion in the article, and, honestly, more or less required by our existing guidelines and policies. John Carter (talk) 01:34, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

You seem to dismiss my first point without considering it. WP: Scholarship notes that the superiority of academic sources applies to academic subjects - Modern companies and events such as this are covered far more thoroughly in news sources - Arbcom pointed to the relative lack of academic coverage in the case. While there are at first glance a good number of academic sources, if you look at them, like I have, they are almost all extremely brief, and often out of date. There is nothing wrong with referring to the complete lack of religiosity mentioned in our extensive news sources about the subject.

Regarding the second points, it's not parsing words to make sure we are reflecting the sources accurately. If a writer puts a group on a list of new religious movements, but uses a definition of new religious movement that doesn't call for actual religiousness, as is the case here, then we shouldn't use this mention to establish religiousness. Nwlaw63 (talk) 14:40, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

First, I guess I should thank you for having made it clear in your very first sentence that AGF is a problem in your comment. The fact is that in the modern world, with the abundance of newspapers out there, virtually everything is covered more frequently in newspapers and such than in the rarer academic and scholarly sources. Your first paragraph itself raises, I regret to say, concerns regarding WP:TE and particularly WP:IDHT. And, frankly, simply saying that there are comparatively few academic sources does not mean that we are free to ignore the ones that exist. I am also rather stunned at the last sentence of your first paragraph, which seems to explicitly make a statement which is clearly in violation of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. I would have assumed that by this point you were aware that our rules say that we repeat what sources say, not that we draw our own conclusions about what they say. Also, honestly, including a statement such as the one you propose could only be made if the effort to prove "the complete lack of religiosity mentioned" as per WP:BURDEN, which would mean, basically, finding every source out there and proving that none of them say such a thing.

And, perhaps, while the second paragreph seems to my eyes to be very strongly straining to make a point, it is true that NRMs are not necessarily religious. The term was chosen because it was a more politically correct version of the early terms (in the US) "cult" or (in Europe) "sect". While on that basis it would clearly and reasonably be possible to refer to the "Cultish characteristics of Landmark," and the characteristics of such groups are rather clearly defined, or even "Sociological characteristics..." However, we are also supposed to, in general, use the most clear and directly applicable terms as per WP:EUPHEMISM. If the characteristics are of a broadly "religious"/"cultism" nature, then by that page the terms we should use should as clearly as possible indicate that nature. John Carter (talk) 16:09, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

I must admit to being a bit baffled by the fact that John Carter seems to be simultaneously asserting two incompatible propositions. On the one hand he tells us that the phrase New Religious Movement is a technical term which doesn't necessarily require organisations so classified to be "religious" in any way that speakers of English would understand the word. On the other hand he wants the fact that some scholars have categorised Landmark as a NRM to justify the statement "Landmark's programs have been categorized by some scholars and others as religious or quasi-religious in nature." Which is it? DaveApter (talk) 18:07, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

First, I believe that the comment above seems to be making allegations which are at this point completely unsubstantiated regarding what I "want." I also note how the comment seems to basically ignore several of the points I made, as per WP:IDHT, which, perhaps, might not be particularly surprising. First, it is worth noting that, at least in our religion article, as per its first sentence, "A religion is an organized collection of beliefs, cultural systems, and world views that relate humanity to an order of existence." There is no indication that a "religion" is necessarily something that must absolutely fall within the rather strict definition which is generally used for that word, and that it also seems to incorporate all Weltanschaungs. So, by that definition, the term NRM, using the broader definition of "religious" can be reasonably used to describe any group which has a common weltanschaung, which, presumably, includes the belief that attendance of a rather strictly structured groups of meetings will in some way be able to help that person receive some form of inspiration, particularly if that conclusion has not necessarily received any independent support in academic sources. So, if someone were to perhaps familiarize themselves with the relevant literature regarding [new religious movement]]s, it is rather obvious, and sometimes clearly stated, that it is more or less a basically less inflammatory term than the words "cult" and "sect" which had previously been used. The first sentence of cult in its current form specifically states, if anyone were to bother to look, that "a cult is a religious or social group." There is no explicit mention of it being necessarily religious in the widely construed narrow sense of that word. The first sentence of "sect" in its current form says, "A sect is a subgroup of a religious, political or philosophical belief system..." There is no clear indication that a sect is necessarily religious as per that narrow definition either. Therefore, it is not unreasonable to say specifically both that a group is a NRM, broadly construed, and also, if applicable, that some of its characteristics might be of a specifically religious nature as per the narrow definition of that word. While I acknowledge that certain editors who might have little if any familiarity with the broad topics involved might be basically unaware of and of dubious competence to speak of them, I would have thought that they might make some form of noticeable effort to familiarize themselves with the topics by at least looking at the easily available pages here first. John Carter (talk) 18:20, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

• Nitpicking here is a bit silly. I've just looked at half a dozen sources, and while some of the mentions/discussions are shorter than others, they are published in impeccable sources, and not giving them any weight at all would be...well, wrong. John, there is no need to explain at length what "cult" and all that means; the word isn't in the article now, and it isn't in the sources I looked at--let's not follow that path, since this talk page is already long enough.

  For those of you who have followed this program, I have fought to get an overdose of what one might call negative material out of here, but to remove the whole NRM thing altogether, an appellation confirmed by plenty of high-quality sources, is not acceptable. And that means it should be in the lead as well. Any claims of UNDUE should be met in other ways than removal from lead and article; anyone claiming "undue" can look at earlier versions of the article, like this one or this one; look in particular for the sourcing. The current version isn't so bad, but if we want to get picky, "while some researchers question that categorization as well" might be undue, since the sourcing (in note 53) is unclear--it's not clear which of the three sources goes with the "Others, such as Chryssides..." comment or with the parenthetic statement questioning their categorization. The next full paragraph, with statements from Observer and HuffPo, might well be called "undue" given the status of peer-reviewed books vs. first-person newspaper articles (the first one isn't even cited). So if there's anything unbalanced, it's not on the side of those who call it an NRM. Drmies (talk) 19:01, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

  • OK, Hill is cited elsewhere; whoever came up with this awful system of documentation needs to add the proper footnote to that sentence in the "Criticism and response" paragraph. Drmies (talk) 19:05, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
    • Doc, I'm sorry, but I'm pretty sure that Rick Ross's new book "Cults Inside Out," which apparently has substantial coverage regarding Landmark, might raise the use of the word "Cult" again. It seems to have been printed in December, and at this point I haven't even looked at it, and I haven't seen any published reviews in academic sources yet, although China seems to love the book because it is also apparently critical of Falun Gong, but, depending on the support or lack of same the book receives, that word may well become a bit more of a problem in the future. Not yet, thank anything and everything you can think of, but maybe in, well, a month or less. John Carter (talk) 21:08, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
      • Baby steps, John. Drmies (talk) 02:11, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
      • I do not understand why Mr. Ross is not respresented here. He has written numerous passages on landmark and their cult. And none of those passages are in this article. Thank you John for making sure to bring the anticult message to this discussion.

@Nwlaw63, A few comments:

• First: What you wrote 14:40h, 5 March 2015 (UTC) seems to me a complete misconception of what the relevant policies and guidelines say: of course we should never, never resort to newspaper reports (neither pro nor contra) when there are academic sources of some merit available. And we should also never ignore or even dismiss reliable sources written by academics on the grounds that the critic disapprove of the academic typology of social phenomena.
• Second: Of course Landmark/est is not a church, mosque or religious institution, and it has never been; it is also not a religious movement in any traditional sense, and nobody has ever described it as such, not in a volatile newspaper piece and not in a reputable academic publication. The religiousness of Landmark/est is of a completely different kind, reason why reliable sources call Landmark/est almost without exception a New Religious Movement, including a sacralized Self as the bearer of divine truth, some kind of ritual, founder worship, a form of community building, proselytizing, the promise of enlightenment and salvation (made palatable to a post-religious generation), and even a kind of transcendence.
• Third: Lockwood is but one of the RS that treat Landmark as a NRM. Upon request I will provide twenty quotations from independent reliable sources that classify Landmark/est as a NRM. But everyone who is willing to search for it in Google Books or the nearest university library, provided he/she has some elementary abilities of judgment and understanding, will be able to find the relevant literature. I must confess that it is very hard to find serious literature that contradicts this classification.
• Fourth: With respect to encyclopedic writing it is important that we formulate in a clear, unambiguous and understandable manner. What we perhaps can do - if considered appropriate by the congregation of Landmark combatants - is to clarify in the article that the qualification NRM means something completely different from what the man in the street would call 'religious': regular church- or mosque- or synagogue-going, praying before dinner (or several times a day), rather strict rule observance, being neatly dressed on sundays (saturdays), etcetera. I am not opposed to such clarification beforehand.

With kind regards, Theobald Tiger (talk) 09:30, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't have time to respond to everything here right now, but I will say a couple of things. Firstly, with respect, I don't think your reading about how we can use news sources is accurate, at all. It's simply not what WP:Scholarship says. Secondly, regarding the classification of Landmark, what you say about the 'divine self' is a theory by Heelas that can be called a minority view in that it's not how most of these writers are talking about Landmark. When they bother to say at all why Landmark is on such a list, and it's not often, because much of the writing is scanty here, it usually comes down to a matter of categorization and what they wish to study, rather than asserting that Landmark is truly religious. I'll see if I can dig up such quotes when I have more time. Nwlaw63 (talk) 15:36, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

I think Theobald makes the point a bit too strong, but that we should prefer peer-reviewed material published by reputable presses and in reputable journals over newspaper articles should be common sense and will, no doubt, be supported in any decent forum you find here. What that means for individual sources is a different matter--but Nwlaw, your characterization of what these publications (the ones that "list" Landmark as cult, sect, NRM, whatever) claim is unfair, at least for the half a dozen that I looked at. Just because it's just a sentence, in some cases, doesn't mean it can be neglected. And likewise, just because a ton of newspaper articles don't call it a sect or whatever doesn't mean we don't have to discuss it in the article. I'm thinking about setting up an RfC to settle this, but I'm afraid that all of you will use this as an opportunity to fill up another talk page. Drmies (talk) 16:16, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

A religion or religion like group can be incorporated, or structured various ways. http://www.npr.org/2014/04/01/282496855/can-a-television-network-be-a-church-the-irs-says-yes Legacypac (talk) 01:12, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Source material misrepresented in the article

I've now bought a copy of the Encyclopedia of New Religions edited by Partridge (2004 edition from Lion Publishing), and had a look at the entry for “Landmark Forum(est)”, a one page essay written by Elizabeth Puttick. It's generally accurate on points of fact, apart from a few details such as having the date of Landmark's foundation as 1985 rather than 1991.

The first thing I noticed is that, whereas Puttick is given as the source for the sentence: “Landmark has denied that it is a religion, cult or sect”, that is not actually what she says. Her text is:

”They are also adamant that Landmark Forum is not a religious movement, or sect of any kind, but that they are solely an educational foundation.”

Subtle but important difference; firstly she doesn't mention the word "cult" at all; secondly the substituted word deny in this context is a breach of the WP:SAY guideline:

Similarly, be judicious in the use of admit, confess, and deny,... because these verbs can convey guilt when that is not a settled matter. (of course we are not dealing with “guilt” here, but the point remains that using this verb prejudices the issue).

Several other passages caught my eye:

1. "The Landmark Forum is a direct descendent, with substantial changes, of est (Erhard Seminar Training)."
2. "est was one of the most successful manifestations of the human potential movement (HPM)."
3. "It provided short highly intensive programs lasting a few days, which were described by participants as being intense, confronting and verbally abusive. However they also had a significant philosophical ethos behind them."
4. "Up to three quarters of a million people underwent the est seminar training, and many gave glowing testimonials to their transformative quality."
5. "Landmark Forum was founded in 1985 by a group of people who purchased the training methods and materials ('the technology') from Werner Erhard, and modified these into the softer, more didactic techniques still in use."
6. "...participants emphasise goals of success and self-improvement rather than spirituality."

Point #2 above is significant in view of the section on the HPM a few pages earlier (also written by Puttick):

• "The human potential movement (HPM) originated in the 1960s as a counter-cultural rebellion against mainstream psychology and organised religion. It is not in itself a religion, new or otherwise, but a psychological philosophy and framework, including a set of values that have made it one of the most significant and influential forces in modern Western society."

It's also worth noting that this final section of the book - on "Modern Western Cultures" - contains discussions on a variety of groupings which wouldn't normally be viewed as "Religious" in any normal sense of the word. For instance Feminism; football fandom; celebrity worship (eg Princess Diana); Psychedelic spirituality; and Neuro Linguistic Programming. The same applies to many of the other books and papers cited. So it is clear that academics who study this field have an eclectic range of interests, and the discussion or mention of a group in this context does not necessarily imply that it is regarded as Religious, or even that it is considered to be a NRM.

So what this reference establishes is that (in the view of this authority):

1. est - and Landmark - are manifestations of the Human Potential Movement.
2. The HPM is not religious, nor is it a NRM
3. Landmark is not religious, nor is it a NRM
4. The Landmark Forum is derived from the est training, but is substantially different (not slightly modified as Astynax's version had it)
5. It differs specifically in being softer and more didactic (this is especially significant, as it differentiates the Landmark Forum from est in regard to the most frequently criticised features of the latter)
6. The ownership and management of Landmark is different from that of the earlier enterprises
7. Despite being described as “intense, confrontational and abusive”, est had many hundreds of thousands of participants, and many of them expressed satisfaction with the results.

All of these points are also confirmed in a number of other references, and should be made clear in the article. DaveApter (talk) 11:09, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

DaveApter's contribution is a biased interpretation of the source.

With respect to his conclusions:

Ad 1. I agree - nobody has ever stated otherwise.

Ad 2. I agree - nobody has ever stated otherwise, but it is a trivial observation, as HPM is the sociological abstraction that encompasses several manifestations, some of which are categorized as a NRM.

Ad 3. This is not in the source. What's more: upon request I can give you twenty reliable sources that categorize Landmark Forum as a NRM.

Ad 4. Landmark Forum is substantially different from est, but its basic aims and its way of reaching those aims have been fundamentally the same over the years. Upon request I can give you several reliable sources.

Ad 5. I agree.

Ad 6. This has never been denied by anyone, but it is significant that Erhard has not sold his intellectual property, but licensed it, and that the successor companies have been a kind of family business ever since Erhard seemingly retired, but in fact remained a presence behind the scenes, about which both the company and Erhard has lied in the past. All this has been described in extenso in reliable sources.

Ad 7. This is a matter of fact, and I am pleasantly surprised to read that you think the est-history should be included in the article.

Kind regards, Theobald Tiger (talk) 12:02, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Please read references for what they say, rather than through a filter. First, the article is on "Landmark Forum" which she states is the "direct descendant" of est. The Forum started in 1985, not 1991, so at least give her credit for not swallowing the ridiculous marketing contention that Landmark popped into existence fully formed with little connection to its past iterations. As to your other points:

1. No one has argued that est and Landmark are not outgrowths of HPM.
2. That the HPM is often used as an umbrella term for a variety of other movements (some secular and some religious), and that Puttick does not view HPM as religious per se, is irrelevant here.
3. Puttick does not say that Landmark is "not religious, nor is it a NRM". She only says that Landmark itself makes that disclaimer, and this source already is cited to support Landmark's repudiation of any religious character. Certainly more citations for that sentence could be provided.
4. Puttick nowhere says that Landmark Forum is "substantially different" from est. She has only noted that there have been "substantial changes" (which is not at all the same thing). The only changes she mentions are the modification of extreme confrontational methodology of the original est sessions.
5. See previous point. No one has contended that the Forum was not changed to be a less harsh version of its est predecessor.
6. Puttick says nothing about the current ownership. WE&A was formed at the same time as The Forum, a "direct descendent" of est, was launched. Attempts have been made to explain in the article that people at WE&A eventually formed Landmark, licensed the Forum technology and bought other assets from Erhard. So, you are now dropping your objection to explaining this in the History section?
7. That some people come away satisfied with their est/Forum experience has never been in question. This would certainly be a better citation than some of the anecdotal sources that have been used previously.

Your offensive contention that this reference has been "misrepresented" is without foundation. • Astynax ^talk 18:38, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

I have been trying to stay out of this but the rancor and the inaccurate statements keep piling up. It doesn't help that some editors keep using language like "offensive contention" and categorizing an entire line of (accurate) thought as a "ridiculous marketing contention". Not to put too fine a point on it these are all just weasel words to try and legitimize a fringe-theory that has no basis in citation or reality. I will use the same numbering model as above to reference the points made. There are many issues but I will focus on the ones that I believe to be obvious: Alex Jackl (talk) 16:48, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

AD4. agrees that Landmark Forum is substantially different from est but then asserts that the "aims" and the "ways of reaching those aims" are substantially the same. Based on what do you claim to understand the "aims " of Landmark. Is it based on its mission statement, on interviews with stakeholders? Or is it based on 10, 20, 30 and 40 year old information some of which predates the entire organization?

AD6. The term "ever since Erhard seemingly retired" is weasel words. The phrase "but in fact remained a presence behind the scenes, about which both the company and Erhard has lied in the past." is a total lie and unsubstantiated by any facts. Fringe theorists and people with a POV apparently against Werner Erhard (I don't know what is in their minds so I don't want to speak too strongly about their aims or internal state) have maintained this fictions that somehow Werner Erhard is pulling the strings. There is no evidence for this at all. It constantly gets refuted and then- a few weeks or months later it gets recycled with comments like "it ha sbeen described in extenso in reliable sources" which is simply not true. Are there sources? Certainly! Have they been debunked or deemed unreliable over and over again? Also certainly.

AD7. I have never seen anyone reject the idea that the history of est or even Werner Erhard have a place in the article. Just not half the article. It is given UNDUE WEIGHT. Alex Jackl (talk) 16:48, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Renee Lockwood, 'Religiosity Rejected: Exploring the Religio-Spiritual Dimensions of Landmark Education', International Journal for the Study of New Religions 2.2 (2011) p.227–228, writes:

"Landmark Education today insists that the Landmark Forum is entirely distinct from est, claiming that it is not based on or a derivation of Werner Erhard’s original program. Certainly, there are profound differences between the methodologies, pedagogies and praxes of the est training and those of the contemporary Landmark Forum. However, it is argued here that there are also significant similarities, particularly in regard to the ultimate aim of the training."

As I wrote before, in 2002 Landmark Education told us straight away:

"Since Landmark Education purchased Mr. Erhard's educational methodology, from time to time Landmark uses him to consult with its Research and Design team."

Kind regards, Theobald Tiger (talk) 21:58, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

From Astynax:

6. I have also not heard anyone object to describing - as you just did that former employees of WE&A made up most of the founding members of Landmark and that they licensed the FOrum and acquired other assets from Werner Erhardt. That is a known matter of public record. That is not in contention. WHat seems to be unclear to the fringe theorists is at that point Werner Erhard's involvement with Landmark ends except historically as the creator of the originally-acquired assets and methodologies. As far as I can tell he has the same relationship to Landmark as anyone who has sold their stuff and IP to another company but is not employed by them nor owns any portion of them. This is the point where there is no or only poor evidence that needs to be bent to try and make this point. It would be good for us to put this to bed because most of the contention on this site would probably end if people just understood that Werner Erhard is NOT involved with Landmark Worldwide except historically. Alex Jackl (talk) 16:48, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

In 2002 Landmark Education told us straight away: "Since Landmark Education purchased Mr. Erhard's educational methodology, from time to time Landmark uses him to consult with its Research and Design team." If this practice has continued to the present date, I do not know, but it does not matter very much: Erhard is the creator/compilator of the "educational technology", as he himself is inclined to call it, behind est, The Forum, Landmark Forum. His life and work are therefore the core of the history section. Theobald Tiger (talk) 21:37, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

I just want to be clear - your argument that Werner Erhard is pulling the strings of Landmark Education is that over the last 24 years from "time to time" Landmark has brought him in as a consultant? That is IMO a really really weak argument. Noone argues that Erhard should not be part of the history section. But should probably not be the majority of it- Landmark has a history of which Erhard only is peripheral (although initially critical) as the creator of the organizations that preceded it and the "technology" that Landmark acquired from him.Alex Jackl (talk) 07:09, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Where did Theobald Tiger (or the article) ever state that Erhard "is pulling the strings"? Your accusation itself misrepresents, as would having the article state that Erhard "only is peripheral". Erhard may or may not have direct control so, but no one has suggested that such a statement be included in the article without a source. That Erhard continued to own the intellectual property that is the essence of the product being marketed by Landmark is also significant involvement. That Erhard's companies and trusts continued to receive income from Landmark is significant involvement. That Erhard continued to consult is significant involvement. That Erhard continued to hold ownership of Forum operations in Mexico and Japan is significant involvement. That Erhard continues to develop his philosophies in conjunction with Landmark employees is significant involvement. That this type of involvement is exactly the same murky setup that existed under Erhard Seminars Training, Inc. prior to 1985 is notable as well. The "really really weak argument" here is the POV attempt(s) to make the article reflect Landmark's long-time marketing attempts to distance Landmark and its offerings from Erhard and est. Nor is the History section anything like WP:UNDUE, which simply says that the weight in articles should be proportional to the coverage given in reliable references. In this case, there are other sections that need to be fleshed out based on independent sources, notably the section on The Forum itself, but it is a perversion of policy to use UNDUE as an excuse to go around slashing cited material from other sections. It is also misreading to argue that WP:UNDUE means the article should be "balanced" based upon editors' points of view, biases or conclusions from original research, self-published marketing materials, etc. • Astynax ^talk 16:07, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Lockwood clearly unreliable

Theobald Tiger's quote from the Lockwood paper above clearly shows that she can't even be relied on to get simple statements of demonstrable fact right. It's not remotely true that "Landmark claims that it is not a derivation of Werner Erhard's original program". On the contrary their website clearly states"Based on a methodology and ideas originally developed by Werner Erhard, Landmark has evolved its unique breakthrough methodology through years of continuous research and development.", and similar statements have been on the company website for at least the last twelve years. No-one is trying to suggest that est or Erhard should not be mentioned in this article, only that the comments should be accurate, proportionate and relevant. DaveApter (talk) 15:21, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

That is a ridiculous slur. That Landmark has gone to great pains to distance itself from est has been noted by other reliable sources as well. Landmark's carefully parsed, self-published website claim does not even mention est, let alone "clearly state" anything of the kind. There is a huge difference in "based on a methodology and ideas originally developed" and claiming to be "a derivation of" est. • Astynax ^talk 16:22, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

I would kindly recommend to DaveApter, who is apparently groping around without the veil of his ignorance ever being lifted, to read something about the subject. Even Google Books can be of some help. And even to consult the Internet Archive Wayback Machine ([3]) to find out what Landmark Education has revealed about its relation with est and Werner Erhard in 2010 might be useful to discover the correct answer: about this relationship LE remained at the time as silent as the grave. That LE changed policy in later years - lying costs a lot of energy and also causes damage to your credibility - does not make this any different. Lockwood is not clearly unreliable; Lockwood has told us in 2011 the unadorned truth, however unpleasant this truth might be for some of us. Theobald Tiger (talk) 17:59, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

The Lockwood paper is not a reliable source for anything other than her non-notable opinion. It is a piece of primary research at best.

• WP:SCHOLARSHIP - "Masters dissertations and theses are considered reliable only if they can be shown to have had significant scholarly influence." This is not even a dissertation or thesis, it is a paper by an graduate student.
• Lockwood acknowledges that this is primary research: "gaining primary information on the group through personally participating in the Landmark Forum enabled the author to filter the publicly available information"
• Lockwood disregarded existing reporting: "several articles have been published online and in print media detailing the experiences of journalists who have participated in the Landmark Forum. (These have proved to be valuable resources, and are referenced here only when their account can be supported by the author’s experience"
• The paper is largely based on first-hand reporting: Of the 37 citations in the paper, 20 are the authour's direct experience ("Author’s experience of the Landmark Forum, Sydney 2007")

The paper is being used as a source along with several other, possibly better, sources. Without comment on the quality of those sources, given the above issues there is no need for this one. --Tgeairn (talk) 14:59, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

It is not "a paper by a master student", it is a publication in a scientific journal. That it is written by a master student is not important. That is only relevant for POV-pushers. Tgeairn obviously has not the faintest idea what a primary source is in a sociological context. For a researcher of the sociology of religion participation in a Landmark Forum course is not reprehensible at all. Tipton, for instance, has also participated in an est-course. Theobald Tiger (talk) 16:32, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

I agree that being a customer does not exclude or degrade ones ability to write about a company (such as Tipton or even Lockwood). However, "Primary sources are original materials that are close to an event, and are often accounts written by people who are directly involved." In the case of the Lockwood paper, she explicitly states that she is basing the paper on her personal experience. She says this more than 20 times throughout the paper. --Tgeairn (talk) 17:01, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Participative research creates its own kind of problems, but, if properly executed, it does not depreciate its results. But alas, to cast doubt on the reliablity of this particular source, however unjustly, does not free Landmark, always fond of rewriting its own history in flattering terms, from the blame of lying. Moreover, Lockwoods observation is not the fruit of participation. Theobald Tiger (talk) 17:24, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

I apologize, but I'm not following your argument. What is the lie here? You (Theobald Tiger) already provided a link to LE saying on their website in 2002 "Landmark Education's programs are based on research and technology originally developed by Werner Erhard." and "Since Landmark Education purchased Mr. Erhard's educational methodology, from time to time Landmark uses him to consult with its Research and Design team." I imagine that LE materials exist prior to then which essentially say the same thing (for instance, the oldest LE page found on archive.org is from 23 January 2000 and says "Landmark Education's programs and initiatives are based on research and a technology originally developed by Werner Erhard."). Are you saying this is a lie? Thank you for clarifying. Tgeairn (talk) 17:33, 17 March 2015 (UTC) Modified 17:43, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Tgeairn thinks it is good for me to let me swallow one red herring after another: on its website LE kept silent about its past, what amounts to lying in this particular case. But what Lockwood said was the plain truth. Theobald Tiger (talk) 18:53, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

I ask again, you provided - twice above - links to Landmark's website showing their clear statements that "Landmark Education's programs are based on research and technology originally developed by Werner Erhard." and "Since Landmark Education purchased Mr. Erhard's educational methodology, from time to time Landmark uses him to consult with its Research and Design team." I further provided a link from 2000 (which appears to be the first time archive.org archived the site) saying effectively the same thing. Where is the lie? How is overtly linking to a whole page on the subject from their website's homepage keeping silent? I am genuinely asking, what is the lie? Tgeairn (talk) 19:28, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

I provided a link to the LE-website in 2010. Erhard is not mentioned at all. Again, what Lockwood said in 2011 was the plain truth. Theobald Tiger (talk) 21:43, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

On the 2010 archive you provide, you say that Erhard is not mentioned at all. Yet:

• clicking on "fact sheet" took me to here, which says "Based on a methodology and ideas originally developed by Werner Erhard, Landmark Education has continued to evolve this unique and extremely effective educational methodology through years of continuous research and development."
• clicking on "company history" took me to here, which says "In January of 1991, Landmark Education was formed with a commitment to provide seminars and courses that made a profound difference in the quality of people's lives and work. Landmark began with a dynamic group of leaders, a powerful operations team, and a body of intellectual properties originally developed by Werner Erhard."
• clicking on "media q&a" took me to here, which has an entire section on Erhard and the relationship.

There are probably other references too. Again, what is the lie? You say Erhard is not mentioned at all, yet here's three links to the 2010 archive you provided that clearly show he is not only mentioned but talked about at some length and even has his personal website linked to. I don't know what "plain truth" you are saying Lockwood said. Please explain, what is the lie? Tgeairn (talk) 22:00, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Theobald Tiger It seems like quite a stretch to construe changes to a website over a long period of time to be an attempt at a lie. This is especially hard to see when the site currently says the very thing you say they are claiming to hide. Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 23:08, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

No, I just refer to Lockwood, but with the agressiveness of the true Landmark adherents, everything that is not appreciated by Landmark is disputed, legally or otherwise, ad nauseam. Theobald Tiger (talk) 07:02, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Nor is Lockwood the only reliable source who has stated that Landmark has made efforts to distance itself from est and Erhard. Art Schreiber, Landmark's general counsel wrote "Landmark Education was not formerly known as EST and The Landmark Forum and other programs delivered by Landmark Education are not EST programs." (Art Schrieber, letter to editor, Cayman NetNews, 6 April 2006). He earlier (3 May 2005) had stated: "Defendants constantly conflate Landmark and its programs with programs delivered in the 1970s and 1980s by Werner Erhard, popularly known as 'est.' Defendants are either being deliberately misleading or grossly negligent in doing so[...] Landmark's complaint stems from defendants' posting of disparaging materials on their websites about Landmark's educational programs (and linking us to est)" (Art Schrieber, "Declaration of Arthur Schreiber", United States District Court, District of New Jersey, civil action 04-3022 (JCL), page 3). Noseweek (a monthly print magazine run by one of South Africa's most eminent journalists) noted that "Landmark's links to Erhard are a big touchy point." (Rachel Jones, "A Landmark Encounter", December 2003). "Landmark says that Erhard has nothing to do with The Forum[...] Despite the obvious links, Landmark executives take pains to separate the organization from Erhard and almost all things est, other than to acknowledge its roots." (Traci Hukill, "The est of Friends", Metroactive, 9–15 July 1998). The San Diego Union Tribune reported, "However, Landmark's chairman, Art Schreiber, says Erhard now has no involvement with Landmark, despite his brother's prominence[...] Landmark markets self-help programs 'based on technology generated by Mr. Erhard,' says Schreiber – but not est, which Erhard abandoned in the mid-1980s." (Don Bauder, "Firm Turns to est Guru, Still Slides", 7 August 1994). There are certainly other references to this out there. Lockwood's statement is borne out by other reliable reporting, inappropriate OR critiquing of reliable sources notwithstanding. • Astynax ^talk 09:26, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Let's concentrate on the common ground and work from there

The protracted discussion in the section above seems to be going round in circles. Let's focus on what we can agree on:

1. The owners of the newly-formed corporation in 1991 acquired the rights to "The Forum" from Werner Erhard.
2. Their main offering at that time - The Landmark Forum - was closely based on that, and it has been modified and developed further over the years.
3. Erhard had previously designed and delivered the est training.
4. "The Forum" was derived from est with modifications (described as "substantial" by several sources).
5. The modifications had the effect of reducing the confrontational and abrasive nature of the est training, which had been a major focus of criticism.

So far as I am aware, there is no dispute about the broad accuracy any of the above, and no suggestion that these points should be excluded from the article. I think they always have been mentioned in one form or another.

The accusation that Landmark has misrepresented Erhard's legacy (or as TT puts it "lied") is demonstrably unfounded. As noted above, the connection is clearly stated on their current website; and as TT's own 2002 version from the Wayback Machine shows, it was clearly stated then. They may not go out of their way to labour the connection, but who says they are under any obligation to do so?

Actually it is a monumental irrelevance - almost no-one cares who designed the program 30 years ago from which the current course eventually evolved. Nor do they care what was the tax structure of his companies ten years before that. Or what profession he followed another ten years further back still. Nor do they care how much he is or isn't involved in running the company (as the guy is 80 years old now, I'd be surprised if he was very active in anything). It's not surprising that Landmark don't give it prominence, as prospective customers are only concerned with whether the course is likely to deliver the promised benefits and to be worth their time and money. In fact very few people under the age of 55 have even heard of either Erhard or est. Of people who do recognise the name, few have strong feelings about him, and even fewer share the intense antagonism and hostility which is demonstrated by some editors here. DaveApter (talk) 12:24, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

• There does not appear to be any serious objection to the five points DaveApter lists above. I suggest that they be rearranged into historical order: Erhard designed and delivered est, "The Forum" was derived from est with modifications reducing the confrontational nature, employees formed Landmark in 1991 and purchased the technology (possibly purchased the rights rather than outright?) of "The Forum", Landmark began delivering the "The Landmark Forum" which was derived from "The Forum" and has modified it over time. While this is probably not the whole story, it appears to provide an agreed-upon basis for the history section. --Tgeairn (talk) 16:29, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

The five points are not particularly controversial, but they do not sum up the full story, and there are also quite a lot of references that call the modifications 'slight' (or recognize no differences at all). The accusation that Landmark has misrepresented Erhard's legacy is not demonstrably unfounded, quite the contrary. What people already know, or what they want to read, is not relevant, and certainly does not make a fact-based, well-sourced history section "monumental irrelevean[t]". That DaveApter's opponents suffer from an "intense antagonism and hostility" towards Erhard, is a total misjudgment. Neutral and uninvolved editors are forced by involved and biased editors to direct our attention to that side of the story that is either swept under the carpet or grotesquely distorted by the Landmark defenders. My antagonism, for instance, is only directed against proposals and edits that I consider non-neutral, unbalanced and/or censorious with respect to information that is labeled unfavorable by Landmark. Theobald Tiger (talk) 22:03, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

• To focus only one what editors who have been not unreasonably found by admins and others to have a strong bias in favor of a given view of the topic would be at best counterproductive. And I regret the rather obvious refusal to assume good faith on the part of one editor above to believe anyone could, in good faith, hold opinions different than his own. What we would need to do to bring the content on this topic up to a good level is to decide what the questions upon which there do not seem to be real agreements are, what the sources themselves say about those contested matters, and how to bring resolution to those disputes. I said in the past that I thought the best and easiest way to achieve this would be to start a serious of RfC's regarding the individual points of contention, and I still believe that. And frankly the argument based on what "few" know made above is so far as I can tell OR of the most transparent kind, given the lack of any sourcing, and raises questions as to whether this apparent attempt to seek "common ground" is just an attempt to get people to agree with one individual's slanted presentation of the questions involved. Those concerns are perhaps made greater by the fact that, as at least one comment on a related talk page has indicated here, it may well be true that fewer people who do not have strong ties to Landmark specifically may recognize that name than the name of est or possibly of Erhard himself. John Carter (talk) 22:26, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you both for your comments, each of you have made your own viewpoints and opinions clear in previous remarks, and I am under no illusions whether they differ from mine.

May I ask that we keep contributions on this page to its intended purpose; ie to discuss how to improve the article, and avoid the temptation to speculate about the motives of other editors?

So in the interests of building on the modest progress so far: we have agreement that these five points should be included in the article? Moving on from there, Theobald you mentioned that this does not "sum up the whole story" - perhaps you would like to suggest additional facts to add to the History or Background sections to complete that story? And maybe you too John? And do either of you have any suggestions for content in the article which should be removed or modified? Thanks. DaveApter (talk) 09:52, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

From an encyclopedic viewpoint, the whole thing is in a dreadful state. Even if I could believe that constructive editing would be possible - quod non - I would have the greatest difficulties to decide where to start and when to stop. For now, an argument about the tiniest of details takes the size of a ten-volume reference book, and the result is either compromizing with POV pushers or warfare until the end of time - I can't tell what is worse. Theobald Tiger (talk) 23:11, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Dave, I regret to say that what you insistently call in others "viewpoints" is, at least in my case, based on no prior history with the group, and, frankly, no particular interest in it beyond the fact that it is something that we cover and so something we should try to cover as well as possible. I also am under no illusions regarding the fact that this stated driving opinion of mine differs strongly from that of others here either, although I am grateful to see a fairly explicit statement that the driving force of at least one editor here regarding his edits is his own views. And I regret to say that should I see any attempt to use what you declare as being a form of consensus, when there doesn't seem to my eyes to be any such, it may very likely perhaps be taken to AE. I also note what seems to me to be the obvious WP:IDHT nature of DaveApter's response to discussing the possibility of an RfC, which I find unfortunate. I believe I already said what I saw as the priorities in the previous discussion of attempting to solve this through RfC. But, in order of descent, rather than paying attention to only perhaps just a single article, the priorities might be (1) determine what if anything should be the main article on the topic of Werner Erhard's philosophy and related groups, preferably through RfC, (2) determine the main topics which need to be covered somewhere in the related articles, basically based on reference sources and/or academic or highly-regarded popular sources, (3) determine where to place the bulk of the information of each of those potential subarticles and where to place links or SS to them, (4) determine relative weight in each article, and (5) determine how much prominence to give the "dult" allegations as probably the last and most controversial point. Most of this would, probably, be best done through RfC, I would think. I guess one question which might occur to some is whether certain editors may be so unduly prejudiced toward one specific article in the group of articles related to Erhard that their personal POV's might be beyond their personal capacity to acknowledge or effectively deal with. John Carter (talk) 23:35, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Getting back to the five points raised in DaveApter's proposal, I agree that they don't seem controversial at all and would make a good starting point here, recognizing that these points wouldn't necessarily cover everything that should be covered in this section. Nwlaw63 (talk) 13:19, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Except that these very points have been repeatedly stripped out of the article, the claim of "no suggestion that these points should be excluded from the article". Moreover, and as you hint at, they not only don't tell the whole story, but are inaccurate. 1) The only thing Landmark "acquired" in 1991 was the office equipment, leases, customer lists and other assets required to take over and continue the ongoing operations. Werner Erhard did not sell, but only granted a license, to Landmark to conduct The Forum. 2) While changes to the Landmark Forum have continued over the years, it was not "closely based on" Erhard's Forum, it WAS Erhard's Forum. Minor changes were only introduced later, not at the beginning. 3) Erhard not only "previously designed and delivered the est training", he also developed and delivered The Forum. He also owned the "technology" (jargon for the intellectual property) for both, though he only directly owned the company (WE&A) that delivered the latter program. 4) While it is accurate that the changes between est and The Forum have been "described as 'substantial' by several sources", there is significant literature that describes the changes as minor, and excluding that information is biased reporting. 5) That the confrontational aspect "had been a major focus of criticism" does not tell anything like the entire story. There were many factors involved in the controversy surrounding the company and its programs. Moreover, the controversy and criticism did not cease with the transition from est to The Forum, nor did it ever focus entirely on "confrontational" techniques. Far from it. Progress would be to simply agree to report all significant viewpoints based in reliable sources, rather than excluding material that doesn't fit this or that bias. • Astynax ^talk 17:57, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

I can follow what Astynax is saying. I agree there is clearly no consensus ala John Carter also. Particularly, I would like to go forward with this: "Progress would be to simply agree to report all significant viewpoints based in reliable sources, rather than excluding material that doesn't fit this or that bias." as long as there are relevant, RS. Including the information about Erhard's background seems extremely relevant re WP:WEIGHT. Prasangika37 (talk) 23:22, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

I am disappointed to see that none of these comments have included positive specific suggestions for improvements of the article. DaveApter (talk) 07:53, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

I think that the reason no specific suggestions for changes to this article have been made is that many of the editors seem to agree that the problem is not limited to this specific article, and that on that basis it would be at best less than productive and maybe directly contrary to basic logic to devote attention to attempting to fix only one section of the problem without addressing the more fundamental issues regarding the existing problem which cross multiple articles. Despite some editors perhaps being primarily if not solely interested in one or more individual articles relating to this topic, any attempt to address issues on one article without taking into account the broader issues would be, basically, at best less than useful. John Carter (talk) 15:47, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Suggestion from uninvolved editor

Long posts create longer responses and even longer discussion threads that go round and round in circles. Even the points that everyone supposedly agrees on need to be broken down into small components and discussed and agreed upon individually. When an agreement is reached on one minor point, then move on to the next minor point. Consensus needs to be built and that means, going slowly step by step and standing on the shoulders of prior agreements and compromises, however small they may be. This approach is slow and laborious but it is the only way (in my opinion) that an article and a group discussion like this will make any progress. Peace! -- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:05, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

@Keithbob: It is worth noting that there was a previous request for MEDCOM involvement which seems to have been not accepted because several of the parties who might have been involved chose not to participate, and at least one, me, who was theoretically unable to say anything at the time. Under the circumstances, that might make even some individuals who might have considered accepting mediation opt not to, as it would be unlikely to be accepted with as many people rejecting it as it had. And, has been said repeatedly, even in this thread there are questions regarding whether individuals who may have demonstrated or been accused of having POV/COI issues which might make their input potentially problematic. I would be interested in knowing whether you think that perhaps MEDCOM might be, perhaps in conjunction with an RfC or perhaps group of RfCs, perhaps effective in helping to determine such matters. John Carter (talk) 17:45, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi John, Since your post brings up administrative, procedural and behavioral matters I'm going to respond on my user talk page so this space can remain dedicated to discussion of content.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 20:39, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Ponzi Scheme

Landmark is a Ponzi scheme to discipline the working class and profit off of their vulnerability. The "Criticism" section is in reality a defense of Landmark — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:7:8500:982:D184:8B97:800F:74A6 (talk) 21:27, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

RfC: Are these comments justified?

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the debate may be found at the bottom of the discussion.

---

Closed as Opposed - At face value, I suppose one could presume the result is due to commenters saying (among other things) that it is unnecessary to add biographical info concerning Werner Erhard, as apparently, per this page, he or one of his businesses/organisations "merely" licensed "stuff" to Landmark Worldwide (the latter being the topic of this page). The broader issue though, from doing some reading of several (semi-)related discussions, including the arbcase noted at the top of this page, appears to be the ongoing contention concerning the merging of various pages and/or the content thereof, such as Erhard Seminars Training, Werner Erhard and Associates, Landmark Worldwide, etc., for several various reasons. Currently, my reading of past recent discussions is that there as yet is apparently no consensus to merge, so we're left with the pages as they are. So with that in mind, this is closed as Opposed to add to this particular page. And to (hopefully) prevent next steps of editwarring, I will remove other personal biographical info of Werner Erhard (but not of his businesses/organisations), from this page as well. This should not be considered any sort of precedent for any other pages, as it may (or may not) be appropriate to add such info on other pages. Please feel free to positively discuss the appropriateness of the inclusion of such biographical info to this page in the future. - jc37 21:35, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

---

Is it appropriate to include this remark: "Erhard had no formal training in psychology or psychiatry and had previously been a successful salesman"? DaveApter (talk) 01:29, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

• Support using this phrase - Nearly all short biographical sketches I have read (about 50 in number) mention these things. I will quote the opening sentences of a biographical sketch of Erhard from a reliable source that is accepted by all combatants as such, George D. Chryssides, Exploring New Religions, New York: Continuum 1999, p.303:

"est was founded by Werner Hans Erhard, who was born as John Paul (Jack) Rosenberg in 1935. Rosenberg did not enter higher education, and has no formal training in philosophy, psychology or counselling; as a young man he started his career selling used cars and encyclopedias."

The main thing (apart from 'psychiatry') that is not supported by the source is the adjective 'successful' (I do not deny, for that matter, that Erhard had at least some success as a salesman). Kind regards, Theobald Tiger (talk) 08:31, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

PS1 This quote is from a section in Chryssides' book that is titled: est (Erhard Seminars Training) and its successors. Chryssides has deliberately included a biographical sketch of Erhard in a section that brings est and its successors together under one heading. Theobald Tiger (talk) 22:58, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

PS2 The word 'psychiatry' could better be replaced by a term like 'counseling'. Theobald Tiger (talk) 23:15, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose use of this phrase.

There's no argument about the facts here, but their relevance is very much in question, and the fact that they are being cherrypicked to give a deliberately negative impression.

Theobald Tiger claims that this is merely where the sources lead us - however, one only has to scroll up the talk page to see that this editor actually wants to use these terms to deliberately reinforce their own negative opinion of the subject:

"Of course, his lack of formal education is relevant. It provides the context for the incoherence of many of Erhard's utterances, the hotchpotch philosophy behind his seminars training, the tricks of the keen salesman."

In fact, one can go through the sources and find all kinds of things written as a summary sentence about Erhard - the first one I stumbled on, from journalist Jane Renton, read:

"Known as John Paul Rosenberg before inventing his name and his life, Werner Erhard is widely regarded as the man who gave the human development movement its popular appeal and one of the most significant influences behind coaching".

I wouldn't recommend a summary sentence based on that either; my point is that you can find whatever you are looking for. In an article that isn't fundamentally about Erhard, we shouldn't be trying to define him here, particularly with cherrypicked facts designed to try to give a negative or positive view of the man. Nwlaw63 (talk) 14:22, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

It is primarily an outgrowth of Erhard and a historical context about what it is outgrown from would clearly be relevant for an encyclopedic view of the subject. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:45, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Just to be clear, I wasn't suggesting that all references to Erhard be suppressed! The question is about the dismissive nature of the comments, and possibly their relevance. DaveApter (talk) 15:17, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

However reputable the publisher actually is, however reliable the source may be, Nwlaw63 will stubbornly maintain that it is nonsense what I say. Theobald Tiger (talk) 14:56, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose use of this phrase. Alex Jackl (talk) 18:05, 10 March 2015 (UTC) As I stated earlier those qualifications are not relevant to the discussion and borne out of alack of understanding of what Landmark actually does. It is also cherry picking (to use someone above's phrase) particular references to drive a particular point of view about a person who has questionable relevance (except historically where he does have relevance) to the subject of the article. Alex Jackl (talk) 18:05, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose inclusion of this phrase.

1. If we have reliable sources that say that "Erhard had no formal training in psychology or psychiatry and had previously been a successful salesman", and we have reliable sources that indicate that Erhard's training is in some way relevant to this (Landmark Worldwide) article, then it would possibly be appropriate to include. Right now, the article lacks sources indicating the relevance of Erhard's profession in the 1960's to Landmark’s founding in 1991.
2. BLP also comes into the discussion, particularly WP:PUBLICFIGURE, and since there is obvious controversy and a lack of "multiple reliable third-party sources documenting" the relevance here, we should not include it.
3. Finally, from a weight standpoint, WP:MNA comes to mind: "There is probably not a good reason to discuss some assumption on a given page, if that assumption is best discussed in depth on some other page." We have a BIO article where the statement might be relevant, and we have an article about the primary product of the company Erhard founded in 1971 where it might be relevant. I see no reliable sources indicating significant enough relevance to include here. I don't see how what someone did or did not do before forming a company in 1971, 20 years before Landmark Worldwide was formed, is a relevant part of the company history. Remember, Erhard didn't even found Landmark - he founded a company that sold some of its intellectual property to its employees, who then went and started Landmark well after his rather public departure. --Tgeairn (talk) 18:47, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

• Support --I did oppose but I have changed my mind based on John Carter's points below. I don't think BLP is very relevant as an argument against, because the description isn't damning. The inclusion just isn't very relevant it seems. Thanks for others pointing out the funny business going on here too.. I thought it was merely straightforward :) Prasangika37 (talk) 21:10, 13 March 2015 (UTC)Prasangika37 (talk) 14:57, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunately, this Rfc, as with others in the past, has been used by the same claque to restate previous arguments rather than allowing uninvolved editors to offer input. In the current state of the article, the statement may seem to have only minor relevance, but it does have relevance if the section on The Forum is ever allowed to be fleshed out with material from the fields of sociology and psychiatry. As has been noted, references repeatedly make this historical point as background before taking a look at The Forum and claims made for it. • Astynax ^talk 17:50, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose I see it the same as Prasangika37. Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 18:43, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
• Support inclusion of bulk of the material There is an indication of possible tendentious editing here. And I am more than a bit amused by the use of the straw-man word "psychiatry" which is in no way even implied in the original quote. Psychology and psychiatry are rather specifically different disciplines in any event - the latter deals much more strongly with disorders which benefit from some sort of medical treatment. My reasons are as follows:

1) For whatever reason, there seems to be an ongoing effort to try to cast Landmark as being substantively different from est, even though there seems to be rather a pronounced lack of evidence in independent reliable sources to substantiate that claim. Landmark was clearly founded by Erhard, and its activities are primarily in what could, not unreasonably, be seen as being the broad area of Applied psychology. It is reasonable to indicate whether or not someone who engages in activity in a specialized area has any particular qualifications in that area. The fact that Erhard had no particular qualifications in that field is, therefore, I think relevant.

Numerous reliable sources have stated that The Forum was a derivation of est with substantial changes, eg Puttick, see the discussion in the section below. DaveApter (talk) 15:59, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

2) The material about his being a salesman is also I think rather clearly relevant, because successful salesmen tend to be talented in a form of Popular psychology, perhaps specifically the "psychology of salesmanship" as per William Walker Atkinson. Given that salesmanship is seen, evidently with some question, as being a form of some form of applied or popular psychology, even if not necessarily what might be called academic psychology today. On that basis, I think it not unreasonable to also indicate the specific area in which he did have some expertise, sales, and to indicate it as a separate field, on the basis that its being included as a form of general psychology is apparently open to some question.

3) However, as the sources themselves do not seem to directly mention psychiatry, it seems to be that there is no particular reason to mention that at all. John Carter (talk) 18:58, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

It is unclear what John Carter is referring to with his statement "There is an indication of possible tendentious editing here." John, please elaborate. --Tgeairn (talk) 19:54, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

It is also unclear what is meant by John Carter's statement "I am more than a bit amused by the use of the straw-man word "psychiatry" which is in no way even implied in the original quote." The statement is a direct quote from the article, which DaveApter is asking for comments as to whether or not it should be in the article. John, please clarify. --Tgeairn (talk) 19:54, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

John Carter says above "there seems to be an ongoing effort to try to cast Landmark as being substantively different from est, even though there seems to be rather a pronounced lack of evidence in independent reliable sources to substantiate that claim". The statement compares a company (Landmark) with a product (est) and ignores the majority of sources, which (if they address the issue at all) say some flavour of that they are clearly different. See, for example, the Encyclopedia of New Religions piece DaveApter provided below. --Tgeairn (talk) 19:54, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

John Carter says above "Landmark was clearly founded by Erhard". This is not supported by the sources in the article. John, on what basis do you make this claim? --Tgeairn (talk) 19:54, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

John Carter says above "...its activities are primarily in what could, not unreasonably, be seen as being the broad area of Applied psychology". John, what is the basis (source) for this claim? --Tgeairn (talk) 19:54, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Please indicate to me how any of this attempt at what seems almost an inquisition is even remotely relevant or germane to this RfC. I believe some of the articles I linked to, if individuals were to actually follow them, would answer some of the questions. John Carter (talk) 22:20, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

A few remarks:

I share John Carter's amusement: the word 'psychiatry' seems to be chosen by someone who either made a mistake or had at the time of writing no clear idea what the difference between psychology and psychiatry actually is.

The majority of sources treat est, The Forum and Landmark Forum as (either slightly or profoundly) modified occurences of the same phenomenon.

See for example (it also answers Tgeairn's question about psychology) Andrew M. Colman (2015), Oxford Dictionary of Psychology, OUP, p.256: "est abbrev. Erhard Seminars Training, a technique of *group therapy designed to raise self-awareness and foster psychological growth. (...) In 1984 the name was changed to Landmark Forum, but it continued to be called est by many people. (...)" And sub voce Landmark Forum (p.411): "The official name, since 1984, for est".

Kind regards, Theobald Tiger (talk) 23:02, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

If Theobald Tiger thinks that the word 'psychiatry' is in appropriate and unsupported by the sources, why did he block-revert to re-insert it during the collaborative edit wars on 30th January and 12th February [4], [5], [6] ? DaveApter (talk) 15:59, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Because this point is a minor one. Theobald Tiger (talk) 16:09, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

In addition to Theobald Tiger's repeated reinsertion of the 'psychiatry' phrase, it may be valuable to find out why Astynax initially added the phrase. --Tgeairn (talk) 19:17, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

• Note to closing admin: I also believe it may well be relevant to review the history of some of the editors involved, to see whether they may or may not have been said to perhaps have by others to have demonstrable POV and/or COI issues, and to take such matters into account in the closing of the RfC. John Carter (talk) 22:08, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

• I would oppose the inclusion of this sentence. I cannot see the relevance of the fact that Erhard had at times been a salesman. As for the statements about his lack of qualifications, there are an infinite number of things that anyone has not done and has not been. What is the point of enumerating them? Unless it is for the purpose of disparaging them or belittling them? DaveApter (talk) 15:59, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose I would oppose the inclusion of the statement as it does not appear to be relevant to and seems to be disjointed from the remainder of the article. Madeinmontana (talk) 01:22, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose More relevant to an article about the man, as oppose to the org. CorporateM (Talk) 09:30, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose — summoned by bot. That he does not have formal training in psychology/therapy etc does not seem relevant. As far as I can tell, he is not offering psychology or therapy services, correct? It seems to me the service is more like a motivational speaking seminar? Many people who are "life coaches" have no training whatsoever and many sought-after public speakers are simply successful people or just know to motivate people. Tony Robbins is one example (I don't think he even went to college). I have no knowledge of whether Landmark is some kind of cult or what but slipping in that the founder has no training in psychology seems definitely undue. —Мандичка^YO 😜 01:14, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Good comments. Just a friendly reminder: We're not here to state personal viewpoints, experiences or opinions but to present what reliable, third-party sources relate about the subject. Cheers. -The Gnome (talk) 09:23, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose The sentence reads unnecessarily polemical, in contravention of rules about neutral presentation of subjects. Erhard should be presented simply as "est founder" with all other relevant information about his person offered in Erhard's own Wikipedia entry. -The Gnome (talk) 09:23, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The challenge of creating a satisfactory article on subjects like this

The problems we face here are not restricted to Landmark; similar issues arise in the Wikipedia articles on a wide range of contemporary social phenomena. Examples that come to mind are Transcendental Meditation, Silva Mind Control, Neuro Linguistic Programming, Anthony Robbins (none of which I have much detailed knowledge of, or any strong opinions about). It is clear from the recurrent battles in all these areas that these topics face difficulties that simply do not arise with articles on subjects within well established academic disciplines such as Physics, Biology or History.

The source of these difficulties is threefold:

1. There is a serious shortage of adequate, impartial, authoritative, informed factual source material on the subject (either primary or secondary)..
2. Editors drawn to contribute arrive with strongly held polarised viewpoints on the topic, either in favour of it or against.
3. Editors without such preconceptions are not strongly motivated to join in, and often disengage after a short while, having been disillusioned or frustrated by the wp:battleground mentality that prevails.

The 30 pages of archived talk bear witness to this, with about half the comments claiming that the article is too biased in favour of Landmark and the other half arguing that it is too biased against it. The same ground is argued over and over again, with newly arriving editors re-inserting and removing material that had been agreed over in the past.

An additional complication is that there is a considerable amount of comment in circulation which is uninformed, inaccurate, biased, and sometimes vindictive or malicious. This has in many cases been widely propagated (unattributed and often anonymous) through channels such as internet forums, bulletin boards, blogs, and unmoderated (or moderated to further a partisan agenda) web pages such as anti-cult movement sites. A further complication is that journalists and even academics sometimes use material from such sources as background, or even quote them directly, thus providing an appearance of reliability to claims that were of dubious provenance.

It is ironic that there is a definite symmetry between the opposing viewpoints - all parties stridently claim that they are the ones upholding WP:NPOV and countering the blatant advocasy of the others.

On the other hand it does seem that a majority of those arguing for a more favourable treatment are people with first-hand experience of the subject in question, whereas those arguing for a more critical treatment have in many cases acquired their preconceptions at second hand.

At the outset, the page appears to have been written by advocates who regarded Wikipedia as an extension of the unmoderated bulletin boards. It was created and substantially edited from anonymous IP accounts and was blatantly biased, and devoid of refs or citations as this version from 31st March 2004 illustrates.

During the Arbitration case, I did put forward a suggestion that topics such as this may benefit from some specific guidelines Arbitration/Requests/Case/Landmark_Worldwide/Workshop#Guidelines_needed_for_"Contemporary_social_phenomena". Although there was nothing done in this regard at that time, I still think it may be helpful. DaveApter (talk) 11:12, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

• Quick thoughts on this: Landmark Worldwide is here to inform readers with no views and offer a summary and further reading (through sources) to those both for and against, but this should be proportional to the (mainly) secondary sources (while not entirely excluding primary sources) that are WP:RS on this topic. Given all that, it won't be a promotional page or an attack piece, it will include history prior to Landmark Education that is directly relevant to understanding how LE became what WS:RS says it is now (not what LE, supporters/opposers say it is now). BLP issues must be observed when mentioning individuals within the article but this article is not a BLP in itself. Balance, and a article that meets the needs of Wikipedia while also observing WP policy, will result in an article that is relatively stable but doesn't quite suit any of the alleged support/opposition positions. So, how do we get there from here? AnonNep (talk) 12:56, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

• There is no "serious shortage of adequate, impartial, authoritative, informed factual source material on the subject (either primary or secondary)"—not even remotely. Those sources should simply be reported, rather than the constant attempts to WP:OR undermine, mischaracterize and/or reject what they say. The practice of blanking statements cited to reliable sources needs to stop. Speculating as to how a reliable source came to a conclusion or discounting reliable sources based upon WP:OR needs to stop. Mischaracterizing or misrepresenting what reliable sources needs to stop. Inventing a new category or new guidelines will go nowhere toward addressing the problem of advocates (or counter-advocates) trying to circumvent the V and NPOV requirements that articles report "all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic". • Astynax ^talk 21:04, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Astynax' criticism of DaveApter’s first point.

The second point of DaveApter’s analysis is, in my view, also ill-judged. I, for one, do not hold a “polarized viewpoint”.

It is a cheap trick to suggest that when two quarrel both are in the wrong. The one and only problem here is the COI-induced POV of the Landmark adherents. Two examples: (i) the RfC DaveApter started not long ago (one thread below): it is a huge waste of time and energy to get such elementary facts established; (ii) Some time ago I have criticized the opening statement of the opening sentence of the Werner Erhard article (whatever Erhard is, he is not first and foremost a ‘critical thinker’). I have so far not succeeded to get my criticism accepted. That it is obvious from the very start that my criticism is completely justified, that the sources to adstruct the ‘critical thinker’-statement are very, very poor (an ill-informed piece of journalism, an advertisement, a selfpublished book), doesn’t seem to count anyway. There is no denying the determination of the Landmark adherents; they do not shrink back from defending the untenablest of positions.

DaveApter’s third arrow, however, hits the bullseye: the terror that is going on on this and other talk pages is deterring uninvolved editors. There is a simple solution, as I am allowed to do a modest proposal: everyone who has specific ties with the subject, emotional, relational, political, ideological, artistical, financial, business-wise or in any other sense, should refrain from editing.

I am an uninvolved editor, without any Landmark-connection whatsoever in past or present, who entertained no preconceived ideas, neither pro nor contra, on the subject when I started one year ago to study the relevant literature, triggered by content disputes I happened to come across. But as soon as I dared to open my mouth on this very talk page, I was nailed unto the cross twice by the Landmark adherents. It were saddening spectacles, received mostly with either indifference or applause by a lazy crowd that firmly believes in holding forth piously on good manners and proper conduct, being hypercorrect in the application of rules and guidelines, enjoying a strong aversion of content issues, being resolutely determined to stay non-judgmental unto the last syllable of recorded time. Among the spectators were also several members of the Arbitration Committee and some supervising admins. Apart from some participants in the debate, nearly all of them failed to see what is going on just in front of their noses.

I do not think we are in need of specific guidelines governing controversial topics. Editors with a COI should simply devote themselves to tasks in which no COI will disrupt article development. Those who watch over encyclopedic integrity should dedicate oneself to content study and take the appropriate measures.

I think Drmies will come and say that I am making my point a bit too strong. Theobald Tiger (talk) 10:34, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

The serious points I raised above are still not being resolved: see the discussion of the misrepresentation of sources below. DaveApter (talk) 06:19, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 3 April 2015

Per the consensus established at this RfC [7], I request removal of the sentence: "Erhard had no formal training in psychology or psychiatry and had previously been a successful salesman" DaveApter (talk) 10:44, 3 April 2015 (UTC) DaveApter (talk) 10:44, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose making any such changes until and unless an independent administrator, reviewing the RfC in question, particularly including the relative strength of arguments as opposed to the numerical count, closes the RfC and makes a judgment based on policy and guidelines primarily as opposed to simple statements of opinion. John Carter (talk) 16:57, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose DaveApter, I would say there wasn't clear consensus. There was a bit of a majority (8-3? perhaps?), but it didn't get very fleshed out. Prasangika37 (talk) 19:20, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Amelia Hill quote

With this diff, 203.2.218.145 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) changed the context of Hill's quote to put the phrase in the voice of a course participant (rather than her own). The full quote from the article is: 'This course has transformed me. And the funny thing is, I didn't know I even had it in me to transform,' he smiled.The Landmark Forum is not magic. It is not scary or insidious. It is, in fact, simple common sense delivered in an environment of startling intensity. Since the quoted portion ends before "he smiled", and the following paragraph continues on about the intensity, is seems that the IP is incorrect. Another set of eyes? Thanks, Tgeairn (talk) 16:50, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

That's what punctuation is for - to resolve such ambiguities. It's quite clear: the remarks made by the participant are between quote marks. The judgement expressed is not in quotes and therefore is being made by the writer. DaveApter (talk) 11:01, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Cited sources misrepresented in the article

The contentious statement in the lead "Landmark's programs have been categorized by some scholars and others as religious or quasi-religious in nature" is an inaccurate paraphrase of the sentences to which it relates within the body of the article.

The references cited fail to substantiate those body statements themselves: "Some scholars have categorized Landmark and its predecessor organizations as new age, self religion or a new religious movement. Other observers have noted relationships between the training programs and a spiritual experience, including a lack of religious elements in the programs and the compatibility of the programs with existing religions. Others, such as Chryssides, classify Landmark as either quasi-religious or secular with some elements of religion (although various scholars have disputed this characterization)".

• None of the sources use the term "New Age"
• None of them use the term "quasi-religious"
• Those that refer to it as a NRM, make it clear that they are using "NRM" as a technical categorization which does not necessarily imply being "religious" in any normal sense of the word.

There are no sources which support the assertion "...many of the company's customers deny such characterizations...". There is no evidence that the company's customers discuss its alleged religious characteristics, or that they would find such a suggestion as anything other than bizarre.

• I see that the contentious statements were removed from the lead recently, and then promptly re-inserted. Perhaps we could discuss here to agree on what would be an appropriate wording, if any, for reference to this minority and uninformed opinon? DaveApter (talk) 10:11, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

What these references do say is summarised below:

Barker 1996, p. 126

"Any movement that offers in some way to provide answers to some of the ultimate questions about 'meaning' and 'the purpose of life'... would be included in this broad understanding of the term 'NRM'... To illustrate... among the better-known NRMs are... the Landmark Forum."

Beckford 2003, p. 156

"Meanwhile, other commentators such as Tipton (1984) and Foss and Larkin (1976, 1979) detect a tendency for post-countercultural religious movements such as Erhard Seminars Training (now the Landmark Forum) to recombine instrumentalism and expressivism in ways that could help their participants to fit into the routines of mainstream social life."

Beckford 2004, p. 256

"Werner Erhard [has] confidence that the state of the entire world would improve if a sufficient number of people became sufficiently energetic and disciplined about thier spiritual practice." Nothing to indicate why he attributes this belief to Erhard, which is not indicated in other references. And he got the name of the corporation wrong.

Clarke 2012, p. 123

“The Forum and/or est, whose origins are in the United States (Tipton 1982) holds to the belief that the self itself is god.” Unclear why he is able to assert that est or Landmark "hold to [this] belief", for which there appears to be no evidence whatsoever.

Heelas 1991, pp. 165–166, 171

"And the founder of est (the highly influential seminar training established by Erhard in 1971) observes that 'Of all the disciplines that I studied, Zen was the essential one"..."With reference to est, what is offered is 'a sixty hour educational experience which allows people to realize their potential to transform their lives'."

Puttick 2004 pp 406-407

"[Mentions Landmark in a list]... These organizations are sometimes classified sociologically as new religions, though they tend to describe themselves in secular terms. Most of these trainings do not focus on spirituality directly..."

"The Landmark Forum is a direct descendant, with substantial changes, of est (Erhard Seminars Training). est was one of the most succesful manifestations of the human potential movement"

"...There are undertones of Eastern philosophies, particularly in the aim of looking at the familiar in new ways, but participants emphasisze goals of success and self-improvement rather than spirituality."

Earlier in the book Puttick had written: "The human potential movement (HPM)... is not in itself a religion, new or otherwise, but a psychological philosophy and framework, including a set of values that have made it one of the most significant and influential forces in modern Western society."

Ramstedt 2007, pp. 196–197

"A well-known example of spiritual management trainings..." No indication of how he arrived at the opinion that it is either "spiritual" or a "management training". And he got the name of the corporation wrong.

Discussion of the above refs

Perhaps we should work towards a form of words that more accurately reflects what the sources say? DaveApter (talk) 12:00, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

• Misuse of references and WP:OR mischaracterizations of what sources say go nowhere toward either improving the article or toward legitimizing the biased Landmark advocacy POV. NRM = "New Religious Movement" and it is treated as such by many scholars. Barker (1996) defines it neatly, and in a way that encompasses the "normal sense of the word". Beckford (2003) calls est/Landmark Forum a "postcountercultural religious movement. Beckford (2004) again includes est/Landmark as a NRM and points out one of the religious aspects. That you don't know, acknowledge or understand the details that went into a statement made by Clarke (2012) in no way means that the reference or his statement is invalid or that the source does not say what the source says. The snippet quoted from Heelas (1991) conveniently leaves out the context, which is a discussion of new religious expressions. The misrepresentation of Puttick similarly ignores that Landmark and the others are specifically being discussed as new religions. The comments on Ramstedt (2007) are again WP:OR second-guessing of a reliable source. Finally, the list contentions is false that none of the sources use the term "New Age", that none use the term "quasi-religious" and that sources do not imply that NRM is not used to denote anything recognizably religious. The sources say what the sources say, and they do support the statements in which they are cited, sophistic twisting of selective sentences notwithstanding. • Astynax ^talk 18:56, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

• Looking as DaveApter does at what the sources actually say raises some interesting points, particularly in terms of what definition of ‘religious’ we are using here. Barker categorizes as religious any system that examines the meaning and purpose of life, as quoted above. This clearly falls outside the most commonly used dictionary definition of religion, which involves faith, worship and belief in the supernatural.

There is another, more modern definition of ‘religious’ which applies to any pursuit one holds to be supremely important, which is what is meant when one says ‘I follow my local football team religiously’ that some researchers are using. Puttick and others in Partridge’s encyclopedia seem to be using this casual definition for human potential movements and Landmark – such movements are called in this book ‘implicit religions’, (a term said to be similar to ‘secular religions’) in which are included passionate devotion to sports teams and political movements. (“Devotion to soccer is often likened to religious worship”, reads a caption from this source). I think there’s a real danger in using this casual definition of ‘religious’ in this article without being explicit about what is being said - it misleads readers who naturally assume that ‘religious’ means something to do with worship or the supernatural. Nwlaw63 (talk) 16:48, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

• Your WP:OR narrow definition of "religion" is far less than what the term commonly encompasses. There are religions that have no structured "worship" (most shamanistic and other types), religions that have no concept or reverence of "the supernatural" (UFO cults and others), etc. It is a non-starter to religiously repeat the straw man arguments that a purported "casual definition" of religion might be out there that by some twisted illogic means that when the scholars who study "religion" categorize something as a "religion" or "religious" that their work should be parsed to death and their statements be ignored. • Astynax ^talk 18:42, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

• @Nwlaw63: your bringing up the definition of 'religious' is a rather good point here. The word is pretty simply defined as "a) relating to or manifesting faithful devotion to an acknowledged ultimate reality or deity", "b) of, relating to, or devoted to religious beliefs or observances", or "c) scrupulously and conscientiously faithful". It seems clear that any stretch of the definition to include a company or product that doesn't include faith, devotion, beliefs, or observances would be going well beyond any normal sense of the word. As DaveApter points out, the sources used in the article are not making this kind of stretch. The sources (at best) discuss a sociological categorisation and carefully state that they aren't talking about religion. I recommend working out much clearer language for the article, coming up with something that is directly supported by the sources rather than the existing poorly synthesized passages. --Tgeairn (talk) 08:41, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

• More WP:OR advocacy nonsense. Rather than being anything like your claim, what you are advocating is synthesis to whittle out a definition to support Landmark's stated public relations position. Of course, a corporation can be religious or hawk spiritual/religious products—many religions are incorporated to further their worldviews, and there are secular corporations that promote religion-based worldviews. There are scholars other than the one quoted (and in various academic fields) that regard est/Forum/Landmark as religious in nature. Though Landmark advocates who seem incapable of thinking outside the corporate line refuse to acknowledge basic English, Landmark does inculcate belief/worldview that fits perfectly well into your cited definition (and other common definitions) of the word "religion". It is bizarre to attempt to impugn scholars by accusing them of synthesis (which according to policy is what they are qualified to do, but we cannot) as a tactic to push for instead using editors' WP:OR synthesis in violation of policy. • Astynax ^talk 17:48, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

• Nwlaw63 and Tgeairn make a good point that I think has been missed in a lot of the prior discussion on this. The use of the word "religion" is likely to invoke in the reader the traditional thinking about religion such as a belief in faith, divinity of some kind and usually involved worship of some kind. It also runs the risk of immediately invoking the kind of religious partisanship that is often associated with religion- you are only one thing- Islamic or Catholic or Anglican. It is clear - looking at Landmark's content and curriculum- that faith, divinity, and worship are not in the curriculum at all. It is also clear that people of MANY diverse religious practices attend Landmark's seminars just as they go to Harvard, play soccer, and study psychology. Calling Landmark a religion therefore is a misleading term without putting the kind of context that can be found in many of the source materials. As DaveApter showed some of the sources used to promote the POV that Landmark is a religion even contradict that or are very clear that they mean "religious " in that broad term as people will use for their favorite football team. I appreciate the clarity of this conversation and looking at the term "religion" from a neutral, and common meaning, lens rather than the POV of trying so hard to prove Landmark is a religion. This conversation I think can lead to a lot of good clarification of the article and have us be able to generate a rubric to avoid the misuse of sources out of context to justify or push a narrow POV. Good conversation. Alex Jackl (talk) 02:45, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Suggested Wording

It is becoming increasingly clear in the discussion above that the current wording in the article is either a misunderstanding of the sources, or a deliberate distortion of what they say to synthesize an account which is in accordance with the editor's own point of view.

I propose that the current wording:

• Some scholars have categorized Landmark and its predecessor organizations as new age, self religion or a new religious movement.[50] Other observers have noted relationships between the training programs and a spiritual experience, including a lack of religious elements in the programs and the compatibility of the programs with existing religions.[51] Others, such as Chryssides, classify Landmark as either quasi-religious or secular with some elements of religion (although various scholars have disputed this characterization).[52] Landmark has denied that it is a religion, cult or sect,[53]

should be replaced with:

• Some scholars have categorized Landmark and its predecessor organizations as part of the Human potential movement, and some have discussed these under a broadly-defined heading of "New Religious Movements" [refs 50 & 51]. Landmark's position is that it is purely an educational corporation without religious implications of any kind [53].

Furthermore, the segment ... and "freely threatens or pursues lawsuits against those who call it [a cult]".[54] is a non-sequitur to anything said in the academic sources and should be deleted. DaveApter (talk) 16:15, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't see how the second improves what is said in the first other than it is a bit more concise. I agree that he last bit you mentioned about lawsuits shouldn't be included unless there is a RS directly citing it. The second, which you're offering, includes 'broadly-defined heading', which seems like your own original research, no? That seems a bit like a weasel word to me which is being used to manipulate the meaning of the clear categorization of NRM? Prasangika37 (talk) 19:17, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Prasangika37- It looks like DaveApter is using either Barker 1996 ("Any movement that offers in some way to provide answers to some of the ultimate questions about 'meaning' and 'the purpopse of life'... would be included in this broad understanding of the term 'NRM'") or Barker 1989 ("Then there is the New Age Movement, which, when broadly defined, includes... the Human Potential movement.") to support the use of "broadly-defined heading". One of the reoccurring issues with the NRM term is the very broad definition that some researchers use. It's been pretty difficult to nail down a clear definition that the sources would agree is categorically an NRM. --Tgeairn (talk) 01:01, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Okay--that makes sense. No problem with that wording then :) Thanks for the clarification. I am a little unsure of why the second option is superior though. Thoughts on that? Prasangika37 (talk) 12:50, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

I would tend to think the second version is better because 1) the first version is a bit of a contorted mess, and 2) not all of the first version is directly supported by the sources, while the second version has no such issues. Nwlaw63 (talk) 14:51, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

@Prasangika37:, I agree with Nwlaw63... Although for me, the first version seems like it doesn't really get around to actually saying anything - "It's this, or maybe this, or maybe that - but it could be this or this. It's definitely not that though." The second version is at least closer to being definitive - "The sources say x." I propose something even simpler below and avoid the "and" as well. --Tgeairn (talk) 21:46, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

I agree with what has been said above (and therefore feel no compulsion to re-iterate) and support DaveApter's proposal for the change. Alex Jackl (talk) 13:51, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

I support the second version over the first and propose an alternative: "Some scholars have categorized Landmark's predecessor organizations as part of the Human potential movement,(Puttick 2004) which is described by some under the broadly-defined term "New Religious Movements"(Barker 1989)(Barker 1996). Landmark's position is that it is purely an educational corporation without religious implications of any kind.(Puttick 2004") Thoughts? --Tgeairn (talk) 21:46, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

• This is all such mild and irrelevant language to describe such a weird, cult-like organization. Something weird must be afoot here. - Wikidemon (talk) 09:38, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Roleplayers vs. Authorities

Made a minor page to the article in restoring the word "roleplayers" to "authorities" (which is what it was originally) in talking about religious leaders. I think that might have been a mistake actually as it makes no sense in context. Alex Jackl (talk) 13:45, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Infobox name

The name on the infobox should be the actual registered company name "Landmark Worldwide Holdings International, Inc." (founded June 22, 1987). If there are various doing business as names, they should be listed somehow inside the infobox.

By the way, there is at least one other surviving Landmark entity, "Landmark Education Capital Management Corporation" (C1996186), and no reference supporting which entity "Landmark Education Corporation" merged into. That information could be obtained by a detailed request to the California Secretary of State, but isn't available at the (broken) links in the article. AndroidCat (talk) 22:00, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Changes made. Infobox Organization badly lacks a jurisdiction parameter. (It's the most-important fact about a legal organization entity besides its name.) Added as a remark. AndroidCat (talk) 05:58, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Sources misrepresented in the article

OK, I have now obtained a copy of Chryssides 'Exploring New Religions', and his section on Landmark does not remotely substantiate the sentence: "Others, such as Chryssides, classify Landmark as either quasi-religious or secular with some elements of religion." He does not mention the term "quasi-religious" at all. On the contrary, the thrust of his remarks is to dismiss the suggestions made by various other commentators that it might be classified as religious. Some of his comments:

• "From what has been said thus far, one may wonder in what sense est may be regarded as a religion."
• "Against the claim that est and Landmark are religions, it is also worth noting that Landmark is not a membership organisation."
• "...there is no ritual, no festivals, no religious calendar..."
• "...est and Landmark make no claims to be religious, and have not attempted to change their participants' religious allegiance."

In view of this, I will amend the passages accordingly. DaveApter (talk) 14:08, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Chryssides states, as part of a larger section (visit link), "est and Landmark may have some of the attributes typically associated with religion, but it is doubtful whether they should be accorded full status as religious organisations." (p. 314). Another in-between term/phrase is required if 'quasi' etc., is objectionable rather than a full delete. Ideas on wording? AnonNep (talk) 17:14, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I did notice that sentence; however, taking the entire 11 page section as a whole it is clear that the general thrust is that he is saying that est is not a religion in any usual sense of the word, that Landmark is even less so, and that the reasons some people give for regarding it as such are somewhat suspect. I think the wording of my recent edits is fair and accurate, but would be happy to discuss any other proposals. DaveApter (talk) 14:05, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Chryssides could have said "that est is not a religion in any usual sense of the word, that Landmark is even less so" but didn't. Chryssides does say they "may have some of the attributes typically associated with religion" so that needs to be accommodated for accuracy, hence my asking about suggestions for wording. AnonNep (talk) 14:35, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Offside: "it is also worth noting that Landmark is not a membership organisation". Really? How odd, since a religious group that I won't mention is also not a membership organization. Obviously that's not part of any workable definition of religious or not. So how do they keep track of Landmark memberships then? AndroidCat (talk) 03:58, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Formatting

Sometime last year the summary of the content of the Landmark Forum was changed from a bulleted list - which I thought worked quite well - to a text paragraph which seems less clear. Any thoughts on this? Also, I think there are a few inaccuracies, for example talking about 'tenets' where it would be more accurate to say something like 'suggestions put forward for consideration'. DaveApter (talk) 10:02, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

The section was changed from a list September last following the earlier placement of a tag. In the process, language was added (such as the use of "tenets"). Although ultimately the content/concepts should be expanded in prose, the bulleted list was much clearer and better matched the variety of sources being used. I support changing this to a list, and finding less POV language if needed. --Tgeairn (talk) 17:30, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

The concepts should be expanded and probably have their own section - similar articles have a concepts/ideas/philosophies type section, I believe. Nwlaw63 (talk) 15:18, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

@Nwlaw63:Having some of their concepts a new section would be a good way to start some much needed expansion. Do you have any suggestions or preferences on what to start that section with? With all of these sources, there certainly should be some basic statements of what the courses actually say. As you note, that would start to bring this inline with similar articles. --Tgeairn (talk) 15:50, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

This is a good idea. Someone should move forward on this - it is a big hole in the article right now.Alex Jackl (talk) 15:41, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Agreed (above). --Tgeairn (talk) 15:50, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Landmark's idea about the 'story' is one that seems to show up in a lot of reliable sources. How about something like this to start:

Landmark emphasizes the idea that there is a difference between the facts of what happened in a situation, and the meaning, interpretation, or story about those facts. It proposes that people frequently confuse those facts with their own story about them, and as a consequence, are less effective or experience suffering in their lives. Meaning is something that human beings invent in language, Landmark suggests – it’s not inherent in events themselves. Therefore, if people change what they say they can alter the meaning they associate with events, and be more effective in dealing with them. Nwlaw63 (talk) 23:32, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

I added this text. Alex Jackl (talk) 13:37, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

For expanding this section, I have a rough draft of something based on Landmark's view of language. Feedback welcome:

Landmark suggests that as people see these invented meanings, they discover that much of what they had assumed to be their "identity" is actually just a limiting social construct that they had made up in conversations, in response to events in the past. From this realization, participants in Landmark's programs create new perspectives for what they now see as possible. They are then trained in sharing these with family members, friends and workmates, so that the new possibilities live in the social realm, rather than just in their own minds. In other words, Landmark suggests that the more of one’s social environment supports one’s goals, the easier they will be to accomplish. Nwlaw63 (talk) 03:04, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Seems clear, and a useful addition. What are the sources? DaveApter (talk) 12:08, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

McCrone and the Zaffron paper both say pretty much this. The Zaffron paper would probably be considered a primary source, but that seems fine when it's being used to say what Landmark's own ideas are. Nwlaw63 (talk) 03:00, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

I will add this. Seems reasonable and well-sourced. Alex Jackl (talk) 20:27, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Landmark Worldwide Holdings International, Inc. incorporation date

The California Secretary of State site http://kepler.sos.ca.gov/ for entity number C1197599 shows Date Filed: 06/22/1987 "The date of formation of a California (domestic) business entity". (The site no longer allows direct links to records.) That date is definitive. As a primary source, no interpretation should be made, but any secondary sources that disagree with it have some 'plaing to do as they are incorrect. AndroidCat (talk) 23:39, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

This would appear to be a completely different business entity (which may or may not ever have traded - I have no idea), from Landmark Worldwide LLC, entity number 200305810074, which was registered 26th February 2003. What is your point exactly? What relevance do these kinds of trivia have to the article? DaveApter (talk) 09:44, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Do you have a jurisdiction (state or nation) for "Landmark Worldwide LLC, entity number 200305810074, which was registered 26th February 2003", so that this can be verified? This isn't trivia, these are basic facts of corporate existence. I have no problem with which Landmark is indicated — there may be several — but the article should reflect what is verifiable from definitive sources. AndroidCat (talk) 15:58, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

It's California - check on the site you linked above, and search under LLC rather than under Inc (or search for the entity number). DaveApter (talk) 17:03, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

That corporate entity is California Secretary of State forfeited, and quite dead. (Suspended would be merely dead. Forfeited is dead-dead.) AndroidCat (talk) 17:27, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Hang on, checking further. I didn't think that was a California entity number. Delaware. hmm. AndroidCat (talk) 17:34, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

According to the Delaware SoS, there are two Delaware Landmark companies: LANDMARK WORLDWIDE ENTERPRISES, INC. and LANDMARK WORLDWIDE LLC, both incorporated 09/23/2002, but neither licensed in California. Without good sources to show exactly which incorporated entity is operating in California as "The" Landmark, now this is well beyond the scope what primary sources can cover. Suggestions? AndroidCat (talk) 23:38, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

So far as I am aware, there is no serious doubt that the summary in the 'History' section is broadly accurate. Namely that business was founded in 1991 and has operated continuously to this day with substantially the same ownership, management, premises, and product range (subject to normal evolution over time). It is well established that it traded as 'Landmark Education Corporation' from shortly after its foundation until 2003 when it was styled 'Landmark Education LLC', and renamed 'Landmark Worldwide' in 2013. I had assumed it was still an LLC, but I don't know and can't see that it matters. I think it's quite normal for large businesses to change structures from time to time for administrative or other reasons, but don't see any need to obsess over it for the purposes of an encyclopedia article. For example the Apple Inc article says it was founded in 1976, although at that time it was a partnership, subsequently a private corporation, then a public one called Apple Computer Inc, and is now Apple Inc. The info box should certainly indicate the founding date as 1991 (as indicated on the company website and in numerous other sources) even if the legal entity it now operates under was created at some subsequent date. DaveApter (talk) 09:40, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Umm, pardon but there's doubt that that's "broadly accurate". Nor should primary source information from the Landmark website be accepted as definitive since they don't say anywhere (that I've seen) who their exact current corporate identity is. This is Wikipedia, it's all about obsessing. Sorry, I thought you understood that? AndroidCat (talk) 04:09, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Where exactly is this doubt expressed, apart from in your own original research? DaveApter (talk) 09:42, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

I think that doubt might be ALL original research. I have been poking around the California Secretary of State's website and it looks like they just update listings when information changes, and it looks like "Landmark Worldwide Holdings " got updated from an older name - possibly when Landmark Education was founded in 1991 - as it clearly is documented on that site. It may have been one of the assets that Landmark Education purchased from the Werner Erhardt company. So it looks like not only is the founding date now wrong on the site - the name of the company way be wrong as well. It looks like someone was doing some "original research "and said "Oh look, it says 'Landmark'! That must be the company." I am not changing the page but this looks like original research and incorrect original research as well. Alex Jackl (talk) 17:08, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

On the California Secretary of State site, the Date Filed field isn't the update date, but definitely the formation date.[8]. As for original research, I think the whole second paragraph of the History section should go. Those sources don't support any of those conclusions. AndroidCat (talk) 21:59, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

You misunderstood me (or I did not communicate clearly enough):

(1) You are correct - the date doesn't change but the name does. As the name and ownership changes it updates the name. This becomes more clear if you look at all of the entries.

(2) Landmark Worldwide Holdings is not the company that owns Landmark Education, or Landmark Worldwide but is just an asset that was purchased by the employees when they created the new company, Landmark Education in 1991. That name needs to be taken off the top of the info box on the page and the date needs to be corrected to 1991.

The Secretary of State site is clear that "Landmark Education" (Item# C1517055) was founded on 01/16/1991 as LANDMARK EDUCATION CORPORATION by ARTHUR SCHREIBER. These ARE the facts. Here is another link pointing to this: Reference to the new company. Does someone have MORE supporting documentation so that this can be put to bed? Thanks! Alex Jackl (talk) 06:26, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Landmark Education Corporation (C1517055) may have been the original corporation, but at some point it was merged into to another corporation. (The information of when and to which corporation, as well as name changes, could be obtained by a detail request, which probably costs money — Pass.) That's not the current Landmark main company and it no longer exists except as a legal placeholder. The original research built into the 2nd paragraph of the History section is that Landmark Worldwide Holdings International, Inc. (C1197599) was the company merged into, but there are no sources to back that up. Without any references to confirm that, we're stuck with the no longer existing C1517055. There probably was a name change, but the reference used can't confirm that, so it should be Landmark Education Corporation rather than Landmark Worldwide LLC. (If you mean the Delaware Landmark Worldwide LLC, it has to be registered as a foreign corporation to do business in California. There is no such registration.) AndroidCat (talk) 04:07, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

This is getting silly. There is no disputing the fact that the company has been known as Landmark Worldwide since July 2013; this is the name on their website, on the company brochures, and on the nameplates at their offices - regardless of whether an editor's personal research has managed to track down the registration docs. Most WP corporate infoboxes don't include Reg numbers. DaveApter (talk) 10:46, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Please note that it wasn't my original research that tracked down the registration docs. I was going by what existed in the article already, which was a mistake I admit. On closer examination, those assumptions were not backed up by anything, and I have removed them. The reason that most Infobox Organization don't include Reg numbers or tax id is because there is usually no question or complication over the corporate identity. Not having the exact company name, id and jurisdiction is sloppy, but usually it doesn't matter. It does for the claims made in this article. What is silly is to make claims about mergers and name changes without any backing sources. I have no other interest in this article — if anyone can provide WP:RS cites as to the current corporate identity of Landmark, I'll be on my way. P.S. Since "Landmark Worldwide LLC" isn't registered to do business in California, it could be a Fictitious Business Name, registered in the California county where they do business, but then that wouldn't be its name, but only what its name is called. See: Haddocks' Eyes AndroidCat (talk) 05:04, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean by "what existed in the article already". It was you who added the erroneous reg no C1197599, and changed the corporation name and foundation date to incorrect ones, and linked to an irrelevant CSoS document on July 1st. This whole discussion seems to me to be a storm in a teacup. DaveApter (talk) 10:23, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

• I've added refs to address most of your cn tags; they would seem to meet the Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources#Self-published_and_questionable_sources_as_sources_on_themselves conditions. DaveApter (talk) 11:47, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

I noticed through that latest ref that the Landmark website lists its copyright as Landmark Worldwide LLC. That should end the debate right there, since Landmark Worldwide LLC has its own SoS listing and isn't Landmark Worldwide Holdings - so what if it's listed in Delaware? Lots of companies incorporate there for tax reasons. Nwlaw63 (talk) 14:19, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

No. Please look at the article history. C1197599 was part of those primary dead links that I removed. As for "Landmark Worldwide LLC" from Delaware, it's not registered in California, which is a requirement for operating in California. Landmark's headquarters is based in California, so there's a problem in resolving the actual corporation(s). As for the links DaveApter added, self-published web pages are hardly Reliable Sources for corporate information. I suggest you find RS third party sources for those. AndroidCat (talk) 04:39, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

It's nonsensical to claim that a company isn't a reliable source for its own name. And the idea that a company that is incorporated in Delaware can't be headquartered in California is 100% false. Take Google for instance - incorporated in Delaware, headquartered in California, like many companies. Nwlaw63 (talk) 06:49, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but you're really not tracking what I'm saying. Google Inc. is a Delaware corporation, registered to do business in California (C2474131), and headquartered in California. Landmark Worldwide LLC is also a Delaware corporation, but not registered to do business in California. That makes the website claim about which company operates the Landmark headquarters in San Francisco dubious, so there is "reasonable doubt as to its authenticity" for not using it as a ref. AndroidCat (talk) 13:25, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Irrelevant material in 'Background section.

That section of the article has been tagged since January as containing irrelevant material and giving undue weight to marginal issues. Since no-one has argued here against those tags, perhaps it is time to trim out some of the cruft especially that relating to events well before the founding of this company? DaveApter (talk) 13:50, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

The 'Background' and 'Incorporation' subsections still contain many repetitions of points that already have been made in the main part of the 'History' section, plus some details of dubious relevance. I will condense this. DaveApter (talk) 16:07, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

The licensing intellectual property sub-section

The reference for the final sentence in this subsection linked to a search page at amazines.com which was completely irrelevant to this topic. The preceding convoluted sentences in the subsection about various companies and people seem to have no relevance at all to the subject of this article. And - rather oddly - the whole section 'Current operations' give no account at all of the firm's main business activities of putting on seminars and training programs! DaveApter (talk) 09:58, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

The last 2 sentences give information that could be relevant to Vanto Group, which is the subject of the previous section. If the last paragraph (which is the crux of its relevance) can be sourced, those 2 sentences could be appended (with appropriate summarizing) to the prior section. If the last sentence can't be reliably sourced, then I agree that the section is irrelevant. Rlendog (talk) 19:11, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, I agree on both counts. I have looked for an adequate source but haven't found one yet. DaveApter (talk) 09:04, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

I agree strongly with your last point, and as such have drafted something tentative for the first part of the operations section, before the subsections. Right now the operations section barely touches on describing the company's core business, which doesn't make sense. Here's a rough draft, without the sourcing in yet:

==Current operations==

The company's core business operation is the delivery of seminars and training courses, which aim to offer improvements in personal productivity, vitality, communication skills and decision making. Some of these are intensive two or three day courses, and others are structured as weekly three-hour seminars over a three month period. There are also six and twelve month training programs in topics such as leadership, teamwork and public speaking. Some of the courses require participants to create a community project, and those courses are structured to support them in its design and implementation.

Landmark Worldwide LLC operates as an employee-owned for-profit private company. According to Landmark's website, its employees own all the stock of the corporation, with no individual holding more than 3%. The company states that it invests its surpluses into making its programs, initiatives and services more widely available.

The company reports more than 2.4 million people have participated in its programs since 1991. Nwlaw63 (talk) 02:58, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

That looks sensible to me; it makes no sense to have an extensive article which doesn't even summarise what the company actually does! I wonder whether that last paragraph - about being employee-owned etc - really fits in this section: maybe it would read better at the end of the previous one? DaveApter (talk) 11:32, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Don't want to be a nag, but Landmark Worldwide LLC isn't registered to do business in the state of California, where Landmark's headquarters are. The California Secretary of State site is a primary source, but it is definitive about that. It would be best to be vague about the exact Landmark entity until there are reliable sources locking it down. AndroidCat (talk) 05:12, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Put in changes as per talk page. I looked again and haven't been able to find any reliable sourcing for the Tekniko stuff and so I took it out - if anyone finds something, information could be put back in. In the interest of comity I have used Landmark Worldwide instead of Landmark Worldwide LLC, but I am still certain that Landmark Worldwide LLC is the correct company name and that claims it can't do business in California are erroneous. Nwlaw63 (talk) 00:28, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

The Pièces à Conviction subsection.

Surely the treatment of this item is out of all proportion? I'm not sure whether one highly biased French television program eleven years ago even merits a mention. Even if it does, I can't see the justification of giving it its own subsection and nearly as much space as the total of all the previous eight opinions - positive and negative - in the rest of the 'Public reception and criticism' section. The Undue Weight and Relevance tags have been in place there for over a month now without response.DaveApter (talk) 10:33, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

This section needs copyediting but needs to remain because of the importance of the EFF involvement and the fact that Landmark left France subsequent to it's airing.Cathar66 (talk) 12:27, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Are there any reliable sources which establish a causal connection rather than a merely Post_hoc_ergo_propter_hoc one? DaveApter (talk) 15:14, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Karin Badt notes this in her 2008 Huffington Post article.Cathar66 (talk) 15:27, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. Yes, I've just noticed your edits which I hadn't seen when I made the previous post here (and I think you've made a distinct improvement to the article btw). As I read Badt's comments, they occur to me as a report of her own assumptions rather than strictly as a reliable secondary source which cites a primary reference to justify her assertion. However, I'm content to leave it as is for the time being. DaveApter (talk) 15:44, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20131006152818/http://www.health24.com/mind/Other/1284-1303,47905.asp to http://www.health24.com/mind/Other/1284-1303,47905.asp
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110721034252/http://kepler.sos.ca.gov/corpdata/ShowAllList?QueryCorpNumber=C1197599 to http://kepler.sos.ca.gov/corpdata/ShowAllList?QueryCorpNumber=C1197599
• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.dn.se/nyheter/sverige/landsting-kopte-kurs-av-landmark

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:20, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

More on the Concepts Section

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

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

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

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

Citation found for quote

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

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

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

Last paragraph:

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

Google Translate result:

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

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

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

Link to Silk Road for future use?

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

Cult status and pseudoscience.

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

Quick Factual Check and Note on Additions

The "facts" you give about Landmark’s ‘founder’ (it was really founded by current employees) are untrue, and, as far as I know, no reliable sources have ever discussed Landmark in terms of pseudoscience. The above note on the Silk Road being somehow correlated to Landmark is just spurious.

The cult charge has been argued ad infinitum and it’s clear that, in Wikipedia terms, the cult accusations are a minority view that’s not supported by the vast majority of reliable sources, and as such, don’t need more coverage in the article than is already in there.

On the other hand, there are sections of the article which look they could use some fleshing out. The Influence and Impact section is two sentences long. There’s probably more we could add to this. Alex Jackl (talk) 17:10, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

More on the Concepts Section (reinstated)

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

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

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

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

This section has just been archived, but the issues it raised do not seem to have been resolved, so I have re-inserted it. DaveApter (talk) 17:57, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Removed unreliable sources

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

That's good work; probably it's worth going through the refs to see how many more are a bit dubious. DaveApter (talk) 14:31, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Article tags

I tagged the article last year for Neutrality and Primary Sources. Since that time, there have been more than 275 revisions made by over 60 editors. While there are still gaps in our coverage (noted elsewhere on this Talk page), in general the article has stabilized on a version that relies less on primary sources and is presented in a much more neutral manner. Therefore, I am removing the article tags. --Tgeairn (talk) 01:18, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Silly edit reverted

I have reverted the silly addition of a few days ago saying that Landmark offered courses "for humans". Who else would they be offered for - chimpanzees? DaveApter (talk) 16:34, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

New Source

I've been looking at the source added to the reception and criticism section, and it strongly rebuts Lockwood. It seems to be more evidence for Lockwood and Heelas as a minority view. That paragraph is kind of a mish mash anyway - at some point here it should probably be cleaned up and made more reflective of what most sources are saying. Nwlaw63 (talk) 00:12, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

This makes sense to me. I will check in tomorrow to see if anyone has any other thoughts. Alex Jackl (talk) 18:09, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

I would agree that this paper certainly strengthens the case that characterisations of Landmark as 'religious' (even in a broad sense of the term) are very definitely minority viewpoints - and essentially uninformed ones at that. DaveApter (talk) 12:14, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

I agree. It looks like this is clearly backed by good sources and this is relatively straight forward fix to the header. I will give a little more time for any other comments and then I will make the change. Alex Jackl (talk) 14:31, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

This has been open for about three weeks, and with the consensus established thus far it seems clear that the religion sentence has Undue Weight and is appropriately referenced in the main article. It clearly should not be in the lead and with the information in the Heck paper this looks like an extreme minority view. Given all of that, and to be conservative in alterations to the article, I will leave the content in the main body but will remove the religion sentence from the lead. Alex Jackl (talk) 15:16, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Interesting observations on the publisher of the Heck article [here]. Just adding this for future reference. AnonNep (talk) 16:36, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Landmark Worldwide. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20141129063713/http://kepler.sos.ca.gov/corpdata/ShowAllList?QueryCorpNumber=C1197599 to http://kepler.sos.ca.gov/corpdata/ShowAllList?QueryCorpNumber=C1197599
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20070927213240/http://www.landmarkeducation.com/display_content.jsp?top=26&mid=659&bottom=676&siteObjectID=707 to http://www.landmarkeducation.com/display_content.jsp?top=26&mid=659&bottom=676&siteObjectID=707

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:41, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Neither of the archive links worked, so I changed the checked parameter to failed. Nwlaw63 (talk) 00:50, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Reference Work

A couple of things on references. One or two of them still look like they're not working and should be fixed. Also, there was some talk a while back about putting the reference section back in a standard format - these are a bit hard to follow. I may look into what it would take to do this. Nwlaw63 (talk) 22:34, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

525 employees

The info box says there are 525+ employees - I don't see this actually indicated anywhere by the source - maybe I'm missing it. Not sure if this should be kept. Nwlaw63 (talk) 13:31, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Corporate citation needed?

It seems curious to me that we still have a citation needed on the corporate name. This is straightforward to determine even though the name has changed over time. I recall this was discussed a while ago, and then resolved, but the citation remains. Alex Jackl (talk) 16:12, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Also for the formation date?

Similarly, there is a 'citation needed' tag on the foundation date: surely this is a well-established matter of public record? DaveApter (talk) 15:23, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Since there have been no objections or further comments on this I have removed the July 2015 "citation needed" tags from the corporate information and history section about the corporation as that information is all non-contraversial and can all be discovered in the incorporation and public documents about the company. Alex Jackl (talk) 17:40, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Problematic paragraph

There seem to be several problems with this paragraph:

"A series of articles in the Swedish national daily Dagens Nyheter reported complaints about Landmark practices, including an allegation that one person had suffered from acute psychosis after taking a Landmark course.[citation needed] The chairman of Föreningen Rädda individen, a support organization for those affected by cults and destructive movements, told Dagens Nyheter that his opinion was that Landmark was "one of the most dangerous sects in Sweden".[44]"

1. The 'citation needed' tag has been in place for well over a year without anyone providing a reference.
2. The "allegation" is in any case far too vague as it stands: unless a specific individual and the precise circumstances can be described, it is merely hearsay or gossip.
3. Even if an individual can be identified as having "suffered from acute psychosis", clearly it is statistically insignificant - and post hoc reasoning to imply a causal connection with the Landmark course.
4. The link in ref [44] does not resolve to any information to support the statements.
5. Even if a reference can be found, it is unclear that the opinion expressed is sufficiently notable. DaveApter (talk) 13:12, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Since nobody has either provided references or disputed my observations, I am removing these two sentences now. DaveApter (talk) 15:47, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Landmark Worldwide. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.health24.com/mind/Other/1284-1303%2C47905.asp
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://kepler.sos.ca.gov/corpdata/ShowAllList?QueryCorpNumber=C1197599
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.landmarkeducation.com/display_content.jsp?top=26&mid=659&bottom=676&siteObjectID=707
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130131052918/http://www.health24.com/mind/Other/1284-1303%2C47905.asp to http://www.health24.com/mind/Other/1284-1303%2C47905.asp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:29, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Landmark Worldwide. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140428113637/http://www.landmarkworldwide.com/who-we-are/press-releases/landmark-launches-new-website-and-more to http://www.landmarkworldwide.com/who-we-are/press-releases/landmark-launches-new-website-and-more
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090408040623/http://www.reuters.com/article/pressRelease/idUS271093+01-Feb-2008+PRN20080201 to https://www.reuters.com/article/pressRelease/idUS271093+01-Feb-2008+PRN20080201
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.landmarkworldwide.com/the-landmark-forum/landmark-forum-course-detail

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:25, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Reverted changes by anonymous user

I reverted back to the stable version of the page before an anonymous user put in edits that appear to be designed to add their own opinion and not reflective of the sources. Please explain here! Alex Jackl (talk) 06:46, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Coaching influence

I am restoring (with slight changes) the material removed by TropicAces. He is correct that one of the references fails to substantiate the claim, but the other does so clearly. The Handbook of Knowledge-Based Coaching states: "Of the many disciplines that have influenced the development of coaching, aside from humanistic psychology, the teachings found in est and later Landmark Education (see www.landmarkeducation.com) may be the most influential." I have removed the irrelevant ref, and added another which states "Werner Erhard has been described as the second most important influencer of all time," and also describes how a former Landmark staff member was a major player in establishing the coaching profession. DaveApter (talk) 11:26, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Irrelevant image gallery

I have removed the image gallery, which had nothing whatsoever to do with the topic of this article. DaveApter (talk) 16:49, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, DaveApter. I add a topic of the description. Yours sincerely. --Thomas Ptarmigan (talk) 12:41, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

• DaveApter, you might like to know that Thomas got blocked for running a bunch of socks. Drmies (talk) 20:22, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

POV Quotes

I noticed that some of the references in the "Landmark Forum" paragraphs have had quotes embedded in them that have a very negative POV. I will take a look at that over the next few weeks to see if it is accurate or if it needs to be tweaked. Any thoughts? Alex Jackl (talk) 15:55, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

In absence of any other commentary, removed the questionable quotes. Source material was fine but quotes were cherry picked. Alex Jackl (talk) 15:39, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

An IP Address came in and put the non-neutral content back in. I believe editors should not use either positive or negative quotes to support a non-neutral POV. I reverted it back. Happy to discuss on this page. Alex Jackl (talk) 15:44, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Odd quote?

I just noticed the insertion referring to 'Ponzi' that had been inserted into the article on December 17th. This strikes me as having been cherry-picked for its negative connotations, and is not representative of the general tone the Time article from which it was drawn, and reads rather oddly. DaveApter (talk) 17:39, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Pinging DaveApter:

1. I am the author of this change. Please ping me back in future, for a faster reply.

2. The article as before (and now, after your revert) strikes me as cherry-picking the sources for their positive connotations, and is thus not representative of the general tone the referenced articles. It also reads rather oddly, looking as a WP:POV and even WP:COI piece.

I am restoring this quote from the already existing source. Now, that I looked at other related RS-es, I will also add other facts quoted there, for balance.

-> Please continue to seek consensus (via WP:3O maybe?) and let us all strive for WP:NPOV. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zezen (talk • contribs)

It does seem that the TIME quote has been cherrypicked - it's literally the only negative sentence in the entire article. The other item added to the criticism section also seems dubious - it uses a qualified quote made in a tabloid newspaper from one scholar to supposedly summarize what the scientific consensus is (it again appears to be the most negative usable item in the entire article, an article which is a borderline reliable source. The sourcing criticizing Landmark's marketing seems solid, while the sourcing alleging harmful effects seems much less so. Nwlaw63 (talk) 18:49, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

@Zezen: We can certainly agree that it is desirable for the article to comply with WP:NPOV policies, but it does not seem to me that your edits achieve that. Is the comment you added from the Time article a fact or an opinion? Obviously the latter. The undue weight guideline states that it is ok to include 'facts about opinions' as long as they are notable opinions from established experts. Was the writer an expert in the field of personal development courses? Actually, the sentence isn't even a well-formed opinion, more a throwaway rhetorical flourish. What does it even mean to "have enough of a Ponzi taste..."? The term Ponzi scheme has a well-defined meaning, and there are no reliable sources anywhere suggesting that Landmark bears any resemblance to such operations. As for WP:3O, this is for resolving conflicts that have become deadlocked after exhausting discussion on the Talk page, and we seem to be a long way from that here. DaveApter (talk) 11:21, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

@DaveApter: Your arguments are sound. Let us then remove the Time quote altogether, leaving only the quoted opinions of experts. Please also do as you seem fit here to arrive at NPOV, as I will have little time to curate this and other articles in the weeks to come. Zezen (talk) 12:23, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Inappropriate negative POV edits

A new editor came in and made a whole series of negative POV edits on February 26, 2019. I reverted to the last stable version from three days ago. This article has achieved some degree of stability and agreement. Please discuss changes here if possible. Thank you very much! Alex Jackl (talk) 17:00, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Removed draft court motion

I removed a draft motion that was added. I removed it as per WP: Relevance. An actual court decision might be relevant but that certainly didn't seem to be. Happy to discuss if anyone thinks otherwise. Alex Jackl (talk) 15:41, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

deadlinks

I'm going to highlight a few of the deadlinks in the article, mostly from Landmark-provided sources. Would be great if someone could find active links. Also, I see there are 31 archived pages in here, so this question has come up - are Landmark-provided sources RS? Bangabandhu (talk) 04:30, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Absolutely NOT - they are not an independent, third-party source.

See: WP:IS - Identifying and using independent sources (also called third-party sources) helps editors build non-promotional articles that fairly portray the subject, without undue attention to the subject's own views.

Also see: WP:RS - Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. This means that we publish the opinions only of reliable authors, and not the opinions of Wikipedians who have read and interpreted primary source material for themselves. ---Avatar317^(talk) 05:45, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Reliable secondary sources should be used whenever possible, and certainly must be used for any qualitative or interpretive statements. Per policy, primary sources can be used in limited fashion for things like basic facts when secondary sources are not available, which in this case would mean things like course hours, number of offices, etc. If anyone finds better secondary sources for these facts, they should go ahead and replace the primary sources. Nwlaw63 (talk) 15:47, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Sales Figures and Primary Sources

I have reverted the removal of sales figures based on primary sources. Including sales numbers of private (and public) companies is standard practice, as one can see by looking at the articles here on many other privately held companies. By definition these figures are going to come from primary sources, which can be used in a limited way for basic facts such as these. Furthermore, the way these are worded, "landmark reported" and "the company reported" make it perfectly clear that the information is coming from the company itself.

I do note this information is fairly old - at some point I'll see if I can find more recent numbers. Nwlaw63 (talk) 17:46, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

It is not "standard practice" to include SELF-SOURCED membership numbers and revenue numbers. Examples of other low quality Wikipedia articles is not POLICY. Here is the policy, which is what we follow.

WP:IS "Independent sources are a necessary foundation for any article. Although Wikipedia is not paper, it is also not a dumping ground for any and all information that readers consider important or useful. For the sake of neutrality, Wikipedia cannot rely upon any editor's opinion about what topics are important. Everything in Wikipedia must be verified in reliable sources, including statements about what subjects are important and why. To verify that a subject is important, only a source that is independent of the subject can provide a reliable evaluation. A source too close to the subject will always believe that the subject is important enough to warrant detailed coverage, and relying exclusively upon this source will present a conflict of interest and a threat to a neutral encyclopedia."

If an INDEPENDENT source doesn't list this information anywhere (membership or revenue), than it isn't IMPORTANT enough to be in Wikipedia. Without an independent source, it is nothing more than an un-verifiable marketing-claim, and does not deserve to be included, PER POLICY. ---Avatar317^(talk) 01:03, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

I found a recent secondary source after about 10 seconds on Google. This should end this discussion, although it's worth noting that primary sources can be used for basic facts as per policy, and that almost every major article on a private company includes its sales figures (usually from a primary source). Nwlaw63 (talk) 15:26, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Sub-headers in Article

I noticed someone added a sub-header in the article on the French video. That is inconsistent with the rest of the article and provides that with a lot of emphasis- that topic has been hashed through and de-emphasized in this article many times before. I would suggest removing the sub-header if no one objects. Alex Jackl (talk) 16:49, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

I added that sub-header, because with ~40% of the criticism section devoted to that one video, I feel it is appropriate to give its own section. With ~ 10% of the sources in this article for just that video section, I see no reason it should be "de-emphasized". I added a title I feel is neutrally descriptive. ---Avatar317^(talk) 22:25, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

I see no reason to give the French TV programme any different treatment from any other items in this section, so I have removed the sub-head. DaveApter (talk) 16:56, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

It looks like someone came in and just added in MORE sub--headers to the criticism section. I also do not see this as balanced or consistent with the rest of the article. I will remove. Alex Jackl (talk) 17:59, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Accuracy and neutrality of subheadings

I changed the sub-head "Scientists' views" to "Academics' opinions", and it was promptly reverted. I would contend that the original version is not only misleading but inaccurate. The writers in almost all of the references are sociologists, and so would more accurately be described as academics than as scientists. The only one who is a scientist - Charles Watson - is mentioned as a result of a one line quotation in a lifestyle article in an Australian tabloid. Incidentally, his remark was made in support of Landmark, which is not at all clear to a reader of this paragraph. And why is views preferable to opinions? It seems to have been chosen to provide a spurious air of objectivity and authority, as contrasted with the mere "opinions" of reporters, in the sub-head of the paragraph below. DaveApter (talk) 17:40, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

I re-ordered this whole section with an earlier edit to group (scientists) then (reporters) then (French show). I haven't read the sources to challenge your critique of Scientists/Academics, but I named it Scientists because the first sentence says: "Scientists are divided..." (Apparently you don't think of sociologists as Scientists and you want to demote their status to Academics.)

If "views" adds more weight to their opinions, than I believe it is due here, because academics are the type of people who are more knowledgeable in this area...they study religions/cults/psychology. Reporters are no different than everyday uneducated (in those specific fields) people who took the Forum and reported their opinions on it. Wikipedia SHOULD give their opinions less weight, and should be reported more as opinion, unless their article surveyed academics and reported on what academics stated.

Lastly, I take issue with your other edit (which was also reverted in the same action) because the "Media comment" would include all reporters (the sub-section above), and demotes the French show in the same manner as you're complaining about with Views/Opinions. The French show got so much press (five references here) that I believe it is big enough for its own sub-section. I wasn't the one who renamed it to "documentary"... I had named it "French journalism video". ---Avatar317^(talk) 21:01, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. I don't concur that referring to someone as an 'academic' is a "demotion" from referring to them as a 'scientist'; in this case it's simply a more accurate description of the individuals concerned. We could debate endlessly about whether the social sciences count as "real" science, but they obviously don't have the same rigour or objectivity as say physiology or chemistry. So to generalise them as "scientists" here is to give a misleading impression. Furthermore, if you actually read the references you will find that in most cases Landmark gets no more than a passing mention (ranging between a couple of sentences and a couple of pages). Most of the writers don't claim to have studied or even observed any of Landmark's courses, and are repeating hearsay or offering armchair speculation. Once again to imply that this is an authoritative "view" is misleading.

The source for the opening sentence is - as I said - a lifestyle article in one of Rupert Murdoch's tabloids. It's debatable whether that counts as a reliable source at all. The justification for the sentence consists of two single-line quotes: on the one hand "clinical psychologist Bob Montgomery told 7.30 he was concerned there was no credible science backing the controversial techniques" (incidentally there's no suggestion of Montgomery making any study of the Landmark Forum to arrive at that view), and on the other hand neuroscientist Dr Charles Watson said “Speaking from my expertise and experience as a medical doctor and former chief health officer, my view is that there is absolutely nothing harmful in Landmark’s programs”. That's surely pretty slender grounds for the assertion that "scientists are divided"? The reference to Watson again in the third sentence is also misleading, since there is no evidence that he expressed any opinion on the issue of whether or not Landmark could reasonably be described as a "new religious movement".

I'm not greatly bothered about the wording of the third sub-head. But I do think it's maybe giving undue weight to devote so much space to a biased and sensationalist TV program from 16 years ago. DaveApter (talk) 11:29, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Since no-one has contested my observations above, I am removing the non-WP:RS ref and the inaccurate and unsupported statements. DaveApter (talk) 11:46, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Removed Vandalism

Reverted to last edit today (May 13) from vandalism in lead paragraph. Alex Jackl (talk) 03:21, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

NPOV comment removed

An anonymous editor added an inappropriate assertion to the lead, cited to a Mother Jones article. Apart from the fact that the statement is clearly one of opinion, not fact, and that the writer of the article has no notable expertise in the subject, it is clearly not justified to editorialise that ""To date...continues to..." based on a reference which is eleven years old. It would be appropriate to discuss changes on this talk page before making controversial edits to an article such as this, which has reached a stable consensus after a contentious history. DaveApter (talk) 15:16, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Australian Reference

I haven't looked at this page in a long while and I see some questionable stuff has been added. Particularly the Australian references seem like some talking about the accounting blog about training expenses of a single company and has no relevance to a Wikipedia article on Landmark Worldwide. My organization also questioned whether we should spend money on a Project Management training and decided not to because our key Project Manager was sick. What does that mean about the Project Management training- NOTHING. I suggest we remove it. Alex Jackl (talk) 15:48, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. It's a non-notable bit of trivia from an Australian tabloid from 13 years ago. DaveApter (talk) 10:00, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

PR tag?

I see that there has been a PR Tag at the heading for some time. I don't see that at all - I can't see any signs of sensationalism, and it certainly doesn't read like a press release. It seems more like a mixture of objective facts and critical comment. Also there's an tag suggesting that additional references would be desirable. That seems odd bearing in mind that there are 71 cited footnotes and a long list of additional references. Can anyone suggest the improvements they'd like to see to satisfy the concerns implied by these tags? DaveApter (talk) 10:15, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

I don't know why it was added, but it appears appropriate, since I can still see a lot of "biz-speak" and puffy language.

I am reluctant to give too many specific examples, because I have done that dozens of times in the past on various talk pages, and editors almost always merely fix exactly those issues without understanding them as examples. So, as just one of many possible examples, Landmark Worldwide#Current operations fails WP:TONE. The first sentence is extremely vague and extremely promotional, and worse, it is obviously not supported by the attached source. Again, as just an example, the idea that training could improve vitality is an extraordinary and extremely ambiguous claim, and so it would need both context and a strong source. The entire article has this problem, so the tag is still appropriate. Grayfell (talk) 03:25, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Removed tags. I reviewed the links and they seem good and upon comparing to other page son corporations it seems to have more citations not less. It actually is NOT that promotional at all. It actually sounds sort of dry.  :-) Alex Jackl (talk) 16:48, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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: [9] 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)

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)