Talk:Landmark Worldwide/Archive 29

Recent edits

There have been a number of edits recently, mostly from anonymous IP addresses which have not improved the quality of the article and which appear to be operating to forward an agenda of introducing a particular spin to the page.

Bearing in mind that this is a controversial topic, would editors please suggest proposed changes here on the talk page and discuss with a view to establishing some degree of consensus before making significant alterations. Thank you. DaveApter (talk) 18:48, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Based on my experience with Landmark, I'm somewhat surprised that this page hasn't been locked. I'm not surprised that people are editing it with both positive and negative spin. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.51.80.181 (talk) 16:17, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Landmark is commonly described as cult-like, to the point where "it's a cult" is one of the more widely-believed things about it among outsiders. This perception merits a mention and brief discussion whether or not it is accurate, as it is a true account of the organization's place in public life. When you acknowledge that "this is a controversial topic" on the talk page but remove any mention of any controversy at all from the article itself, you yourself are pushing "an agenda of introducing particular spin." I'd love to hear a little bit about both perspectives on that dispute in an encyclopedia article, rather than an article which silently pretends no dispute exists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.69.130.183 (talk) 13:08, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

In order to "hear a little bit about both perspectives on that dispute" you (or others) would need to find reputable sources that discuss that subject, otherwise what is written will be Original Research or Synthesis, both of which are excluded by Wikipedia policy. Wikipedia is not meant to be the source of original information/thought, it is not even supposed to reflect common perception, regardless of how common that perception is, it is supposed to reflect in a concise, clear way, the best published thinking on a subject. Jasonfward (talk) 22:58, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Let my clarify "best", I should really have said "reputable", wikipedia has a policy on what is regarded as reputable and what is not Jasonfward (talk) 23:05, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Links to relevant wikipedia pages being removed

Recent reverts, including DaveApter's big revert, have included removal of changes that should be uncontroversial, such as linking to the Wikipedia page on the Parliamentary Commission on Cults in France. I understand that the whole 'cult issue' is controversial, but I don't see what the problem is with linking to a Wikipedia page that contains factual information to help people make up their own minds. Woood (talk) 06:45, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Woood. This page does not follow Wikipedia standards. How was the "Criticisms" sections renamed to "Evaluations and reviews"? Deleting internal links that are relevant or adjusting an article to make it "sound better" makes the edits appear to come from a member of a cult which can attract unwanted attention. Please keep it objective. Gbickford (talk) 21:58, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Whilst I basically agree with Woood, the bits effected I feel it is balanced. What I don't understand is how this article doesn't follow Wikipedia standards, please if you make such allegations, actually say what they are, general waving and shouting in the direction of standards doesn't help anyone. Also what on earth has this article got to do with your opinion that Scientology is cult? For me, when you ask "please keep it objective" I'm left wondering if why you didn't. Jasonfward (talk) 15:07, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Court cases

Wikidemon says on his latest edit "let's do this a piece at a time then. launching defamation cases is not "defending itself" except in PR speak"

Whilst I have no issue with your latest edit (so have no intention or particular desire to see it changed) I disagree with your comment. If I was to defame you in someway, that you saw as damaging to your reputation and perhaps to your ability to earn money, I would be very surprised if you didn't see that as an attack and then go on to describe your subsequent actions as defense. It seems perfectly sensible for the initiating party in a defamation case to describe that action as "defending". Jasonfward (talk) 14:32, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Landmark Worldwide / Education name change

I reverted a revert that asked for 3rd party sources to the name change. I reverted because unlike other items the name (the nomenclature by which something is known) is different to other "facts" in wikipedia. The easiest way to demonstrate this is to say imagine that there was currently no article for Landmark at all, and I started one today (24th July 2013) the article would be called "Landmark Worldwide" and in article references to its name would also be "Landmark Worldwide" and nobody would be asking for 3rd party sources for the use of that name. Jasonfward (talk) 14:20, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

I have updated the page name to reflect the corporation's current name. DaveApter (talk) 14:50, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Logo

I have uploaded the curent logo for this corporation and updated the info box. I think this is in accordance with the guidelines on non-free content and Wikipedia:Logos guideline, and will be ok unless Landmark objects. Is that correct? DaveApter (talk) 10:13, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Inconsistency on number of people doing courses

I notice the article gives two numbers that seem inconsistent about how many people have done Landmark's courses. It says over 1 million in one place and over two million in another. This should be fixed. Does anyone have sourcing for the correct number? Nwlaw63 (talk) 16:55, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Merging Erhard Seminar Traiining and Landmark Education articles/Article Neutrality

These articles probably should be merged with two independent sections within body of new article. EST should be first section (obviously) followed by Landmark.

Article neutrality needs to be maintained. No POV bias. Just the facts, ma'am.Weathervane13 01:37, 19 June 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Weathervane13 (talk • contribs)

Why should they be merged? Please state your logic for such a move, because right now I disagree, they should be separate articles. Jasonfward (talk) 13:56, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

They should be merged simply because they are essentially the same entity and the articles are not large enough to warrant a main article with 2 sub-articles. This is the same logic means as is used for other companies and organizations which have defunct predecessor iterations and where much/most of the information is merely repeated. A redirect for those other names suffices to get searches to the correct article. • Astynax ^talk 15:40, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

OK that makes sense, but if we are merging historical stuff with current in quite so an upfront way, its seems to me that Landmark should go before EST in the article since Landmark are the thing I would expect people are searching for most, and as the "controversy" of this subject covers both EST and Landmark plus some individuals involved at one time or another then the whole controversies sections need to be re-written to give them the correct historical perspective otherwise controversies will appear to be about the other and visa-versa.

On the other hand I would like some back up for the argument that neither topic in its own right can (or should) sustain its own article, as a counter example, every single Doctor Who story televised has it's own main story here on Wikipedia (this is just a for example, I could have chosen many others) yet some of those stories are basically very obscure and unlikely to be searched for except by a very few.

So whilst I have no basic problems with your argument and am willing to accept it, I do want a) more evidence for your claims b) more discussion of what the consequences would be in terms of how the finished merged article should be c) some more views Jasonfward (talk) 15:58, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

I have requested input on the proposed merger from the WikiProject Religion. FWIW, at this point, I would favor a move on the following bases, dependent on evidence:

1) If the weight of evidence on Landmark Worldwide in independent reliable sources is about the training program which was formerly known as est, then, yes, I believe that there would not necessarily be sufficient independent reliably sourced information on Landmark Worldwide for it to merit a separate article as per NOTABILITY. So, basically, is Landmark is only notable for being the provider of est classes, then, yes, it should be merged.

2) If however Landmark Worldwide has been discussed at sufficient length in sufficient reliable sources on subjects independent of est training to merit NOTABILITY in its own right, then there would be reason for it to have a separate article based on those sources, although I would also have to assume that the article on Landmark would discuss those independent matters at fairly great length, given that the material in the classes, which are apparently substantially nondifferent from the old EST classes, is already adequately discussed in that article.

So, basically, at this point, not having myself checked the sourcing here, I would probably favor a merger, until and unless sufficient independent reliable sources which discuss Landmark regarding matters independent of EST training are produced which would be adequate to keep it as a separate article. And, yes, I do think that Erhard Seminars Training might be the better final article if there is a merge, although I am easily open to considering the alternative. John Carter (talk) 15:27, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

A quick look reveals literally thousands of sources which discuss Landmark at length, without discussing the est training at all. Those that do also mention the est training in passing say what this article already says - that Werner Erhard sold his ideas to a group of employees who went on to form their own company and devise their own courses. The reliable sources support the notion that Landmark has separate ownership, different courses, etc. - I see no grounds for the assertion that Landmark courses are 'nondifferent from the old EST classes'. Nwlaw63 (talk) 19:09, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

1) Landmark is mentioned in thousands of articles usually without reference to Est, just do a quick google

2) What has religion got to do with Landmark or Est for that matter?

3) Landmark never delivered the Est training, so "is Landmark is only notable for being the provider of est classes" cannot possibly be true. Jasonfward (talk) 19:34, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Just checked Wikiproject Religion's scope http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Religion#Scope and this article does not fall within it. Jasonfward (talk) 19:38, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

(e-c)::While I am more than somewhat amazed that you could verify thousands of sources individually in such a quick search, I have to question whether your statement that they do not mention the training program, which basically is est, "at all," somewhat hard to understand, as I am not sure how you would be able to verify the contents of each of those individual sources, which you say run to the thousands, that quickly. No one said anything about separate ownership, by the way, other than you, nor do I think that there was any implication of such, so I'm not sure what that is supposed to relate to. If you can of course prove as per WP:BURDEN that the content of the courses is according to those independent reliable sources so different from Erhard's own programs that they can reasonably be counted as completely separate, I would love to see them. What would be sought in that instance is independent reliable sources that meet WP:RS standards which discuss the Landmark organization and its programs at length in a substantial way and indicate that their programs differ substantially from the earlier Erhard programs. Otherwise, like I said, I have asked for input from the Religion WikiProject, which probably is watched by most of the editors who have edited related content, and hope to here from some of them in the next few days. There really is no rush on this, unless there is clear evidence that the content itself violates policy in some way, and I haven't seen that asserted here yet. Also, BTW, I hope everyone realizes that the suggestion above was based on reviewing the reference sources I had previously indicated. If there are more recent reference sources or other sources of a "preferred" nature as per WP:RS out there, I would be very interested in seeing them. John Carter (talk) 19:47, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Just like you, I have not in the last few minutes verified thousands of articles, but I have read many hundreds, perhaps thousands of articles on Landmark over many years, I based my comment on this familiarity with the subject, just as you based your comments on "not having myself checked the sourcing".

When you say "If you can of course prove as per WP:BURDEN that the content of the courses is according to those independent reliable sources so different from Erhard's own programs that they can reasonably be counted as completely separate, I would love to see them." I could equally say If you can of course prove as per WP:BURDEN that the content of the courses is according to those independent reliable sources NOT so different from Erhard's own programs that they can NOT reasonably be counted as completely separate, I would love to see them.

You say " Also, BTW, I hope everyone realizes that the suggestion above was based on reviewing the reference sources I had previously indicated." but this appears to me at least to directly contradict what you said earlier about not having checked sources, but perhaps this is a misunderstanding on my part on what you meant.Jasonfward (talk) 20:18, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

In response to the other questions from Jasonfward, please see the related discussion, which discusses the religion aspect at length and the relationship to the est training. I remind all those involved that talk pages are for the improvement of the article, and not for making categorical statements which do not have any sources to support them, such as his third point above. I urge all editors involved to read WP:TPG and make an effort to adhere to them. Like I and others have said above, the relationship to WikiProject Religion, the parent group of the NRM work group, deals with content which is covered in reference sources relating to religion, and at least several of those sources indicate that Landmark bought out the est program, modified it in some way, and then used it. It would have made no sense for them to buy it without using it, corporations don't do that very often. So, please, if people wish to make statements about what can and cannot "possibly be true," I suggest that they read WP:BURDEN for how to proceed in such instances.

Regarding the final edit conflict with Jasonfward, if you believe the article does not fall within the scope of a project, first, it is not the place of anyone outside of a WikiProject to seek to tell projects what is and is not within their scope, although you can contact WP:COUNCIL to affirm that, and, secondly, yes, I believe as per the page at Wikipedia:WikiProject Religion/New religious movements work group/Articles in print reference sources, which is more directly relevant, I believe that there can be reasonable grounds to say that this article does fall within the scope of that work group, and, thus, that parent group, whose banner it uses. John Carter (talk) 19:47, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

John, I just had a look at the page you refered to - Wikipedia:WikiProject Religion/New religious movements work group/Articles in print reference sources - and there is not a single mention of Landmark among the hundreds of organisations listed there. The religious character of the bodies enumerated there is generally quite clear. What is the basis for your (actually entirely mistaken) view that Landmark is in any sense at all a "religious" movement of any kind? Also, could you please indicate what is the basis for your (again actually erronious) opinion that the Landmark Forum is essentially identical to the est training? The fact of the matter is that the Forum (as delivered by WEA) was significantly different in structure and methodology from the est training; the Landmark Forum as originally delivered by the new management of Landmark in 1991 was substantially modified from that; and the program has evolved further over the past 22 years. It would be inaccurate and wholly misleading to conflate the two. DaveApter (talk) 20:44, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

France and Belgium claims in summary

Someone that reads french and can access the alleged references needs to check their validity and accuracy, the other reference used by the editor who inserted this was from a Japanese BBS which when I checked did't seem to actually exist (or the topic had been deleted), but whatever, BBS postings are not authoritative sources for wikipedia. Jasonfward (talk) 14:25, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Putting cult stuff in the lede has been discussed to death in the past, and basically, it's become clear most reliable sources (Badt, etc.) say it's not a cult, making it clearly a minority view which doesn't belong in the lede - a mention on a 'secte list' by a commission that hasn't existed for 20 years might be interesting, but doesn't really merit mention in the lede (it's already mentioned elsewhere in the article). Nwlaw63 (talk) 04:05, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Formatting Issue

Looking at the article I notice that the consulting and intellectual property sections are listed as sub-heads of the History section. I'm not sure why this was done; those sections arent releated inherently to the company history. It would seem to make more sense to simply have them have their own section headings. Nwlaw63 (talk) 19:04, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree that it is very odd and have moved those 2 subsections under the Corporation section. Only a couple of brief points really deserve to be under History. The Evaluations section is also debatable as a main section, but likely should be removed entirely (I've tagged it for now). • Astynax ^talk 10:57, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Legal disputes?

The last section of the article seems a bit odd. Is it really noteworthy that a company has been involved in about a dozen lawsuits over 22 years (maybe it would have been noteworthy if there had been hundreds) - especially as the last one was about seven years ago? DaveApter (talk) 20:20, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't think it at all noteable, one only needs to check corporations like Apple, IBM, Google etc to see just how many court cases some companies are involved in. Indeed IBM was party to the longest court case in history (lasting from memory 2 decades) and it's article makes no mention of the case at all. Jasonfward (talk) 23:47, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Please. IBM is a giant company, with its own category, Category:IBM, with an entire subcategory Category:SCO-Linux litigation and a dedicated page on SCO v. IBM. We even have an article called IBM and the Holocaust. If you want to write an article about that court case, do it. At least IBM also produces machines. While this company seems to owe its notability mostly to its litigiousness.

Also, since you seem to edit under your real name (which is honourable), assuming that you are Jason Ward, "Vice President of Development at Landmark Enterprises Inc", I should like to point you to WP:COI and say that while you are welcome to point out factual errors and inaccuracies, you should generally be careful not to get caught up in editing disputes directly. --dab (𒁳) 08:48, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

1) There's more than one Jason Ward in the world

2) That Jason Ward is not me

3) Landmark Enterprises Inc does not appear to have anything to do with Landmark Worldwide

Perhaps some people should read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hasty_generalization Jasonfward (talk) 16:22, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

There are two significant issues the Wikipedia community should understand about wikipedia articles on Landmark (and indeed about cult groups). One is that articles that completely gloss over the fact that the consensus is that they are cults and present a bland picture in the name of "neutrality" are actually playing to the cult's advantage. If a group is primarily known in the mainstream media as a cult, and the only people that defend it are people in the cult, then this should always warrant mention in the first paragraph of the main article, as well as the coverage we already afford in subsections and separate articles. Second, contributions and reversions that remove these mentions (again, justified in the name of "neutrality") should be looked at extremely skeptically by higher level editors, as ulterior motives are almost always present. Again: People who defent Landmark Worldwide are invariably IN Landmark Worldwide and have drunk the Kool-Aid. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Baliset (talk • contribs) 01:38, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

While I agree that the subject of religious overtones deserves a mention in the lead section, I don't think we can use the "cult" label in a way that suggests that there is consensus or even widespread agreement in the scholarship for that usage, even though there is wide coverage of the religious undertones/overtones. I've moved your addition down into the reworked 'Disputed religous character' section and summarized in the lead, per MOS:LEAD. • Astynax ^talk 11:11, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

I MUST be IN Landmark then I guess. I didn't know, I mean even when I was sometimes doing Landmark courses I was unaware of having joined anything, but to find that I am still "IN" something that I last had ANY contact with some 5 or more years ago. Will I still be IN Landmark in another 5, 10 or 15 years time without ANY contact? When will I leave? How do I leave? Sorry Baliset, I saw no cult when I did Landmark courses, I continue to see no cult, and apart from some people here on wikipedia that seem intent on forcing their opinion on us all, I've never come across anyone that thought Landmark was a cult, and I certainly have not seen no consensus that Landmark is a cult. Jasonfward (talk) 11:59, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Essentially agree. Wikipedia is a tertiary source - we report on other reputable sources from a neutral point of view as a group of editors (ie. balance is central but it process of collaboration - various editors adding & refining over a period of time). If numerous reputable sources use the phrase 'cult', or mention a link (of any kind, former, indirect, rumoured, false) to the Church of Scientology, etc, as part of a notable incident/event/person relevant to the entry then this should be included and balance added. It can't be balanced if anything perceived to be in any way negative (provided it is referenced from reputable sources) is removed immediately before the collaborative process to balance that entry addition (with additional reputable sources) is given time. This isn't a hate page for Landmark OR a page of testimonals/promotions. It would be more constructive if those editors with experience of Landmark researched those reputable sources to balance additions (personal experience is not given any weight by Wikipedia - Wikipedia requires reputable sources) and they need to be as specific as the referenced being balanced. EG. I'm waiting out a discussion on an edit relating to Landmark courses conducted in Melbourne in 2008 - what's needed are reputable sources that refute criticisms from that place and/or that time (not since because things can/may/probably have changed as per any organisation). The focus needs to be on balancing reputable sources NOT on personal experiences or current Landmark statements (although current/recent reputable sources concerning Landmark could well be used to balance). The balance can't be provided without collaboration and the collaboration can't take place if contributions aren't present for collaboration (or are removed before any attempts at it). Refute reputable sources with reputable sources to balance and add - don't delete or POV! AnonNep (talk) 16:53, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Controversies & 2008 case

I added a paragraph on a 2008 incident where the Victorian State government was questioned over taxpayer funding for Landmark training by Police. It was reported in one of two major state newspapers & I quoted where appropriate. Because it wasn't a 'Legal Dispute' as such but appeared to fit with that section I changed 'Legal Dispute' to 'Controversies' to cover both topics. This has been reverted as has a paragraph using the same source on the Victoria Police page. The source article is from the Sunday Herald Sun and is available on some newspaper databases if anyone wants to check the quotes I used. I've also found a second source for some of what in the Sunday Herald Sun from Victorian Parliamentary Hansard[1] (there may be more) but I don't want to add this/rewrite the paragraph until there's been time for any required discussion. AnonNep (talk) 07:39, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

This is completely ridiculous. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and as such is expected to contain relevant true factual information. The substantive fact here is that a politician questioned the value gained by certain expenditure of public funds. That's hardly earth-shattering; they do that all the time; it's their job. However the ostensible addition of this fact appears to be no more than an excuse for slipping several demonstrably false assertions (as established by numerous reliable sources) into the article:

1. There is no connection whatsoever between Landmark and the Church of Scientology. There is not even any similary in philosophy, content or methodology.
2. The seminars would not have been conducted by Werner Erhard, who has in fact never conducted any Landmark seminars.
3. The courses are three days long, not four. And the days are not fifteen hours long; Each day consists of eight to nine hours of tuition plus two and a half hours of breaks.
4. The summary of the promised results is inaccurate, and confuses the subject matter of several other courses offered by Landmark.
5. The final sentence, while not actually false, is certainly misleading bearing in mind (as noted above) that there were only a dozen such cases in the 22 year history of the corporation, and none at all in the last seven years.

The newspaper reporter may have been labouring under these misconceptions (or the politician he was reporting may have been), but if there were any merit in mentioning them in the article (which there isn't), it should be made clear that these were unsubstantiated misconceptions.

For the record, numerous police forces (and other government departments) in several countries have at various times sent staff on Landmark courses. Almost universally they have reported high levels of satisfaction with the results, noting dramatic improvements in punctuality, efficiency and clarity of communications amongst other benefits. DaveApter (talk) 10:33, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

• To follow from my response on the Victoria Police page. I was adding, with summary & direct quotes, a controversy as it was reported at the time not editorialising on whether it was valid or not. If a source exists that contradicts the report then by all means it should be added but it doesn't mean the controversy as it was reported didn't happen. And I feel editing to add further sources rather than a complete deletion would be more appropriate.AnonNep (talk) 13:25, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

This topic may or may not be sufficiently significant to mention on the Victoria Police page (but even if so, it is totally inappropriate to include the inaccurate comments regarding Landmark). For the purposes of this article the issue is so marginal that its inclusion is absurd. A couple of hundred thousand people take Landmark courses every year, including groups of employees of numerous organisations. No doubt there are many opinions and comments about such groups and sometimes these opinions get reported in the press. If we quoted all of these, the article would run on for pages. According to the WP:NPOV policy, opinions should only be reported if they are held by a significant number of people or by a recognised authority in the subject. A comment by an isolated politician does not qualify. It would in any case be absurd to quote the above untrue remarks carried in the news item and follow them with sourced contradictions. DaveApter (talk) 16:39, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

• It isn't a controversy unless the controversy is established. This was established from a reliable source as per WP:SOURCE. I quoted because WP:P states 'In Wikipedia, verifiability means that people reading and editing the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source' and while the source is available online it does has access restrictions. At no time did I editorialise on what I took from that source (& I am yet to find direct rebuttals for the sourced report as facts were at that time) and was 'fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias' in adding that source as per WP:NPOV. Rebuttal and later sources as rebuttal could be added as regards to that specific 'controversy' involving Victoria Police in 2008. But the 'controversy' remains as communicated to tens of thousands of people who read that major newspaper. I believe that deleting it entirely (before first attempting rewording/adding rebuttal/balancing sources) was against WP:NPOV. Which is why I referred it to the talk page for discussion before pursuing 'third person' and 'dispute resolution'. Include it as sourced controversy & sourced rebuttal and I think its fair. More than happy to share work on policy based re-wording. This isn't a quasi Landmark promotional page so as long as policy on balance is followed (ie. its included with sources & balanced with sources) it should be there as a relevant critical news item from 2008. AnonNep (talk) 17:25, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

This may or may not have a place in the article about the Victoria Police, or an article about Australian politics, or an article about the politician who made a fuss about this matter; I'm not qualified to judge. But it's a minor storm in a teacup from five years ago and has no relevance to this article on Landmark Worldwide. It might merit a couple of sentences in a 300 page book on Landmark (though I doubt it), but it is certainly disproportionate in a 70 or 80 line wikipedia entry. Also the structure of your entry with manifestly untrue statements being baldly stated with quote marks round them may be acceptable in some journalistic contexts but is utterly inappropriate in an encyclopedia. If it were appropriate to mention this controversy (in any wikipedia article) the correct way to report this would be along the lines of "On ----- 2008, Mr ------ raised the question of whether it was appropriate for public funds to be used for sending Police Officers on training courses run by Landmark, as he was under the misguided impression that....etc etc". DaveApter (talk) 19:26, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

• As long as we remember this isn't a Landmark promotional forum and is an online encyclopedia based on verifiable sourced/facts (that readers can check) this should work out. As previously stated this was a source that established the 2008 controversy. If there are phrasing/sources that meet Wikipedia policy standards that rebut this then, of course, add that to the paragraph (either in draft form here or when it may be re-verted to the article). A rebuttal from relevant verifiable sources opposing issues in the original news report would be a valuable addition. NB. As this happened a number of years back and isn't time critical I put this up for a 'talk' discussion expecting there'd be a number of weeks for verifiable opposing sources to be added or possible re-drafts for a future revision. AnonNep (talk) 20:14, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your responses, but I would appreciate it if you would address the issues I raise rather than simply re-stating your original point. My points are these:

• firstly, this is such a minor insignificant event from five years ago that it is a violation of the wikipedia undue weight policy to even mention it, especially as the Herald Sun source is clearly a low-end sensational tabloid;
• secondly, the gutter-press technique of making bald statements that are questionable (or worse still, outright false, as in this case) enclosed within 'Scare quotes', so that if challenged they can respond "Oh no we didn't actually claim that that was the case, we just reported that someone said that it was," is totally unacceptable in an encyclopedia article, and is a violation of the neutral point of view policy. DaveApter (talk) 10:48, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Will do:

• The event was significant enough to not only be covered in one of the two major state newspapers but that report was based on questions asked in State Parliament. As previously stated I'm more than happy to add the Hansard links and rephrase it. It could also be broadened to include the other Landmark related news item from the same year regarding Australian Defense Force training with additional sources from Australia's national broadcaster.[2][3] And, a later report which references the 2008 controversy.[4] (There may be more I can find). This broader focus should meet your WP:UNDUE concerns.
• Not too sure if the 'gutter-press' comment was aimed at the Herald-Sun or me so I'll address both. In the original source the only 'Scare quotes' are "transformation, "access to power, "cult" and a quote from the Minister - "Decisions on the appropriateness of staff attending courses by Landmark Education are made by individual managers who remain best-placed to assess the development needs of their staff". I used "access to power" but included it as '"access to power"' to denote I was directly quoting something presented as a quote in the original. The remainder aren't 'Scare quotes' they're to signify a direct quote from the referenced article. I did this to accurately set out the reasons for the controversy as per WP:NPOV. I can summarise and not quote but the content will essentially be the same (as that was reason for the controversy at the time). As previously stated I've no issue with reputably sourced rebuttals being added but the edit has to be on the page to be added to.

(Edited to Add) I found this at Wikipedia's sister project WikiNews (which also has a NPOV policy) that reports on the Victoria Police and Defense Department training and includes numerous references. It could be the basis (obviously summarised) for the suggested broader '2008 Controversy' paragraph.[5] AnonNep (talk) 15:29, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

OK, to clarify the point about "gutter-press techniques" - this was not a remark aimed at you, nor specifically at the Sun Herald: it was a description of a certain style of writing. As written your paragraph would appear to a typical reader to assert a) that Landmark is in some way associated with the Church of Scientology; b) that the seminars would be conducted by Werner Erhard; c) that the courses were four days days of fifteen hours; and d) that the Landmark Forum promises Access to Power and Sex and Intimacy. All of these statements are in fact false, as could be established by a very modest amount of due diligence. You insulated yourself from consideration of the truth or otherwise of these assertions by putting quote marks around them. This is what I meant by describing the edit as using scare quotes. And incidentally, gutter-press would be a perfectly reasonable description of the Sun Herald which is clearly a sensationalist Murdoch tabloid, not anything remotely resembling a newspaper of record. The only fair way to write up this incident would be to make it clear that these were unsubstantiated opinions held by parties to the controversy. DaveApter (talk) 21:06, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

As said my quotes were to represent the source - it wasn't my opinion or Wikipedia's but it was part of the controversy as it was presented to the public. In redrafting I'd directly quote on (a) (it was part of the controversy), remove (b) (agree on wrong implication and it doesn't add to controversy as the name was relatively unknown to the public anyway), but (c) and (d) - which I did directly quote on - are, like (a), part of the controversy as reported at the time. I haven't found any direct rebuttals from Landmark on the Victoria Police issue but there are some, from Deborah Beroset that year, if its added into a broader 2008 paragraph based on the WikiNews article. AnonNep (talk) 21:34, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Please discuss here before making contentious changes to this article

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Therefore, I recommend the following changes:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

POV - Controversies, Legal and Cult Accusation

Hello Wikipedia,

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

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

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

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

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

Reviews and Criticism only contains two sections of Criticism:

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

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

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

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

Apologetics Index[6] looks like an equally dubious source for citation, but it could be a jumping off piece for finding critical opinions. For sources hinting at the cult accusations, you can see Mother Jones[7], Yahoo Voice[8] and Yelp[9] (highly reliable). There might be a wording that encompasses various sources description of "cult-like behavior and recruiting practices" without classifying Landmark as a full on cult.

Thanks for your consideration,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cults

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

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

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

Removing Weasel Word Tags

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

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

Promo?

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

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

    That needs to change, but I'm not sure how to go about it. This article appears to have some very committed guardians that are intent on making certain no real non-favorable material gets into the article. LHM^{ask me a question} 23:25, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Neutrality

Periodically the the neutrality of this article is called into question. Ironically, there seems to be a symmetry between those who regard it as being biased in favour of Landmark Worldwide and those who see it as giving excessive weight to critical material. Each of these groups of editors seem to have difficulty in distancing themselves from their own personal viewpoint, and regard the other as violating the principle of neutrality, sometimes even to the point of failing to assume their good faith.

I sometimes wonder whether Wikipedia is structurally capable of generating sound articles on contemporary social phenomena such as this. The articles on subjects such as physics or mathematics are excellent, because there is no difficulty in referencing a well-established body of factual information. On the other hand, subjects where much material is in the form of strongly held subjective opinions which are highly polarised often lead to endless edit warring and constant dissatisfaction of one party or the other (or indeed both!).

Most of the editors who have been keen to insert more critical material have been extremely reluctant to declare their own interest or state their own experience or opinions regarding Landmark. There is of course no obligation for them to do so, but nonetheless it might be helpful to them in distinguishing their own point-of-view from a genuinely neutral one. (As I have declared on several occasions, my viewpoint is as someone who participated in several Landmark courses between 2002 and 2005, and found them beneficial and excellent value).

It is absolutely clear that in the past this article was a blatant attack piece, propagating scurrilous and defamatory material which did not meet Wikipedia's policies either for reliability or neutrality. Notwithstanding any shortcomings that may remain, its present state is a definite improvement.

Regarding the question of whether the recently-added 'Advert' tag is justified, I cannot see that it is. My analysis of the content is as follows:

• The lead section contains four sentences, each of them stating relevant objective facts.
• The 'History' section contains seven sentences, again stating objective facts. Only the last one is of dubious relevance, but could hardly be described as promotional.
• The 'Corporation' section contains nine sentences, again stating relevant objective facts.
• The 'Business Consulting' section contains nine sentences, again accurately reporting objective facts.
• I can understand why someone hostile to Landmark might perceive the 'Course Content' section as marginally “promotional”, but surely if we are to have an article on this organisation at all, it should include some indication of what it offers and how it works?
• The 'Reviews and Criticisms' section contains a mixture of positive and negative opinions, adequately sourced and giving – in my estimation – due weight to each in proportion to their prominence, in line with Wikipedia policies.
• The 'Legal disputes' section is in my opinion superfluous and misleading bearing in mind that Landmark has apparently not initiated any lawsuits or threats in the last eight years and there were only a dozen instances in the previous 15 years, but I would rather leave it in than get involved in a battle over it.

In view of the above, I suggest that the 'Advert' tag be removed, and I invite anyone disagreeing to make specific suggestions here as to what should be removed or added, with the sources. Thank you. DaveApter (talk) 11:38, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

As there have been no alternative suggestions I am removing the tag now - it is in any case inappropriate since the Wikipedia guideline on the use of this tag states clearly: "The advert tag is for articles that are directly trying to sell a product to our readers. Don't add this tag simply because the material in the article shows a company or a product in an overall positive light or because it provides an encyclopedic summary of a product's features." DaveApter (talk) 11:43, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

No response means WP:No consensus has been reached. As per policy: 'In discussions of proposals to add, modify or remove material in articles, a lack of consensus commonly results in retaining the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit.' The obvious exception being, under BLP, 'contentious matters related to living people'. Landmark isn't a person and that tag has been there since July. This wasn't a sudden need for revert. AnonNep (talk) 13:06, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

The tag was likely placed for reasons which have been raised here repeatedly. That Landmark's advocates don't see the point doesn't mean the tag has no merit. The article is transparently promoting the image Landmark projects in its own literature and materials. Less than flattering material has been minimized, or more often simply deleted. Other material has been content-forked off into sub-articles when this article's length does not come close to justifying this. Referenced info has been deleted under the pretext of consensus, and language which qualifies Landmark's claims has been dismissed and reverted using inappropriate application of WP:WEASEL. The article is overwhelmingly sourced to Landmark itself, while material cited to truly secondary and tertiary sources has either been removed, forked or minimized. The question of why Landmark is even treated separately from est, WEA and its other iterations and related entities (some of which are oddly fobbed off into the Werner Erhard article), when other reference works deal with them together rather than in separate articles has also been argued down by its advocates using claims that seem more to reflect a desire to distance Landmark from its history and critics, rather than anything in reliable references. • Astynax ^talk 07:36, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Astynax, I'm disappointed that you ignore my invitation to provide specific suggestions here as to what should be removed or added, with the sources, but continue to repeat vague generalised accusations. There are two entirely separate questions here: one is whether the Advert tag is justified, and the other is whether there is more work required to bring it up to Wikipedia's standards of neutrality. The first is an open-and-shut case; no-one can seriously justify the suggestion that this article is "directly trying to sell a product to our readers" (It is nothing to do with whether or not "Landmark's advocates".."see the point").

On the wider issue of neutrality, I have made an honest effort to open the debate with my remarks above, and I would appreciate it if you would engage with the points I made. I do not recognise the accuracy of your depiction of this article as "transparently promoting the image Landmark projects in its own literature and materials" - on the contrary there are 51 references, most of them entirely reputable and very few of them deriving from Landmark itself. As I pointed out above, the majority of the article comprises clear statements of fact. Which of these do you think should be removed, and why? Neither do I see it as fair comment that "Less than flattering material has been minimized, or more often simply deleted." There remains a significant amount of critical material. That which was removed in the past was generally because it was inadequately sourced gossip or rumour, or gave undue weight to a minority opinion. Please feel free to suggest factual, adequately sourced items which you think ought to be added. DaveApter (talk) 11:26, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

And, AnonNep, with respect you are mistaken on two aspects of Wikipedia policy: firstly 'no response' does not mean 'no consensus' -WP:CON actually says: "consensus can be assumed if editors stop responding to talk page discussions,"- and secondly WP:No_consensus states: "Often, people feel that "no consensus" should mean that the current status quo prevails, which, therefore, defaults to keep. That is not, however, always the case." DaveApter (talk) 11:26, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Important distinction - your first link is WP policy, the second, an essay or guideline. The policy quote is from the section 'Consensus-building in talk pages'. If a page has little or no editing history, or talk page activity, I'd agree that, after leaving it for a good while, an editor could go back and make that change. But this article is regularly edited, and you posted your suggestions on 21 August 2014 and made the change 25 August 2014, to a tag that had been there since July. Given that this isn't a BLP, and it wasn't an urgent change, the 'consensus-building in talk pages' process could have been given more time. AnonNep (talk) 11:51, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, but you are overlooking the fact that I queried the tag on 31st July, and left it for three weeks before raising the issue again. In that time there were comments from only two editors (one of them the person who originally placed the tag), neither of them advancing any substantive arguments to justify it. DaveApter (talk) 13:12, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

The consensus process is about building up agreement on what can be agreed on even if we come from different points of view in order to produce the best article possible. Given this isn't a BLP, and as long as there is anything in there that is legally actionable (and if there is, I completely support, as does WP policy, in immediately removing it), then patience is the best tool we have. If this isn't an advert for Landmark then let's take the time all involved need to get it right. AnonNep (talk) 15:42, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

I think it likely that no one responded to your points because they seemed to be dismissive of the issue which prompted the tag. The article simply does not reflect how the subject is treated in reliable sources. That the article cites sources outside Landmark does not change the fact that the bulk of the article's text is sourced to Landmark (a privately held LLC, not a publicly traded corporation with records open to scrutiny). Entire swathes of coverage in the literature have been ignored or minimized here, and efforts to introduce such material, or even to qualify statements sourced to Landmark, have been thwarted by a combination of immediate, and incremental reversions. The lead section makes no reference even to the limited non-Landmark views that have been mentioned in brief, though relegated to the "Reviews and criticism" (bizarre in itself) and "Legal disputes" sections at the very end of the article. Most of that material should have been explored (and much more thoroughly) in the context of the history of Landmark, and any positive and negative "reviews"—if used at all—should have been included in the section on the courses. The "Legal disputes" section mentions actions initiated by Landmark, but nothing about government actions and inquiries or individual actions against Landmark (pushing these as "criticisms" or relegating them to the sub-article fork). Anyone reading this article does not come away with an appreciation of the breadth of coverage this entity has received in scholarly lit over the last several decades (regardless that it has changed its names numerous times and spun off parts of itself). Pushing an image that a corporation or public figure wishes to present is certainly "selling" and falls squarely into the prohibition against marketing, CoI and public relations soapboxing. A PoV tag would also have been justified. • Astynax ^talk 18:58, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps it is more plausible that no one responded to my points in four weeks because no-one disputed them (apart from yourself and Lithistman)? The suggestion that this page is trying to sell anything is ridiculous, and clearly the tag is inappropriate.

Please confine your remarks on this page to constructive suggestions for improving the article, rather than extended rants about your personal dissatisfactions with it.

And please refrain from breaching civility by casting aspersions on the motives of other editors. DaveApter (talk) 14:06, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

No one has "breached" the civility policy here. Certainly nothing in what User:Astynax wrote merited your reply. Additionally, nothing he wrote was a "rant." This article has serious issues that need to be addressed. The obstructionism I see you engaging in is certainly not helpful, and needs to stop. LHM^{ask me a question} 21:36, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Doesn't making unfounded accsations against others qualify? John Carter (talk) 22:25, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

There were no "unfounded accusations" made. LHM^{ask me a question} 03:06, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

For the purpose of slight clarification I should make it clearer I wasn't referring to your comments. John Carter (talk) 18:46, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Request For Comment?

What about using the Request for comment process on the advert tag (or even the article as a whole)? Can we agree on 'a brief, neutral statement of the issue'? Then someone adds the appropriate section, RfC statement/question and template and, through that, invite other editors from across Wikipedia to give their feedback. Editors who do edit this page would be free to give opinions, but one advantage of the process is bringing in (through the template, and promotion on appropriate forums as per RfC policy) new, uninvolved editors, to look through things with fresh eyes, and give their point on view. Just a suggestion as a possible next step. AnonNep (talk) 14:26, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

I have no vested interest in this article. I read it with fresh eyes. It is not neutral in any way. I personally think it reads like an advertorial piece. However, I changed the tag to an NPOV one, since people above seemed to this that was more appropriate. LHM^{ask me a question} 03:10, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

It looks like an advertorial to me, also. Very odd. - Sitush (talk) 17:27, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

I appreciate the work you've undertaken trimming the "cruftiness" of it. I had started looking for a place to start, but was overwhelmed by just how much had to be done. Good work so far. LHM^{ask me a question} 23:56, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

It is likely to be all you will get from me. I was tempted to slash some more but have desisted. I'd never heard of this organisation until I saw DaveApter posting a missive at AnonNep's talk page. I know nothing about it except what I've read from the sources that are cited and comments on this talk page. But I've got a very good nose for puffery, cruft etc from years of dealing with caste-related articles and, more generally, dealing with articles where pov/coi and ownership issues arise. I've no particular comment on the pov/ownership stuff in relation to this one due to my lack of subject knowledge and because I do not have the time to go through the edit history right now. But anyone is free to ping me if they think that they need input from an experienced contributor who really doesn't have a clue about the subject matter ;) I'm happy to find some time to read selected sources.

Given DaveApter's COI of sorts, it probably would be best if he confined his efforts to this talk page and not even remove tags, as he did recently. - Sitush (talk) 00:15, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Please keep to the Talk Page guidelines

Please keep to the Talk Page guidelines, in particular:

• "Keep discussions focused on how to improve the article.
• "Article talk pages should be used to discuss ways to improve an article; not to criticize, pick apart, or vent about the current status of an article or its subject."
• "Comment on content, not on the contributor"

A couple of examples from some of the recent comments which appear to me to be violations of the civility, etiquette or assume good faith policies are:

• "This article appears to have some very committed guardians that are intent on making certain no real non-favorable material gets into the article."
• Referring to fellow editors as "Landmark's advocates".

There are plenty of complaints and insinuations, but almost nothing in the way of actual suggestions for improving the article. DaveApter (talk) 16:58, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Everyone does need to keep to WP:CIVIL but expressing views on WP:OWN can still be raised in the interests of improving the article. AnonNep (talk) 17:48, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

No, if you have concerns about another editor, the correct thing is to discuss it with them on their talk page, and if you cannot reach agreement then use the dispute resolution process until it is resolved. One of the unsatisfactory aspects of the accusations here of violations of the ownership guideline is that they appears to be a blanket condemnation of all editors who have posted positive comments. DaveApter (talk) 20:45, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

It is equally reasonable to raise issues on the Talk Page. I didn't say I was endorsing those comments, only that they appear to be an expression of the belief of WP:OWN by the OPs, and I agree on the need for civility (which is why I mentioned it in my response). AnonNep (talk) 12:50, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

• Issues of article ownership can be raised without breaching the civility policy. Period, full stop. Any suggestion to the contrary shows a deep misunderstanding of Wikipedia, and seems to be little more than an attempt to stifle debate before it even starts. LHM^{ask me a question} 22:17, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

'Ownership' etc

Hi, Thanks for your comments on Talk:Landmark Worldwide, but I really do not think that much of the recent discussion there is helping to clarify steps to improve the article. Please respond to my comments here either in this thread or on my own talk page as you prefer.

Firstly as regards to your assertions that some (unnamed) editors are attempting to exert ownership over the article. Personally I cannot see that this is the case, but even if it were I stand by my suggestion that the issue should be taken up with the editor concerned rather than bandying about accusations on the article talk page. In any event, it is not helpful to make unspecified blanket accusations. If you do think anyone is attempting to own the article, please say who it is and what is your evidence.

As regards the NPOV tag, please say clearly what changes you feel need to be made to the article in order to justify its removal.

I do take exception to the suggestion that I am trying to “stifle debate” - on the contrary it seems to me that I have tried to make a clear statement of the issues and others have obfuscated rather than responding in a constructive manner. DaveApter (talk) 12:22, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

First, this discussion belongs here, not at my talkpage. It regards this article, so it stays here or nowhere, as it's not going to be conducted at my talk. Second, I have no "dog in this hunt", as we countryfolk like to say. I can't even remember how this article made it to my radar. But once it did, I read it, and it felt like I was reading a press release from Landmark. What needs to happen, in my view, is that criticisms of the LLC need to be interwoven into the fabric of the article. I am not advocating for a "hit piece" (as sometimes happens, unfortunately, with companies like Landmark), but rather a piece that has a balanced, neutral feel, as per policy. LHM^{ask me a question} 13:51, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

If you stand by your accusation that some editors are violating the WP:OWN policy please list their usernames here, now; otherwise please withdraw the accusation. DaveApter (talk) 16:02, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Incidentally it is unacceptable to cut and paste text which includes my signature. DaveApter (talk) 16:02, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

No, it is not, when the text is being moved en masse. As for "naming names", this isn't personal (which you are making it), it's about the fact that the article is not, in its current state, anywhere close to neutral. LHM^{ask me a question} 16:16, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

If you think the article reads like an advertisement, please point out the specifics of why you think that, and suggest appropriate changes. Personally, having read the article, I agree with most of DaveApter's assessment above of the various sections and don't see an advertisement or neutrality issue. So I am not sure what specific problem you have with it. Rlendog (talk) 00:38, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

It's a BIT better now that some of the puffery has been removed, but before that it was no better than a press release from Landmark itself. LHM^{ask me a question} 11:36, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree that those are definite improvements. I've also restored some well-referenced edits that were summarily deleted last year. There are likely others in the article history that were done away for misguided reasons of article improvement. The article should be open to well-referenced edits, but it has not been in the past. The "Reviews and criticisms" section simply needs to go: it looks more like clipped quotes on a fan site, IMO. • Astynax ^talk 18:22, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree regarding excising the entire R & C section. Such material should be seemlessly integrated into the main article, or it shouldn't be present. LHM^{ask me a question} 18:43, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

RFC: Has the neutrality of this article been improved or degraded by recent wholesale changes?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

1. Was the state of the article at 27th July [[10]] such as to justify the placement of an 'Advert' tag or a 'npov' tag?
2. Have the mass edits by Astynax [[11]] reduced bias or increased it?
3. Is the conduct on this talk page (especially that of Astynax and Lithistman, but not limited to them) in violation of the civility policy? DaveApter (talk) 12:58, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

• This RFC is ludicrous, and simply more evidence of the problems I've outlined above. I refuse to participate in such a farce. LHM^{ask me a question} 22:32, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
• I'm concerned, given the WP:RFC process Statement should be neutral and brief] but even more with the idea, implied above, that as a proffered 95% of participants are positive about Landmark that the Wikipedia article should be 95% positive. AnonNep (talk) 23:49, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
• That people are still responding to this ludicrous RFC is just astounding to me. I'm not surprised, however, that the "the article was fine as it was" crowd is out. I fully expected that to happen. It all reminds me a lot of what happens whenever Scientology comes under any close scrutiny: the wagons are circled. LHM^{ask me a question} 23:35, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

• Response to the RFC Questions

1. No. Not in my opinion. The advertising tag was clearly inappropriate, as it requires specific marketing of products in the article to be used. As for NPOV, there seems to be an idea among some editors that an article should give significant weight to views not strongly supported by the reliable sourcing, or that accurate descriptions the products and/or sales/customer figures provided by a private company are somehow inappropriate or constitute promotion, when such is not the case, and isn't in line with other company articles.

2. Increased the Bias These edits create the erroneous perception that there is some sort of dispute regarding whether Landmark is a religion/religious, when pretty much every reliable observer describes it as a course without religious elements.

The sources that are attempted to be used here contain a variety of problems or misuses. In some cases, there is simply a name on a list somewhere without comment. In other cases, there is an equivocal comment about a course perhaps having religious connotations (which could be said about almost anything in the world).

In the rare cases where a scholar makes a strong case for considering a personal development program to be considered as a 'new religious movement', it's because the scholar has said that they want to have it be something within their field of study, not because it actually has any religious elements. It's been explicitly said by such scholars that a 'new religious movement' need not be religious at all - it merely has to be something they want to study. It's obviously severe distortion to then go back and call something 'religious' based on such a source.

And frankly, most scholars don't do this - they give a definition of new religious movements which clearly does NOT include personal development programs such as those offered by Landmark. See the discussion at the previous RFC for a more thorough discussion of all this.

Referring to 'cult' claims, the evidence is even flimsier - there's only reliable source, anywhere, calling Landmark anything close to a cult, and that source is extremely problematic - it's from an old list that calls a host of disparate things a 'sect', including the Quakers (who aren't called a cult in their Wikipedia article). This clearly isn't more than a fringe POV, and as such, the article is biased by giving it a strong place in the article, such as the lead, when almost all the reliable sources state this isn't the case.

The editor who added all this information seems to have contempt for contemporary news sources, such as the New York Times or Time Magazine, and more reverence for academic sources which often barely mention the subject in passing. The idea of focusing solely on academic sources is somewhat laudable, and works well for subject such as history, but is less useful for contemporary phenomena without an extensive scholarship. The truth is, there is very little thorough academic scholarship on personal development programs such as Landmark - most mentions, such as those offered by the editor, come from a single sentence here or there in a book. In these cases, the extensive, lengthy, accounts from highly reliable news sources carry much more weight, in my opinion.

3. Not assuming good faith is what I see as an issue, more than civility. One editor has repeatedly put material in on the sole grounds that editors who took it out are biased and unworthy of editing on the article. In other words, they are justifying their edits by their lack of good faith in other editors, which is extremely troublesome. In fact, as of this writing, there is a repeated paragraph in the article that editors have repeatedly re-inserted, despite having this pointed out to them on multiple occasions, because the editors appear to be more interested in reverting edits from editors they are opposed to than in actually looking at the substance of the edits.

The fact that editors have in this thread have actually shown contempt for the RFC process is a perfect example of this lack of respect, both of other editors, and Wikipedia's policies and procedures. Nwlaw63 (talk) 23:33, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

One other item - the content of the edit in question was already resolved a year ago in an RFC at the list of New Religious Movements: :https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_new_religious_movements/Archive_2#Rfc_regarding_Landmark_Worldwide

The editor who added this material appears to be seeking a new forum to press their claim. Nwlaw63 (talk) 14:48, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

4. The insertion "Landmark's programs have been categorized by scholars and others as religious or quasi-religious in nature. In some quarters, it has been classed as a cult, with some participants alleging the use of manipulative and coercive techniques" needs solid citation. XoJane sent a writer to review it; she uses the term "cult", but does not consider it religious. High pressure sales pitch, definitely. ("You are trapped like sardines in rows with random people, after hours without food or daylight, put into a high-pressure emotional situation, and told the only way out of the emotional basket-case-ness that they have instigated, is for you to pay for and take more of their seminars. And to “powerfully enroll others to do the same.") [12] The Huffington Post and Mother Jones both use the term "brainwashing".[13][14]. I'd suggest following the sources more closely. High pressure sales tactics and brainwashing can be confirmed from multiple sources. Religion, no. John Nagle (talk) 05:28, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

After you posted this I went and read the Huffington Post and Mother Jones you are saying support a claim of brainwashing - the Mother Jones article makes absolutely no such claim, and the Huffington Post article makes one which is clearly intended to be hyperbole - a criticism of the uncritical nature of her fellow course participants in accepting an idea. That Badt truly considers Landmark 'brainwashing' is at odds with her conclusion that Landmark is 'innocuous...an inspiring, entertaining introduction of good solid techniques of self-reflection, with an appropriate emphasis on action...'. Pretty thin stuff for that claim. Nwlaw63 (talk) 14:34, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

It took a while to read this page and also find and read the RFC mentioned above. I did not remember much about it. Here are my answers to the three items above. 1)No- I looked at the July 27 version of the article, and it contains among other things, legal disputes, claims of internet censorship, labor inspections, claims of religious character of courses, criticisms of sales pressure and highly critical French and Swedish TV coverage connected to office closures. Hardly the stuff of advertising and press releases. 2)Changes definitely add to bias. And create an issue with undue weight. Again it has taken a while to read this and all of the references listed by Astynax in defense of his edits at first seem persuasive but there are valid issues raised with them by NWlaw63. None of the sources go into much detail (very brief mentions in what appear to be much larger works) and also many seem to be rather old. The most recent sources appear to be news outlets appear to go into a lot more detail and don’t mention religion or make it clear Landmark is not religious. I land with the contemporary sources that go into detail. 3)I don’t what to say about the civility aspect. Clearly people are passionate about their positions and I would remind everyone to assume good faith. Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 22:34, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

• In addition to my responses to this RFC (below), I am taking the article back to it's previously stable state. The obvious warring over large block changes is unacceptable and is not how this project works.

1. - No, the advert tag was unjustified at that state of the article. It is obvious that a number of editors have contributed to the state of the article and that absolutely none of the criteria for the tag were met.
2. - The mass edits and edit warring have resulting in a heavily biased article, with that bias seemingly based on weak or worse sourcing.
3. - The conduct in this RFC (particularly the lack of good faith) is especially pushing civility to the limit. Previous conduct on this talk page and in edit warring over content are clearly over the line. --Tgeairn (talk) 01:57, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

   Mass removals of well-sourced changes that brought an article into compliance with WP:NPOV aren't the way the project works either. Any such removals will be reverted. LHM^{ask me a question} 02:00, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Made some wording changes in the lede

The changes I just made should address the "weasel wording" concerns, and hopefully make the lede flow better as well. LHM^{ask me a question} 16:45, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

It's deja vu all over again

Without any attempt to engage with the discussions here or to provide specific suggestions, Astynax has simply blockmoved a raft of amendments that were extensively debated a year ago and found to be dubious and biased interpretations of the sources, and giving excessive weight to minority opinions. One or two of the additions may be justified, but as a whole this is just tendentious editing. The changes to the lead involve particularly loaded language. For now, I am reverting it, and perhaps we can have a civilised discussion of the individual points. DaveApter (talk) 20:42, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

• Stop. There is a CLEAR consensus here that the article needs MUCH more balance. And Astynax's edits begin that process. You are exerting an unreasonable and completely inappropriate level of ownership on this article, and it needs to stop. You are not guardian of the page, and have no more standing in declaring what's "excessive" than Astynax does. So stop with the wholesale reversions. LHM^{ask me a question} 22:37, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Re: the Lead. The purpose of the lead is to summarize the information within the body of the article, not to create a selective impression by excluding what else is covered and thereby not giving a basic grasp of the contents for those readers who don't read on down. The lead was blatantly inadequate even before the edits of the last 2 days. For the rest of the charges, we have the article's revision history of over 4000 edits and the 29 archived Talk pages in the box at the top of this page with nearly as many posts as the article's edits (all this for an article that isn't even 10k of readable prose). • Astynax ^talk 02:46, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

I have reverted edits that seem to be in clear violation of WP policies (undue weight, minority viewpoint), and appear to be virtually the same edit from the same editor made a year ago that many editors objected to at the time.

Here's the long version of what I said about this at time:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Landmark_Worldwide&diff=prev&oldid=571452948

[My apologies in advance in that some of this doesn't fit with the existing edit. The stuff on religion seems like it's mostly the same sources, and so should be valid.]

Here's the short version - the claims in the edit go well beyond what the sources actually say, they give huge weight to a fringe viewpoint (there is virtually no reliable source that calls Landmark a religion or cult, and the insinuating 'mentioned allegations that it has cult-like characteristics' seems like an end run around that particular fact). To compound the error, this particular edit then puts all that stuff in the lede.

Lithistman's reversion reflects that he didn't actually bother to read the original edit - if he had, he would have noticed for instance that it created three sentences that were repeated verbatim in two places. This is a really good example of why wholesale changes without consensus are generally not a good idea. Nwlaw63 (talk) 04:19, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Same old song, with the same gaming, trotting out the same mistaken parsing of what sources say, the same poisoning the well regarding the reliability of solid (even eminent) references, followed by the same immediate or incremental blanking of large sections – not just an edit or questioning of a word here or there – of sourced information regardless of how many other reliable sources are cited beyond those mischaracterized. Calling multiple, solid academic sources "fringe" when they don't line up with Landmark's PoV is odd, to say the least, particularly when nothing has been presented to show that these scholars are either fringe or that there is some vast scholarly consensus that supports Landmark's PoV and labels the rest of the wide coverage of Landmark as indeed fringe. Nor was the referenced material I reinserted, and was subsequently blanked, discussed here, as the archives will attest. If you have good references, by all means include statements that summarize what they say. If you doubt a reference, ask for additional references or direct quotes and discuss. There is no good excuse for blanking statements based in reliable coverage. As for the repeated sentence, I did correct a full 2 hours before you blanked the material. • Astynax ^talk 07:26, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

As noted above, your sources were discussed at great length a year ago, both here and at the RFC from a year ago on the New Religious Movements page where most people disagreed with your arguments:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_new_religious_movements/Archive_2#Rfc_regarding_Landmark_Worldwide

Also, the repeated insertion of several duplicated sentences in the article demonstrates that the material isn't even being read before being re-inserted in the article. Please make arguments based on the merits of the edits and the material. Nwlaw63 (talk) 15:28, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

The Rfc at List of new religious movements was closed with the note that the closing editor viewed the problem as a need for clearer criteria for inclusion, and NOT that reliable sources did not view Landmark as a new religious movement and/or as having a religious or para-religious characteristics. Nor, in any way, were reliable sources that treat Landmark in the new religious movement field shown to be fringe as alleged here. The closing statement suggested that the criteria for inclusion in that list be clarified and that the Rfc there could be reopened at that point, a suggestion which was torpedoed by strange demands that a synthetic definition be established, rather than relying upon something as simple as referencing to academic sources that treat a given organization as a new religious movement. • Astynax ^talk 08:34, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

• This really is a pathetic state of affairs. Any attempt to improve the problems regarding NPOV is reverted wholesale, with a note to "discuss it at talk." IT'S BEEN DISCUSSED TO DEATH AT TALK! There is a faction of editors (two that I've seen in recent times, but maybe more) that simply will not allow any negative material into this article. That needs to stop. This article should not be a hagiography for the company, which is what it is in the current state. There was absolutely nothing wrong with the changes made by Astynax after he fixed the duplications, yet the changes are reverted wholesale, as if they were simple vandalism. They were not. They were sourced additions, and as such, I'm reinserting them. Given the major problems with the articles hagiographical tone, the case needs to be made by those who wish to keep any negative information out, on a case by case basis. Do not revert wholesale changes made in good faith. LHM^{ask me a question} 19:33, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

In summary

Astynax put this exact same set of set of edits in a year ago – there was extensive debate both here and at the RfC noted in the links above and he lost the argument. If you look through the discussion at the RfC, you will find that his position was opposed by numerous well-established Wikipedians with no history of editing on Landmark or related topics at all. It is completely unacceptable to come back a year later and blockmove the same material in without any attempt to address the points that were made then.

As regards the suggestion that the article is biased towards Landmark, this is simply a personal opinion held by three or four recent commentators here, and is not shared by dozens of editors who have worked on this page over the past three years (or by numerous uninvolved editors who participated in the discussions), in which time it has remained relatively stable. As you can see, I have tried to open up a constructive debate here since 31st July when Lithistman originally placed the 'Advert' tag. Apart from repetitions the same accusations and complaints over and over again, there have been no proposals in response.

The notion that Astynax's edits have produced a more neutral article is ludicrous.To consider the lead alone, he replaced a neutral statement with a heavily loaded one, and added a paragraph with a whole raft of misleading and dubious insinuations:

1. He replace the factual statement: “The company started with the purchase of intellectual property rights developed by Werner Erhard, creator of the est training,” with the loaded one: ” The company started with the purchase of intellectual property based upon Werner Erhard's controversial est large-group awareness training techniques”.
2. He added: ”Landmark's programs have been categorized by scholars and others as religious or quasi-religious in nature.” In fact almost no-one has so categorized it. Every week thousands of people of every religion and of none take Landmark courses without perceiving any conflict with their spiritual beliefs, and the programs have been publicly endorsed by religious leaders of numerous faiths. (If we are going to have the Disputed religious character section which Astynax added, perhaps we should have a Disputed flat topography section in the article on Earth, or a Disputed green cheese composition section in the Moon article?)
3. Also: ”In some quarters, it has been classed as a cult,” in fact there are almost no instances of any notable figures unambiguously stating this, and there are many instances of authoritative figures dismissing the suggestion as ridiculous.
4. ”...with some participants alleging the use of manipulative and coercive techniques.” Indeed, some have, but they are a tiny minority of the customers, most of whom express considerable satisfaction.
5. ”Landmark denies such characterizations and has pressed lawsuits in response in response to such claims.” The fact is that there have been no such lawsuits in the last eight years and only a dozen in the previous fifteen.
6. "It has also been criticized for heavy recruiting and exploitation of volunteer labor," The 'volunteer labor' aspect of Landmark's assisting program certainly merits discussion, but references to the criticism need balancing by mention of the positive opinions expressed by the majority of participants in this scheme.
7. "'...which led to its closing some of its international offices"' This is pure synthesis.

In view of the above, I am again reverting the last edit, and look forward to discussing the way forward to improving from there. DaveApter (talk) 14:36, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

• You don't actually "look forward to discussing the way forward to improving" this article. You've made it clear (along with one other edtior) that you will revert, en masse, any attempt to provide this article with anything even resembling a neutral point of view. This article is hopelessly biased, and will remain so until and unless the "owners" allow other good-faith editors to add material that provides it balance. LHM^{ask me a question} 16:34, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

What are your specific issues that make you claim the article is biased? It is almost all base facts, and there is a section on reviews and criticism. Personally, I would not include some of the material, such as the Vantos link, but that hardly constitutes bias. On the other hand, inserting loaded terms, such as describing EST as "controversial" in the lede, especially when this is not even an article about EST, does seem like an attempt to bias the article. It would be no more appropriate to describe EST as a "wonderful program" within the article. And using an article about some guy suing his non-Landmark employer is hardly an appropriate source for supporting unattributed descriptions of Landmark as a cult. People have claimed just about anything about any large organization in some capacity; that doesn't make such claims appropriate for sourcing an encycopedia. Rlendog (talk) 17:42, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

The issue is with the tone of the article, which contains none of the well-sourced criticism that is out there about Landmark, as well as with the fact that those guarding this article won't let anything remotely critical into it. These en masse reversions, instead of selectively removing the critical material that the owners consider poorly-sourced, is just completely unacceptable. But you guys have succeeded in wearing me down. The only thing I will make certain of is that the NPOV tag will remain until and unless the owners relent and allow the article to become balanced. LHM^{ask me a question} 19:24, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

The en masse reversions are appropriate given that the information in the insertions has been previously discussed and rejected, and are inserting inappropriate material in a massive lump along with any appropriate material. Rlendog (talk) 20:29, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Actually, these reversions are not appropriate, nor have they been discussed here, despite any statement to the contrary. Wikipedia is a place to summarize what reliable sources say about subjects, not a place to tweak things to suit one or more editors personal views and experiences. The reviews and criticisms section is a perfect example of what is wrong with this article: it doesn't begin to cover the subject of how Landmark is reported in academic sources, and the idea of review clippings (as if this were an IMDB movie article) is ridiculous. • Astynax ^talk 21:02, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

So add academmic sources to the article. But if you are going to use appropriate edits to try to sneak in problematic content, such as loaded words into the lede, you risk getting reverted en masse. Rlendog (talk) 21:25, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

I haven't been sneaking in "problematic" content, and I and others have added academic and other solid references only to see them incrementally reverted. You are evidently aware of how to tag to ask for further details and sources, which is a far better course than blanking information. • Astynax ^talk 10:06, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Problematic content can be reverted. And if you choose to throw in problematic content within a 3000 words edit, it is appropriate to revert that edit rather than picking out and tagging each issue, especially when you refuse to discuss the specific problems on the talk page. Rlendog (talk) 15:17, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

You are wrong. I have never made anything remotely approaching a 3000 word edit here. The use of the word "controversial" was indeed sourced; I even included a quote from one of the references. • Astynax ^talk 20:00, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

I didn't say it wasn't sourced. But even sourced, it doesn't belong in the lede of an article about Landmark. One could find sources stating that EST was beneficial, but it would not be appropriate to describe EST as a beneficial program in the lede of the Landmark article either. Any such loaded adjective in the lede, especially when applied to a related topic that is not the subject of the article, merely serves to incorporate bias, and is unnecessary to the lede of the actual subject. As for the length of the edit I reverted, it was about 15,000 characters, which translates to roughly 3000 words (which includes references, notes, etc.) Maybe you used particularly long words so that it was "only" 2500 words in total, but the point is the same. Rlendog (talk) 15:06, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Being "controversial" in not a slur or value judgment, it is a well-documented, encyclopedic fact with which anyone familiar with its history is aware. The readable text of the entire body of the article does not contain 2500 words, so I object to your making out my edits as being so vast that they had to be summarily reverted. In fact, the last material you blanked consisted of exactly 2 words of readable text (the rest were references), and the largest single contribution I've made to this article, consisting of both my edits and restoring material authored by others that had been blanked, contained a total of 367 words of readable body text (the remainder being formatting and references). • Astynax ^talk 17:45, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

EST being controversial may not be a slur or value judgement, And it may be well documented. And it may be an encyclopedic fact. But all that relates to EST, and thus belongs in the EST article, not the lede of this one. As I stated above, the 3000 words I was referring to included the notes and references. Not in the last edit I had made, which was targeted to the specific word we are discussing here, but in the edit you seemed to be referencing above, where I reverted 15,000 characters of text [15] and which you then reversed wholesale without addressing any of the issues. Rlendog (talk) 07:42, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Landmark would not exist (at least doing anything resembling what they currently do) without est. Period, full stop. They grew from the est materials, and not allowing that major fact of their founding to be mentioned in the lede is a prime example of the major POV issues with this article. It would be like not mentioning Thomas Jefferson in the lede of the Declaration of Independence article. LHM^{ask me a question} 15:56, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

You are making a straw man argument. No one has ever suggested removing the connection from Werner Erhard's materials to Landmark - it has always been in the article. The discussion has been about the tone of that description - one editor adding a negative descriptor to that connection and those materials. Nwlaw63 (talk) 14:38, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

I never suggested that the connection to EST should not be mentioned. Only that it is inappropriate to editorialize about EST in the lede to this article. There are many adjectives that can be used to describe EST, some positive, some negative, some perhaps neither but nonetheless loaded, and inappropriately biasing this article by trying to connect any controversy around EST with this subject. Landmark is based on EST, but it isn't EST. Perhaps the changes that Landmark made resolved the controversy. Perhaps not. But any discussion of EST being controversial (or wonderful or terrible, or any other adjective) does not belong in the leded to this article. If sourced it can be included in the EST article. Even if sourced, it is inappropriate for the lede of this one. Rlendog (talk) 15:06, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Sources treat est and the Forum as cut from the same cloth; the same at the core, though methods of getting there have been somewhat modified. This talk page uses the Controversial template for a reason. Moreover, authors continue to use "controversial" to describe both est and Landmark Forum itself.

• Boulware, Jack (2000). San Francisco Bizarro. New York: Macmillan/St. Martins. ISBN 0312206712. Thousands of people did, giving their money to San Francisco's Werner Erhard, father of the world's most successful and controversial New Age human potential programs. His original company, Erhard Seminars Training (est), ended in 1984, but another incarnation of his philosophies is still based here in the city, the Landmark Education Corporation. [...] In the 1980s, est techniques were repackaged for corporate clients, and the name changed to The Forum.
• Walker, James K. (2007). The Concise Guide to Today's Religions and Spirituality. Eugene, Oregon: Harvest House. ISBN 9780736920117. According to published reports, Erhard incorporated elements from a variety of religions, including Zen Buddhism and Scientology, into est. Controversy surrounded the movement...
• Sexton, Mike (15 November 2011). "Landmark's controversial training programs". 7.30. Australian Broadcasting Corporation. Retrieved 5 September 2014. {{cite episode}}: Unknown parameter |serieslink= ignored (|series-link= suggested) (help)
• Elsener, Marcel (3 September 2014). "Landmark spielt schon lange keine Rolle mehr". Thurgauer Zeitung. St. Galler, Thurgau Switzerland: St. Galler Tagblatt AG. Retrieved 5 September 2014. Strittige Erwachsenenbildung (i.e., 'Controversial adult training' in describing a 1997 incident involving Landmark Education]
• Beam, Alex (6 November 1998). "A Harvard Forum For Self-Promotion?". Boston Globe. Boston, Massachusetts. In her defense, Wruck told me: 'I understood that it [Landmark Education] was a controversial company, but I wanted to study a company that directly addressed issues around human behavior.'
• Lutz, Ashley (9 January 2014). "Lululemon Spends $500 for Workers to Attend a Controversial Retreat Endorsed by Founder Chip Wilson". Business Insider. New York, New York: Business Insider, Inc. Retrieved 5 September 2014.

Should be easy enough to locate many others, since est was nothing if not controversial. As the use of "controversial" can be cited, what is the basis for contending that it wasn't/isn't controversial, or that this is a "loaded" word? We don't consider "controversial" loaded in other articles when references point to movies, political movements, etc. as having raised controversies, even in the lead sections. The insistent arguments that est be isolated from discussions of the Forum, when the two are intertwined and directly related by many academic writers (citations may easily be found for that too, and this relationship should be clearly stated in the article), is a corporate PoV that should be cited to non-Landmark sources before it is considered, let alone mentioned. Most encyclopedic references I've looked at also conflate the two, with a single article covering both and a "See Landmark Forum" or "See est" entry to redirect readers to the appropriate article and make no pretense at depicting them as minimally related or unrelated. • Astynax ^talk 12:02, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

I have never suggested that the link to EST not be mentioned, not have I suggested that the term controversial as applied to EST cannot be sourced. But the link to EST should be made here, especially in the lede, without editorializing about whether EST was controversial or not, wonderful or not, useful or not, terrible or not. In the lede to Landmark, EST is relevant in terms of its history as a predecessor organization, not in terms of describing EST. If controversy around EST is relevant to Landmark, that controversy along with how that is relevant to Landmark can be included in the body of the article, with sources, etc. And if Landmark is controversial, those controversies may be relevant to the lede of this article, but then those relevant controversies should be summarized, not just left as a statement that it is "controvesial." Rlendog (talk) 13:46, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Again, you've twisted and misrepresented to justify blanking. Re.: 1. Landmark and est continue to be controversial, which should be self-evident based upon the long history of discussions here, as well as the most cursory look at the material out there; 2. If you don't like the "Disputed religious character" subheading, then suggest something better. That is hardly grounds for blanking an entire section. The contention that "almost no-one has so categorized it" (as religious or quasi-religious) is utterly and demonstrably false; 3. The allegation that "in fact there are almost no instances of any notable figures unambiguously stating this" is equally false, as any look at the literature will show. If you'd like the article to explore that further, fine, but again it is no reason to blank reliably sourced statements, let alone a whole section; 4. That you admit this, and that it is reliably referenced is enough reason to retain the sentence; 5. As, again, this is referenced, what is your objection to something you admit? Aside from pressing lawsuits, there is reporting out there that it continues to threaten lawsuits in ways that are considered harassment, and that probably should also be included in the sentence; 6. Yes, Landmark has indeed been ruled against for labor abuse, and that is supported by the citations, so blanking the information is way out of line; 7. No synthesis, as the sentence merely summarizes referenced statements included in the legal disputes section. Don't blank cleanly referenced statements and then complain that a statement in the lead which summarizes them was synthesized. • Astynax ^talk 21:02, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

That Landmark and its predecessor iterations have been and continue to be treated by many scholars as religions and para-religions, please see the references cited in support of the statements in that section. For those interested, but unable to do so, I'll add below a sampling of quotes from various fields:

• "To illustrate rather than to define: among the better-known NRMs are the Brahma Kumaris, the Church of Scientology, the Divine Light Mission (now known as Elan Vital), est (erhard Seminar Training, now known as the Landmark Forum), the Family (originally known as the Children of God), ISKCON (the Hare Krishna), Rajneeshism (now know as Osho International), Sahaja Yoga, the Soka Gakkai, Trandscendental Mediations, the Unification Church (known as the Moonies) and the Way International. One might also include Neo-Paganism, Occultism, Wicca (or witchcraft) and several movements that are within mainstream traditions, such as part of the House Church (Restoration) movement from within Protestant traditions, and Folkolare, the Neo-Catechumenates, Communione e Liberazione and perhaps even Opus Dei from within the Roman Catholic traditions."

—Barker, Eileen (1996). "New Religions and Mental Health". In Bhugra, Dinesh (ed.). Psychiatry and Religion: Context, Consensus and Controversies. London and New York: Routledge. p. 126. ISBN 0415089557. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help)

• "Finally, while the organization and its followers tend to deny its religious nature based primarily on its lack of a godhead or sacred body, closer inspection of the group reveals that the sacred does exist within its systems in the form of the Self."

—Lockwood, Renee (2011). "Religiosity Rejected: Exploring the Religio-Spiritual Dimensions of Landmark Education". International Journal for the Study of New Religions. 2 (2). Sheffield, England: Equinox: 225, 227. ISSN 2041-9511.;

• "The prospect of a new global order is also central to many variants of the Human Potential and New Age movements and Scientology. All these very different kinds of NRM [New Religious Movement] nevertheless share a conviction that human beings have, perhaps for the first time, come into possession of the knowledge required to free them from traditional structures of thought and action. Hence, the confidence of the Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, founder of Transcendental Meditation, and of Werner Erhard, the founder of est (now largely reconfigured as the Landmark Trust), that the state of the entire world would improve if a sufficient number of people became sufficiently energetic and disciplined about their spiritual practice."

—Beckford, James A. (2004). "New Religious Movements and Globalization". In Lucas, Phillip Charles; Robbins, Thomas (eds.). New Religious Movements in the 21st Century. Abingdon and New York: Routledge. p. 208. ISBN 0-415-96576-4.

• "The majority of NRMs [New Religious Movements] are, however, not indigenous to Europe. Many can be traced to the United States (frequently to California), including offshoots of the Jesus Movement (such as the Children of God, later known as the Family); the Way International; International Churches of Christ; the Church Universal and Triumphant (known as Summit Lighthouse in England); and much of the human potential movement (such as est, which gave rise to the Landmark Forum, and various practices developed through the Esalen Institute)."

—Barker, Eileen (2005). "New Religious Movements in Europe". In Jones, Lindsay (ed.). Encyclopedia of Religion. Detroit: Macmillan Reference. p. 6568. ISBN 9780028657431.

• "These two opposing strategies of new religious movements for delivery compensators I will term 'compensation delivery systems' (CDS). The gradual CDS can be best described as religion as a multi-level-marketing (MLM) tactic—a term I take from the business world. Here compensators are awarded based on progression through the ranks. The organization is structured like a pyramid (hence pyramid scheme). A new member comes on as a consumer but quickly advances to being both a consumer and a seller. High compensators are promised in exchange for a minimum commitment—a small amount of money, a few hours of time. However, to rise higher and higher in these organizations, one must successfully recruit people to become lower initiates, as well as commit ever-increasing sums of time and money. Exemplars of new religious movements with a gradual CDS are Scientology and Erhard Seminar Training in its various manifestations."

—Siegler, Elijah (2004). "Marketing Lazaris". In Lewis, James R. (ed.). The Encyclopedic Sourcebook of New Age Religions. Amherst, New York: Prometheus. p. 187. ISBN 1591020409.

• "Some spiritual management trainings, aiming at the self-actualisation—or rather self-realisation—in the corporate world, have advocated a rather authoritarian treatment of their trainees. A well-known example is Landmark Education International, Inc., a management-oriented derivate of Werner Erhard's famous seminars called est (an acronym for Erhard Seminars Training) developed in the 1970s. Participants of Erhard's seminars were typically treated as follows[...] In an article of the German management magazine Wirtschaftswoche, Landmark was indeed accused of 'brainwashing' [...] The trainings of Landmark, Block Training and UP Hans Schuster und Partner thus display strong similarities with the self-improvement seminars of Scientology, which are incidentally called 'auditing sessions', a term taken from the business world. In these auditing sessions, the auditor takes a position of absolute authority towards the 'patient': 'It cannot be too emphatically stated that the analytical mind and the dynamics of the patient never, never, never resist the auditor. The auditor is not there to be resisted.' (Hubbard 1997/1950:248)"

—Ramstedt, Martin (2007). "New Age and Business: Corporations as Cultic Milieus?". In Kemp, Daren; Lewis, James R. (eds.). Handbook of the New Age. Brill Handbooks on Contemporary Religion. Vol. 1. Leiden: BRILL. pp. 196–197. ISBN 9789004153554.

• "Although est and the Forum are frequently categorized as NRMs or cults, leaders and participants have typically denied that undergoing the seminars involves following a religion."

—George D. Chryssides (2001). Historical Dictionary of New Religious Movements. Lanham, Maryland: Scarecrow. p. 126. ISBN 0810840952.

• "The Forum and/or est, whose origins are in the United States (Tipton 1982) holds to the belief that the self itself is god."

—Taliaferro, Charles; Harrison, Victoria S.; Goetz, Stewart (2012). The Routledge Companion to Theism. New York: Routledge. p. 123. ISBN 9780415881647.

• "The third group of New Religious Movements proposed here is both harder to define and even broader in its scope than the two preceding groups. The largest group of New Religious Movements – both in numbers of individual groups within it and in the diffused range of its overall influence within modern British life – is that clustered around the richly varied collection of 'self-religions', psychotherapies and New Age mysticism and alternative spiritualities. This large group may be broadly divided into two sub-groups, each of which is simply a clustering of often quite diverse movements around a similar overall theme. The first group consists of the 'self-religions' and religiously 'flavoured' psycho-therapies which have increasingly fluorished in the last twenty or thirty years. The self-religions have been characterized as 'movements which exemplify the conjunction of the exploration of the self and the search for significance' (Heelas, 1982, p.69). At first sight these various groups frequently do not appear to be religious at all, but rather present themselves as means of self-improvement, of improvement in personal relationships, or of achieving personal success in life. Many of them originated, often in California, as attempts to find new, less expensive and less elite varieties of psychotherapy, and frequently (but not always) in the period since the 1960s were tinged with elements and ideas from eastern religions. In due course, however, the essentially 'religious' orientation or character of a group becomes clearer: the movement or technique offers personal growth, transformation of character, personal enlightenment or psychological rebirth, transcendant or mystical experience, and perhaps even the prospect of some form of personal perfection or contribution to the transformation of the world for the better [...] groups such as rebirthing or est which emphasize positive thinking, and organizations such as Exegesis and Scientology. What these various groups tend to share, however, is an overwhelming emphasis upon the inward and the subjective. In general – and in broad contrast to the New Age mysticisms and spiritualities which will be considered in a moment – the 'self religions' are just what the title implies: attempts to find the sources and potential for development and meaning in life simply from within the individual. By contrast, the even more diverse groups which may be clustered under the heading of 'New Age religions', although also characterized by a conviction that the divine is to be found within the self, tend on the whole to look outwards as well as within the individual and to advocate new ways of relating the 'divine within' either to various conceived transcendant realities or to the environment as a whole.

—Parsons, Gerald, ed. (1993). "Expanding the religious spectrum: New Religious Movements in Modern Britain". The Growth of Religious Diversity: Britain from 1945: Volume 1 Traditions. London: Routledge. pp. 283–284. ISBN 0415083265.

• "L. Ron Hubbard repackaged Scientology from occultism, and est/Forum was a repackaging of Scientology by Werner Erhard, but few Scientologists or estians ever see the connections, and both leaders seem to have gained little from their teachings. This is what the followers of Erhard found so unsettling; he was the great pop artist of spirituality, yet was unable to apply his insights to himself."

—Oakes, Len (1997). Prophetic Charisma: The Psychology of Revolutionary Religious Personalities. Syracuse, New York: Syracuse University Press. p. 189. ISBN 0815627009.

• "Elterninitiative has largely adopted Haack's terminology and concepts. This is obviously due to their close co-operation. Ei thus speaks of Jugendreligionen or Jugendsekten (often Sekten for short), Psychomutation, Seelenwäsche, etc. However, Haack's influence has reached further in that most parents' organizations have adopted his terminology. Another term coined by Haack is Psychokulte (therapy cults), of which he distinguished two kinds: those with techniques which promise self-discovery or self-realization and establishments with therapies (Therapie-Institutionene)—Heelas's 'self-religions'. The followers of both types show the effects of Psychomutation, a distinct personality change (Haack, 1990a:191). Schneider (1995:189–190) lists organizations, such as Landmark Education, Verein zur Förderung der Psychologischen Menschenkenntnis (VPM), Scientology/Dianetics, Ontologische Einweihungsschule (Hannes Scholl), EAP and Die Bewegung (Silo) as examples of 'therapy cults'. These groups do not immediately suggest a religious worldview, but reveal ideological and religious elements on closer inspection."

—Arweck, Elisabeth (2004). Researching New Religious Movements: Responses and Redefinitions. Leiden: Brill. pp. 145–146. ISBN 0203642376.

• "A significant number of smaller, internationally active religious groups have also been established in the country but are viewed by the general public as lying outside of the mainstream. Such groups include the Church of Scientology (claiming to have approximately 3,000 members), Landmark-Forum, Hare Krishna, Word of Faith, Jehovah's Witnesses (approximately 23,000 members), and the Unification Church."

—Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor (2005). "International Religious Freedom Report 2005". U.S. Department of State. U.S. Department of State. Retrieved 9 September 2014.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

• "The official position of Landmark Education is that it is not a religious organization, yet the group has been viewed as posessing religious qualities, not only within a sensationalist context but also within print media and academia. [...] Finally, while the organization and its followers tend to deny its religious nature based primarily on its lack of a godhead or sacred body, closer inspection of the group reveals that the sacred does exist within its systems in the form of the Self. With explicit descriptions of the Self as a transcendental entity, it is ascribed complete power to effect transformation and alter the very world around it. While the religious terminology used to describe the sacred Self was more explicit in the form of est, the concept still permeates Landmark Education. In this sense, the organization moulds perfectly to theologian Paul Tilich's (1963) definition of religion, the Self representing an 'ultimate concern,' capable of revealing the answers to the universe and the very meaning of life."

—Lockwood, Renee (2011). "Religiosity Rejected: Exploring the Religio-Spiritual Dimensions of Landmark Education". International Journal for the Study of New Religions. 2 (2). Sheffield, England: Equinox: 225, 227. ISSN 2041-9511.

• "Many of the new religions attract individuals by the promise of peace of mind, spiritual well-being, gratifying experiences, and material success. In so doing they stress their concern for the individual and highlight one's personal worth and self-development. This is especially so in human growth movements such as Scientology, The Forum (previously known as Erhard Seminar Training [EST]), and quasi-religious encounter groups."

—Saliba, John A. (2003). Understanding New Religious Movements. Walnut Creek, California: Rowman Altamira. p. 88. ISBN 9780759103559.

These are hardly fringe or minority sources, despite the bizarre claims otherwise. The article at the end of August mentioned that some scholars considered Landmark to have a religious nature and that Landmark disclaimed any such link between its courses and religion, so that isn't really in dispute here. What was wrong with the state of the article by that time was that most traces of the wide variety of material discussing this and other points had been purged, and what brief mentions were left had been relegated to a "Reviews and criticisms" section where items differing from the Landmark corporate line were "balanced" by glowing quotes from lay magazine and website articles which presented reporter experiences taking the introductory course (these are still in the article) and have little to do with the broad coverage elsewhere. • Astynax ^talk 09:10, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

You are promoting a false notion: that the connection from Werner Erhard to Landmark has been removed from the article, when in fact the lead of the article has always explicitly mentioned that Landmark evolved from materials purchased from Werner Erhard. What has been in discussion here is your use of negatively charged language to describe those materials.

Regarding religion, it's telling that you throw a blizzard of sources and quotes onto this talk page, and yet you still can't find reliable sources to make the case you want to make. You begin with Barker, who simply puts Landmark as one name in an extremely long list. As I've noted to you many times before, Barker has said repeatedly that she puts human potential movements on her NRM lists not because she thinks they are necessarily religious, but she wants them to remain within her field of study. This academic inclusiveness is fine for her, but more than problematic for us as a describer of what is actually religious.

Many of your other 'proofs' also involve similar scholars putting Landmark's name as one in a long list, often tellingly referring to est rather than Landmark, or proving their only passing familiarity with Landmark by getting its name wrong, as some of your sources do here.

It's telling that the one source that seems to fully make the case that you want to make is not a reliable one - it's from someone who is not a credentialled scholar, and doesn't belong as a source to any Wikipedia article. Moreover, it's telling that this inexpert source argues in this paper against the claims made by reliable sources that Landmark is not religious in nature, and that even she can't actually make an argument that Landmark contains any overt religious elements, rather, she argues that the intense, cathartic, emotional experiences resemble the experience of religious revelation - that profound self-actualization is the modern equivalent of religious enlightenment. This modern 'religion of the self' theory, which does an end run around requiring anything relating to god or the supernatural to call something 'religious', is a minority POV inside religious scholarship.

Another long quote you provide shows how this minority POV self-religion theory works - it defines 'attempts to find the sources and potential for development and meaning in life simply from within the individual' (from one of your sources) as inherently religious. This is a startling claim on the face of it, and while interesting, isn't supported by the majority of scholars. In fact, most top scholars support a definition of new religious movements which involves explicitly religious groups, with specific belief in deities and/or supernatural entities. I put together a chart by top scholar of their views on NRM definitions after the last RFC on the list of NRM's talk page:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_new_religious_movements

The only scholar or two whose definitions could include personal development companies like Landmark are again, those who use a broad definition of any philosophical group that they wish to study. Again, this is fine for study, it's not fine for encyclopedic definitions. Chryssides makes a lengthy and explicit case for why Landmark is not religious in nature, and yet he has them on a list because he wants to study them. This alone should make one pause from making claims about groups based on their inclusion in such lists. Nwlaw63 (talk) 14:29, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

You know what is actually "telling" (a word you seem to like)? The fact that he gave you many sources to support the fact that Landmark is viewed as a religion in non-fringe quarters, and you dismiss it basically out of hand. An encyclopedia's job is not to find out what's true (Landmark may well not be a religion, though the fervor of its defenders makes me wonder), but what's verifiable. And the fact that some scholars believe Landmark to be a religion is, quite simply, incontrovertible. Your attempts to sever it from its ties with est notwithstanding, there's just no debate left on that subject: some scholars do believe it to be religious in nature, and as such, that should be dealt with non-trivially in the article. LHM^{ask me a question} 14:50, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Regarding the religious characterization, it is outrageous and unencyclopedic to consistently besmirch, mischaracterize and summarily dismiss eminent scholars and scholarly sources whenever they don't mirror Landmark's line. Even scholars you have deigned to accept as reliable in some instances (such as Chryssides, who personally does not see Landmark as a full-fledged religion), you reject and attempt to sully when they undercut Landmark's position (as when Chryssides repeatedly notes that both est and the Forum "are frequently categorized as NRMs [New Religious Movements] or cults" – note the word is "frequently" and not "by only a minority fringe group of non-notable cranks"). Slurring scholars who have included Landmark in lists of similar religious movements in peer-reviewed articles and books with the ridiculous assertion that they are somehow unfamiliar with Landmark, are not reliable, or even are getting its "name wrong" is flat-out bizarre and presumptuous. Moreover, your minimizing of the self religion categorization, in which est-The Forum-Landmark Forum have been prominently discussed for decades, suggests more about the corporate PoV spin being advocated here than it does to give a fuller picture of the article subject. Wikipedia summarizes what reliable, academic sources say, including all significant aspects of the subject; articles and talk pages are not the place to concoct new theories or propound arguments in an effort to dismiss or explain away what scholars say. Even in the bent for using popular press items for sourcing, in preference to academic literature, the selectivity has been astounding. Major articles at odds with Landmark's position have been ignored or excised. • Astynax ^talk 17:59, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Besmirching and dismissing the sources is not what I am doing at all. Chryssides makes it clear in his writings that Landmark isn't religious in nature, and yet includes it in a list of NRMs. This is fact. Scholars such as he have made it clear that they put personal development groups on such lists because they which to study them, not because they are religious in nature. To point this out, and to point out that this makes a name on a list very dubious for asserting the religious nature of such a group, isn't besmirching anyone at all - it's simply to point out that scholars and encyclopedias have very different goals.

Nor is it insulting anyone to point out that this term of 'self-religion' was invented by Heelas and isn't widely used by other scholars. Nwlaw63 (talk) 14:41, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Just to be clear, I have no wish that all criticism of Landmark should be suppressed - only that it is given due weight, and put in context by a fair summary of the alternative opinions. The facts are that over 1.5 million people have taken Landmark courses and independent surveys have consistently shown that well over 95% of them were extremely satisfied with the results they got from the training, whereas there is no evidence that the critics number more than a few thousand, most of whom have no direct experience of the courses and are basing their statements on hearsay, gossip or prejudice. This tiny minority however makes a great deal of noise, and internet blogs and discussion groups have extended their range. Even the critics who have attended Landmark programs often admit (actually proudly boast) that they left part way through or refused to do the assignments. Even Astynax's vauted "academic sources" generally make no claim of direct observation of the programs and so their opinions amount to no more than speculation. The balance of press coverage in recent years has been mostly positive, even from journalists who originally attended with the intention of exposing an insidious fraud. One would hardly get this impression from reading the version of the article that Astynax proposes. DaveApter (talk) 12:01, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

In order to be given due weight, the article needs to include more of the gamut of what is out there than it has in a long while. Characterizing as "alternative" or "fringe" things widely discussed in scholarship and the press is again slanting the article to reflect the image Landmark would naturally like to project. Removing discussion of things and associations that Landmark rejects or prefers to minimize is also pushing the corporate PoV. Positive press coverage has not been eliminated, nor has anyone intimated that many people do not feel helped by their experiences. That does not at all mean that those subjective opinions somehow dictate that we remove or give short shrift to other coverage, as has intransigently been done over the last years. Wikipedia articles are to cover all facets of their subjects as reported in notable, reliable references. What we don't summarize are personal opinions, corporate puffery, unsourced statements and other material that fail WP:V. There have been many well-sourced statements that have been relentlessly purged over the years on various pretexts to produce what comes close to being a corporate press release. Even the connection to est was downplayed to the point of not receiving any explicit mention, and an uninformed reader was left to make the connection between Landmark and Erhard and then on to est, and not told that the program is a development of the previous Forum and est "technologies" (a LW catchphrase). That sort of PoV pushing may be unconscious, but it is also unconscionable. • Astynax ^talk 20:45, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Use of the word "controversial" in the lede

I've been persuaded by the arguments against including that word as a descriptor of est in the lede. The next few sentences make it clear enough that the founding and current state of LW have been so categorized by some observers and scholars, so removing that word seems like a reasonable compromise. LHM^{ask me a question} 00:16, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Taking my leave

When an administrator shows up wielding his badge and edit-warring to remove well-sourced, neutrally-worded information, it's time for me to go. Good luck to those trying to bring some balance to this article. You're likely going to need it. LHM^{ask me a question} 01:41, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

• Also, you lot should probably head over to Wikiversity, and get them straightened out, since they have referenced this "tendentious" fact. [16] LHM^{ask me a question} 01:46, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
• No doubt you will be missed. I think everyone here knows that the information was neither neutral nor sourced with secondary sources. I'm not heading over to Wikiversity (I don't know what you mean with "referenced" in that sentence); Cirt and I go way back and neither of us needs the other to straighten anyone out. Cirt, if you're watching, I hope you're doing well--still racking up one GA after another? 112 is crazy. Also, Lithistman, I placed a note on Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard. Drmies (talk) 01:54, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

  I worked hard to make this article better. You chased me off it with your badge. I'll be removing it from my watchlist, as I've got things I can work on with the project that don't involve an administrator edit warring and then s/he and one of the talk page stalkers templating me. All in all, an utterly terrible taste left in the mouth from this entire experience, but particularly that of the last day or so. LHM^{ask me a question} 02:01, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

• Dramatizing your personal agony in its own thread is improper for an article talk page--but hey, if that's what you want, let it all out. Drmies (talk) 02:19, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Edit warring

As far as I can tell I am completely uninvolved with this page's content and history. If the edit warring continues I more likely block the offending parties than resort to protection. Do not use the page histories to have conversations, use the talk page. Thank you. Chillum Need help? Type {{ping|Chillum}} 01:52, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

• I'm done, Chillum. This is, however, not purely a content matter since the content is not neutral and not properly sourced--but I've argued this already, above. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 02:03, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

The "not neutral" wording at issue is quoted above. I asked multiple times what people found objectionable about the wording. No one pointed to anything in the quote as actually being "not neutral." It appears that the existence of the investigation and its results itself is "not neutral" to those who object, I guess. LHM^{ask me a question} 02:10, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

It's pretty simple—most organizations have been involved with a lot of activity, and inevitably some of it will be dubious and some of it bad. If articles were based on the WP:ADAM principle, they would end up as memorials to the disputes that individuals have had with the organization (WP:ADAM specifically relates to articles about people, but the principle applies here). The "Legal disputes" section is about events where significant things happened, and it should not be padded out with claims from primary sources about minor issues—what organization has not had a dispute with a worker? No secondary source has considered that the dispute warranted an analysis, so editors should not apply their own judgment to decide that the dirt needs to be aired. Johnuniq (talk) 02:26, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Use of Renee Lockwood Paper as a Source

On 15-September, I removed two references to the Renee Lockwood paper Religiosity Rejected: Exploring the Religio-Spiritual Dimensions of Landmark Education. The paper is written by a graduate student at The University of Sydney. My thinking in removing the references is that WP:SCHOLARSHIP applies here. The article does not appear in any citation indexes, and the journal it is printed in does not appear in citation indexes. Effectively, it is a student paper and at best it is a questionable WP:PRIMARY source. We have multiple other citations that already support the same material in the article, and there is no need for an additional source that does not meet WP:RS. Also on 15-September, Lithistman reverted my removal, so I am bringing this here for discussion. Please comment as to whether WP:SCHOLARSHIP applies to this source, and whether it is appropriate for inclusion in the article. Thank you. Tgeairn (talk) 23:08, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Lockwood has put out at least one peer-reviewed article that I discovered (which has been cited), and the paper in question ("Religiosity...") would seem to have been peer-reviewed as well, though I can't find perfect confirmation of that fact. That said, it is a lengthy, well-researched examination of the issue, and a dismissal as nothing more than a "student paper" seems a bit untoward, at least to me. LHM^{ask me a question} 23:58, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

• What matters is the publication, and this journal is peer-reviewed and thus, IMO, perfectly acceptable. I don't, BTW, see any reason to cite it fully twice. Whether it should be cited at all (see Wikipedia:Citation overkill) is another matter--it seems to me that the first instance is wholly unnecessary, and the second one most likely acceptable. But that's just my opinion. Drmies (talk) 00:41, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
• Thank you both. I do see that the journal says all articles are peer reviewed, and that begins to meet WP:SCHOLARSHIP.

The guideline also notes "A claim of peer review is not an indication that the journal is respected, or that any meaningful peer review occurs. Journals that are not peer reviewed by the wider academic community should not be considered reliable, except to show the views of the groups represented by those journals."

The lack of citation of this piece in the citation indexes points to other aspects of the guideline - "One can confirm that discussion of the source has entered mainstream academic discourse by checking the scholarly citations it has received in citation indexes. A corollary is that journals not included in a citation index, especially in fields well covered by such indexes, should be used with caution, though whether it is appropriate to use will depend on the context." and "If you are unsure about the quality of a journal, check that the editorial board is based in a respected accredited university, and that it is included in the relevant citation index.".

The paper is not being used to support anything that we don't have other (better) sources for, so it seems that the only desire to leave this source in the article is to overwhelm the reader with citation. It's back in the article now (twice at the moment), but I remain dubious of the need. Tgeairn (talk) 05:11, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

CAIC not a reliable source

I have removed controversial claims that are supported only by an extremely dubious source. Perhaps the largest issue I have with the large recent edit is the use of the CAIC website as a source for such claims - it's clearly not a reliable source - it's mostly a collection of links (to mostly other non-reliable sources). See the old discussion on the use of this source here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_155#caic.org.au. Nwlaw63 (talk) 05:43, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

• I've re-added 'with former members reporting manipulative and coercive techniques such as sleep deprivation' with a Wikisource link (there's more there if anyone wants to browse), but not re-added the deletion to the lede as this is only one source implying 'and some participants have alleged the use of manipulative and coercive techniques'. Similarly, I've removed 'vociferously' from 'Landmark has vociferously denied that it is a religion, cult or sect' as there's only one (offline) source - it needs to be a quote from that source or have multiple sources demonstrating 'vociferous' denial. AnonNep (talk) 06:09, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
• The way I understand CAIC--and correct me if I'm wrong--is that it's mainly an aggregator of other people's articles. Viewed in that light, it would be something like the Drudge Report, would it not? As such, information found there would not be "unreliably sourced" simply for having been found there, but would rather need to be traced back to the original article, and the reliability of the sourcing for a particular piece of information judged on that basis. It would be sort of like the difference between the occasional original reporting Drudge himself does, and his links to outside articles from places like the NYT, the WSJ, InfoWars, etc. Is this a complete misreading of what CAIC is, or am I fairly on track? (For the record, I know the format they use for their website is different than Drudge.) LHM^{ask me a question} 12:42, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

• CAIC is a personal collection of other people's works and personal commentary supposedly compiled by Jan Groenveld (I say supposedly due to the site's domain name being registered six years after her death). The numerous problems associated with using it as a source were discussed at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard. A couple of my favorites:

1. The site is clear that it has an agenda.
2. It (CAIC) has a statement on most pages that it is not saying anything in their voice.
3. The site does not have clear ownership (the site copyright actually includes the phrase "Yada yada yada").

As you say, if there is any value in the original sources (not this personal collection of copies), then those original sources should be used and judged on that basis. Tgeairn (talk) 23:45, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

• There is nothing dubious about caic.org.au. It does get cited in academic books and papers (for example,Chryssides, George D.; Zeller, Benjamin E., eds. (2014). "Academic Resources for the Study of New Religious Movements". The Bloomsbury Companion to New Religious Movements. London: Bloomsbury. p. 368. ISBN 9781441190055.). It was originally self-published, but SPS may be used with care. As much of the content is an archive of articles from reliable sources originally published by elsewhere, it would be best to cite the original source, but if the original source is not available, then there is nothing wrong with citing caic.org.au, culteducation.com and similar sites. Note, however, such sites sometimes also aggregate personal blog and Usenet posts, and those specific materials are primary sources not considered to be WP:RS. If providing cites for a truly extraordinary statement, consider adding a backup citation. If questioning truly extraordinary claim backed only by caic.org.au or similar site, use one of the templates to request an additional/original source or confirm the source rather than blanking information. • Astynax ^talk 15:58, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

• Merely being listed in a list of websites in a book does not make something a reliable source. The lack of scholarship, credentials, editorial review, or accountability all (along with everything else raised the last time this was discussed) point to CAIC not being a reliable source. The use of that website as a source should call into question the reliability of any "academic" that uses it (and no, George didn't use it as a source - he merely listed it as a website that exists on the subject). Tgeairn (talk) 23:54, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

The list in the book edited by Chryssides and Zeller is specifically titled "Academic Resources for the Study of New Religious Movements". As I pointed out, caic.org.au appears in this list of "academic resources". Moreover, and as you no doubt recall, that I have pointed out in previous discussions, the website is itself cited in footnotes of academic works. As you noted, the site presents material without commentary, and some of the material is primary and generally not usable here, as I noted. However, there cannot be any basis for regarding as invalid or unreliable links to reliable secondary and tertiary materials archived there. The fact is that the site is cited in reliable sources and in academic work. • Astynax ^talk 03:43, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree (and I remember seeing) the website listed as you say. My concern is that without editorial oversight, we basically have a set of personal opinions and material copied from elsewhere. The original source would be the one to reference for the copied material and the rest of the site is pretty much an exact fit for a questionable source. Tgeairn (talk) 03:54, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Of growing concern to me, as I look deeper into this issue, is that we are rewarding Landmark's litigous behavior by keeping the article from accurately reflecting how controversial Landmark really is. When Wikileaks mentions Wikipedia by name as having sort of whitewashed the Landmark article, that's not a good reflection on our project. LHM^{ask me a question} 17:23, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

• As Astynax notes, wisdom is retracing to get to the original publication. However, I do not agree that if no original can be found that the CAIC article simply be accepted as such. Being cited in publications, including academic publications (and listed as an "academic resource"), means a lot, but it does not, for instance, mean that the publication is therefore neutral. Besides, and the above discussion does not make clear what the case is here, there is a big difference between being "a good academic resource because it collects valuable articles" and being "a reliable source for original and reprinted material." (What Wikileaks says about this article is not very relevant. If we can't find reliable secondary sources for something, then that something shouldn't be in the article. Simple.) Drmies (talk) 02:15, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

While Wikipedia articles are required to present information neutrally, referenced sources do NOT need to be neutral. As I said, caic has been, and is still considered an acceptable source in academic work. One does consider the reliability of the original material archived on caic, and the discussion would better be about whether the original source is reliable, primary, secondary or tertiary, etc. Not all original source material is readily available even to scholars (pay walled, out of print, etc.). It is oddly and overly restrictive to forbid or impugn use of reliable sources just because of where they is reprinted or archived, especially as this particular repository appears and is used in academic work. • Astynax ^talk 03:38, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

No, that's clever but it's sophistry. I didn't point to some article possibly being biased, but to being unreliable. If some original can be tracked down but not accessed, that's not the same as not being able to be tracked down in the first place, and "overly restrictive to forbid use of reliable sources" puts the cart before the horse, since it assumes that something was already reliable to begin with--where, if no "original" can be found, it's precisely reliability that's in question. "Use with care" means just that, "use with care". It's like using Wikipedia, which overall might, in some areas, be a very reliable source--but the first rule of Wikipedia, every college professor should be able to tell you this, is to not cite Wikipedia. Drmies (talk) 05:04, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

It isn't clever or sophistry, as you offensively suggest. It is what our guidelines say. Nor is it "putting the cart before the horse". There are many documents that are not available in their original form or from their original publishers. Books and journals go out of print or are of limited distribution, public filings can often only be had by a trip to a remote office, etc. Again, caic is cited in academic work, which you say is "means a lot" before you blithely dismiss it on the grounds that it may not be "neutral"—which is NOT a requirement of ANY reliable source. • Astynax ^talk 08:13, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

"Tendentious material"?!?

Someone please explain to me how noting the existence of a U.S. Department of Labor investigation into Landmark, as well as the results, is "tendentious material" and "not neutral." Here is the "offending" passage:

An investigation involving the use of volunteers was also conducted by the US Department of Labor in 2006. The company agreed to pay overtime for a non-exempt salaried employee, but denied that their volunteers were employees.

I would like to know what exact portions of that quote are so "tendentious" and "not neutral" that they can not rely on a primary source to note the existence and result of said investigation. An administrator swooping in and wielding his/her "badge" is simply not enough. LHM^{ask me a question} 00:12, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

• It can't be that important if reliable secondary sources didn't comment on it. Primary material is not to be used to argue relevancy for content in the first place, lest the very existence of a factoid means it should be included in the article ("it's verified so it should be in there"). So, your passage basically tells me that Landmark apparently failed to pay someone, and uses cheap labor? Or, what else is important about this?

  I'll wave my badge if my special POV sniffer detects the odor of non-neutrality. And I Hereby Solemnly Declare I Got Nothing To Do With The Subject, lest I get that thrown at me as well. Drmies (talk) 00:33, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

  No, Drmies, you do not get to "wave your badge" during a content dispute. You need to stop doing so straightaway. As for the content in question, it isn't worded in any sort of inflammatory way, and is well-sourced. Not sure why there's an effort to keep this 2006 USDoL investigation out of the article. It's very ironic that you think including material that's not favorable to Landmark is what has "the odor of non-neutrality." Some of us have pointed to the fact that there exists an imbalance the other way as having that same not-so-faint stench. LHM^{ask me a question} 01:22, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

I have added another reference to this passage:

"An investigation involving the use of volunteers was also conducted by the US Department of Labor in 2006. The company agreed to pay overtime for a non-exempt salaried employee, but denied that their volunteers were employees."

I also renew my request that someone--ANYONE--point out what portion of this short passage is non-neutrally worded, or in any way "tendentious." I've spent a good deal of time cleaning up this article (for instance, rewriting the odd "list" into prose) and don't appreciate such accusations being flung around without one shred of evidence. Saying it does not make it so. LHM^{ask me a question} 01:36, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

• You misunderstand what "reference" means. You've cited the actual investigation, which is primary. In your last edit you claimed to have added another reference, but you just linked the same primary document twice, as if one primary and another primary adds up to a secondary. Drmies (talk) 01:44, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Primary sources can indeed be cited for verification of what they say, so long as they aren't used to support original research. Nothing of that type had been done by Lithistman and the blanked statement neutrally summarized what the cited document states. • Astynax ^talk 07:51, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

I disagree that the material is neutral, and so does Johnuniq, below. Drmies (talk) 18:31, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Is anyone still proposing to add the text quoted in the OP? Primary sources are fine for some uses such as illustrating conclusions reached by a secondary source—the problem is when an editor cherry picks particular primary sources that just happen to add a particular slant to an article. Please don't spend any more time on this without first addressing the points raised here and in the "Edit warring" section below. Johnuniq (talk) 03:55, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Conflict of Interest?

As well as the edits in this article, User:Tgeairn has been proposing that articles relating to the critical to Landmark documentary Voyage au pays des nouveaux gourous be deleted, or adding notability templates to these articles.

Articles include:

• Mona Vasquez
• Christian Lujan
• Catherine Picard

Edits include the mass-removal of critical references to Landmark in general. Zambelo; talk 17:36, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

• In my brief period of editing this article, I came to question whether there aren't several editors with CoIs relating to Landmark. LHM^{ask me a question} 17:48, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

• Although a better place to ask me a question would have been at the talk page of those articles, or at the talk page of the creator of those pages (where I have been engaging), or at my own talk page, or at the appropriate noticeboard - I will go ahead and respond here.

Since getting recently re-involved with this article (I have done some housekeeping here and in other semi-related articles in the past), I have been reading sources and following links. I have another 20+ articles in this same genre that are in serious need of cleanup, and I will be cleaning and tagging those as well.

As an editor, I have a rather lengthy history of policy-based cleanup work. This project (Wikipedia) requires that we adhere rigorously to the pillars or it will just become more cruft on the Internet. When I see a series of articles that are clearly created and crafted to present a one-sided view in spite of our policies and guidelines, I have a tendency to get involved (and a little indignant that someone is doing this to "my" Wikipedia, but that's beside the point).

Previous activity on this and a large set of other articles, here on EN and elsewhere, have set up a scenario where anyone coming along and attempting to clean the mess is likely to stand out. I accept that, and I knew it going into this. If there is a conflict of interest, it is that my interest (that Wikipedia be a neutral encyclopedia that anyone can use and be treated civilly) conflicts with that of others who want to use this project for some other purpose. I'm fairly confident that that COI does not equal a WP:COI.

The project would be best served by editors reading the edit summaries or talk page requests that I and others make and responding to those, rather than questioning the motives of editors. Blanket reverts, particularly when I have taken the time to make numerous individual edits each with an appropriate edit summary, do not improve an article.

Thank you for asking (sort of). In the future please use the appropriate venue for questions or accusations - and focus on content not contributor. --Tgeairn (talk) 18:16, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

I think this is a good place to discuss why you are generally only removing critical information about Landmark - the issue isn't that you are standing out because you are cleaning up a mess, it is that you are standing out because your recent edits have involved large-scale deletions of huge sections of articles, without any prior discussion. My objection isn't to you as an editor, but to your disruptive editing style. Do you really need to have related articles deleted? DOn't you think they could benefit from an addition of content? And removing such large portions of articles isn't constructive - you could tag the content you find objectionable, and discuss why you find it so in the talk page, instead of forcing other editors to follow up behind you and salvage the wreck you have left behind you. Blanket reverts are because you make so many small incremental deletions, that it is infeasible for other editors to go in after the fact and restore content - this is why there is a tagging and discussion system. It isn't my place to say whether or not you have a COI in this matter, but the removal of all the critical content in the past few days does raise questions. Zambelo; talk 18:37, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

• My apologies, I did not understand that we were discussing the content I was removing. From the section heading (Conflict of Interest?), I thought your questions were about my motivations.

"...you are generally only removing critical information about Landmark..." - I do not have an eye toward removing critical information, I have an eye to following the sources and our policies regarding the use of those sources. In the case of this (Landmark Worldwide) article, the material I removed was generally from a bulk insert that was made of material that had previously been removed after extensive discussion. As an aside, you will find if you look back at the history from that discussion and the related edits that I added a substantial amount (though not the majority) of the material that consensus later found should be removed. The correct action for others would have been to not insert that bulk of text without discussion (as, again, prior consensus less than 12 months ago was to remove the same text). I went through it source-by-source and removed or rewrote or added to neutrally represent the sources within the confines of our policies. So, let's be clear here that I did not remove a huge section of this article without prior discussion.

"...your disruptive editing style." - I strongly dispute that I have a disruptive editing style (again, this is about me - not the content, but...). I am confident that anyone reviewing page histories, talk pages, boards, etc. would agree that I work collaboratively and without prejudice for content. With one exception, I have not used revert more than one time. I make a change, someone reverts it, and I go discuss. That's how editing is supposed to work here - not mass reversions without regard for what is being accomplished.

"Do you really need to have related articles deleted?" - First, this is not the talk page of those articles. But, yes - if the article does not meet our standards then it should be deleted or at least have a discussion about deletion. PROD and AfD are two tools we have at our disposal to force that conversation to take place (PROD not so much in reality, but you get the point).

"Don't you think they could benefit from an addition of content?" - Sometimes yes, and my edit history reflects that. If the article subject does not at least meet WP:GNG though, there isn't much point hanging more onto it. If there aren't reliable secondary sources to establish Notability, then there aren't - no matter how many times the same primary sources get copied around.

"you make so many small incremental deletions" - Which is it, large scale deletions or small incremental deletions? I almost never remove large portions of an article at once. I work through the article source by source, point by point. Sometimes adding, correcting, and then still finding that it needs to go. I also perform the edits in small pieces to facilitate discussion (it's MUCH easier to point to a diff of a single line or two with edit summaries and everything than it is to point to a diff of a giant chunk). Sometime a whole chunk needs to go (all sourced together or just in the wrong place entirely, for example). I believe that performing a series of smaller edits is the preferred style particularly in frequently edited articles, but please let me know if I am wrong.

"...this is why there is a tagging and discussion system." - in most cases of my edits you will find that either something has been tagged for a long period of time (in some of the "related" articles, tagged for 7 years) and not addressed OR you will find that the discussion already took place (and I attempt to reference that in the edit summary).

"It isn't my place to say whether or not you have a COI in this matter..." - You are correct, it isn't. I do feel that I have addressed that question above though.

Thank you --Tgeairn (talk) 20:02, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Arbitration request

An editor has made a request for arbitration on issues related to this article here: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Issues_related_to_Landmark_Worldwide. DaveApter (talk) 13:33, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Nonsensical "religious" characterisation

The following paragraph is completely inappropriate to the lead and I am removing it:

"Landmark's programs have been categorized by some scholars and others as religious or quasi-religious in nature, an has been referred to as a cult. Landmark and many of the company's customers deny such characterizations, while some researchers question that chategorization as well." (sic)

This issue was talked to death at the RfC last year Talk:List_of_new_religious_movements/Archive_2#Rfc_regarding_Landmark_Worldwide, and the conclusion was that the case for there being any justification for describing Landmark as religious was tenuous to non-existent. I am also removing the misleading sub-head 'Disputed religious character', and would suggest that the paragraph following that needs a serious clean-up too. DaveApter (talk) 14:10, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

• No, it's not. It's sourced later, is neutrally worded, and you need to quit removing such sourced, neutrally-worded material. LHM^{ask me a question} 14:15, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Well, I'm not going to get into an edit war over it. The fact is that it is not "well sourced". Anyone who actually looks up the refs will find that none of them have any detailed discussion of Landmark or any sign of actually having studied it in any detail whatsoever, and it is merely mentioned in passing or included in a list with other completely non-related groups without comment or justification. The final clause 'and has been referred to as a cult' is not well supported by any detail later in the article to justify such an inflammatory claim. The second sentence is dubious - it simply isn't the case that "many of the company's customers deny such characterizations," - the notion wouldn't even occur to them and they would be bemused by the suggestion if it were ever put to them. DaveApter (talk) 14:43, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree given the lack of quality of the source that the inclusion represents undue weight. Chillum Need help? Type {{ping|Chillum}} 14:49, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

• Of course you do. That's not shocking at all. LHM^{ask me a question} 14:54, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
• For the record, that fact has, quite literally, SEVEN sources. LHM^{ask me a question} 14:56, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps we need a "Disputed flat topology" section in the Earth article, perhaps something like:

"Some scholars have categorized the Earth as flat, planar, or quasi-Euclidean. Other observers have noted relationships between the surface and a billiard table, including a lack of flatness in the oceans and the compatibility of the shape with existing curves. Others, such as ------, classify Earth as either quasi-curved or spherical with some elements of flatness." DaveApter (talk) 17:58, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

To conform with Wikipedia style guideline on the Lead

According to WP:LEAD:

"The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies. The notability of the article's subject is usually established in the first few sentences. The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources."

There is no way that the fact that a few mentions in passing amount to an important point, or that it's a prominent controversy, so I am removing that sentence. DaveApter (talk) 17:20, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Recent news articles

• Rusnell, Charles; Jennie Russell (2014-10-15). "AHS employee complaint over Landmark seminars sparks review". CBC News. Retrieved 2014-10-25.
• Rusnell, Charles; Jennie Russell (2014-10-15). "Alberta Health Services staff pressured to attend controversial seminars". CBC News. Retrieved 2014-10-25.
• Rusnell, Charles; Jennie Russell (2014-10-18). "Alberta Health Services hired 'coach' to implement Landmark ideology". CBC News. Retrieved 2014-10-25.

Dropping them here for review. AndroidCat (talk) 23:59, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Conflict of interest

LHM added the COI tag[17], apparently as a result of this discussion about DaveApter. I'd like to point out that DaveApter has not been a "major contributor" to the article (and in fact has far fewer recent edits than pretty much anyone else involved with the article), and that DaveApter has clearly stated several times that they are not promoting or editing in any way that provides a benefit or gain for themselves, their employers, their friends, or family (in other words, that there is not a WP:COI). I don't see anything here that rises to a COI, let alone tagging the article as such. Even if DaveApter has a COI, he is not a major contributor to the article and has not edited it substantially since an independent review and RFC found the article to be neutrally written. --Tgeairn (talk) 05:34, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

• DaveApter has offered carefully worded "denials" that specifically do not address the primary Landmark employeees: volunteers. When asked straight out whether or not he has ever been a Landmark "volunteer", he refused to answer. I find that concerning enough to place a COI tag on the article. LHM^{ask me a question} 05:41, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Given that you believe DaveApter to have a COI (I remain unconvinced), how do you suggest the issue be addressed? The article is largely unchanged since the RFC, and perhaps even less "pro-Landmark". What do you propose? --Tgeairn (talk) 06:08, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

No doubt the current Arbitration case will eventually settle the matter of whether or not I have a conflict of interest. I am certain that nothing in my past relationship with Landmark constitutes such a conflict and I think I have voluntarily disclosed enough to make that clear. I am not aware that the arbitration process requires me to respond to impertinent cross-examination from self-appointed interrogators. The COI amd NPOV tags were removed after discussion here by a number of uninvolved editors including Drmies and Begoon. What is the justification for re-inserting them? DaveApter (talk) 11:07, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Given that you refuse to answer a very straightforward question, I think we have our answer. If anyone asked of me, "Have you ever volunteered for Landmark?" the answer would be a quick and simple "no." Not a convoluted, tortured "denial" that didn't deny anything at all about the actual question. I think it's fairly clear now that you have worked for Landmark in a volunteer capacity which, given the way Landmark uses volunteers to do the jobs that regular employees normally do, constitutes a very clear COI. LHM^{ask me a question} 13:59, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Wiki-lawyering answers to straightforward questions certainly are not particularly likely to make anyone think that the individuals involved are really playing fair according to the rules, but I myself have reservations about adding the tag at this juncture. It seems to me fairly likely that there will be a decision fairly soon, and if there is a finding of fact in the ruling that would indicate that such a tag is warranted, that would certainly be grounds for adding the tag. Should there be no such finding of fact, I would think that it might not be unreasonable to remove the tag.

The essential problem with this content seems to me to be the probably excessive number of articles related to est and its various subsequent incarnations, and how to turn them into a more reasonable and probably shorter group of articles. I'm not sure exactly how to do that right now, and I have a feeling that it would probably be easiest all around if we waited until a decision is made before trying to take that on. John Carter (talk) 16:14, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

I've actually decided to go ahead and remove the COI tag, for now. My view that DA likely has a significant COI with regards to this article hasn't changed, but I thought it might be best to wait and see what the Arbcom decision has to say on the entire matter before deciding whether such a tag is necessary and appropriate. LHM^{ask me a question} 21:30, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

I can confirm that am not an employee of Landmark (compensated or uncompensated) and never have been. John Carter's "evidence" doesn't establish that, not even "circumstantially" (not likely that it would since it is not the case). Nor does it indicate that I have any insider knowledge of Landmark's affairs. Neither does my refusal to respond to the baiting justify any presumption of guilt. DaveApter (talk) 15:03, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

That wasn't the question, though, Dave. The question is: have you ever volunteered with Landmark? That's a fairly straightforward question, which can be simply answered "yes" or "no." LHM^{ask me a question} 15:10, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

WP:IDHT might seem to reasonably apply in some way here. John Carter (talk) 17:08, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Proposed merger

At Talk:Landmark Education litigation#Proposed merge with Landmark Worldwide a discussion has been started about merging that article with this one. John Carter (talk) 13:49, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Merge from Voyage au pays des nouveaux gourous

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Since I was pinged, I'll clarify. When I !voted "Delete...merge any worthwhile content here", I meant exactly that. It certainly was not my intention that the content from that article be inserted en masse, overwhelming this article. The suggestion of a well-worded and carefully sourced paragraph above was what I had in mind as the outcome of that, really. Looking at what is there now - to me, that's too much. Maybe around a third of that would seem balanced. The suggested version [18] does, indeed seem fairly close to the level of merge I anticipated. Begoon ^talk 01:41, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
  • I did some cutting, and I have a very solid rationale: WP:RS. Nothing that I cut was reliably sourced. Drmies (talk) 01:42, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Landmark's community efforts

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

• I'd like to say how delighted I am that at long last some genuinely uninvolved editors have stepped in to clean up this mess. The article still has way to go, but I'd say the current version (Revision as of 02:03, 30 September) is the best it's ever been so far.
• I'd also like to give a bit of historical perspective for those coming newly to this topic. Originally the article as created was a blatant advocacy piece by anti-Landmark propagandists, as you can see from this version from 2004: [[19]], shortly before I began editing here.
• Also a clarification regarding the history of the “Reviews and Criticisms” section – originally it was headed something like “Criticisms and controversies”, and was completely stuffed with anti-landmark opinions. The more positive quotes that had been added over the years were not intended (by me anyway) to turn it into a pro-Landmark advocacy page, but rather to provide some balance by giving a range of the various opinions on the subject. But I'd always felt that the whole thing was unsatisfactory an I welcome the improvements made by Drmies and Begoon in this latest crop of edits.
• Finally I request that some of the uninvolved editors take a look at the vexed question of “Religious characteristics”. Personally I don't think that this should be in the article at all. From my own attempts to wade through the welter of refs that Astynax has provided, none of them appear to have made any detailed specific study of Landmark (or even of est, which is what most of them were talking about), or even to have discussed it at any length, or delivered a considered judgement. All that they did was make some passing mention of it. Even if it does merit some mention in the article, it certainly doesn't call for a paragraph in the lead – as I argued above. Yet Astynax immediately reverted that removal without any attempt to answer my points.
• Personally I'm stepping back now from editing the article itself for a couple of weeks at least and leave it to others, but I'll probably have more to say in the debate here. Thanks. DaveApter (talk) 09:51, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Frankly, Dave, I don't see much of a problem with the "Religious characteristics" section, or its mention in the lead. The section itself seems well balanced. Many of the sources are summarised above, in the "in summary" section ^(permalink), and it certainly seems significant enough, indeed necessary, to cover in the article, if we are to achieve balance. The lead summarises the article, so it needs to be there. Some readers only view the lead when visiting a page, and to remove it would do them a disservice, and contravene WP:LEDE. This certainly should not be a hit-piece, nor, equally, should it omit relevant, well sourced "criticism" or academic views on the topic. Begoon ^talk 10:16, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Religious characteristics"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Proposed decision template

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

Case closed

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

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

In summary, the key points are:

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

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

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

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

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

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