Misplaced Pages

Talk:Landmark Worldwide: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 20:47, 6 September 2014 editAstynax (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers11,921 editsm →In summary: exp← Previous edit Revision as of 22:32, 6 September 2014 edit undoLithistman (talk | contribs)Pending changes reviewers4,072 edits →RFC: Has the neutrality of this article been improved or degraded by recent wholesale changes?: ludicrousNext edit →
Line 180: Line 180:
#Have the mass edits by ] ] reduced bias or increased it? #Have the mass edits by ] ] reduced bias or increased it?
#Is the conduct on this talk page (especially that of ] and ], but not limited to them) in violation of the ]? ] (]) 12:58, 6 September 2014 (UTC) #Is the conduct on this talk page (especially that of ] and ], but not limited to them) in violation of the ]? ] (]) 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. ''']'''<sup>'']''</sup> 22:32, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Revision as of 22:32, 6 September 2014

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Landmark Worldwide article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32Auto-archiving period: 30 days 
The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.
This page is not a forum for general discussion about personal discussions about the subject. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about personal discussions about the subject at the Reference desk.
Peace dove with olive branch in its beakPlease stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.
This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconPsychology Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconBusiness Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Business, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of business articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BusinessWikipedia:WikiProject BusinessTemplate:WikiProject BusinessWikiProject Business
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconCompanies
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Companies, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of companies on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CompaniesWikipedia:WikiProject CompaniesTemplate:WikiProject Companiescompany
???This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Companies To-do:

 Here are some tasks awaiting attention:
WikiProject iconEducation
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Education, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of education and education-related topics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EducationWikipedia:WikiProject EducationTemplate:WikiProject Educationeducation
???This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

To-do list for Landmark Worldwide: edit · history · watch · refresh · Updated 2024-10-08


Here are some tasks awaiting attention:
  • Article requests : Add some images with detailed fair-use rationale, or if possible, some free images, to the article.
  • Cleanup : Cleanup and format all citations as per Misplaced Pages:Citation templates.
  • Copyedit : Copyedit grammar, paraphrasing quotations where appropriate.
  • Expand : Expand and add to the article from the citations currently cited in the See Also and References sections.
  • Update : Add information/expand from more recent citations in secondary sources, if known/available.
  • Other : Partial list of sources with relevant material in cite format...
    • Journalism
    • Sociology
      • Arweck, Elisabeth (2004). Researching New Religious Movements: Responses and Redefinitions. Leiden: Brill. ISBN 0203642376.
      • Aupers, Stef (2005). "'We Are All Gods': New Age in the Netherlands 1960-2000". In Sengers, Erik (ed.). The Dutch and Their Gods: Secularization and Transformation of Religion in the Netherlands. Studies in Dutch Religious History. Vol. 3. Hilversum: Verloren. p. 193. ISBN 9065508678.
      • Barker, Eileen (2005). "New Religious Movements in Europe". In Jones, Lindsay (ed.). Encyclopedia of Religion. Detroit: Macmillan Reference. ISBN 9780028657431.
      • Beckford, James A.; Levasseur, Martine (1986). "New Religious movements in Western Europe". In Beckford, James A. (ed.). New Religious Movements and Rapid Social Change. London: Sage/UNESCO. ISBN 92-3-102-402-7.
      • 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.
      • George D. Chryssides (2001). Historical Dictionary of New Religious Movements. Lanham, Maryland: Scarecrow. ISBN 0810840952.
      • Clarke, Peter B. (2006). New Religions in Global Perspective: A Study of Religious Change in the Modern World. Abingdon: Routledge. pp. 11, 102–103. ISBN 9780415257480.
      • Cresswell, Jamie; Wilson, Bryan, eds. (1999). New Religious Movements. Routledge. p. 35. ISBN 0415200504.
      • Greeley, Andrew M. (1995). Sociology and Religion: a Collection of Readings. London: HarperCollins. p. 299. ISBN 0065018818.
      • Hammer, Olav; Rothstein, Mikael, eds. (2012). The Cambridge Companion to New Religious Movements. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press. pp. 19, 45. ISBN 9780521145657.
      • Helas, Paul (1991). "Western Europe: Self Religion". In Clarke, Peter; Sutherland, Stewart (eds.). The World's Religions: The Study of Religion, Traditional and New Religion. London: Routledge. ISBN 0-415-06432-5.
      • Wallis, Roy (1991). "North America". In Clarke, Peter; Sutherland, Stewart (eds.). The World's Religions: The Study of Religion, Traditional and New Religion. London: Routledge. ISBN 0-415-06432-5.
      • Jenkins, Philip (2000). Mystics and Messiahs: Cults and New Religions in American History. London: Oxford University Press. p. 180. ISBN 0195127447.
      • Kurtz, Lester R. (2007). Gods in the Global Village: The World's Religions in Sociological Perspective. Thousand Oaks, California: Pine Forge. p. 219. ISBN 9781412927154.
      • Lewis, James R. (2004). The Encyclopedic Sourcebook of New Age Religions. Prometheus Books. p. 187. ISBN 1591020409.
      • 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: 225–254. ISSN 2041-9511.
      • Lockwood, Renee D. (June 2012). "Pilgrimages to the Self: Exploring the Topography of Western Consumer Spirituality through 'the Journey'". Literature & Aesthetics. 22 (1). Sydney, New South Wales: Sydney Society of Literature and Aesthetics: 111, 125. ISSN 1036-9368.
      • Nelson, Geoffrey K. (1987). Cults, New Religions and Religious Creativity. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. ISBN 0-7102-0855-3.
      • Palmer, Dominic (2011). The New Heretics of France. New York: Oxford University Press. pp. 27, 160–161, 186. ISBN 9780199735211.
      • Parsons, Gerald (1993). "Expanding the religious spectrum: New Religious Movements in Modern Britain". In Parsons, Gerald (ed.). The Growth of Religious Diversity: Britain from 1945: Volume 1 Traditions. Abingdon and New York: Routledge. ISBN 0415083265.
      • 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.
      • Roof, Wade Clark; McKinney, William, eds. (1987). American Mainline Religion: Its Changing Shape and Future. New Brunswick, New Jersey: Rutgers University Press. p. 245. ISBN 0813512158.
      • Rupert, Glenn A. (1992). Lewis, James R.; Melton, J. Gordon (eds.). Perspectives on the New Age. Albany, New York: SUNY Press. p. 130. ISBN 079141213X.
      • Siegler, Elijah (2004). "Marketing Lazaris". In Lewis, James R. (ed.). The Encyclopedic Sourcebook of New Age Religions. Amherst, New York: Prometheus. ISBN 1591020409.
      • Taliaferro, Charles; Harrison, Victoria S.; Goetz, Stewart, eds. (2012). The Routledge Companion to Theism. Routledge. p. 123. ISBN 9780415881647.
      • Wuthnow, Robert (1986). "Religious movements in North America". In Beckford, James A. (ed.). New Religious Movements and Rapid Social Change. London: Sage/UNESCO. ISBN 92-3-102-402-7.
      • York, Michael (1995). The Emerging Network: A Sociology of the New Age and Neo-pagan Movements. Lanham, Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield. pp. 55–57. ISBN 0847680010.
    • History
      • Roth, Matthew (2011). "Coming Together: The Communal Option". In Carlsson, Chris; Elliott, Lisa Ruth (eds.). Ten Years That Shook the City: San Francisco 1968-1978. San Francisco: City Lights. pp. 201–202. ISBN 9781931404129.
      • Sandbrook, Dominic (2012). Mad As Hell: The Crisis of the 1970s and the Rise of the Populist Right. New York: Anchor Books. pp. 168–169. ISBN 9781400077243.
    • Religion and philosophy
      • Collins, Gary R. (1998). The Soul Search: A Spiritual Journey to Authentic Intimacy with God. Nashville: Thomas Nelson. ISBN 0785274111.
      • Evans, Jules (2013). Philosophy for Life and Other Dangerous Situations. Novato, California: New World Library. pp. 135–142. ISBN 9781608682294.
      • Hexham, Irving (1993). The Concise Dictionary of Religion. Vancouver, B.C.: Regent College Publishing. pp. 75–76. ISBN 1573831204.
      • Hexham, Irving (2002). Pocket Dictionary of New Religious Movements. Downers Grove, Illinois: IVP Academic. p. 47. ISBN 0830814663.
      • Kyle, Richard (1993). Religious Fringe: A History of Alternative Religions in America. Downers Grove, Illinois: Intervarsity. ISBN 0830817662. Est is no ordinary California cult. Rather, as John Clark points out, it is 'a form of secular salvation.' It is 'secular' because it is not identified with any formal religion. In fact, est denies being a religion at all. Yet est does propound a worldview and does have religious overtones. Since its purpose is to alter one's epistemology and instill a monistic or pantheistic belief in impersonal divinity, est qualifies as religious in the expansive use of the term.
      • Richardson, James T. (1998). "est (THE FORUM)". In Swatos, Jr., William H. (ed.). Encyclopedia of Religion and Society. Walnut Creek, California: AltaMira. pp. 167–168. ISBN 0761989560.
      • Saliba, John A. (2003). Understanding New Religious Movements. Walnut Creek, California: Rowman Altamira. p. 88. ISBN 9780759103559.
      • Smith, Jonathan Z., ed. (1995). HarperCollins Dictionary of Religion. New York: HarperSanFrancisco. pp. 343, 365, 795. ISBN 0060675152.
      • Vitz, Paul C. (1994). Psychology as Religion: The Cult of Self-worship. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans. pp. 26–28. ISBN 0802807259.
      • Young, Wendy Warren (1987). "The Aims and Methods of 'est' and 'The Centres Network'". In Clarke, Peter Bernard (ed.). The New Evangelists: Recruitment Methods and Aims of New Religious Movements. London: Ethnographica. pp. 134–147. ISBN 0905788605.
    • Business
      • Atkin, Douglas (2004). "What Is Required of a Belief System?". The Culting of Brands: Turn Your Customers Into True Believers. New York: Penguin/Portfolio. p. 101. ISBN 9781591840275.
      • Black, Jonathan (2006). Yes You Can!: Behind the Hype and Hustle of the Motivation Biz. New York: Bloomsbury. p. 133. ISBN 9781596910003.
      • Hayes, Dennis (1989). Behind the Silicon Curtain: The Seductions of Work in a Lonely Era. Boston: South End Press. pp. 120–121. ISBN 0896083500.
      • Ries, Al (2005). Focus: The Future of Your Company Depends on It. New York: HarperCollins. p. 164. ISBN 9780060799908.
      • Sosik, John J. (2006). Leading with Character: Stories of Valor and Virtue and the Principles They Teach. Greenwich, Connecticut: Information Age. pp. 16–17. ISBN 9781593115418.
      • Wildflower, Leni (2013). The Hidden History of Coaching. Maidenhead: McGraw-Hill. p. 101. ISBN 9780335245406.
    • Psychiatry and psychology
      • 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)
      • Brewer, Mark (August 1975). "We're Gonna Tear You Down and Put You Back Together". Psychology Today. 9. New York: Sussex: 35–39.
      • Chappell, Clive; Rhodes, Carl; Solomon, Nicky; Tennant, Mark; Yates, Lyn, eds. (2003). Reconstructing the Lifelong Learner: Pedagogy and Identity in Individual, Organisational and Social Change. London: RoutledgeFalmer. pp. 94–106. ISBN 0415263484.
      • Colman, Andrew M. (2009). A Dictionary of Psychology. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press. pp. 260, 412. ISBN 9780199534067.
      • Conway, Flo; Siegelman, Jim (1995). Snapping: America's Epidemic of Sudden Personality Change. New York: Stillpoint. pp. 15–18. ISBN 0964765004.
      • Eisner, Donald A. (2000). The Death of Psychotherapy: From Freud to Alien Abductions. Westport, Connecticut: Praeger. p. 60. ISBN 0275964132.
      • Farber, Sharon Klayman (2012). Hungry for Ecstasy: Trauma, the Brain, and the Influence of the Sixties. Lanham, Maryland: Jason Aronson/Rowman & Littlefield. pp. 131, 134, 139. ISBN 9780765708588.
      • Galanter, Marc (1989). Cults and New Religious Movements. American Psychiatric Association. p. 31. ISBN 0890422125.
      • Gastil, John (2010). The Group in Society. Thousand Oaks and London: SAGE. pp. 226–227. ISBN 9781412924689.
      • Klar, Yechiel; Mendola, Richard; Fisher, Jeffrey D.; Silver, Roxane Cohen; Chinsky, Jack M.; Goff, Barry (1990). "Characteristics of Participants in a Large Group Awareness Training". Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology. 58 (1). Washington, D.C.: American Psychological Association: 99–108. ISSN 0022-006X.
      • Klar, Yechiel; Mendola, Richard; Fisher, Jeffrey D.; Silver, Roxane Cohen; Chinsky, Jack M.; Goff, Barry (1990). Evaluating a Large Group Awareness Training. New York: Springer-Verlag. ISBN 0387973206. (full study)
      • Koocher, Gerald P.; Keith-Spiegel, Patricia (2008). Ethics in Psychology and the Mental Health Professions: Standards and Cases. New York: Oxford University Press. p. 151. ISBN 9780195149111.
      • Moskowitz, Eva S. (2001). In Therapy We Trust: America's Obsession with Self Fulfillment. Baltimore, Maryland: John Hopkins University Press. pp. 236–239. ISBN 0801864038.
      • Oakes, Len (1997). Prophetic Charisma: The Psychology of Revolutionary Religious Personalities. Syracuse, New York: Syracuse University Press. pp. 51, 189. ISBN 0815627009.
      • Paris, Joel (2013). Psychotherapy in an Age of Narcissism: Modernity, Science, and Society. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. pp. 20–21. ISBN 9780230336964.
      • Rubinstein, Gidi (2005). "Characteristics of participants in the Forum, psychotherapy clients, and control participants: A comparative study". Psychology and Psychotherapy: Theory, Research and Practice (78). Leicester: British Psychological Society: 481–492.
      • Zimbardo, Philip; Andersen, Susan (1995). "Understanding Mind Control: Exotic and Mundane Mental Manipulations". In Michael, Langone (ed.). Recovery from Cults. New York: Norton. ISBN 0393313212.

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 Misplaced Pages 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 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 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 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages'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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 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 Misplaced Pages'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 Misplaced Pages 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 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 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 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 Misplaced Pages 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 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 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 Misplaced Pages, and seems to be little more than an attempt to stifle debate before it even starts. LHM 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 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 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 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 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 18:43, 3 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 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 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/search/?title=Talk:Landmark_Worldwide&diff=prev&oldid=571452948
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 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/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 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 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 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 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 revisions are not appropriate, nor have they been discussed here, despite any statement to the contrary. Misplaced Pages 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 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 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 made nothing remotely approaching a 3000 word edit here. The use of the word "controversy" was indeed sourced; I even included a quote from one of the references. • Astynax 20:00, 6 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 21:02, 5 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. Misplaced Pages 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 with . 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 20:45, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

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

Please consider joining the feedback request service.
An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following list: When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the list. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.
  1. Was the state of the article at 27th July ] such as to justify the placement of an 'Advert' tag or a 'npov' tag?
  2. Have the mass edits by Astynax ] 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 22:32, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
Categories: