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 21:34, 3 September 2013 editAnonNep (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users4,074 edits →Controversies & 2008 case: Response← Previous edit Revision as of 01:35, 4 September 2013 edit undoNwlaw63 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users3,040 edits →Please discuss here before making contentious changes to this articleNext edit →
Line 144: Line 144:
::: 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). ] (]) 20:34, 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). ] (]) 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." ] <sup>]</sup> 08:18, 3 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." ] <sup>]</sup> 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. Misplaced Pages'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! ] (]) 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 ] and ]. While a number of sources have also been added, I question whether these sources ] the ] 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. --] (]) 16:16, 3 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 ] and ]. While a number of sources have also been added, I question whether these sources ] the ] 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. --] (]) 16:16, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Revision as of 01:35, 4 September 2013

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 

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.
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.
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.

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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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)

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 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 Misplaced Pages (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/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 Misplaced Pages: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 - Misplaced Pages: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)

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 Misplaced Pages:Logos guideline, and will be ok unless Landmark objects. Is that correct? DaveApter (talk) 10:13, 3 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 10:57, 1 September 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)

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/Hasty_generalization Jasonfward (talk) 16:22, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

There are two significant issues the Misplaced Pages 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 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. Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages - Misplaced Pages 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)

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)

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 (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. Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages, 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 Misplaced Pages 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. And, a later report which references the 2008 controversy. (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 Misplaced Pages'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. 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 Misplaced Pages'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 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. Misplaced Pages'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)
Categories: