Talk:Landmark Worldwide
![]() | The following Wikipedia contributor has declared a personal or professional connection to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view. |
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. |
![]() | Please 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 is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | Voyage au pays des nouveaux gourous was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 23 September 2014 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into Landmark Worldwide. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here. |
|
Non-verifiable claim
[edit]The statement "Landmark paid Erhard $3 million as an initial licensing fee, with additional payments over the next 18 years not to exceed $15 million." fails WP:V since it merely quotes the assertion made by the author of the NY Magazine article, who provides no reference or citation for the claim and therefore does not qualify as a reliable secondary source. Furthermore, this accusation is explicitly denied in sworn court documents from Landmark's legal counsel. DaveApter (talk) 13:44, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
- It is not clear which of those claim you disagree with. We have consensus that the NY Magazine is a reliable source. It is not an "accusation". You can pay a lawyer to say whatever. Polygnotus (talk) 18:56, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
- https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/84/1994_Ney_v_Landmark_Education_Werner_Erhard_WEA.pdf page 2 Polygnotus (talk) 19:08, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
- https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Ney_v._Landmark_Education_Corporation_and_Werner_Erhard
- The parties calculated the value of WE&A's assets at $ 8,600,000. Landmark also acquired Erhard's stock in WE&AII, which was valued at $ 1,200,000. Landmark agreed, as payment for the WE&A assets and WE&AII stock, to assume liabilities in the amount of $ 6,800,000 and to pay an additional $ 3 million to Erhard. The agreedon downpayment of $ 300,000 was paid out of the account of WE&AII, whose stock was sold to Landmark. The $ 2,700,000 balance was to be paid by January 30, 1992, but payment was later extended and the due date delayed.
- Landmark obtained from Erhard a license to present the Forum for 18 years in the United States and internationally with the exception of Japan and Mexico. Erhard retained ownership of the license. The license was not assignable without Erhard's express written consent, and was to revert to Erhard after 18 years.
- Furthermore, under the Agreement, Erhard was promised 2% of Landmark's gross revenues payable on a monthly basis and, in addition, 50% of the net (pre-tax) profit payable quarterly. Such payments to Erhard were not to exceed a total payment of $ 15 million over the 18 year term of the license.
- Polygnotus (talk) 02:15, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
- Wikipedia itself, seeks to uncover a coveted business sale, for which, the details were made public by their legal council, and also thoroughly researched and published by its fervent and vehement detractors, and Wikipedia asks, in this rare case to second source for the information. You cannot ask them directly, No one else is party to the agreement. No one else would be able to verify it so it is hearsay, and needs to be removed, if not for the fact that the information is published on Wikipedia. Did anyone care to look?
- The source itself is a copy of a publicly available court filing, handed to a Judge in New Jersey, and published on Wikipedia.
- Simple reading folks can go a long way to resolving these types of bias and close the huge gap in credibility.
- Please help Wikipedia close the credibility gap.
- To wit:
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Werner_Erhard
- "But Arthur Schreiber's declaration of May 3, 2005 states: "Landmark Education has never paid Erhard under the license agreements (he assigned his rights to others)." it says: "[non-primary source needed]"
- and then the non primary source is literally printed on Wikipedia itself.
- It may help to know just who Arthur Schreiber is.
- The reference is "Declaration filed May 5, 2005 at the US District Court of New Jersey, civil action 04-3022 (JCL)"
- Which is in fact ON Wikipedia.
- A copy of this very declaration is available on Wikipedia itself.
- https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:2005_Landmark_v_Ross_May_5_Landmark_letter_to_Judge_Falk.pdf
- It may also help to start to read the thousands of sources of information that does not support your personal POV.
- My main intention of participating on Wikipedia was to have it reflect reality, and it was clearly stated multiple times, in the rejection of my application for admin, that reality is not the aim, so much is sacrificed for edification and simplification, for which both of my interests have been subjected to the very worst concerted attacks, God forbid a virgin writes an article about sex or an agnostic writes about Religion.
- "Many forms of Buddhism stress divinities, but because Zen does not, Zen is often called a spiritual philosophy rather than a religion. The focus is on self-realization by transforming the psychological structure of the mind." which actually in fact is the most apt description I have heard of the training at Landmark, with the important exception that the contents of the courses change faster than computer technology, much faster. 158.51.81.86 (talk) 17:58, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
- Where is your Requests for adminship? Polygnotus (talk) 18:47, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
- I deleted them long ago, but since you asked, another IP I had was 207.53.252.58.
- Still looking for any citation on 'My style.' Sorry If I appear rude, some people walk away, others, like George Gallowy call disinformation "Howlers" and others like the people who authored "Everything you know is wrong." despite enormous amounts of studies, science, proof... just gave up.
- I vacillate between indifference, and a brewing annoyance.
- Reality, and our relationship to it, makes a difference: Both George Galloway, and Landmark Worldwide both have a significant disinformation, and a large collection of people who are committed to using what ever tool they can find, to discredit them. When you provide people freedom, you instantly create enemies of the people who want to control them.
- I have a degree in Math, and have lectured at NASA Ames, and MSRI. 158.51.81.86 (talk) 21:31, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
- My Erdős number is three, I have a second degree of separation from Buckmister Fuller, and met Mr Steven P Jobs 4 times, but Jean Louis Gasse only once. 158.51.81.86 (talk) 21:35, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
- One time I scored a birdie when I was 14. I also own a dozen spoons. I've yet to meet mister Jobs but one time I saw some guy get arrested for stealing which is kinda the same thing. I can count to 25. Ducks are rarely frightened by me. Polygnotus (talk) 21:37, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
- My Erdős number is three, I have a second degree of separation from Buckmister Fuller, and met Mr Steven P Jobs 4 times, but Jean Louis Gasse only once. 158.51.81.86 (talk) 21:35, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
- Where is your Requests for adminship? Polygnotus (talk) 18:47, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
Questioning the reference to cults
[edit]I am relatively new to Wikipedia, but it’s my understanding that the intention behind it was to create a communal resource to capture history; that contributions are meant to be relatively scholarly and neutral – opinions are not only frowned upon, but edited out. In reading this page about Landmark, I am concerned that opinion has intruded in two areas.
First, placing the section “Accusations of being a cult” up high in the article lends a high weight to that section – in effect, expressing an opinion. If it must be included, then shift the section “Accusations of being a cult” to “Reception.” The accusations do exist, and I would leave it up to others to argue their validity.
But more the point, the very use of the term “cult” expresses a point of view that is less than scholarly, as can be seen throughout the Wikipedia article on “Cult” (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cult#Usage_of_the_term_cult), Indeed, the initial sentence “Cult is a term, in most contexts, pejorative” is reiterated throughout the article. Interestingly enough, if Landmark was indeed widely recognized to fit that term, one would expect to see it in the extensive list in the article. And it does not appear. That in and of itself seems to me to be a comment on the inappropriate use of the term to describe a business that’s been a going concern since 1991. Ndeavour (talk) 20:51, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
- Hi, on Wikipedia we follow reliable sources. Wikipedia is not censored. Because reliable sources have often reported on the fact that Landmark is considered a cult we have to include this info in the article. We do include opinions in articles in certain cases, both negative and positive. Polygnotus (talk) 21:21, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
- I once again must mention my lack of editorial skills since I am unable to provide links in my response, but everything I am mentioning comes from following the blue links in the article.
- I find myself questioning your reference to "reliable sources" when, after reading three of the four articles cited, not only was the use of the term "Cult" minimal (an attention grabbing headline that the author explicitly denied; "Having thoroughly researched the company over the past month I have come to the conclusion that they definitely aren’t a cult, despite the weird conversations you tend to have with Landmark advocates.") and with the other two accessible articles making mention that "some have accused..."
- That suggests less-than-rigorous research on the part of whoever did the work. In the next paragraph, the Wiki link to Margaret Singer contains the following: "Singer mentioned Landmark Education in Cults in our Midst; it was unclear whether she labeled Landmark Education as a cult or not. Singer issued a statement stating that she did not intend to call Landmark a cult, nor did she consider it a cult.[25] Singer removed the references to Landmark Education from subsequent editions of the book."
- Thus, I am left questioning your argument instead of simply accepting it. I have reviewed the link to Reliable Sources and my reading suggests the citations are not only NOT reliable sources, but in most cases they seem to violate the Wiki point of view posting that I found. Ndeavour (talk) 17:39, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
- Please read WP:INDENT and WP:SIGN. I left a message on your talkpage, please respond there. There has been rigorous research done on this topic, and Wikipedians have spent far more time on this article than on other articles of similar length and complexity. Do you know why? Because we have a bunch of Landmark supporters who keep creating new accounts and repeating the same talking points over and over again. They did succeed in wasting a lot of time and effort from editors who protect the neutrality of the encyclopedia. It is very sad, because Wikipedians are trying to do something good for this planet and people attack them only because the Wikipedia articles reflect what is written in reliable sources. Margaret Singer got sued for defamation by Landmark. But you knew that already, right? Quote from the article: "She also stated that she would not recommend the group to anyone, and would not comment on whether Landmark used coercive persuasion for fear of legal recrimination from Landmark.". She was 75 years old at the time she got sued. Maybe focus your attention on improving Landmark so that reliable sources describe it more positively so that the Wikipedia article becomes more positive. Wikipedians are not really in control of Wikipedia articles; the reliable sources are. Stop doing stuff that could be perceived as cultish. Feed the hungry. Help the poor. Make sure reliable sources report on it. Polygnotus (talk) 17:48, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
- I recently read parts of Heaven's Gate's website, heavensgate.com, and they were also really opposed to, and offended by, being called a cult. Polygnotus (talk) 18:18, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
- Ndeavour makes several valid points. Clearly the issue of whether Landmark is a "Cult" is a matter of opinion rather than fact. Therefore the guidelines at WP:OPINION would be relevant. These state: "...the article should represent the POVs of the main scholars and specialists who have produced reliable sources on the issue." None of the sources referenced are from "scholars and specialists" - but rather, they are general interest magazine articles written by journalists with no particular relevant expertise. Furthermore, the guideline goes on to state that:
- "Each POV should be clearly labeled and described, so readers know:
- :::Who advocates the point of view
- :::What their arguments are (supporting evidence, reasoning, etc.)
- None of these sources identify any specific individual who advocates the POV that Landmark is a "Cult", and neither do they provide any indication of any supporting evidence or reasoning etc. Rather they are merely reports of unattributed hearsay or rumour. Furthermore, these articles generally comment that the writer did not find the accusation convincing. Unless sources can be found that named experts support this viewpoint, and indicate their evidence and reasoning, I cannot see that this section is justified in an encyclopedia entry. DaveApter (talk) 15:40, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
- Please stop repeating yourself. The consensus is against you. Reliable sources report on the fact that people consider Landmark to be a cult. Nothing you can say or do here will change what reliable sources say. So you are just wasting time. Polygnotus (talk) 17:09, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
- Have you read the Wiki on the Flat Earth Society, where "reliable sources report on the fact that people consider" the Earth to be flat? I think you would agree (or at least, I hope you would agree) that just because many people share an opinion or point of view does not equate to fact. Judging by the number of cited sources (without even dealing with their validity), a total of six "reliable sources" are noted. But as I noted, three of those sources disclaim the cult label; and Singer explicitly denied it. So 4 of the six say no - yet you continue to maintain a position in the face of unreliable sources. What's your beef, sir? Ndeavour (talk) 16:55, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
- The world is literally flat. That's not a joke by the way. Anyway, that's not how it works. And we both know I can stick 20+ sources in there that all use the word cult. Polygnotus (talk) 16:58, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
- "If I were wrong, then one [author] would have been enough!"
- Einstein’s retort with regard to his theory when he heard that a book titled 100 Authors against Einstein was published in Germany. Quoted in Stephen Hawking, A Brief History of Time (London: Bantam, 1988), 178*
- Um, this is sourced:
- https://books.google.com/books?id=oZhagX6UWOMC&pg=193#v=onepage&q&f=false
- So many instances of things that are just not real about either Mr Erhard or the training. It was found in a court of law in the United States that a group calling Landmark was libelous in calling them a cult, and the group lost more money than they had, so Landmark literally owned them. Not that reality every made even the tiniest slightest difference here, where chest thumping, seems to win the day. Who can scream the loudest. Apprently you feel you can scream the loudest.
- You may not think that a court of law is the definitive reality, since the Holocost and Pi=3 have both been declared legal, but calling Landmark a cult is defamation.
- Here is what George Galloway said about defamation:
- "Now I know that standards have slipped in the last few years in Washington, but for a lawyer you are remarkably cavalier with any idea of justice. I am here today but last week you already found me guilty. You traduced my name around the world without ever having asked me a single question, without ever having contacted me, without ever having written to me or telephoned me, without any attempt to contact me whatsoever, and you call that justice."
- How about looking at sources? There are books FULL of reliable sources. FULL. 100s of them, uncited. Looks like there is both a complete and utter failure of NPV, as well as a lot of vengeful control issues ( and I thought National Geographic had a lot of issues. Whew! ).
- The DESIGN of Landmark is controversial, like air flight, the shape of the Earth, and the educational standards of schools you attended. We get to freely discuss these things in the talk pages in a civil way, not slam the books shut at the truth. 158.51.81.86 (talk) 19:36, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
the educational standards of schools you attended
sick burn bro. Polygnotus (talk) 23:59, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
- The world is literally flat. That's not a joke by the way. Anyway, that's not how it works. And we both know I can stick 20+ sources in there that all use the word cult. Polygnotus (talk) 16:58, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
- For the sake of accuracy, I am not 'repeating myself' - this is the first time that I have drawn attention to this Wikipedia guideline, which is clearly not being followed. None of your sources identify any "scholars and specialists" who advocate the point of view that Landmark is a cult, much less give any indication of what is their "supporting evidence and reasoning". All that any of them do is refer to the fact that various comments have been made by (unspecified and anonymous) commentators, and almost all of them go on to express the opinion of the writer that the assertion is unjustified. The section is clearly undue weight, taking up over 10% of the article with meandering editorialising, when - if it needs to be mentioned at all - a single sentence would suffice. DaveApter (talk) 10:55, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
- For the sake of accuracy, WP:OPINION is an essay, not a guideline. Polygnotus (talk) 13:42, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
- You simply degrade Wikipedia by taking this position. So be it. Take that position, and everyone who argues for the accuracy of Wikipedia can simply be pointed to these fallacies and defamations, and think less both of Wikipedia and you. 158.51.81.86 (talk) 19:39, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
- For the sake of accuracy, WP:OPINION is an essay, not a guideline. Polygnotus (talk) 13:42, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
- Have you read the Wiki on the Flat Earth Society, where "reliable sources report on the fact that people consider" the Earth to be flat? I think you would agree (or at least, I hope you would agree) that just because many people share an opinion or point of view does not equate to fact. Judging by the number of cited sources (without even dealing with their validity), a total of six "reliable sources" are noted. But as I noted, three of those sources disclaim the cult label; and Singer explicitly denied it. So 4 of the six say no - yet you continue to maintain a position in the face of unreliable sources. What's your beef, sir? Ndeavour (talk) 16:55, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass. Polygnotus (talk)
- Please stop repeating yourself. The consensus is against you. Reliable sources report on the fact that people consider Landmark to be a cult. Nothing you can say or do here will change what reliable sources say. So you are just wasting time. Polygnotus (talk) 17:09, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
- Ndeavour makes several valid points. Clearly the issue of whether Landmark is a "Cult" is a matter of opinion rather than fact. Therefore the guidelines at WP:OPINION would be relevant. These state: "...the article should represent the POVs of the main scholars and specialists who have produced reliable sources on the issue." None of the sources referenced are from "scholars and specialists" - but rather, they are general interest magazine articles written by journalists with no particular relevant expertise. Furthermore, the guideline goes on to state that:
- Thus, I am left questioning your argument instead of simply accepting it. I have reviewed the link to Reliable Sources and my reading suggests the citations are not only NOT reliable sources, but in most cases they seem to violate the Wiki point of view posting that I found. Ndeavour (talk) 17:39, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
It should be noted that MANY sources talk about Landmark as being ACCUSED of being a cult, (and in Wikipedia we follow sources) and that is what we are saying in this article, not that they ARE a cult.
We aren't saying IN WIKIVOICE that they ARE a cult, we are instead stating what MULTIPLE RS's say: which is that lots of people have thought of them as a cult (they have a reputation among the public that way). If you don't like that, contact the reporters at the RS's. If they all issue corrections/changes to their articles, than we'll follow the revised sources.
I have not finished working my way through reading the sources in the "Scholars" section, but after I have finished that, a lead statement pertaining to this that I think is appropriate would be something like: "Because of reasons X, Y, and Z, Landmark has been accused of being a cult. (or maybe has a public perception as being a cult) However, sociologists and religious scholars that have studied it have stated that it does not fit the characteristics of a cult, and instead characterize it as a New Religious Movement (NRM), corporate religion, A, B, and a C, or [whatever best summarizes scholars' views]."---Avatar317(talk) 22:48, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
- @Avatar317: I don't think this is an improvement. The sources pretty much all use the word accusation or some variant of that like accused. And not even one percent of the public knows of Landmarks existence. Also, "has had a perception" is very unconventional English (5 results on Google). The only scholar who explicitly said it wasn't a cult did so under duress after having her life threatened, being stalked and sued despite her being an grandmother. See Fair_game_(Scientology). Most experts say it fits some criteria, and not others. Its like the DSM, check X of the Y boxes and the person has been diagnosed. Polygnotus (talk) 19:25, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
- Fair enough, that was my ATTEMPT at improvement, and my wording was definitely poor/clunky. ---Avatar317(talk) 20:38, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
- "The only scholar who explicitly said it wasn't a cult..."
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_C._Jensen
- Dr Michael Jensen worked with Mr Erhard, and published papers. I believe a cited Harvard professor of Economics has a bit more credibility than almost ALL the people at bus stops who claim otherwise.
- https://www.erhardjensen.org/academic-papers/
- Please, go ahead and disparage Michael C. Jenson too. 158.51.81.86 (talk) 19:45, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
- You don't speak ill of the dead. Deirdre McCloskey wrote some interesting stuff https://www.deirdremccloskey.com/docs/pdf/McCloskey_ErhardAndJensenAug2016.pdf And https://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2015/11/the-michael-jensen-to-werner-erhard-connection.html is also interesting. Polygnotus (talk) 21:44, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
- Interesting? Ms McCloskey's writing is severely disingenuous and even more uninformed than usual. It would take years just to begin to clearly show how the enemy of erudition is ignorance.
- "Enter the Harvard economist Michael Jensen. Dr. Jensen, who is famous in financial circles for championing the concepts of shareholder value and executive stock options, had taken a Landmark course in Boston at the suggestion of his daughter, who mended a rocky relationship with Dr. Jensen after taking the course herself."
- That is not what started his interest. Dr Jensen would... well... since your expertise seems to be in digging dirt, why don't you find the real reason? 158.51.81.86 (talk) 17:25, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
- You don't speak ill of the dead. Deirdre McCloskey wrote some interesting stuff https://www.deirdremccloskey.com/docs/pdf/McCloskey_ErhardAndJensenAug2016.pdf And https://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2015/11/the-michael-jensen-to-werner-erhard-connection.html is also interesting. Polygnotus (talk) 21:44, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
- The sock- and meatpuppets will really go wild if you call it an NRM. Landmark being called a New Religious Movement was basically the inciting incident for much of the old drama, if I read the archives correctly. Polygnotus (talk) 19:32, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
- I got that also from reading the archives, but my goal is (AFTER I've finished reading and summarizing the "Scholars" section) to put a one or two sentence summary of scholars' views in the lead, again with whatever best summarizes scholars' views. Properly sourcing and attribution are of course important. ---Avatar317(talk) 20:44, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
- Although much of the previous drama may have come from the fact that the whole article appeared to be written WP:BACKWARDS, where it was almost ALL unsourced, so editors would add whatever statements they wanted to add, and then they (or other editors) would try to find "sources" to back up those statements. ---Avatar317(talk) 20:51, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
- Funny how the cause of something is also sometimes the result of that same thing. It is the feedback loop of shitty Wikipedia articles. The Broken windows theory of Wiki. Bad articles invite bad edits. Polygnotus (talk) 20:57, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
- "Bad articles invite bad edits." - You're absolutely correct. That's why I generally remove unsourced content, even if it makes up the bulk of an article (unless it seems to sourced from some books or academic literature listed but not explicitly cited to each paragraph) because unsourced content invites new editors to add their own unsourced content, ESPECIALLY when most (or large sections) of an article is/are unsourced. ---Avatar317(talk) 22:40, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
- Funny how the cause of something is also sometimes the result of that same thing. It is the feedback loop of shitty Wikipedia articles. The Broken windows theory of Wiki. Bad articles invite bad edits. Polygnotus (talk) 20:57, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
- You say 'meatpuppets' like its a bad thing: I have heard them called blood bags, but only in the kindest and gentlest way. 158.51.81.86 (talk) 17:26, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
Landmark Forum section
[edit]It is my understanding that Wikipedia is about presenting an impartial, balanced view of the subjects it documents. After reviewing the policy guidelines, I cannot see that they rule out the addition of this reference. The company’s terms and conditions are informational, not promotional. Self-published material may be used as a source of information as long as said material is not self-serving. The reference contains no claims referencing third-parties or events, and the article itself is not based on primary sources. Further, ‘onus’ is not relevant here as the reference meets the verifiability requirement. One might reasonably question whether pointing to these policies that have little to do with the reference and its intent amounts to ‘Wiki lawyering.’Coalcity58 (talk) 21:11, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
- 1) Self-sourcing should not be used for contentious info or responses to criticism; it can be used for simple facts, like when the org started and who started it.
- 2) TIMING: The statement you added is falsely leading the reader to the belief that Landmark ALWAYS had that disclaimer on their site. They may have added it some time after the 2011 Time magazine author published their story, IN RESPONSE to the criticism. If that statement was in their TOS when the author wrote the story, he/she would likely have mentioned that. ---Avatar317(talk) 20:20, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
- Why are you making it so hard to add a simple edit to this article? What you've said here is simply inaccurate. There is nothing in the policies you quoted to support the statement. Your first point merely states your own opinion. To the second point, the statement in this firm's terms and conditions is a simple fact, and nothing in the edit attempted to mislead the readers. It's just a statement pointing out that the company has a disclaimer about this. I invite you to declare your interest in this matter. What exactly is going on that has you wish to prevent an edit that contributes to a more balanced view of this organization rather than a negative one? Coalcity58 (talk) 21:29, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
- What is your interest in sourcing material FROM THEIR WEBSITE to try to a rebut a reporter who has criticized them. If you want balance to that statement, find a RS that says something to that effect. ---Avatar317(talk) 00:51, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
- I have no problem answering your question, even though you seem unwilling to answer mine. My interest is in fairness and accuracy. And the material in question is sourced from the Landmark website because that's where it is available. If you know of any other place it's available, please feel free to point it out. Also, one more question: What qualifies you as the arbiter of what is a reliable source? Coalcity58 (talk) 15:41, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
- What is your interest in sourcing material FROM THEIR WEBSITE to try to a rebut a reporter who has criticized them. If you want balance to that statement, find a RS that says something to that effect. ---Avatar317(talk) 00:51, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
- Why are you making it so hard to add a simple edit to this article? What you've said here is simply inaccurate. There is nothing in the policies you quoted to support the statement. Your first point merely states your own opinion. To the second point, the statement in this firm's terms and conditions is a simple fact, and nothing in the edit attempted to mislead the readers. It's just a statement pointing out that the company has a disclaimer about this. I invite you to declare your interest in this matter. What exactly is going on that has you wish to prevent an edit that contributes to a more balanced view of this organization rather than a negative one? Coalcity58 (talk) 21:29, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
- You said:
It is my understanding that Wikipedia is about presenting an impartial, balanced view of the subjects it documents.
You are wrong, Wikipedia is here to present whatever Reliable Sources say about a subject. If the sources are universally critical of the subject, so will be the Wikipedia article. Please see WP:BALANCE ---Avatar317(talk) 00:54, 6 August 2024 (UTC)- Actually Coalcity58 is not "wrong" in stating that Wikipedia is 'about presenting an impartial balanced view': that is simply another way of saying 'Neutral Point of View', which is a central policy here.The two nitpicking responses above reveal a determination on the part of Avatar317 to eliminate any attempts to restore accuracy and balance to the article. Point (1) is irrelevant, since the self-sourced reference is to establish an entirely factual point to correct a misapprehension on the part of the quoted journalist that Landmark was offering some sort of therapy. Incidentally the Time article was broadly positive about Landmark, but readers here would not suspect that as - like much other material on this page - the extracts from the sources have been cherry-picked to fit with Avatar317's viewpoint. Point (2) is simply an assertion of Avatar317's assumption, which is incorrect. Landmark has always made clear that its training is not therapeutic in nature, and this was made clear in its terms long before 2011.
- It is an entirely reasonable request to make that Avatar317 clarify their position with regard to Landmark and to explain their obsessional activity here in making 143 edits in the past few months, including instant reverts to any contribution which counters their position. DaveApter (talk) 12:42, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
Polygnotus (talk) 13:12, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
- That last is an interesting point since the editor didn't seem to have any issue with an earlier edit I made that was critical of Landmark. Coalcity58 (talk) 16:03, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
- More 'lawyering?' Coalcity58 (talk) 15:42, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
- Its called baiting in court, its called edit wars on Wikipedia, and its called nonsensical muttering by educated people.
- "I tame every bear. I make even buffoons behave" -Frederich Nietzsche.
- "What is the Standard Training?" Be a good idea just to ask. What is it?
- "Many accounts of its details and circumstances have been published. The best of these is the novelist Luke Rhienhart's dramatic re-creation in The book of est. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Book_of_est
- "The est Standard training is a new form of participatory theater that incorporates Socratic method, the artful interrogation that is midwife at the birth of consciousness. " -Pg 198ff. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Werner_Erhard_(book)
- I am wondering if I am causing some kind of rift in reality, if I quote sources documented on Wikipedia already? Or do you guys just not read Wikipedia?
- Read.
- Wikipedia. 158.51.81.86 (talk) 19:56, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
- Hm, I recognize your style. Welcome back. What other accountnames and IPs have you used? Polygnotus (talk) 19:58, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
- 158.51.81.86 is not an IP I have used before. What proof do you have? If you are all about the "Truth" and "Facts" much like the wet-behind the ears Senator from Minnesota that questioned Galloway, Sen Norm Coleman, then you can present facts, unless you are allergic. 158.51.81.86 (talk) 17:31, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
- What is your favorite book and why? Polygnotus (talk) 18:05, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
- Interesting. So, exactly how do you know this, and where do you think you've seen this person before? Coalcity58 (talk) 19:06, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
- 158.51.81.86 is not an IP I have used before. What proof do you have? If you are all about the "Truth" and "Facts" much like the wet-behind the ears Senator from Minnesota that questioned Galloway, Sen Norm Coleman, then you can present facts, unless you are allergic. 158.51.81.86 (talk) 17:31, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
- Hm, I recognize your style. Welcome back. What other accountnames and IPs have you used? Polygnotus (talk) 19:58, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
158.51.81.86
[edit]The significance of the lawsuits, are that Landmark Worldwide was accused of being a cult, and regardless that the accusers definition did not include any practices they considered cult-like, (with one important exception, which is left as an intellectual challenge) the accusers continued, and published copy written work. Landmark Worldwide sued them for liable, and won, basically reducing the accusers to bankruptcy. ( Margaret Singer carefully trying to avoid labeling Landmark, but was still a member of the group of accusers ). It should all be in the links, but then again, this is Wikipedia were the loudest voice, no matter how uninformed gets to write the history.
So very little in this article is in fact factual. The only thing is the doors open, people go in, and the doors close. Later the doors open, and people are laughing, so much so that Landmark Worldwide continues to improve their programs much faster than computer technology, and everyone out side the doors, still forms the same old tired uninformed opinions, some dating far back before the training even ever began. To view Landmark education programs as entertainment has the air of simplistic absurdity:
Wikipedia is most-known for "reflecting the bias and influence of media that are seen as reliable due to their dominance, and for being a site of conflict between entrenched or special institutional interests." Can we consider the words 'most-known' to be a weasel word? Subject to manipulation?
"Wikipedia is not a “bad” source, they are not really a source at all."
Margaret Singer lost in court so many times, that despite her legal insignificance, accusers still hold her up as the purported truth, much like the Krimmel painting. "The Village Politicians" by John L. Krimmel Rick Ross, and the Cult Awareness Network, ( now wholly bankrupt, because of the lawsuit ), claims were found to be Libelous, which if the United States legal system was charged with finding facts, which it is not, would have invalidated their claims and opinions, but still the CAN and the detractors are still fervently dragging the disinformation around, were as, Mr Ehard himself just says "The truth when believed is a lie." The hope that you have that Wikipedia will ever find the truth, while irrelevant, is a noble pursuit of a unobtainable goal. Best of luck.
The courses list ONE course, and of course, just in one curriculum, they offer 13.
The closest thing I can find is a meme on 4chan that is a quote from Galatians 4:16: Am I therefore become your enemy, because I tell you the truth?" 158.51.81.86 (talk) 17:00, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
ccusations of Being a Cult & Marketing Practices
[edit]It seems to me the material under the sections 'Accusations of being a cult' and 'Controversial marketing practices' would be more appropriate for presentation under the 'Reception' section.Coalcity58 (talk) 19:04, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
Do the sources even exist to make this article "neutral"?
[edit]Or will it be tagged like this forever? I don't even know if it's tagged due to being pro or anti-landmark. PARAKANYAA (talk) 06:24, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
- Yup, sources exist. Improving this article is not easy. But we also have articles about other controversial subjects. If you read about, for example, Scientology you'll also find that Scientologists are very very very positive about Scientology, and sources unrelated to Scientology are not. Of course, neutrality does not mean bothsidesism; Wikipedia follows reliable sources. Polygnotus (talk) 06:38, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
- Articles with connected contributors
- Wikipedia controversial topics
- C-Class California articles
- Low-importance California articles
- C-Class San Francisco Bay Area articles
- Low-importance San Francisco Bay Area articles
- San Francisco Bay Area task force articles
- WikiProject California articles
- C-Class company articles
- Low-importance company articles
- WikiProject Companies articles
- C-Class education articles
- Low-importance education articles
- WikiProject Education articles
- C-Class psychology articles
- Mid-importance psychology articles
- WikiProject Psychology articles
- C-Class Religion articles
- Mid-importance Religion articles
- C-Class New religious movements articles
- High-importance New religious movements articles
- New religious movements articles
- WikiProject Religion articles
- Wikipedia pages with to-do lists