Talk:Landmark Worldwide

Litigation section
I am not really convinced that there is any merit to including this section at all - surely any business that has been operating for several decades is likely to have been involved in a handful of lawsuits? Why is this significant enough to include in the article? In any event there were definitely smears and insinuations in this section that are non-encyclopedic in tone. I have edited the first sentence to be less clumsy and convoluted. I have removed the reference to the non-fact that Margaret Singer 'would not comment...'. I have clarified the wording regarding Rick Ross' statements so that it is clear that these are claims and opinions, rather than having them appear to be stating established facts. Also removed the weasel word 'purportedly'.

History section
The opening paragraph recently added was problematic for several reasons. For one thing it deals with events prior to the formation of Landmark, but more importantly it contains much speculation and editorialising, as well as assertions for which the cited sources do not provide clear links to any primary information. I have condensed the relevant points.

If editors do not agree with these changes, please discuss here rather than resorting to edit-warring. Thank youo DaveApter (talk) 16:16, 17 November 2023 (UTC)


 * The litigation section has already been discussed above, and the consensus was against you.
 * The references which talk about history are sources describing Landmark, and are therefore part of its history. --- Avatar317 (talk) 23:16, 17 November 2023 (UTC)


 * You have spent 18, almost 19, years here defending the topic of this article. Can you please stop now? Please move on. Please stop using Wikipedia to defend or promote Landmark. Please stop it. Don't even respond to this message. This is a giant waste of your time. Please just go do something more useful and fun. I don't want to waste my time defending NPOV against people who are willing to spend decades on something this unimportant. How can we believe that it is not a cult when people spend decades defending it against any and all criticism no matter how tame or justified? Polygnotus (talk) 02:36, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Please try to remain civil, and cut out the personal attacks. To put your insinuations into perspective, I should point out that - prior to the onslaught on this article over the past month or so - I have made about three dozen edits to the article in the previous eight years, out of a total of about 400 edits on the article in that period. Conversely, over that eight year period I have made over 500 edits on a wide variety of other subjects, many of them substantial good-quality contributions DaveApter (talk) 16:20, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Your tactic of repeatedly falsely accusing everyone who disagrees with you of being incivil and personally attacking you is getting old fast. I haven't looked into your edits to other articles and I do not want to. But I did spend some time looking into the history of this article and how it got to the point it is at. If it is true that you have made good edits on other articles then it would be time for a topicban. Polygnotus (talk) 23:28, 19 November 2023 (UTC)


 * It looks like Polygnotus has been uncivil, and DaveApter is being personally attacked. Nwlaw63 (talk) 20:43, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Unexplained blanking of entire 'Concepts' section
This entire section was blanked without discussion or explanation on 7th November by a 'drive-by' editor with no previous (or subsequent) history of editing this page. When it was restored four days after that, it was again deleted within one hour by.

That section is clearly relevant and adequately sourced. It has been in the article for over eight years without any suggestion here that it ought to be removed. In the course of recent civil discussions above suggested that it needed some stylistic improvements, and I agreed and indicated that I would make some attempts at doing so, but there was no suggestion of removing it entirely. I suggest that it should be restored, unless anyone can provide a compelling reason otherwise. DaveApter (talk) 16:01, 29 November 2023 (UTC)


 * That section was poorly written in my opinion, and if anything there is necessary for this article, it would be much better to start-over from scratch so that it could be explained in a more neutral fashion. It would need far more than just stylistic improvements, but yes, it would also need stylistic improvements. The over-use of the phrase "Landmark suggests" to describe extremely basic concepts was not doing this article any favors. The use of jargonization via the term "new possibilities" is a red flag, also. Grayfell (talk) 21:03, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I also agree with Grayfell that a total re-write of the piece may well be the way to go. The article is a mess, largely as a result of its history as an uneasy compromise from the battle between two factions with widely varied viewpoints on the subject. It is also handicapped by the fact that most of the "sources" are lifestyle and opinion pieces rather than factual reporting. Also many of them are written from a sensationalist and biased perspective, and rarely give clear indications of the primary sources on which they are based. DaveApter (talk) 09:51, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree with Polygnotus that you shouldn't be editing this article AT ALL, based on your history and comments like the one you just made: "most of the "sources" are lifestyle and opinion pieces rather than factual reporting. Also many of them are written from a sensationalist and biased perspective, and rarely give clear indications of the primary sources on which they are based." - So any source that doesn't give Landmark glowing positive reviews seems biased to you? If you edit this article directly, (not the Talk page) I will support Polygnotus's suggestion for a topic ban, I feel that whether or not you believe that you have a COI, you are behaving like you do.
 * Without the sources you criticize, we'd have ZERO sources for this article. There are some mentions in academic papers about Religions and New Religious movements, and books about similar subjects, but no other sources that I have seen.
 * I challenge you, post sources here that YOU see as "acceptable" for use in this article. --- Avatar317 (talk) 20:41, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I think DaveApter is merely paraphrasing something from the Administrator’s findings at the conclusion of the 2014 Arbitration agreement, which would indicate exercising caution when using these kinds of sources : ‘‘As discussed by editors providing evidence in this arbitration case, rigorous academic sources for the topic are few and far between, meaning claims more often rest on weaker sources or claims from the organization in question.’’Nwlaw63 (talk) 18:00, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
 * That Arb discussion seems to point out that the major dispute was about whether to state in Wikivoice that Landmark is an NRM. The article currently APPEARS to have that stated to Wikipedia standards with "Some scholars have categorized ..." and "Others, ... question some aspects of these characterizations".  I have not yet read the sources behind those statements, but I feel that section should be expanded for more clarification (what makes an org an NRM?, which "characteristics" are we talking about?).  "Some classify it as NRM, while others do not" is the type of short statement that should be in the lead, as a summary of these academics' views.  As I get a chance, I intend to read through those sources and try to expand that set of statements.
 * Looking back to how this article originally started, it does seem that was written WP:BACKWARDS, and in a contentious subject, that would of course make for edit-warring. I agree with Grayfell that this whole article (as it stood before I started working on it a couple of months ago) should be re-written, and that's what I've been attempting to do slowly and gradually, by reading sources and adding content from those, and removing content unsupported by sources. --- Avatar317 (talk) 23:10, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Actually, the Arb discussion was primarily about tendentious editing, of which, one aspect was the NRM categorization. By the way, I did research those references and made the point, at that time, that they were largely circular. Nwlaw63 (talk) 16:11, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Can you explain or provide a link to your research showing those sources to be "largely circular"? (Truly circular references couldn't exist without people agreeing to reference each other.) If we exclude references because of this it should be documented in a Talk page discussion, or with references that explicitly say: Source J references Source Q, like when newspaper journalists make a statement and hyperlink to the source for their statement.  Thanks! --- Avatar317 (talk) 19:25, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
 * That section also duplicated SOME (but not all) of the content in the "Landmark Forum" section. Since pretty much ALL sources I've read so far talk about the concepts used in the FORUM rather than ALL of Landmark's classes, my preference and intention is to look at the sources for that removed section and add any useful content from those sources into the Forum section.
 * I also agree with Grayfell.
 * Also, having looked into the history of this article, it does really appear that this article was written WP:BACKWARDS, whereby almost nothing in the article was sourced and over time "sources" were added. This generally leads to a very poor representation/summary of what those sources intended to say.
 * As an improvement, after I have finished reading and summarizing more sources into the Forum section, it may make sense to have a sub-section of that section for the Concepts, which now start as "Various ideas are proposed for consideration and explored during the course. These include: " --- Avatar317 (talk) 23:32, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Perhaps a "methodology" section would be better than a "concepts" section? Polygnotus (talk) 04:38, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

LEBD USC study statements
I have removed these two statements because I think that they mislead the reader about the findings. I was not able to find an online copy of the USC study: "Transforming the Network of Conversations in BHP New Zealand Steel", but some summary info is available on Landmark's site [here]. MY bolding. Note here that these results are attributable to BHP's OVERALL program, of which LEBD was a PART. Unless the study states more clearly what results are attributable to Landmark's programs and which to BHP's, than stating the numbers here are misleading the reader and inappropriate WP:SYNTH. --- Avatar317 (talk) 01:09, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

Non-verifiable claim
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)

Questioning the reference to cults
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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass. Polygnotus (talk)

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)
 * 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 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)