Talk:Landmark Worldwide/Archive 28

Removal of "Religious implications" section
On 2008-03-02 at 1940 hours a Wikipedian removed a section on "Religious implications", commenting in the edit-summary "Removed religious section, irrelevant". Since the discussion in the archived talk-pages for April 2008 and  May 2008 ended in favor of restoration of this material; and since the current article contines to point to the relevance of religious issues by quoting Karin Badt's claim: "No cult, no radical religion,...", let's provide balance and a more encyclopedic scope by restoring this discussion to Wikipedia. -- Pedant17 (talk) 01:34, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Pointing out on the talk page when subsections get removed is helpful and a positive step - but unfortunately historically does not seem to affect much change in and of itself. Cirt (talk) 03:21, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Again, how about something from someone whom is considered the source of this work?

"'Our work is not a class in philosophy. It's not a theological discussion nor is it a discussion about history or anthropology or sociology. Its intention is to literally impact, like break open, like empower us in our everyday being in the world.' -Werner Erhard"


 * The quote may have some relevance as an opinion of a party (if involved -- who exactly and quotably considers Erhard "the source of this work"?). We'd need a proper verifiable citation. -- Pedant17 (talk) 13:00, 22 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Like a link to a personal friend of Werner's? Or a link to a quotes book? or...
 * There is plenty of links I could post, which would you prefer? --67.174.157.126 (talk) 10:52, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * How about a reliable source? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 11:16, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Responses to pedant17
Thank you, Pedant17 for your eloquent articulation of the viewpoint representing one extreme end of the spectrum of opinion regarding Landmark Education.

At the other extreme is the equally small minority whose viewpoint is that Landmark holds the secret of all human happiness and the solution to all the world’s problems.

Somewhere between the two extremes is the opinion that Landmark Education puts on a range of excellent courses which deliver impressive results at very low cost, but which (like all human creations) has its flaws and foibles, and has people involved with it who are on occasions irritating.

I believe that the third viewpoint is the majority opinion (out of all those having any opinion on the matter at all), and that therefore the other two should be mentioned in the article, but briefly to avoid contravening the undue weight policy.

The evidence supporting my belief that this opinion is the majority view is as follows:

1. Several polls and surveys conducted by reputable opinion polling organisations have arrived at this conclusion. (I am aware that you, and others who share your viewpoint have tried to cast doubt on the validity of these surveys on the grounds that they were commissioned by LE, but unless you can provide equally reputable surveys with contrary results, this remains prima facie support).


 * Prima facie has nothing to do with it: the burden of proof is on those making the claim. If the evidence has dubious validity, then there is insufficient evidence.ProlixDog (talk) 01:21, 17 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you, ProlixDog, for your contribution to the debate. But, on the contrary, I’d say that the existence of these survey results is perfectly adequate evidence in itself. If you want to suggest that respected polling companies such as DYG and Harris Interactive (even published on their own website ), have fabricated their results, I’d suggest that the onus is on you to provide evidence for that. DaveApter (talk) 15:51, 17 November 2008 (UTC)


 * You're suggesting that positive customer satisfaction surveys are evidence that LE courses are 'excellent courses which deliver impressive results at very low cost'. That's drawing a long bow.  I'm not suggesting Harris etc have fabricated results, but customer satisfaction surveys only demonstrate customer satisfaction, they cannot be used as evidence of efficacy of the courses.  So by all means, propose a section called "Customer Satisfaction Survey Results" or such, but it's incorrect to pass off such data as scientific evaluations of efficacy. ProlixDog (talk) 10:29, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

2. The majority of Landmark customers do several further courses after completing the Landmark Forum. Whilst there may be other possible explanations for this, the most plausible one is that they find them worthwhile and good value. If you wish to put forward other hypotheses, I would suggest that the onus is upon you to provide the evidence for them.


 * That betrays a confirmation bias. Many other plausible explanations exist.  One is that the customers may not have been satisfied by the outcomes and hope the follow-on courses will help them.  Think about it this way: many alternative health treatments are reported by customers to be effective, but since many ailments self-resolve, such reflections of customer satisfaction do not prove the efficacy of the treatment. ProlixDog (talk) 01:21, 17 November 2008 (UTC)


 * And do you have any reliable, verifiable sources to back up your speculations about these "other plausible explanations"? DaveApter (talk) 15:51, 17 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Sure. Do you have any reliable, verifiable sources to back up your speculations that taking continuing courses at LE is proof that the courses are worthwhile? Does continuing to take homeopathic treatment prove that the treatment is worthwhile? ProlixDog (talk) 10:29, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

3. The majority of Landmark customers arrive following recommendation from friends who are already customers. Once again, the most plausible explanation is that they find them valuable themselves. And similarly, I would suggest that the onus is upon you to provide the evidence if you have alternative suggestions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DaveApter (talk • contribs) (just to clarify, this edit was not unsigned – I signed it at the bottom of my complete post at the end of the next subsection at 17:12, 14 November 2008 (UTC)). DaveApter (talk) 15:51, 17 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Again, a confirmation bias. Another quite plausible explanation is that a large focus of the course is geared towards motivating customers to recruiting their friends, colleagues etc.  So I would infer, then, simply that landmark education is effective at converting customers into recruitment volunteers. ProlixDog (talk) 01:21, 17 November 2008 (UTC)


 * And do you have any reliable, verifiable sources to back up your speculations about this "other quite plausible explanation"? DaveApter (talk) 15:51, 17 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Do I need one? I'm not the one making the claim here Dave.  I am merely pointing out there are more plausible explanations than what you offer.  Given that the Landmark Forum emphasises recruitment by customers almost as a condition of graduation, I would think it obvious to neutral parties that Landmark's customer base having a high proportion of customers arriving following recommendations to be nothing more than signifying the effectiveness of the Forum at doing just that.  Again, it's no measure of the value or worth of the course, which is what you're trying to pass it off as. ProlixDog (talk) 10:29, 18 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Secondly, having so many customers based on recommendations may have other explanations other than them finding the course valuable. For example, the customers may be given incentives to give recommendations.  These incentives may be due to coercion, whether financial (as occurs in multi-level marketing schemes), or psychological (I need to help you in order to help myself).  Do you need a reliable, verifiable source for these? ProlixDog (talk) 10:29, 18 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Nice to see the concept of a spectrum of views -- it makes a pleasant change from a polarized analysis of two opposing, mutually exclusive views. -- Whatever the number of views (majoritarian or minoritarian) they need representation with well-sourced citations. It seems premature to censor the article's content on the basis of {{WP:OR | original research]] into alleged majorities: only when we've assembled multiple examples of various views can we determine issues of majority/minority and undue weight. Restoring the numerous "disappeared" sections of material on the shortcomings and interesting foibles of Landmark Education could help in this process. The WP:UNDUEWEIGHT part of the NPOV policy suggests: "If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts". We haven't reached that point yet. -- The contention in point (1) that Landmark Education has indeed commissioned or sponsored surveys stands, but the polls and surveys have more severe problems, as neither commissioner not commissionee has revealed their methodology (especially selection procedures) or subjected them to peer-review, let alone pointed to adequate extrapolation from them to postulate a proven "majority view". -- Re point (2): Whether or not it seems "most plausible" to one commentator that the customers of Landmark Education find the courses of value, this proves little. We need to include the views of interested parties who have not become customers. And we can evaluate the re-enrolment rate in the light of repeated reports of Landmark Education's efforts to encourage recruits to re-enrol. -- Likewise we can add to point (3) the information that multiple reports of Landmark Education courses stress the drive to rapidly re-cast recruits as recruiters. -- Pedant17 (talk) 13:00, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Cross-purposes
ProlixDog, thanks for your comments, but re-reading our debate above, it occurs to me that we are at cross-purposes. You appear to be discussing whether or not the viewpoint I described (ie that Landmark Education puts on a range of excellent courses which deliver impressive results at very low cost, but which (like all human creations) has its flaws and foibles, and has people involved with it who are on occasions irritating) is "True" or not. That was not what I was suggesting. It is a viewpoint, and as such is neither "True" not "False", but is something that is held by some people and not by others. What I was discussing was whether it was a majority viewpoint, as opposed to other viewpoints (such as the one you and Pedant17 articulate on this page, or the one at the opposite end of the spectrum that Landmark is the greatest thing since sliced bread).

If you re-read my comments, you might agree that the three points I raise do indeed provide evidence that this viewpoint is widely held. I didn't say that it proved that it was true, or even that it proves this view to be widely held, but it is evidence that suggests that the view is widely held. Clearly you don't find it compelling, but you haven't put forward any evidence at all that suggests that other viewpoints are widely held. DaveApter (talk) 19:07, 19 November 2008 (UTC)


 * The belief (rather than the argument) that there exists a widely-held opinion on the efficacy of the Landmark Education courses deserves mention -- provided we can find good third-party reliable sources that can state that such belief exists. By the same token, any reliable source that reports or implies doubt about efficacy and methodology of Landmark Education courses and operations also desrves mention. -- Pedant17 (talk) 13:00, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

The Cult issue
There is no doubt that there has been rumour, gossip and speculation by some people that Landmark is in some sense a cult. However Wikipedia is in the business of reporting facts, not speculation. I have followed up many of the source documents that you (and others holding your viewpoint) have cited over the past few years in support of this characterisation. In all cases I found that they merely alluded to the existence of rumour and speculation to this effect, but did not assert or substantiate it.

Can you find any clear statement to the effect anywhere by an identified authority figure that Landmark is a cult, and in what sense they mean that word, and what evidence they put forward in support of the opinion? Or evidence of a sizeable identifiable population who hold this opinion?

On the other hand there are numerous on-the-record attributable statements by reputable psychologists, psychiatrists, clerics, and academics to the effect that it is not a cult.

The only sense in which it might be so described is the sense in which Apple Computer or Manchester United are cults – that they have a loyal following of customers who are pleased with their offerings. But presumably that is not the impression that you are seeking to promote by the insistence on attaching this label? DaveApter (talk) 17:12, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Let us move away from a discussion where Wikipedians decide whether or not to call a particular group a "cult", that is WP:OR territory. Instead, we should simply discuss in the article what is represented in secondary sources, and that particular topic is indeed discussed in multiple WP:RS/WP:V secondary sources in relation to this company and its controversial predecessor organizations and courses - in addition to its context in relation to theories involving brainwashing, "loaded language", "mileu control", labor violations issues, etc. Cirt (talk) 06:36, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you Cirt - so can you give us a list of reliable, verifiable sources that indicate that Landmark Education is a cult, in the opinion of either a recognised expert in an appropriate field or a significant identifiable population? DaveApter (talk) 15:51, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * See my point above. Let's discuss other aspects of "cult" nature, as opposed to the "cult" term itself, such as those theories I cited above, and others, and the controversial history of the organization, its management, labor practices, and controversial history of numerous predecessor organizations, all of which are discussed in reliable, verifiable secondary sources multiple times. Cirt (talk) 16:01, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * DaveApter, you are responding to a challenge that has not been posed to you. I don't see anyone here pushing for significantly increased use of the word "cult".  I don't see a need for you to mount a defense here.
 * One issue here, then (as I understand it), is the nature of the lead. The article contains discussion of controversy (including a single, sourced mention of the word cult -- though most of the discussion of controversy is framed in other terms).  The lead does not reflect that section.  The controversy section is not going to go away (though we could revise it, with additional references, as here).  The lead ought to do justice to the rest of the article. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:32, 17 November 2008 (UTC)


 * We have no need to appeal to experts as to whether Landmark Education "is" a cult. The significant factor in reflecting opinion and the view of popular culture simply involves recording the facts that X and Y and Z and classes A and B and C have associated Landmark Education with the concept of cultishness. Separate issue. Let's not confuse the two. -- Pedant17 (talk) 13:00, 22 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Precisely because academics have no agreed definition of a "cult" and wisely tend to avoid the word, the experts in cult-labeling -- the general public -- hold sway. They can smell a suspicious org, and they have done so, repeatedly, from the dawn of the Landmark Education era to the present day, inclusive. The association between the words "Landmark Education" and the word "cult" has become well established in the collective consciousness, and this deserves mention and highlighting appropriately. -- By the same token, Landmark Education LLC itself recognizes that people have called it a "cult", and thus devotes repeated efforts on its website and in its marketing to dealing with the "cult" label. Those efforts too deserve mention and examination. An encyclopedia should aim for encyclopedic treatment of such issues. -- Pedant17 (talk) 13:00, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

It seems to me that both sides in this debate are forgetting a key aspect of the lede policy: "In general, the relative emphasis given to material in the lead should reflect its relative importance to the subject according to reliable sources." Frankly, the cult issue does not seem very important. In relying on fringe sources and corporate propaganda, both supporters and critics of this organization are not giving a clear picture of what this company actually does. This article seems to need factual descriptions of this company's procedures that come from clearly neutral sources. Nwlaw63 (talk) 16:38, 15 November 2008 (UTC)


 * The "cult" issue occasions recurrent popular interest and gets a mention in numerous summaries of Landmark Education's activities. Why shy away from that importance, distorting our balanced NPOV in the process? -- Note once again that our article on "Landmark Education" does not confine itself merely to Landmark Education LLC as a commercial company -- the content and thrust of Landmark Education "philosophy" or teaching also have great importance in the article in its current scope -- especially in the light of the "cult" issue. -- Pedant17 (talk) 13:00, 22 November 2008 (UTC)


 * If we were to restore the material expunged from the article over the months we would not lack for accounts of the deeds and misdeeds of Landmark Education -- and a balanced and neutral clear picture could emerge. -- Pedant17 (talk) 03:04, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

CAIC source
I removed the line referencing the Cult awareness and Information Center, as this is by no means a reliable source. They even have a disclaimer stating that they are merely passing on the opinions of others. Without this there is no basis for including the note in the header that "Some observers .... consider its activities to be "cultlike."", so I removed that too. DaveApter (talk) 21:06, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * See this secondary source:

The documentary shows verbal attacks on participants who remain with organizers for 72 hours and can't leave unless first gaining permission. Those tactics have led many, including the Australian Cult Awareness & Information Centre to label the group a cult. Cirt (talk) 21:10, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * We might also note that one of the things they are "passing on" is an article from the Boston Globe in 1999. I think the Boston Globe can be considered reliable enough; if there are doubts about the sufficiency of sourcing for that sentence, we could add this one.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:49, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * ✅. Thanks for that. Cirt (talk) 21:52, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I have read the discussion around this edit and the “cult” issue on this article with interest, and it seems an inappropriate violation of Wikipedia policies to include this sentence in the lede of the article. Reliable sources appear to be misused; the infoweek article cites the aforementioned CAIC website as its main source along with unnamed ‘many’ people. Meanwhile, the CAIC website has a disclaimer and says it is simply passing along the opinions of others. The Boston Globe, meanwhile, says it is “dogged by claims”, without saying who is actually making them.

In other words, we have reliable sources saying that some people out there believe Landmark Education is cultlike. This amounts to what is referred to in the legal profession as hearsay, or repeating the claims of others. As the reliable source policy says, “While the reporting of rumors has a news value, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and should only include information verified by reliable sources. Wikipedia is not the place for passing along gossip and rumors.”

Placing this statement in the lede of the article also seems to violate the NPOV/undue weight policy as well. Remember, this policy states that “If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents”. Not only do these prominent adherents appear to be absent, but this sentence, with its “Some observers and former participants” seems to be a thinly veiled version of the prohibited technique of mass attribution, also known as the “Some people believe” formulation.

Simultaneously, the criticism of the sales and marketing practices seems to be based on multiple reliable sources, such as the Huffington Post article cited elsewhere, which criticizes these marketing practices at the same time as it debunks the cult rumors. If we put in something more concrete than “observers”, such as “reporters”, then it appears that this criticism should remain in the lede of the article, a criticism which is also likely to be far more relevant to readers than sensational cult claims. Nwlaw63 (talk) 00:33, 6 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Lets not confuse the so-called "cult issue" with the issue of cult-reputation. We have indeed reliable sources saying that some/several/many people hold the opinion that Landmark Education seems like a cult. Citing those reliable sources does not use hearsay to prove Landmark Education a cult -- but it does prove (with cited opinions, not "rumors") that Landmark Education has a reputation in some circles as a cult. -- Pedant17 (talk) 07:39, 6 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree with Nwlaw63 and DaveApter. The only thing the sources prove is that journalists like sensational headings. The use of the word "cultlike" here violates WP:NPOV, WP:UNDUE. Mvemkr (talk) 17:19, 7 December 2008 (UTC)


 * If what the sources have proved is "that journalists like sensational headings", then perhaps we should put that in the article.
 * This is wearing thin. Is the problem that there are not yet enough sources for the contention that some people believe the Forum is "cultlike"?  If so, it won't be at all difficult to add a slew of them.  With the benefit of my Nexis subscription, I get (for starters) the following:
 * "If you are in the spiritual self-help loop, you will have heard of the Landmark Forum (with a reputation for cult-like motivational workshops)," Christa D'Souza, The Times (London), "Sex Therapy", 13 July 2008, Features/Style p. 12
 * "Senator Kathleen O'Meara became involved in Landmark - which has been designated as a 'possible cult or cult-like' in France - after failing to win a Dail seat three years ago." Una Mullally and John Burke, Sunday Tribune (Dublin), "Labour senator promotes group classified in France as 'cult-like'", 31 July 2005, p.N1
 * An article in the Daily Star (UK) of 22 March 2005 about the impending participation of Pete Doherty carries the headline "Pete Signs Up For Cult Clinic" (p. 13)
 * "Such reactions explain why Landmark -- and est before it -- has often been labeled a cult." Amanda Scioscia, Phoenix New Times, "Drive-thru Deliverance; It's not called est anymore, but you can still be ridiculed into self-awareness in just one expensive weekend", 19 October 2000, Features section
 * Should I carry on? I ask in part because it isn't entirely clear what it will take to satisfy certain Wikipedians here that there is a place on this page -- and in the lead -- for inclusion of this reliably-sourced contention.  I personally have no axe to grind about Landmark here; for what it's worth (very little, really) I attended the Forum myself quite a few years back and do not personally hold the opinion that it is a cult.  But I am unimpressed by the apparent attempt to maintain a whitewash on this issue here -- a stance that fits so closely with LE's own actions over the years that I'm tempted to think it ought to raise COI concerns in each instance. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:36, 7 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree with Nwlaw63 that "we have reliable sources saying that some people out there believe Landmark Education is cultlike". Since we have reliable sources, let's use them to support the statement that some people regard Landmark Education as cult-like. -- The mere existence of some sources may indeed suggest "that journalists like sensational headings". But more relevantly, they do demonstrate that journalists write content that influences the structuring of whatever headings their sub-editors provide. They also demonstrate that people repeatedly and insistently characterize Landmark Education as cult-like -- an opinion which a comprehensive encyclopedia can report as an opinion. -- The use of the word "cultlike" here does not violate WP:NPOV, since it summarizes the views conveyed by various reliable sources and contrasts the views expressed by other sources which also get a mention. -- The use of the word "cultlike" here does not violate WP:UNDUE since so many independent reliable sources speak to the perceived cult-like aspects of Landmark Education and relatively few independent reliable sources explain the effect of Landmark Education in alternative ways. -- Pedant17 (talk) 13:27, 15 December 2008 (UTC)


 * The above editor appears to be distorting my comments for their own purposes. What I said was that we have reliable sources indicating that such a rumor exists, but not reliable sources actually asserting that Landmark Education is a cult or cultlike. Given that Wikipedia policy explicitly rejects the reporting of rumors, even if they are reported in mainstream sources as rumors, it is dubious to include them in the article, let alone the lede. Nwlaw63 (talk) 16:50, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The sources in question discuss not rumors but views. The word rumor doesn't apply in this context; it is used when there is lack of certainty regarding the truth (or otherwise) of a claim that an event of some sort happened or someone did something.  The sources in question here are instead reporting people's views/assertions on the applicability of a description. Use of material like this is widespread across Wikipedia. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:43, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * It seems a bit like splitting hairs. And citing souces saying "this is a view out there" when it seems very hard to find reliable sources actually holding the view, and plenty of sources that don't, makes this seem to me an inappropriate assertion for the article lede. Not to go on too much of a tangent, but it also seems that too much of the discussion on this page seems taken up with this issue. A more dire concern seems to be the complete lack of content regarding what actually happens in Landmark Education classes and what they purport to teach. Surely an NPOV description of such can be added, that is neither promotional or condemnatory. This would seem to be of more utility to an encyclopedia reader that the sorts of trivia which seem to occupy this talk page. Nwlaw63 (talk) 17:24, 18 December 2008 (UTC)


 * "It seems ... it seems ... makes this seem to me ... it also seems ... [a] more dire concern seems ... [this] would seem ... which seem to...". -- Something more definite here -- something substantive with backing apart from "seeming" -- might command more respect. -- It may "seem" like splitting hairs, but reporting views published in reliable sources and based on serious research differs from retailing unsubtantiated and unattibuted verbal rumors. -- It may "seem" "very hard to find reliable sources actually holding the view", but who insists on seeking out something so elusively definitive? Given the trivial unimportance of Landmark Education in the eyes of serious modern scholarship -- what do you expect? We deal in this matter with a pop-cultural leftover from the 1970s where few hard facts exist and perception and opinion reign supreme -- like reporting on a novel or a television-series only with even more fleeting and insubstantial evidence in that few texts and transcripts survive. In the circumstances, we report on views from reliable sources. More than that becomes intimidatingly difficult. I wouldn't want to shy away from the wider debate on the topic "Landmark Education = cult", but it constitutes a separate debate, and (to me) a less important one. -- It may "seem" that the content of the article may not meet everyone's expectations (I would agree). But a solution lies at hand! Add a stub section (see Template:Expand-section) or even a spinoff sub-article (see Summary style) stub on the topic(s) of choice and watch Wikipedia fill with content -- possibly even removed (to some extent) from the vitally important "trivia which seem to occupy this talk page". -- Pedant17 (talk) 06:50, 19 December 2008 (UTC)


 * We agree that reliable sources exist which repeat the widespread view that associates Landmark Education with culthood. The actual words used stated: "In other words, we have reliable sources saying that some people out there believe Landmark Education is cultlike." We may disagree as to where to go from there, but that provides a point of agreement. I contend that we can report that such views/beliefs exist, qua views, and what they convey -- all based on reliable sources. Given the numbers and consistency of such reliable sources, we have every cause to mention those views -- albeit briefly -- in the lead paragraph. To the extent that other views also exist in comparable numbers and with comparably reliable sources, they too can get a mention under the principles of WP:NPOV. Bring them on. -- Pedant17 (talk) 06:50, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

"Cult" revisited

 * I rather object to the use of the word "cult" in this context, as it seems primarily to function as a "guilt-by-(free)-association" label. The alleged cultishness of any group should rest upon the group's behavior. est was generally termed a cult because Erhard was once a Scientologist. Scientology is generally referred to as a "destructive cult" due to the murders documented in "The Road to Total Freedom" and the Lisa McPherson web pages. Various newspaper articles have documented the FBI raid on the Scientology offices in Hollywood to recover stolen government documents and the imprisonment of people like Mary Sue Hubbard.  "The Scandal of Scientology" documents that Charles Manson claimed to have been exposed to Scientology practices and beliefs in prison. Charles Manson was an archetypical cult leader. Therefore (the argument goes), since Erhard was once a Scientologist, he must be a cult leader. That's nonsense.
 * Furthermore, although there appear to have been extensive borrowings of terminology from Silva Mind Control, Scientology and other sources in the original est training, The Forum, due to the influence of Dr. Fernando Flores and others, is based upon Flores' interpretation of the ontological writings of Martin Heidegger. The Scientology mumbo-jumbo is gone. The practice of calling participants "assholes" is gone. The excessive rigid rules are gone. There is no noticeable "cultishness" left.
 * I don't know where to find documentation on the philosophical origins of the Forum as opposed to the old est training, but maybe someone else could look into it? I have had nothing to do with either organization in fifteen years, but still regard est, in particular, as something that once benefitted me. Wowest (talk) 18:38, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * See above comment by . Cirt (talk) 20:33, 6 December 2008 (UTC)


 * The use of the word "cult" in the context of the Landmark Education article may seem (to some people) "primarily to function as a [...] label" -- just like any other noun. But if reliable sources repeatedly use that word, we can point out that they do so. "The alleged cultishness of any group" rests not on "the group's behavior" but on the allegations reported by reliable sources. Wikipedia can only report on what reliable sources (orf various stripes and opinions) affirm or allege. -- The account of why est earned the "cult" label ("because Erhard was once a Scientologist... Charles Manson claimed to have been exposed to Scientology ... Manson was as archetypical cult leader ... [t]herefore ... Erhard must be a cult leader") seems fascinating -- I would love to see this straw-man argument documented and sourced in (say) the Wikipedia article Scientology and Werner Erhard. Failing the production of evidence, I would suggest a simpler explanation: Landmark Education and est got labeled as cultic because individual attendees, year after year, found/saw/noted/experienced in the courses elements that repelled or offended them and which they spontaneously associated with the popular images (in their own minds) of "cults". (Though note too, for example, that one sociological participant-investigator of est (later a Los Angeles Times Book Prize winner) summarized the organization of that group as that of a "bureaucratic cult" -- see  -- a reliable source that a Wikipedian has removed from the Erhard Seminars Training article.) -- I would like to see evidence, if possible, for the claims: '[t]he Scientology mumbo-jumbo is gone... The excessive rigid rules are gone. There is no noticeable "cultishness" left.' -- Pedant17 (talk) 13:27, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Office closures
Landmark Education ceased operations in France as of July 2004 due to continued scandal and stopped operating in Sweden as of June 2004. -- Pedant17 (talk) 07:34, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * - Thank you for archiving and making a note of this material here on the talk page, however also if something was removed that was appropriately sourced you may wish to consider adding it back into the article yourself. Cirt (talk) 07:41, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Light on actual content
This article tells me nothing about Landmark and its beliefs and practices. (I notice that the article Landmark Forum redirects to Landmark Education). If you look at the page for Scientology it provides information about their practices of auditing, thetans, Xenu and the like. As another example, the Freemason's page also includes quite a bit of information about their practices. This page has nothing except a little abut the company and that they may or may not be controversial. So, in the same way, this page should include information abouts landmark's main theories. From memory the only person I know who has done Landmark kept telling me about being "authentic" and about his "racket" - what does this all mean? Can someone with more knowledge about Landmark's buzzwords and them to this page? Psyborg2000 (talk) 10:03, 10 December 2008 (UTC)


 * re buzzwords: a Wikipedian has removed information on Landmark Education jargon, but we can restore such information from the archives at (say) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Landmark_Education&oldid=126569771#Jargon.2FDistinctions . -- Pedant17 (talk) 13:27, 15 December 2008 (UTC)


 * There is an excellent paper published in the journal Contemporary Philosophy which can be downloaded from the Social Sciences Research Network and various University sites from this link: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=278955# . This give a clear and objective explanation of the modus operandi of the Landmark Forum, as well as a definition of some key terms. DaveApter (talk) 16:43, 16 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Except, DaveApter, that the SSRN is closely affiliated with Landmark Education (see here [Barbados_Group]), so the reference you suggest constitutes selfpub. ProlixDog (talk) 02:41, 17 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I have to say, this reference had me fooled for a while. It appears that the "journal" Contemporary Philosophy is not a proper scholarly journal (it is not listed on OCLC Firstsearch, and I checked the catalogue of some major university libraries and it is not held by most); I gather it is more of a popular philosophy magazine.  The fact that one of the authors is affiliated with (employed by?) the Vanto Group is also cause for concern.  I'm not worried too much about the SSRN -- plenty of perfectly good papers are uploaded there before they get published properly -- but being hosted by the SSRN does not constitute proper publication.  In any event, remember that WP:SELFPUB does not preclude use of a particular source altogether; we just have to meet the conditions there and ensure that the article does not grow to contain more than a small amount of material supported by self-published sources. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:09, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify, I imagine Contemporary Philosophy meets WP:RS (though again it appears to be a magazine, not an academic journal). That has to be balanced with the fact of one author being affiliated with Landmark. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 09:17, 17 December 2008 (UTC)


 * In reaction to the comment about SSRN: "plenty of perfectly good papers are uploaded there before they get published properly" -- this may not have so much relevance to a paper dated 2001. -- Apart from the respectability and reliability of the Contemporary Philosophy publication -- does this article leave much of a trace in the citations of scholarly literature? How many recognized journals/scholars in the fields of philosophy/ontology have seen fit to cite it? -- Pedant17 (talk) 06:50, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't really know the answers to those questions. But if we are going to use newspaper articles in this article (as I think we should), then there's no reason to object to an article from a popular magazine -- apart from the selfpub issue.  I can't see that your thoughts on the magazine amount to an objection on the grounds of WP:RS.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 09:15, 19 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I endorse using newspapers and magazines as sources for pop-culture like Landmark Eduaction. My queries resulted from curiosity as to influence rather than from any desire to remove such a damning "emperor-has-no-clothes" reference. -- Pedant17 (talk) 13:06, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I can't help being struck by the double standards that some people seem to want to apply according to whether the source in question supports or questions their own viewpoint. When it comes to criticism of Landmark, any old sensationalist tabloid hatchet-job will qualify; but when it comes to anything that depicts a positive comment, intelligent magazines such as Contemporary Philosophy get slated for not being academic journals. Similarly a high-quality reprint site like SSRN with several notable academics on the board is dismissed as being "associate with Landmark Education", whereas partisan sites run by unqualified self-proclaimed "experts", like CAIC and culthelp, are constantly promoted.
 * In any case, the issue of association of SSRN with LE is irrelevant to the self-pub point - it is merely performing the service of making an already-published paper readily available without having to seek out back copies in a library. DaveApter (talk) 17:47, 28 December 2008 (UTC)


 * A talk-page has the purpose of promoting discussion on improving the presentation of its assocated article. Idle speculation on the possible viewpoints (if any) of fellow-editors has no place here. -- Different reprinting sites each have their own interests and field of focus, and each provides the same basic service: convenience copies/transcripts of material otherwise more difficult to obtain. In each case Wikipedia encourages us to provide the original citation detail so that intersted parties can evaluate the source documents and compare the quality of the transiption. -- Given that academia has little interest in fringe eccentric groups like Landmark Education, academic websites publish little on the topic: relatively much more material will come from sites with an interest in monitoring popular culture -- like cult-watching sites. Indeed, we may rely on such sites to publicize academic work in the field such as . -- Pedant17 (talk) 11:06, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Removal of source for Werner Erhard criticism
On March 4, 2008 at 01:37, a Wikipedian removed a citation supporting the contention that some people do direct criticism at Landmark Education due to its association with Werner Erhard, noting in the edit-summary: "Criticism: Took out clear attack language and hyperbole and tried to render it in a more neutral manner.". The relevant section of the footnote read:

For example: Ein Interessierter am Angebot von Landmark Education (LE) oder ein Teilnehmer am Einsteigerkurs "Forum" dieses Anbieters mag verwundert gewesen sein: Da besteht das Unternehmen in Deutschland unter diesem Namen erst seit 1991 und dennoch wird auf die mehr als 20jährige Erfahrung des Unternehmens verwiesen. Fast nebenher fällt manchmal auch der Name des Gründers: Werner Erhard. Translation: Someone with an interest in the offerings of Landmark Education (LE) or a participant in the introductory "Forum" course might get confused: This organization has operated under this name in Germany only since 1991, yet makes claims of over 20 years of experience in the organization. Sometimes the name of the founder will occur almost incidentally: Werner Erhard. "Sekten" - Risiken und Nebenwirkungen: Informationen zu ausgewaehlten neuen religioesen und weltanschaulichen Bewegungen und Psychoangeboten. Herausgeben von der Senatsverwaltung fuer Schule, Jugend and Sport. Redaktion: Anne Ruehle, Ina Kunst. Stand: Dezember 1997. See (retrieved 2006-12-13) page 69, as referenced at  retrieved 2007-12-10.

Given that some commentators apparently minimize the connections between Erhard and Landmark Education, and noting that Wikipedia encourages verification by sourcing to  reliable sources such as this governmental publication, which in no way retails "attack language" or "hyperbole", let's restore and update the documenting of this connection along the lines:

For example: Ein Interessierter am Angebot von Landmark Education (LE) oder ein Teilnehmer am Einsteigerkurs "Forum" dieses Anbieters mag verwundert gewesen sein: Da besteht das Unternehmen in Deutschland unter diesem Namen erst seit 1991 und dennoch wird auf die mehr als 20jährige Erfahrung des Unternehmens verwiesen. Fast nebenher fällt manchmal auch der Name des Gründers: Werner Erhard. Translation: Someone with an interest in the offerings of Landmark Education (LE) or a participant in the introductory "Forum" course might get confused: This organization has operated under this name in Germany only since 1991, yet makes claims of over 20 years of experience in the organization. Sometimes the name of the founder will occur almost incidentally: Werner Erhard. See:

-- Pedant17 (talk) 13:06, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Removal of section on office closures
On March 4, 2008 at 0115 a Wikipedian removed an entire section ("Closures of offices") of the article, commenting in the edit-summary "bad refs - not English and opinion from a blog": see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Landmark_Education&diff=195696486&oldid=195695106. The "not English" description appears to refer to the site http://web.archive.org/web/20070818150218/http://www.analyskritik.press.se/irrationalism/irrationalism.htm which, faut de mieux, gives valid information and invites translation. The "opinion from a blog" comment appears to relate to http://www.rickross.com/reference/landmark/landmark227.html -- which far from representing a blog offers (in diary format) a translated article from the May 19, 2005 edition of`Le Nouvel Observateur (a well-known and respected French publication) by Marie Lemonnier. Since both these references appear respectable, sound and appropriate to a discussion of Landmark Education and its turbulent history in Europe, let's enhance and improve rather than delete, restoring the vanished section thus: == Office closures == Landmark Education ceased operations in France as of July 2004 due to continued scandal and stopped operating in Sweden as of June 2004. -- Pedant17 (talk) 07:34, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Shift of discussion to Landmark Education's Curriculum for Living
The following addition has been rejected, perhaps because of the unverifiable date (this month: June, 2009) and perhaps for additional reasons.

Is there a way to clean this up in order to steer the discussion to Landmark Education's current practices, as evidenced by their web site? Most importantly, the Syllabus for the Landmark Forum exhibits the content of the course as delivered. If we can focus the discussion on the Curriculum, we can rid this page of much of the animosity currently in evidence.

Please note that the Syllabus is available both online form, as well as privately published form. Landmark Education distributes it to prospective customers. Were it inaccurate, or if Landmark Education did not deliver substantially on its promises, they would be sued penniless in a heartbeat.

-

As an international training and development organization, Landmark offers courses and programs conducted by leaders who have completed intensive training. The overall curriculum is richly developed, as the array of courses and programs indicates. This is the foundation course on which the fundamental distinctions of all the coursework is based. As the foundation, the Landmark Forum stands on its own independently of the other courses and programs in the core curriculum. The subsequent coursework develops and deepens the results participants generate for themselves by engaging in the fundamental distinctions. The syllabus for the Landmark Forum is available for download in PDF form, making the foundation material freely available for evaluation, analysis and discussion. Readers should keep in mind that reading and even understanding the material presented in the syllabus cannot be expected to produce the results generated by participation in programs and coursework. The core curriculum is a set of four mutually synergistic courses beginning with the Landmark Forum and including the Landmark Forum in Action Series, the Advanced Course, and the Self Expression and Leadership Program. As of June, 2009, the Landmark Education web site describes other programs and courses including the Landmark Seminar Program, the Communication Courses, the Wisdom Courses, the Family Coaching Session and the Leadership and Assisting Programs.
 * Curriculum
 * The Landmark Forum
 * Core Curriculum and Other Programs and Courses

Roy (talk) 08:16, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: Let's try to avoid violating WP:NOR and overusage of primary sources and links to this for-profit company's website. Perhaps you could suggest some WP:V/WP:RS secondary sources? Cirt (talk) 08:22, 25 June 2009 (UTC)


 * "Shift[ing] the discussion" or "steer[ing] the discussion" would run a risk of violating the Wikipedia requirement to maintain a neutral point of view. That said,the article has great scope for expansion into providing facts about the "Curriculum for living" -- provided we avoid commercial bombast and one-sided unsupported claims. -- I hesitate to veer into the banned area of discussing items not immediately concerned with improving the Landmark Education article. But any suggestion that the published Landmark Education curriculum offers an accurate and legally verifiable account of any part of Landmark Education activities would have to address the woolliness and vague jargon of the Curriculum statement, as well as the requirement for potential enrollees into Landmark Education courses to sign away their rights to sue in favor of an arbitration agreement. As the registration procedure at http://www.landmarkeducation.com/display_content.jsp?top=24&mid=343610 (retrieved 2009-06-28) states:

ARBITRATION AGREEMENT I agree that any dispute, claim or controversy arising out of my participation in the Program (or any of its associated activities), including the interpretation, application, execution, performance or enforcement of any provision of this Agreement or concerning Landmark Education LLC, its officers, managers, employees, agents, people who assist and/or other participants in the Program (“Landmark Education”) will be submitted to and determined by final and binding arbitration. This Agreement to arbitrate includes claims that there have been any wrongful acts or omissions in my registration in the Program and the warnings and disclosure, content or delivery of the Program (or any of its associated activities) by Landmark Education. Any such dispute, claim or controversy shall not be determined by lawsuit or resort to any court process in any court of law or equity, except as applicable law provides for judicial review, confirmation and enforcement of arbitration proceedings and awards. Judgement upon any award rendered in arbitration may be entered in any court having competent jurisdiction and an application may be made to such court for an order of enforcement.

Such arbitration shall take place pursuant to the Commercial Rules of the American Arbitration Association (“AAA”) then in effect in the City hosting the program and shall be expedited and conducted on successive days before three arbitrators, in accordance with the rules of the AAA then in effect.

I agree that if either party institutes any legal action in any Court not authorized herein, the other party shall be entitled to respond by demurrer or other appropriate response, shall not be required to answer any complaint, and shall be entitled to a dismissal of such legal action. The other party shall be entitled to an award in its favor for the amount of its actual fees and costs of suit.

I understand that Landmark Education LLC is a Delaware company and that this Agreement will be construed and governed by the laws of the State of Delaware. This Agreement cannot be modified unless in writing signed by me and by Landmark Education.

I also agree that the time in which I may commence arbitration shall not be greater than ninety (90) days following the occurrence of the event or events which is/are the subject of my claim or claims. I understand that if I fail to commence arbitration within said ninety (90) days, I may be forever barred from making such claim or claims against Landmark Education.

I UNDERSTAND THAT THIS IS A LEGAL AGREEMENT IN WHICH I FREELY GIVE UP MY RIGHT TO A JURY OR COURT TRIAL.


 * -- Pedant17 (talk) 03:53, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Many businesses, particularly in California, require binding arbitration rather that court trials. I don't have a problem with that. This seems to be a fairly standard piece of writing - really not worth mentioning, and certainly not worth quoting. Wowest (talk) 01:55, 30 June 2009 (UTC)


 * If one regards Landmark Education as a "business" (a highly contentious point of view), the claim that some Californian entities try to avoid litigation might merit some examination. But the context of mentioning and quoting this helpful piece of legalese involved the claim that "if Landmark Education did not deliver substantially on its promises, they would be sued penniless in a heartbeat". Whatever the reason for making that suggestion, the published Landmark Education registration documentation might just possibly suggest the possibility that it might take more than a heartbeat to sue the organization penniless. -- Pedant17 (talk) 03:44, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Removal of material on the exploitation of volunteers
At 0312 hours on July 8, 2008, a Wikipedian removed well-sourced material relating to alleged "exploitation of volunteers" as reported by official French labor-inspectors. The finding of "exploitation" had some official weight and related to the closure of Landmark Education's office in France. It has relevance to an oft-heard charge against Landmark Education, that of exploitation of its volunteer "assistants". Let's restore this material to the article as part of the "Corporation" section to provide balance and background in the account of Landmark Education's unorthodox commercial operations and its close relations with its customers. -- Pedant17 (talk) 02:14, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The word exploitation is indeed used in the source, so yes. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 06:26, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This edit was performed by, an account related to Requests for checkuser/Case/Eastbayway. Cirt (talk) 18:33, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Removal of Badt balance
At 1359 hours on July 11, 2008, a Wikipedian removed sourced comments by Karin Badt which counterpointed and balanced a misleadingly unbalanced summary of Badt's work in the article. The edit-summary claimed that the removed material "reiterates criticisms already made in this section" as if supporting alternative and expanded views do not add to Wikipedia. The edit-summary noted "repeated irrelevant references to [Martin Luther King] and Gandhi", but instead of rationalizing these relevant and accurate references, actually advocated removing them altogether! -- Let's restore a better-balanced and better-crafted summary of Badt's comments, taking account of her emphasis on King and Gandhi. We could start with something like:

Karin Badt of The Huffington Post noted a zealous emphasis on "'spreading the word' of the Landmark forum as a sign of the participants' '"integrity.'" in recounting her personal experience of a introductory "Landmark Forum" course. She calculated that 9 hours over three days concentrated on this theme. Part of this time included comparisons between program participants and Martin Luther King and Mahatma Gandhi.

[...] However, Badt regards the course's word-of-mouth marketing methodology and its considerable focus on proselytizing, as "brainwashing" -- Pedant17 (talk) 02:09, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the reference of the Badt article in the Criticism and Response section ignores the entire (skeptical) tone of the piece while picking the one section of text that seems supportive of Landmark. --Yatta (talk) 23:08, 21 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree as well -- it should be restored. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:13, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This edit was performed by account, exposed as a disruptive sock and indef blocked, see Requests for checkuser/Case/Eastbayway. Cirt (talk) 18:34, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Done -- though with modifications. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:20, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * = I agree with the restoration of this sourced material. Cirt (talk) 21:23, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Removal of key points and concepts
At 1518 hours on August 18, 2008, a Wikipedian removed a paragraph from the article, claiming in the edit-summary: "removing unsourced material from lead of article. It is refered to in it's own section in the article anyway". the article lacks references to the distinctive use of the word "graduates", to the importance of "change" in Landmark Education ideas and marketing, to the "heavy-handedness" within Landmark Education sessions, to the great importance that Landmark Education circles attach to what one might interpret as "selling" Landmark Education courses, to the crucial charge of "brainwashing", and to the explanation of the significance of the French television documentary Voyage au pays des nouveaux gourous. Each of these topics might merit a section or subsection of its own, despite any assumption that they belong in "it's[sic] own [existing] section". Calling for the provision of sourcing would have helped preserve this material; removing it has distorted the article apparently merely for the lack of referencing. Let's restore this material in modified form with references. We could write, for example: Some "graduates" of Landmark Education courses claim that Landmark Education has changed their lives. Other participants have complained of heavy-handed treatment within sessions and still others of pressure to sell courses to other people. General opinion may associate Landmark Education with brainwashing

and/or with culthood. Voyage to the Land of the New Gurus, a television documentary program, broadcast in France and incorporating material filmed secretly at a Landmark Education course, fanned debate. Within three months of the broadcast, the Paris office of Landmark Education closed. -- Pedant17 (talk) 03:49, 20 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This edit was performed by account, exposed as a disruptive sock and indef blocked, see Requests for checkuser/Case/Eastbayway. Cirt (talk) 18:35, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Not a "New Religious Movement"
I removed the tag relating to this, since Landmark Education is not a religious movement of any kind, new old or intermediate. This is clearly demonstrated by the fact that its customers include committed Christians, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, agnostics and atheists. DaveApter (talk) 15:37, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * This comment misunderstands the nature of "new religious movements". The "newness", as discussed in research on the sociology of religion, consists precisely in the way membership and ideas "cross-cut" older religions as conventionally understood.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:45, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Also, it is an offshoot of the old Erhard Seminars Training system, which is included in several encyclopedia of new religions, including, but not limited to James R. Lewis's The Encyclopedia of Cults, Sects, and New Religions, ISBN 1-57392-222-6, pp. 213-216, and is specifically listed as a "cult", a subject the NRM group already specifically covers, at List of groups referred to as cults in government documents. On that basis, I have every reason to believe that it rather clearly falls within the purview of the new group, and am restoring the banner. I have every reason to believe that the information regarding this subject which the new group will ahve access to will help develop this article. John Carter (talk) 16:05, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I fully agree with the above comment by . Cirt (talk) 16:07, 24 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I am frankly mystified as to why this is even a subject of discussion. Self-help classes a la Tony Robbins and Landmark are for-profit companies that are clearly not religions. Every other group I see on the New Religious Movements page is an actual, declared religion or religious movement of some kind.Nwlaw63 (talk) 18:05, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment: = multiple scholars and academics have discussed the for-profit company within the context of religion and religious nature, and there have been multiple lawsuits by plaintiffs claiming religious discrimination for being forced to attend Landmark Education seminars. It is a legitimate and noteworthy topic of discussion which is subject to significant discussion in multiple WP:RS/WP:V secondary sources. Cirt (talk) 18:11, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * While I agree with the extensive published scholarship that characterizes LE as a NRM, I think that the paragraphs added to the article today are too long and unnecessarily detailed. I suggest a shorter summary version that doesn't get bogged down in numerous quotations (or perhaps keeps them in the footnotes).  I do however fully support the inclusion of a section under this heading -- in fact I think it is long overdue, particularly in view of the sources available.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:49, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I think directly quoting the sources themselves is the best way to go, especially to avoid appearances of drawing our own POV conclusions from those sources. Cirt (talk) 18:53, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * It is possible that the section could be considered too long, although, for controversial topics, it is reasonable to quote the sources, thus indicating that there is no attempt at altering the statements they make. However, it is also I believe somewhat odd that to date, about the only section that covers what Landmark Education's courses discuss is that section, which I tend to think may be one of the reasons that the neutrality tag has been in place for so long. If there were the section discussing the nature of the courses it teaches, which logic would seem to indicate almost required, I have every reason to believe that material on the same matter included in the recently added section would reasonably be removed. John Carter (talk) 18:56, 24 August 2009 (UTC)


 * This section is innappropriate on multiple levels. One, it is FAR too long compared to any other content piece in the article.  Because this article has been constantly under attack by vandals it has been stripped down to a minimalist size to keep agreement between all parties.  This minor matter which, frankly is not agreed upon by concensus here AT ALL and should be removed or we will need to start adding the content on what Landmark IS and that risks igniting the vandal wars again,  This section should be removed until there is consensus on this page.Alex Jackl (talk) 19:14, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Also- this is certainly not a "new religious movement". If you go the NRM page you will see only actual religions are talked about there. Because of that I am rmevoiong that tag from this page. Someone form NRM should comment on there page if they actually want to include NRM. Alex Jackl (talk) 19:14, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Consensus is to be reached with reference to wikipedia policies and guidelines, not personal opinion. While I share the concern about length, it ought to be clear to everyone here that that section will pose no difficulties at all in relation to core policies such as WP:V and WP:RS.  In general I'm really fed up with the notion that consensus and NPOV mean that articles here have to reflect the personal opinions of those who choose to be involved.  What matters is consensus with regard to how to edit an article so that it reflects core policies.  On the matter at hand, the fact that the material added is verifiable via reliable sources is really just about all we need to know.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:20, 24 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Put me down as confused. I just read the all the new material that was inserted, mostly these new quotations basically say the Landmark Education is not a religion. One after these other, these quotes make some reference to religion but clearly state that landmark is not a religion. So why is all this material in here? Even if these quotes were stating that Landmark's a religion, and they don't, it seems to put way too much undue weight on a relatively trivial issue. I've read some of the newspaper articles on Landmark, and none indicate that it's a religion. Furthermore, some of the material here (the lawsuits) is already in the Landmark Education Litigation article, so why is it simply being repeated here?Nwlaw63 (talk) 19:37, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * You did notice the first sentence of the new addition clearly states that it has been described as "among the better known" of the new religious movements, right? And that the second sentence refers to another book on new religious movements describe est as a new religion? One of the questions here, and I think the biggest one, is the relationship of Landmark to est. I saw only a single sentence on the page, prior to the recent additions, going into any detail as to what the nature of the "programs" Landmark conducts is. I have to think that that dearth of information was itself extemely problematic. Like I said before, I think some of the material in the newly added section could be removed from that section, specifically regarding the nature of the programs Landmark conducts, provided that information, which I believe is clearly extremely relevant to the topic, were included somewhere else. John Carter (talk) 19:53, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Nwlaw63, it might help if you note the distinction between "religion" and "new religious movement" and then read/learn more about the latter. (By the way, I think the section heading is inaccurate in this regard and will change it.)  It won't be sufficient to note what is in newspaper articles; there is a scholarly literature on this topic that journalists won't know.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:11, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Nomo, rather apply a blanket refjection to something that appears counterintuitive to me, I've looked at the definition of NRM, and it seems to either apply to a spiritual group or a group that separates itself from society - I'm not sure how much of each of these applies here. Given how loose the term can be, I thought I'd look at what these sources say - I went on Amazon and looked at some of these books. In examining some of the new material more closely, I have to reiterate what I said earlier - many of the sources aren't actually saying that Landmark is religious or a NRM. Moreover, there are some problems with the sourced material not saying what it is alleged to be saying in the article. Perhaps we should change the title of this section to “mischaracterization as religious movement”; it would certainly fit better with what’s written here.


 * For instance, If one looks at the Chryssides quotation given here and what is actually in his book, it is quite clear that he is saying that he doesn’t believe that Landmark is a religion or a religious movement. It should say so here clearly, instead of emphasizing the words of other books. The Bromley and Melton book doesn’t “note” anything about Landmark, including saying anything whatsoever about it being religious or non-religious; it simply includes the government list that has hundreds of different organizations. The French list is covered elsewhere in the article. It’s puzzling why the James R. Lewis encyclopedia would be quoted here when it expressly says that the Forum/est is not a religion. That it was accused of being a cult is covered in other sections in the article. Many of the other sources seem to imply that it isn't a religion or a religious movement.


 * All in all, a lot of it seems like weak stuff. The strongest statements seem to be that LE has some ideas that can also be found in religions, and that Landmark is on a couple of lists, some of which aren't even religious in nature. Almost none of these sources are actually making a case for Landmark as a real religion or new religious movement. Nwlaw63 (talk) 21:24, 2 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Okay, a couple of comments. First, it might be appropriate to move some of the "cult" material from this new section and put it in the (older) paragraph that addresses the cult accusation.  I'd personally be happier to have that point supported by academic studies, not just newspapers/journalists.  Perhaps this is appropriate for the sentences on Lewis/Holzinger and Bromley/Melton as well.  An alternative is to move the older sentence into this section -- it depends on whether the "cult" issue speaks more to "criticism" or to "characterization as a religious movement".  I can see the logic of either way.  But I agree that these passages should be brought together. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:57, 2 September 2009 (UTC)


 * As for Chryssides: the sentence that begins "Chryssides concludes" gives in quotation his overall assessment. The fact that you are unhappy with the way this issue is being presented here supports Cirt's claim that the way to handle it is to use quotations rather than paraphrase -- so it's not clear to me what changes would be appropriate in relation to Chryssides.  The only suggestion I would make relates to the fact that Chryssides is revisited in the next paragraph -- I think these should be combined.  In any event, Cirt's text does have the virtue of presenting a nuanced view -- you can hardly say that Cirt is simply choosing material that supports "LE is a religion" and ignoring material that takes a different view.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:57, 2 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I tend to think the cult issue speaks more to criticism than religion - it seems to be used here to imply an insular, sinister group with questionable practices more than it does a group with actual religious rituals. Maybe the Bromley/Melton should be more incorporated with the Criticism section for this reason. I think Holzinger is generally a weak source to use here in that it only refers to est and the Forum circa 1985, which I believe predates Landmark Education - Bromley/Melton works better, in that it actually refers to Landmark and points to something specific, the list. My criticism related to Chryssides relates to the fact that when I read the Amazon material it is even more clear that Chryssides doesn't think Landmark is a religion, and yet the inserted quote spends more time on unnamed others who think so than it does to Chryssides conclusion. Also, we have multiple quotes from Chryssides in different places, which seems a bit sloppy - maybe they should be put together. One other point: I don't think Larson is anything like a real academic scholar - he's a televangelist who wrote a book about what Christians should stay away from. Is this a reliable source? Nwlaw63 (talk) 22:13, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * At least one of the sources I found on a database said that Landmark fills the role of a religion in a number of its adherents. I'm going to have to reprint all those sources, because of their being damaged by recent rain, but I believe that would qualify it within the scope of NRMs. This is of course over and above the multiple sources which have already been presented which describe both Landmark and the programs it provides as NRMs. John Carter (talk) 19:18, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Nwlaw63, I agree on the sloppiness of having those sentences in different locations and have moved combined them as suggested. As for Larson -- I'd be more concerned if he were the only source for this theme, but he isn't.  I also figure it might be hard to argue that the article should exclude the perspective of Christian televangelists -- it certainly isn't my perspective, but that's not reason to exclude it.  Anyway I've made some of the suggested changes.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 14:08, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with these recent changes made by Nomoskedasticity. Cirt (talk) 17:52, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 * = I agree with this change. Cirt (talk) 20:14, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * As do I. John Carter (talk) 20:15, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * STRONGLY OPPOSE I disagree. What you are saying is WP:OR. This whole section is not notable, speculative and should be removed. Mvemkr (talk) 04:14, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 * @ - This is not a vote. There is no need to bold your comment and place it in ALL CAPS. The material is most certainly not WP:OR, as it does not use any primary source but is instead solely reliant upon WP:RS, secondary sources. Cirt (talk) 17:52, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Apparently this most certainly is a vote, and the those who disagree have been being ignored, vetoed or accused of being SPA's. I disagree with the conclusions that you and others are drawing from those secondary sources. For example John Carter wrote "but I believe that would qualify it within the scope of NRMs." And then other editors chimed in to vote and say that they agree with this conclusion which is WP:OR. When anyone dissents from that they are dismissed with wikispeak and wikijargon.  Furthermore I agree with Nwlaw63 above and DaveApter below. This whole section does not meet WP:GNG and there is certainly Undue Weight given to this section. The whole notion of NRM's is more like WP:Fringe, the NRM article itself is up for being eliminated (merged) and furthermore there is a lack of notable sources in that article. Mvemkr (talk) 03:38, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * There is simply no getting around the fact that multiple WP:RS sources discuss the organization within the context of new religious movements, and that it is included as an entry in multiple Encyclopedia books specifically on new religious movements. Cirt (talk) 06:13, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Mvemkr, by wikispeak, do you mean policies and guidelines? WP:GNG refers to articles as a whole -- "how suitable a topic is for its own article" -- and doesn't really help us here.  The merge proposal for the NRMs article appears to be going nowhere, nor should it unless we want Wikipedia to look rather foolish: most NRMs are not cults, as the sociological research on the topic shows.  And the amount of reading you could do about NRMs in general would convince you that it's not fringe in the slightest. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 06:17, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Undue weight
Regardless of what one thinks of Landmark Education, I think it is clear that having nearly half the article be about religion violates the Undue Weight guideline. This is clearly too much space devoted to a tangential topic. DaveApter (talk) 20:45, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * As already noted above by admin, a great way to address this would be to expand upon the other subsections of the article utilizing WP:RS/WP:V independent secondary sources. Cirt (talk) 20:47, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes. Also, at least to my eyes, a lot of the information included in that section might reasonably be included elsewhere. Why, despite all the work that has been done on this article, it contained exactly one sentence referring to what Landmark Education actually does, was and I think is likely to remain something that defies any logical thinking. Personally, I do think that a lot of the material current in that section might be better included in other sections. I think the only reason it had to be added was because, for whatever reason, it had somehow not already been included in the article. If material relevant to other reasonable sections of the article, even sections that somehow haven't been created yet, were included in such sections, then I have every reason to believe that the religion section would be much shorter. John Carter (talk) 21:01, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Essentially I agree here with - of course pending whatever form the expansion of other parts of the article would take, and in particular what sources used in such work. Cirt (talk) 21:22, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * It should, of course, be understood that none of the material already reliably sourced should be removed. However, a reasonable article on a business would probably contain a full section describing what it is the company does. Another standard section is "Criticism" or "Controversy", which could reasonably contain not only the religion material, but also separate sections regarding lawsuits and such. There aren't that many corporate articles at FA, but BAE Systems, Microsoft and Elderly Instruments are other companies that have been involved in substantive litigation, and this article could be, with adjustments as appropriate, structured along roughly the lines there. John Carter (talk) 21:34, 25 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Undue weight also applies to sourced material: “Just as giving undue weight to a viewpoint is not neutral, so is giving undue weight to other verifiable and sourced statements. An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject.” I think it’s pretty clear that the current proportion of content is not at a “weight appropriate to its significance to the subject”. Waiting for future sourced material to appear does not a balanced article make. A couple of other points: the relevance policy points to the fact that side tangents should be split into side articles, and the funny thing is, this article already has been split off into the Landmark Education Litigation article. All the information on the lawsuits is already over there – why is the main article now duplicating the side article? Nwlaw63 (talk) 03:52, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you could suggest some independent secondary WP:RS/WP:V sources to use to expand other parts of this article. Cirt (talk) 04:03, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * And, the entire paragraph about the 21st century democrat lawsuit appears to be cut and pasted word for word from that article. Spacefarer (talk) 02:39, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I wrote it overthere as well, so that is alright. Cirt (talk) 02:40, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: was previously blocked for abusive socking on articles relating to this topic, see Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Eastbayway. Cirt (talk) 02:57, 26 August 2009 (UTC)


 * After spending a lot of time reading, I checked and it seems like that content you were talking about has pretty much been taken from related articles. Since you have all expressed concerns about this and the overall undue weight of this section, I have removed the litigation parts of the religion section and referred readers to the other articles where that information already resides. I hope that is helpful. Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 13:16, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Let's please work on a brief summary, here, rather than removing entire sourced subsections. Cirt (talk) 17:42, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Update: I worked to trim it down a bit: . Cirt (talk) 17:52, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I think it's sensible to trim it rather than simply delete&wikilink, because the material in question speaks to the religious movement characterization dealt with in this section. The separate article on litigation doesn't do the same "work", so something is lost in the wikilinking/deletion approach.  But I'm glad to see it was possible to condense.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:54, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you,, much appreciated. Cirt (talk) 19:06, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Cirt, please get the facts right: I was not blocked 'for abusive socking on articles relating to this topic'; I had two user accounts that I used for different purposes and on different pages in Wikipedia. Please do not attack the people trying to contribute here. (It makes me wonder what else you slant in a particular way.) Landmark Education is not a religion and has never said it is a religion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spacefarer (talk • contribs) 01:27, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * See for more info. Cirt (talk) 03:25, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Spacefarer, what Landmark does or does not say about itself does not determine the content of this article. If other independent reliable sources have made statements calling Landmark a cult or NRM, and reliable sources stating that Landmark is a NRM have been added, that is sufficient to include the material. Also, I would urge Spacefarer to actually read the article on new religious movements, and see what other groups are also described by that term. Opus Dei, which is effectively just a new grouping within the Catholic Church, has also been described as an NRM, and that group holds to now particular religious beliefs that are not already within the reasonable range of Catholic beliefs.
 * Also, in general, I find the new section regarding legal issues useful. Frankly, it is extremely hard to see how these subjects, which directly relate to the subject of this article, weren't already mentioned in the text of the article. I do believe however that in the spirit of WP:SS that there probably should be some additional text added to this article to give the reader of this article a clearer idea as to what sort of content can be found in the other articles. John Carter (talk) 14:04, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I have objected before [] to Cirt's persistent tactic of casting doubts on the validity of certain contributions by these kinds of ad hominem smears. I have just had a look at the references that Cirt helpfully supplied above, which reveal the following facts:
 * Please discuss the edits not the editor
 * 1) Spacefarer was discovered to have an alternative account - FreedomByDesign
 * 2) Neither account had been previously reprimanded, warned or blocked for policy violations or disruptive behaviour
 * 3) No accusations of abusive use of these accounts were made, in particular they were exonerated of double-voting in Cirt's RfA (the ostensible justification for the fishing expedition that produces all these sock-puppetry blocks)
 * 4) In spite of the forgoing, both Spacefarer and FreedomByDesign were initially given indefinite blocks (surely a draconian response), with Spacefarer subsequently re-instated after appeal.

Can we please in future, confine our remarks to the merits of the actual edits or comments made by Spacfarer and others, rather than attemting to prejudice the discussion in this way?

It seems particularly hypocritical of Cirt to be smearing the work of other editors in this way in the light of the fact that (s)he was one of the most prolific, tendentious and disruptive editors imaginable on this article and related topics (under a different username). Not only was (s)he blocked multiple times for edit warring, policy violations, and personal attacks, but (s)he made more edits to this article (and a dozen or so others in the personal development area) than all of the these alleged sock-puppets put together. DaveApter (talk) 10:53, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: / clearly used the two sock accounts in a duplicitous manner contrary to sock policy, and was subsequently blocked for it . In addition, the "FreedomByDesign" account was indefinitely blocked by a WP:CHECKUSER, and still remains so . Cirt (talk) 10:56, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

The point has been made, let's not draw it out further. Best to go back to discussion about the article's content and how to move forward. Perhaps we can discuss possible independent WP:RS sources to utilize to expand the article? Cirt (talk) 11:18, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

The article needs restructuring. Criticism can be made into a separate section as done in most other articles. The "religion/not a religion" and legal disputes have to come as sub sections in the criticism section. This will make the article readable. I request the focus to be brought into restructuring and clean up. It is pending since Oct 2008.Newageindian (talk) 14:51, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The multiple religious scholars that discussed Landmark Education in the context of new religious movements did not do so within the context of "criticism", but rather of religion. Therefore, this material should remain in its own subsection, and not be moved further down the page to be pushed into a "criticism" section. However, it is interesting to note that there is a whole article devoted to Criticism of Microsoft... Cirt (talk) 16:46, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Cirt. I agree and the religion section can stay. I suggest, to eliminate Undue Weight and essay like structure, the litigation and lawsuits by individuals (making minor references to landmark as religion) can be shifted to Landmark_Education_litigation with a link provided in this section. Newageindian (talk) 07:56, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * This has already been discussed, see comments above by admin . I condensed that material down and summarized, removing a significant amount of it. It is not "minor references", rather quite notable that individuals claimed "religious discrimination" in their lawsuits after being mandated to attend the company's courses. Cirt (talk) 14:29, 12 September 2009 (UTC)


 * The article on lawsuits (i.e. Landmark_Education_litigation) already exists and as I suggested earlier, to eliminate Undue Weight and essay like structure, the lawsuits related to "claims that its a religion" have to be moved to Landmark_Education_litigation and a link to the same must be provided in this article.Newageindian (talk) 10:34, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Again, the information was condensed and summarized already, per WP:SUMMARIZE. The current version is a shortened version that already presents the matter of the religious discrimination lawsuits in much less detail. Cirt (talk) 11:30, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Summarized or not, this still the longest section in the article, which has me still wonder about undue weight. Cirt, do you think this religion issue is the most notable thing about Landmark Education? Nwlaw63 (talk) 02:17, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with above comments by that other sections could be expanded upon, with this material retained. Cirt (talk) 04:09, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

FYI
Administrators'_noticeboard. Cirt (talk) 12:50, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Removal of part of listing of Board Members
At 1934 hours on September 10, 2008, a Wikipedian removed sourced information listing members of the Landmark Education Board of Directors, noting in the edit-summary: "Trimmed list of executives--Far more listed than is usually customary". This preferential purge of some Board members from the record appears inconsistent and deprives readers of a fuller appreciation of Landmark Education. I propose that we restore the excised membership list, as follows:

Laurel Scheaf: Director; Landmark Forum Leader Sanford Robbins: Director Brian Regnier: Course designer

-- Pedant17 (talk) 03:56, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Removal of language examples
At 1501 hours on October 4, 2008 a Wikipedian removed the section on "Terms/distinctions", noting in the edit-summary "Remove PR sourced to blogs and oganization". The removed material does not solely or even principally consist of PR. The removed material does not exclusivly stem directly from blogs and organizations. Even if it did, some material in a pop-culture article such as this can legitimately come from blogs and from organizations. Let's restore the material (which covers an important aspect of Landmark Education's activities) and edit/tag it point by point for any blatant PR or inappropriate sourcing. We could write something like: == Language == Landmark Education utilizes some specific terms in its courses. (Landmark Education itself categorizes some of these jargon terms as "distinctions".) Articles in Metroactive and in Life Positive have provided short lexicons of a few terms, such as:

-- Pedant17 (talk) 05:48, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * "breakthrough": Landmark's term for arrival in new psychological terrain - also called a "paradigm shift."
 * "distinction" / "distinguish": "[t]o distinguish something means to take something from an undifferentiated background and bring it to the foreground."
 * "racket": A way of being that allows us to justify ourselves and our point of view; preconceived notions of why we are right and others are wrong
 * "strong suit" (previously known as "formula for success", or as "winning formula": a way of being that has worked well in the past and that we keep using, which keeps us from perceiving new options.
 * "vicious circle": a sphere where one's concepts determine one's experience
 * Taking a stand: Putting attention on a vision for the future; putting our attention on our vision of life that gives us self-expression
 * "distinguishing ourselves and our world through language": The world consists of language and can be altered through language
 * "already/always listening": listening to others with preconceived notions of what they really mean
 * "possibility": a phenomenon that exists in and impacts the present. (As distinct from the regular usage of possibility meaning "something that perhaps might happen in the future".)
 * "enrollment": essentially having (or creating) a conversation in which you move, touch, inspire someone by "causing a new possibility to be present"
 * "unmessable with": the quality of being able to stand in the face of any circumstance and not be thrown off course.
 * "stories vs. reality": the idea that there is what is, and there is also our story about it, or our characterization of it into a context. Example:  "She didn't call me so she must not care about me."  What's real is she didn't call.  What's made up is she does not care.
 * "inauthenticity": pretending a story that one made up really happens, and also pretending that one does not pretend this


 * I agree with Pedant17. With these deletions, the article lost its quality appropriate for wikipedia standards. The two warnings on neutrality and cleanup are hanging for more than 1 year. I am for restoring at least a portion of these old deletes. Newageindian (talk) 07:14, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Removal of sourced material by Nwlaw63
= This removal of sourced material by is inappropriate. The book was published in 2001, long after the Erhard Seminars Training successor company started calling itself "Landmark Education". The book's entry specifically refers to "The Forum", a term commonly used to refer to "Landmark Forum". Cirt (talk) 16:52, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I think both edits were pretty good. This article is about Landmark -- noting a bit of history about the origins of the Forum is fine, but in other respects when this article discusses the Forum it ought to discuss the Landmark Forum.  Yes, the passage included a quote to the effect that they are similar, but for all we know this author's view might include the notion that they are different precisely in regard to "cult" or "religious movement" aspects.  In any event I'm pleased to see the Bromley and Melton sentence was restored. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:02, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The source is discussing the Landmark Forum. It is simply referred to as "The Forum". Cirt (talk) 17:04, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Update: Replaced 2001 source with more recent source, also edited by James R. Lewis, this one is a reference work titled simply Cults . And it does refer to Landmark as The Forum.
 * Source:
 * So this issue is now ✅. Cirt (talk) 17:17, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Cirt, you don't get to pronounce it "done" -- it's not as if a green check-mark will prevent further discussion. The quotation still refers to est.  If the entry refers to est, then in my view it doesn't belong here.  If the text of this source specifically refers to Landmark's version of the Forum as having been accused of being a cult, then fine.  But I think this ought to be substantiated with a quotation in the footnote/reference, given that they admit the possibility that there are differences (as well as similarities) between est's Forum and Landmark's Forum.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:28, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * @ - apologies, I have struck that portion of my comment out, okay? The entry in the reference book Cults, from 2005, refers to "The Forum", and notes it is now called "Landmark Education". Cirt (talk) 17:31, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Update: Modified quote from source . Cirt (talk) 17:43, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for striking. But I still don't think it works.  The quotation refers to cult accusations against est.  Other quoted passages establish a degree of continuity between est and Landmark.  The implication appears to be that the cult accusations stick to Landmark as well.  This strikes me as original research at best, and we're still left with text that refers to cult accusations against est.  There are other sources for the notion that people have levelled cult accusations against Landmark -- I really don't think we need or want this one.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:06, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * It is also noteworthy simply for the fact that there is an entry on The Forum in a reference book discussing Cults. Cirt (talk) 19:08, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Update: Trimmed quoted portion further . Cirt (talk) 19:15, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * But the text -- now deleted -- seems to indicate quite clearly that the accusations referred to (which after all are not the author's own) applied to est. So we have Lewis referring to cult accusations made by others against est, and Lewis noting that there is a degree of continuity between est and Landmark.  To use these to conclude that the Lewis source provides relevant content on cult accusations against Landmark still strikes me as original research.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:24, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * It should be noted that the Christopher Partridge book on new religious movements also refers to the various namechanges seemingly interchangeably, and the entry on Landmark in that book is called "Landmark Forum (est)". There seems to be a tendency among scholars to treat the various namechanges as one organization that has simply engaged in numerous namechanges. Cirt (talk) 19:26, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Definition of WP:SYNTHESIS: "A and B, therefore C". If we add another term -- say, "A and B and W, therefore C", C is still the product of original research. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:33, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * And that is falsely applied in this case. It is not synthesis if the reliable sources themselves view the two things as being virtually identical. In such cases, it is not a violation of WP:SYNTHESIS, which refers to editors saying two different things are the same, because in such an instance the reliable sources are themselves stating the two items are substantially identical, and in such instances all an editor here is doing is basically saying what the reliable sources themselves are saying. John Carter (talk) 21:42, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Agree with this comment by . Cirt (talk) 21:46, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * This is getting silly. The game is given away by the use of the word "basically".  Again, Lewis is not stating that he thinks the Landmark Forum is a cult, nor is he relating that others think so.  He is relating others' accusations that est is a cult, and he is noting that there is continuity between est and Landmark.  If Lewis himself were accusing Landmark Forum of being a cult, then his identification of est with Landmark would be sufficient to establish that he thinks the cult accusation sticks to Landmark.  But it is not sufficient to establish that others (who, by the deleted quoted passage, wrote about est) have accused Landmark Forum of being a cult.  Yes, Lewis appears to think they are substantially the same, but that doesn't mean that we can have Lewis putting words into the mouths of those making accusations against est.  And: may I suggest that I really think more is being lost than gained by insisting on keeping this passage. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:02, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Again, it is also noteworthy in and of itself that in a book titled Cults, the editors chose to include an entry on the subject of this article. Cirt (talk) 22:11, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * And I am curious how making statements which are basically repetitive of reliable sources makes more lost than gained. I hope everyone remembers that we are an encyclopedia, and our sole puprose is to repeat what reliable sources have stated. I cannot see how there is anything to lose by including material which has been specifically included in reliable sources. That statement, implying that there is something to be "lost" by including reliably sourced information which is seemingly directly relevant to the topic, strikes me as very odd indeed. John Carter (talk) 22:19, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Indeed, there is an entry on "Erhard Seminars Training (est) and The Forum". And thanks to Cirt we know what that entry says: that others (not Lewis) have accused est of being a cult.  How then do we get to the notion that this source is relevant to a cult accusation against Landmark Forum? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:23, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * It is relevant to a new religious movement characterization of Landmark Forum. It was moved (not by myself) into a different subsection. Cirt (talk) 22:26, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Fine -- that suggests a solution that at least avoids the original research associated with the cult accusation. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:35, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * See above comment by admin - who notes that your definition of original research was "falsely applied in this case". Cirt (talk) 22:40, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay, let's get a bit pedantic: "notes" is incorrect. "claims" would work, and then I would note that I disagreed with his view.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:44, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Regardless, the current presentation is fine. I agree with the move of the material to the section discussing the characterization of Landmark Education as a religious movement. Cirt (talk) 22:58, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

A further look at this article shows that material sourced to Bob Larson remains in the article. This seems highly inappropriate - Larson is clearly not a reliable source (an accepted scholarly source or news source) - he's a televangelist who likes to write about how different things are the work of Satan. The book quoted essentially describes itself as a guidebook for helping the believing Christian avoid evil, as opposed to being some sort of scholarly academic work. Clearly Larson is a questionable source, writing from a partisan point of view, and is not someone who appears at all neutral about what is or is not a religion. I am removing the material sourced to Larson.Nwlaw63 (talk) 01:07, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Bob Larson is a notable writer on religion, and the sourced info in the article is attributed as being his comments. Please do not keep removing it. Cirt (talk) 01:53, 5 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Notable is not reliable, as you well know. You haven't answered the point about this being a completely unreliable source, and until someone does, I am obliged to removed the inappropriately sourced material.Nwlaw63 (talk) 02:00, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * It is a reliable source to verify the opinion of the notable individual, and it is only being used in that capacity here. Cirt (talk) 02:01, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * It certainly looks like its being used as a scholarly source, when it's mixed in with a long list of academics. And I'm not sure when random opinions became appropriate material for a Wikipedia article. Opinions by a televangelist notable for such books as "Rock & Roll: The Devil's Diversion" and "In The Name Of Satan: How the Forces of Evil Work and What You Can Do To Defeat Them". You're arguing for this author to be a reliable, non-partisan source here? No wonder this section of the article is so bloated, if this kind of sourcing is being used.Nwlaw63 (talk) 02:34, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * No. I am arguing that he is a notable writer and that his commentary, attributed to him as such, is noteworthy of inclusion. Cirt (talk) 18:05, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * If Larson is notable for anything, it would be for being a self-publicising crank with extremist views. Reporting them in this article would be a clear violation of Undue Weight. DaveApter (talk) 18:30, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Source to back up these very negative claims about a WP:BLP? Cirt (talk) 23:02, 8 January 2010 (UTC)


 * This is a discussion of a Wikipedia article, not a Wikipedia article. Truth can be considered here. Bob Larson does NOT have a reputation of fact checking, academic credentials or even a reputation as an honest person. A quick Google search reveals many critical articles including:

http://www.holysmoke.org/wicca/bl.htm
 * Larson is accused of defamation and of being a bad Christian:

http://lessons.edwood.org/L10-12.html

http://www.holysmoke.org/sdhok/larson.htm

http://www.theroc.org/roc-mag/textarch/roc-11/roc11-10.html
 * He is even accused of outright fraud

It took all of ten minutes to find that. Nothing sourced to Larson should be included in any article. Wowest (talk) 02:08, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Those are not the best of sources to confirm anything. Cirt (talk) 04:01, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Let's move on. I am not going to dispute the Larson source further. Cirt (talk) 04:04, 9 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Larson has his audience, which may overlap with the audience of Wikipedia. He also has his enemies and detractors - as does Landmark Education.It does not behove us as Wikipedians to cast out any citable secondary source. We can further balance by including a sourced summary of Larson's views - clearly labeled as his - alongside other well-sourced views which agree or disagree with him. Opinions on Larson himself and his statements belong in the Bob Larson article to which we can link. The association of Landmark Education with Zen and/or Buddhism has a background in the literature: note the throwaway assumptions of Martin Rumstedt's line in his article "Transforming Notions of Mercy at Work: The Changing Mission of the Fraters of Tilburg in secularised Dutch Society" in Reframing Dutch culture: between otherness and authenticity by Peter Jan Margry and Herman Roodenburg: ; and consider the stress that Sam Martin places on Scientology and Buddhism in the origins of Landmark Education: . Removing the only surviving reference to this background in our article does our readers a disservice in their thirst for encyclopedic knowledge. -- Pedant17 (talk) 01:51, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Adding Course Content Section
As per recent discussion on this talk page, I am adding material that tells something about the ideas in the courses. I am starting a section that simply describes the logistics of the Landmark Forum and what is discussed during the course, staying away from partisan language and evaluations of whether the course is good or bad, and focusing on well established facts from credible eyewitness accounts ( taking care to avoid using primary sources). I am adding this because currently there are a number of evaluations of The Landmark Forum and other Landmark classes, and a long discussion on whether it has religious aspects, but no discussion whatsoever of what actually happens during The Landmark Forum or other programs. Roy (talk) 01:05, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Good. However, some of the refs need to be consolidated in that section - they are the exact same cites being used over and over again. Cirt (talk) 01:08, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

CAIC not a reliable source
I removed the sentence about the Cult Information and Awareness Center's classification. This source is just a self-published partisan website promoting the opinions of its owner. DaveApter (talk) 18:34, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Now it is attributed to a secondary source . Cirt (talk) 21:27, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * What difference does that make? Information Week reports that the CAIC publishes the opinion that Landmark is cult-like? Dose that make the self-published opinion any more noteworthy? DaveApter (talk) 22:52, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes. Cirt (talk) 23:00, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

From what I can see, the CIAC material on Landmark is a collection of articles from other sources. The articles themselves, especially referenced in their original, not CIAC, could have bearing, but the simple fact that CIAC includes articles about Landmark does not seem important to this article. Jojalozzo (talk) 05:14, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * It is not being used as a primary source. Cirt (talk) 05:15, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok, perhaps not now, but it was being used as a primary source in the sentence that DaveApter removed and is the subject of this section. If we agree that it is not a good primary source, what value are we adding to the article by referring to CAIC at all? Why not just reference the primary sources that CAIC has so helpfully gathered for us? Does CAIC have something original of its own to add? Jojalozzo (talk) 13:52, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Whatever the history of this passage, the way it is currently presented ought to be uncontroversial: a reliable secondary source has reported what the CAIC does/says about LE, and the article here conveys what that source has reported. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 14:22, 9 January 2010 (UTC)


 * That may be true, but in that case, the cite should certainly read like "Information Week asserts that CAIC identified LE as "cult-like." CAIC is the sole creation of (some dead Australian broad) who self-identifies herself as a former member of several non-mainstream religious organizations but who has no professional expertise or credentials as to what constitutes a cult and according to what religion a given organization is a cult. She is generally regarded as an apostate Jehovah's Witness or $cientologist or something like that." Wowest (talk) 07:04, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

This is getting absurd. If CAIC cannot stand on its own feet without bringing in some other source, then CAIC is not a viable source. Just because Information Week finds it useful to mention that CAIC labels Landmark as a cult doesn't mean CAIC is a viable source for this project. Information Week has its criteria and editorial process which is not the same as ours here. The sentence we have now is contrived and meaningless hearsay. Jojalozzo (talk) 20:41, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * It is a WP:RS secondary source, and duly attributed as such. Cirt (talk) 00:03, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Just because a reliable source mentions another source doesn't make the other source reliable. This is especially true when the mention doesn't even include a citation that can be checked. If we cannot use the CAIC as a primary source that can stand on its own we should drop it. Jojalozzo (talk) 02:54, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * It is not being used as a source. Cirt (talk) 03:30, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * So why do we mention CAIC at all? I thought it was because we felt it supports the view that Landmark is a cult. If so, then it is clear to me that we are using CAIC as a source. If not, then what are we using CAIC for? Jojalozzo (talk) 04:21, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Cirt: I find your replies here confusing and cryptic. First you say "It is a WP:RS secondary source." Then you say "It is not being used as a source." Please explain. Jojalozzo (talk) 04:35, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Information Week is a reliable source. CAIC is not being used as a source.  What on earth is the problem?  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:06, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I do not understand the claims that CAIC is not being used as a source. If CAIC is not being used as a source then what is it called when we include the fact that CAI considers LE a cult? If we want to say CAIC considers LE a cult, why not just say that instead of some hearsay by some other source? To me it sounds like weaseling due to the fact that CAIC is unreliable. If CAIC is unreliable it doesn't make it more reliable to point out that some other source use them as a source as we do now. Jojalozzo (talk) 13:21, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * My first reply was about the source being used (InformationWeek). My second was about the other source that is not being used (CAIC). Cirt (talk) 20:31, 11 January 2010 (UTC)


 * So let's spell it out in the article or leave it out of the article: "Information Week reliably states that CAIC unreliably stated that LE has something to do with a cult." Wowest (talk) 21:02, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The current wording in the article text is appropriate - but this proposed wording is not supported by secondary sources. Cirt (talk) 21:03, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Wowest, if there are appropriate sources for the addition suggested in your post yesterday (apostate Jehovah's Witness, etc.), then in all sincerity I will be happy to support adding it. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:24, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, CIRT, that helps. Now, please explain why we should not consider CAIC a source when we say (via Info Week reference) CAIC labels LE as a cult. If CAIC's opinion is important for the article, shouldn't we view CAIC as a source? Jojalozzo (talk) 22:08, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The source is InformationWeek. Cirt (talk) 22:10, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * This is weaseling. Do we or don't we want to include the information that CAIC labels LE as a cult? If that is our aim then we are using CAIC as the source of opinion whether we weasel it in via Info Week or just state it. Using Info Week as a shield hobbles that section of the article. It is not WP quality. Jojalozzo (talk) 00:21, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I removed the useless reference to that Info Weak blurb. CAIC is all the source anyone would require to show that CAIC lists LE as a cult. CAIC must stand on its own or go away as unreliable. Jojalozzo (talk) 02:56, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Secondary sources are preferable to primary. Cirt (talk) 05:10, 13 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Or we can note that CAIC has a (quotable) opinion and that others question/endorse/quote/back such opinion.CAIC and Landmark Education have a history, as faithfully recorded in the notable article on the Cult Awareness and Information Centre. Let's not sweep that history under the carpet, but note it as a part of the Landmark Education public discourse story. Not only do casual mentions associate Landmark Education with culthood, but look: the org appears on lists as well. CAIC stands in good company here: other "cult" lists which classify Landmark Education among the elect include:
 * a 1995 list from a French Parliamentary Commission report:
 * a 1996 list of groups published by the Austrian Federal Ministry for Social Security and the Generations:
 * a 1997 list published by a Berlin Senate committee:
 * a 1997 bilingual list in French and Flemish from a Belgian Parliamentary Committee report:
 * a 1999 list in a French parliamentary commission report on cults and money: {{cite web

}}
 * url= http://www.assemblee-nationale.fr/dossiers/sectes/r1687anx.asp
 * title= Les sectes et l'argent {Cults and money]
 * accessdate= 2010-01-14
 * author= Assemblée Nationale
 * authorlink= National Assembly of France
 * date= 1999-06-10
 * publisher= République Française
 * language= French
 * quote= NOM DE LA SECTE : LANDMARK [Name of cult: Landmark]
 * -- Pedant17 (talk) 01:51, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Religious discrimination lawsuits
= This edit by was inappropriate. It removed multiple different secondary sources, and replaced it with one dubious primary source,. This is straying towards violating WP:NOR. We should stick to what is said in secondary, not primary sources. Cirt (talk) 18:32, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * There's no prohibition on use of primary sources. If the lawsuits have been dismissed and there's a court document that says so, then I support inclusion of a sentence that tells readers they have been dismissed.  I agree that DaveApter's edit didn't come with a usable source -- couldn't figure out what was going on there -- and I also don't see that it makes sense to delete so much.  But a primary source that tells us the lawsuits have been dismissed would be fine.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:33, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * It's a matter of fact that the lawsuits have been dismissed. In the light of that there's no justification in giving extended space to allegations that the courts have judged unfounded.  Personally I think the matter is too marginal to justify being included in the article at all, but I left this appropriately succinct summary in deference to those who judge otherwise.  Certainly it would be disproportionate to give it any more extensive treatment.  I'm sorry if you don't like my source - I'm sure it won't be too difficult to find a more acceptable one recording the fact of this court judgement.  The article already suffers from saying very little about Landmark Education or what it does, and dealing far too much with trivia. DaveApter (talk) 22:32, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * www.keepandshare.com = not WP:RS. Has this purported development claimed by been reported on in any sources that satisfy WP:RS? Cirt (talk) 04:43, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * This is totally unnecessary wikilawering. Anyone can easily establish from the public record that these cases were dismissed, and the keepandshare.com link is simply a convenience to enable readers to view copies of the documents.  This is typical of the double standards you apply to sources according to whether they support your POV or not.  You have frequently used court papers as refs for your edits, and frequently referred to them via reprints on various websites. I have added the fact that the cases were dismissed, now cited to the original court documents.  I do doubt that there is really justification for even including these items at all, given that the accusations are now not substantiated. DaveApter (talk) 16:27, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Again, I support use of court documents for this purpose. The link you provided, I didn't find it easy to use -- I couldn't figure out which document to go to.  But if you can provide another direct link to a court document, that would be fine in my view.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:00, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * They weren't web links, they were refs to the court documents (it isn't necessary for every reference to be an internet accessible one). If you want to look at copies, you can see them here [] and here [].  Otherwise you could use whatever facilities those courts have for accessing their records. DaveApter (talk) 17:13, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * True about no need for on-line refs. In this instance I suggest you simply add something about dismissal, referencing the court cases directly (and perhaps adding those links you provided above if you see fit).  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:29, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * It agree that it seems inappropriate to not mention the dismissal of these lawsuits, and that it should be an easy matter to simply add the reference without mentioning the website. Given the dismissal of these suits, the lengthy descriptions of them seem excessive. As I’ve noted before, the size of the 'religious implications' section clearly violates undue weight policy (this section swamps the rest of the article in size). The editor who inserted all the material in the first place has seemed determined to fight any and all changes to the section, even when the material proves dubious or incomplete, such as with the Bob Larson material or as is the case here. For these reasons of undue weight, I support going to the abbreviated mention of these lawsuits from DaveApter's original edit, and using the lengthier version at the Landmark Education Litigation article.Nwlaw63 (talk) 19:04, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * = probably the best we can do for now, unless this was further reported on in additional secondary sources. Cirt (talk) 20:24, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I have gone ahead and shortened the mentions of the lawsuits in line with the undue weight given to this section, and as also seems appropriate given the dismissals of the suits. Any of the material removed could be put in the Landmark Litigation article. Nwlaw63 (talk) 05:51, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree it's appropriate. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:52, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * In view of the fact that the allegations have not been upheld, I doubt that they merit mention in the article at all. If they are going to be included, this is the maximum space that should be devoted to them - any more would be Undue Weight. DaveApter (talk) 12:41, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Unnecessary Info Week reference to CAIC listing of LE
Those who favor keeping a reference to LE's presence on the CAIC website have not explained why we need Info Week as a reference as to that fact. The site itself has the listing and the reader can go there and see it as easily as they can go and see that Info Week mentions that the site has the listing. What is the problem with just saying CAIC lists LE on its site? What is added by saying that Info Week says CAIC lists LE? Jojalozzo (talk) 03:37, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * It is always preferable to use secondary sources, rather than primary. Cirt (talk) 04:50, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * CAIC is already a secondary source. LE's website would be the primary source.
 * The Info Week reference to CAIC is inaccurate. CAIC is explicit about not labeling LE as a cult. If we're going to keep the reference we should be honest about what CAIC accually says. Jojalozzo (talk) 12:52, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * A primary reference to CAIC would fail notability, and to show that, back would come the Info Week reference. AndroidCat (talk) 12:34, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I take that as an argument against the (weaseling) use of Info Week's inaccurate reference to CAIC, right? Jojalozzo (talk) 12:52, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I imagine you do take it that way, but incorrectly. AndroidCat (talk) 13:13, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * All the Info Week article does is quote the self-published non-notable opinion of the CAIC site proprietor. If the source from which Info Week acquired its information is not reliable or notable, how has its report of that made it any more so?  Incidentally, Info Week seems self-evidently to fail the WP:RS requirement of "having a reputation for editorial fact checking" since the article quoted contains two obvious and gross errors of fact. DaveApter (talk) 12:41, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I suggest you raise this at WP:RSN. In general, if a reliable source reports on something, editors' opinions on the merits of what is reported are not relevant.  Substantively, since there is a Wikipedia article on the CAIC, it isn't obvious that we would conclude it is not notable -- rather the opposite, it seems to me.  But the main issue is whether Info Week counts as a reliable source.  If it does, then it is justified to convey what they have reported about the CAIC.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 12:54, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your comments: On the issue of whether CAIC is notable - the fact that there is a Wikipedia article on the subject does not establish that; all it establishes is that someone saw fit to create the article and no-one has successfully proposed its removal. Incidentally the creator and principal contributor to that article is Cirt. []
 * On the issue of what is added by the report in Info Week: my point is this - all the article does is tell us what the CAIC site itself says, which is no more than we could have found out by looking at the site itself. The situation seems entirely equivalent to the following hypothetical scenario:
 * Joe Soap publishes on his website joesoap.com his contention is that the moon is made of green cheese; clearly this is his opinion and he is entitled to it; equally clearly joesoap.com does not qualify as a Reliable Source for establishing facts, and the indisputable fact that Joe Soap holds this opinion is not notable - unless either Jo is a notable recognised expert on lunar geology or it can be established that there is a significant body of opinion to this effect of which Joe is a representative exemplar.
 * Even if AnOtherNewspaper then writes an article reporting that this assertion has been made on joesoap.com (an obviously true fact), this clearly adds nothing to the credibility or notability of the opinion itself.
 * Reporting CAIC's opinion within a Wikipedia article is misleading in that it adds a spurious appearance of authority to the self-published viewpoint of a partisan commentator. DaveApter (talk) 15:47, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Your explication of Info Week being used as a shield to falsely render notability to CAIC's opinion is excellent - much better than I have expressed it. Perhaps due to my inability to be as clear as you, editors with an apparent POV against Landmark have remained silent or replied with short cryptic remarks that do not address my points, e.g. "Information Week is a notable source." I replaced the Info Week reference with a sentence that just said that CAIC listed Landmark on its web site but this was reverted with the comment: "misunderstanding of how sources work here" (there are some here who say CAIC is a primary source!). Jojalozzo (talk) 04:03, 16 January 2010 (UTC)


 * If AnOtherNewspaper writes an article noting an assertion made on joesoap.com, the mere publication of the article in AnOtherNewspaper says something about the importance of the lunar green cheese idea in the eyes of AnOtherNewspaper -- without necessarily endorsing the original contention on joesoap.com. If InformationWeek sees fit (despite its other priorities and editorial proclivities and legal-department cautions) to publish material linking Landmark Education with culthood, the mere publication of an article on the subject says something about the importance of the Landmark Education/cult nexus in the corporate eyes of InformationWeek -- without necessarily endorsing the original contentions or the apparent authority or the separately alleged partisanship of the Cult Awareness and Information Centre (CAIC). The "public conversation" rolls on -- and Wikipedia notes and reports the ongoing existence of the issue in an NPOV manner with scrupulous regard to the matter of sourcing. -- Pedant17 (talk) 03:20, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Gidi Rubenstein
Please provide a source for this claim. Cirt (talk) 05:31, 17 January 2010 (UTC)


 * . The whole Rubinstein thing is spurious. I wonder what motivated him to plagiarize something that cast LGAT's like Landmark Forum in that light. I think this content belongs on the Wikipedia cutting room floor because it has a major shadow cast of it as reliable content. 211.28.60.149 (talk) 05:39, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Removed, thanks. Cirt (talk) 05:42, 17 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Glad to work with you. Why did you initially revert? I'm not really following whether you or anyone else is policing this article but one is tempted to believe it might be the case when my revision was initially reverted without discussion. I'll assume it was just a accidental over-reaction and not your usual behaviour. 211.28.60.149 (talk) 06:04, 17 January 2010 (UTC)


 * BTW. I don't mean that to sound harsh. 211.28.60.149 (talk) 06:05, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, that was a pretty serious claim made in the edit summary at first, with absolutely nothing to back it up. That is why I asked for it. Cirt (talk) 06:06, 17 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I think you should have given me a few minutes to answer your question. There was no hurry to revert and it makes you come across a little bit like you are emotionally involved with the article. Thanks for answering. 211.28.60.149 (talk) 06:13, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Let us please stick to discussing the article's content, instead of focusing on individual contributors. The material is removed, the issue is done. Cirt (talk) 06:17, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Cirt, I'm very puzzled: if the later article plagiarized an earlier article that says the same things about LE, why did you remove the material here instead of simply changing the reference to the earlier article? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:42, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Good question. In the past, others have attempted to claim that because that study was about "The Forum", and not "The Landmark Forum", it should not even be included anywhere on this page. I disagree with that, and agree with you that it should be added. Feel free to do so yourself, if you wish it included. ;) Cirt (talk) 08:47, 17 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm not certain the article theories and conclusions are identical. This needs to be reviewed carefully without assuming. 211.28.60.149 (talk) 12:09, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I've had a look at both articles now. They are mostly dissimilar (I used Word's compare function to check). Rubinstein has probably bought himself some real trouble by copying from some early paragraphs of the older article. But the extent of overlap after the first couple of paragraphs is vanishingly small -- these are mostly different articles. The older one doesn't address the effects of Forum participation (as in Rubinstein's article) at all -- instead it seeks to explain what makes participants different from non-participants. (Answer: a higher level of psychological distress, and a "philosophical" orientation already mostly aligned with "LGAT".)

So, we now have a question: do we use Rubinstein's article even though there are sections at the beginning copied from the older article? I'm not aware of a wikipedia policy that says low-level plagiarism amounts to failure re WP:RS. Obviously if it ends up being retracted the situation will be different. But my reading is that Rubinstein's piece, despite showing signs of real stupidity in copying in a couple of early paragraphs, is a perfectly acceptable piece of empirical research and is usable here. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:24, 18 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I think it's common sense that a plagiarist is an unreliable source, regardless of whether he plagiarized 20% or his article or %100. We know for a fact that a certain percentage of his article is deception. You can't just say, "Well it looks like that other bit isn't deception. Let's use that." I don't think it works like that. Until a third party source establishes the extent of Rubinstein's deception I think it's an off limits source. 211.28.60.149 (talk) 03:03, 24 January 2010 (UTC)


 * So has the British Psychological Society and/or the Psychotherapy: Theory, Research and Practice journal subsequently apologized for the recycling of a formulaic literature-review/introduction and retracted Gidi Rubinstein's independent research and expunged its content from its archives? Will we in future regard an Arizona Daily Star blog as a more reliable source than a scholarly journal? -- Pedant17 (talk) 03:20, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Poorly sourced addition
While Landmark Education is a personal training and development company, that is in not a religion or religious in nature, some people who have not reviewed the programs first hand have commented otherwise. = this sentence added by is poorly sourced. Take a look at how the rest of that subsection is structured - every single sentence is sourced to WP:RS, scholarly sources. However, the 2nd half of the new material added by is seemingly sourced to - nothing at all... Cirt (talk) 23:18, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * What are you talking about? The first clause - that LE is a training and development company - is supported by no less than eight references to perfectly respectable secondary sources. The second clause - that it is not religious in nature - is supported by seven other sources. The third clause summarises the section, namely that "some people... have commented otherwise", and draws attention to the relevant fact (readily confirmed by consulting the eight "scholarly sources" to which the rest of the section is referenced) that not a single one of those authors had based their opinion on a first-hand review of Landmark's programs. DaveApter (talk) 13:09, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't see the need to remove the above sentence. It has what 16 citations.  How can you call that poorly sourced? Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 01:45, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I reworded the sentence a little and removed the unsourced claim that all those attributing religious attributes had not participated in the program. Jojalozzo (talk) 04:04, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Three points before I get to this latest edit: 1) Based on all the sources in this article saying that Landmark Education is a self-help company and not a religion, it seems evident to me that claiming Landmark is a religion is a minority view, and 2) the section head ‘Characterization as a Religion’ isn’t even what these minority view academics are actually saying – rather they make comments like “some people may regard their experiences as religious in nature”. One could say that about almost anything, and yet this minority view, which doesn’t even say what the section head says it does, is still the largest section of the article, bloated with things like three quotes from the same author. 3) Based on the above two points, I continue to see this section as a violation of WP: Undue Weight, and that the proper recourse is to incorporate a sentence summarizing the view of these academics and put it in the criticism section, along with what we have about the two lawsuits. The alternative is the edit that was recently introduced: an introductory sentence to the section which seems to have been throw in to essentially say that the rest of the section is fairly unimportant. For now, I will restore that edit, since it at least points out that what follows is essentially a minority view. While the recent modification of that edit is an attempt at compromise, it appears inaccurate, in that the sources I’ve seen don’t say ‘Landmark asserts it’s a company’, they simply say it is a company, and that it seems fairly clear from the academic sources that they aren’t based on first hand review of the program, although I will add a citation tag so that we can find an exact source for this or find a better way of working this whole section. Nwlaw63 (talk) 20:15, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * some people who have not reviewed the programs first hand have commented otherwise = unsourced. Please do not add unsourced material to this article. Cirt (talk) 23:12, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * This is not an unsourced comment. The sources for it are the seven books and papers that you or John Carter provided as references. "some people... have commented otherwise" is uncontroversial. "...that have not reviewed the programs first hand..." is evident from the fact that none of the authors of the books or papers said that they based their conclusions on first-hand observation. Incidentally, I did not say that all commentators who characterised Landmark as religious had not reviewed the programs themselves, only that some had.  Do you have any sources expressing that opinion from people who have reviewed them?  Also I'd suggest that the current wording is misleading in referring to "reviewers" - that term would surely be taken to imply someone who had based their comments on observation rather than hearsay or armchair speculation?  DaveApter (talk) 16:15, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * My three points: 1) I think that deemphasizing this section is a good idea. Reducing both the number of references in the first sentence and the overall length of the rest of it. 2) Moving it into the criticism section may not be appropriate since I do not believe that having religious and spiritual aspects is necessarily intended as negative criticism. Religion does not equal cult. 3) My version of the sentence does not make an unsourced claim about those who say it is religious. Jojalozzo (talk) 02:22, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with prior comments by, that the thing to do is not to reduce this section, but instead to expand further upon other sections on the page. Cirt (talk) 02:24, 29 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Our article should not even have a "criticism section" -- that section just functions as a magnet for contrasting binary black/white views. Better to refactor all such comment into appropriate subject-headings and to balance the article on the basis of reliably-sourced commentators as they address each aspect of Landmark Education and its operations. -- Pedant17 (talk) 03:20, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Removal of allegedly "partisan" external link
At 1638 hours on October 16, 2008 a Wikipedian [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Landmark_Education&diff=next&oldid=245212430 removed a link to an article clearly labeled "A critic's view on Landmark education" with the edit summary "See also: removed partisan external link from section intended for wiki articles". Given the inappropriate positioning of the link, let's restore similar content and provide some balance to a now rather one-sided "External links" section, thus:


 * - a published account which Landmark Education reacted to with an unsuccessful defamation case.

-- Pedant17 (talk) 03:20, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I see no reason this article couldn't be used for addition of content (though not, as you say, in "see also"). Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:39, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

French to English translation of "secte" as "cult"
Be gentle with me, as I'm new to commenting on wikipedia. I was surprised by the translation of the French word "secte" as "cult," and followed the link to the original article in French, which I read. I believe that the choice to translate "secte" in this manner insinuates a belief that is not present in the actual article. In fact, the article discusses at some length what a difficult interpretation it is, to determine if a group is sectarian, and what the characteristics are or could be, which may or may not be there in the groups on their list, which are, in essence, candidates for what MIGHT be considered sectarian. Only one of the definitions in the list appeared to me to represent a characteristic of a cult, which is not synonymous with sect in either English or French. I would recommend removing the parenthetical word "(cult)" as a definition of the French "secte" in the article. Fishhead512 (talk) 02:43, 12 March 2010 (UTC)


 * French and English usages do not coincide - hence the advantage of quoting the original French word alongside a standard and accepted English translation thereof. (See http://www.wordreference.com/enfr/cult which states: "cult [...] noun culte m; (contemporary religion) secte f."  and http://www.wordreference.com/fren/secte which has (for example)"membre d'une secte n (apparenté à une secte) cultist". And compare these extracts from the French-language Encyclopédie Larousse at http://www.larousse.fr/encyclopedie/nom-commun-nom/secte/90902 : 'Certains mouvements religieux contemporains, qu'on appelle parfois « nouvelles sectes », font pression sur leurs adeptes, les dépouillent de leurs biens, et vont jusqu'à provoquer des suicides collectifs ou des attentats aux motivations apocalyptiques. Contre de tels agissements, des associations de défense se sont développées, sous l'égide des Églises instituées, des États et des familles des adeptes. [...] Depuis la fin des années 1960 se sont multipliées des sectes qui, nées en Occident ou importées d'Orient, se présentent comme relevant d'un type nouveau de religiosité. Elles se caractérisent par leur idéal de renouvellement (tel le New Age) et par leur goût pour l'exotisme, le syncrétisme, le non-conformisme le plus radical, le souci de changer la vie individuelle et de faire advenir sur terre une société totalement harmonieuse. On peut citer parmi elles : l'Église de scientologie ou de la nouvelle compréhension, qui s'inspire des doctrines de l'écrivain américain L. R. Hubbard (1911-1986) ; l'Église (ou Association) pour l'unification du christianisme mondial (fondée en 1954 par le Coréen Sun Myung Moon) ; l'Association internationale pour la conscience de Krishna (fondée aux États-Unis en 1966 par l'hindou Bhaktivedanta) ; la Mission de la lumière divine de Guru Maharaj Ji (née en Inde en 1960). [...] On reproche généralement à ces mouvements le caractère exclusif de l'adhésion qu'ils exigent, la rupture qu'ils établissent ainsi entre leurs jeunes adeptes et les familles de ceux-ci, leur charlatanisme et leurs malversations camouflées sous des promesses de guérison. En fait, ces nouveaux mouvements doivent une grande partie de leur succès à l'éclatement de l'univers religieux traditionnel et à l'effondrement de la contre-culture à la fin du XXe s.') -- "Sect" in English tends to express more precise religious connotations which the English word "cult" does not necessarily convey. - Compare the articles List of groups referred to as cults or sects in government documents and Parliamentary Commission on Cults in France, both of which discuss the document in question. -- Pedant17 (talk) 13:27, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Are you aware how the business made it onto the document?Rolyatleahcim (talk) 01:56, 1 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I assume by "the business" you mean Landmark Education (a rather biased label). -- I've seen an anecdotal account which implied that the Commission reported on Landmark Education in 1995 due to a single chance opinion from an unhappy brush with the org. On the other hand, I've read that people raised quite a few questions about Landmark Education in France in 1998: "Au cours de l'année 1998, l'ADFI [Union nationale des associations de défense des familles et de l'individu victimes de sectes] de Paris a reçu 177 appels demandant des renseignements sur l'entreprise, et signalant des agissements surprenants et, même inquiétants." (http://www.prevensectes.com/landmar1.htm retrieved 2010-06-05). And I've seen the report of the 1995 Commission itself, which summarizes the methodologies by which 173 organizations appeared in the report. Further, I've seen Landmark Education discussed in a subsequent French parliamentary commission reports on cultitude. (See http://www.assemblee-nationale.fr/dossiers/sectes/r1687anx.asp#P2210_34603 retrieved 2010-06-05.) -- So in answer to the question: no, I'm not aware specifically how the "business" came to appear in the French Parliamentary Commission report. -- Pedant17 (talk) 12:34, 5 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Okay your not, that's okay; neither am I. I am certain of the term Business though. Rolyatleahcim (talk) 21:15, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Removal of suppression of critical thinking
At 1308 hours on October 19, 2008, a Wikipedian removed major criticisms of Landmark Education by reverting a summary of points emphasized by Karin Badt. Badt repeatedly took issue with Landmark Education's disconnection from critical thinking, stating in her article: 'I just did not see any reason to 1) prevent critical thinking and 2) [...] It also disgusted me to see people unwilling to have their transformative weekend tampered with by critical thinking. One participant at the break said he objected to my critique of the Luther and Gandhi references. True my point was valid, but couldn't I accept that a mass of average people might get so much mileage out of the inspiration of being compared to these great leaders that I was spoiling their fun if I was too logical and "intelligent" about it? Another thought I was being needlessly picky when I pointed out that using Sarkozy as an example of integrity (he sticks to his word; he admits his Carla Bruni affair in public) pointed out a rather shallow rightwing prejudice. [...] No, the problem with the Forum is the participants. Why do they willingly put critical thinking aside, not wanting anything to disturb their pleasure? Why does no one flinch when we are told to enjoy the fact, in a joke, that the Iraqis after all are afraid of us? Why did they not raise eyebrows when Sophie compared herself, obliquely, to Mother Teresa, generously devoting her time to us (she claimed not to need the salary) because she "loved us" and wanted (hands pressed to chest) our "transformation"?' -- Given the importance of this theme, lets restore Badt's criticism: we could include something like: "Badt deplores Landmark Education's discouraging of critical thinking. -- Pedant17 (talk) 13:27, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I do not support given the statement you propose; it would be incorrect unless you are able to show that Landmark Education actually does "discourage critical thinking" (I don't believe that this would be feasible).Rolyatleahcim (talk) 01:53, 1 June 2010 (UTC)


 * We could further clarify the attribution to Bach by spelling out the opinion as: "Badt deplores what she sees as Landmark Education's discouraging of critical thinking. -- That would clearly cite a source correctly and fully documented. -- Pedant17 (talk) 12:34, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
 * It would. Rolyatleahcim (talk) 21:18, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Removal of attitudinal summary
At 1528 hours on November 3, 2008, a Wikipedian removed a summary of criticism, alleged justification, and doubts from the lede, adding the edit-summary "unsourced and undiscussed". Discussion took place, with sources provided. We can accordingly restore an annotated and npovized form of the removed sentences, say: Frequently labeled a "cult", or in Landmark Education conducted a series of court cases with the apparent aim of discouraging commentators from describing it in such terms. Many remain skeptical of the organization's aims and activities, but it claims to thrive financially. -- Pedant17 (talk) 03:18, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Removal of clarity in the attribution of views
At 1722 hours on December 7, 2008, a Wikipedian changed attribution of views from "Some observers and former participants have criticized" to "Some former participants and observers have criticized", stating in the edit-summary "edited to reflect wp:npov/undue see talk page". The possible implication that the observers formerly (but no longer) hold the stated views appears tendentious. I suggest that we separate out the views of observers and the views of former participants in Landmark Education activities into separate sentences (each precisely worded and carefully referenced). Such a solution would promote accuracy and avoid any residual ambiguity. -- Pedant17 (talk) 01:11, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Wonderfully thought out and stated: I support.Rolyatleahcim (talk) 01:48, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd suggest that it's splitting hairs which way round the wording is. What concerns me more is that the statement is a clear violation of the Neutral Point of View and Undue Weight policies since it mentions one set of opinions without referring at all to the alternative views.  At the very least it should say something like "Some commentators and former participants have criticized the company's sales/marketing techniques and treatment of seminar participants, whereas others have found the courses to be respectfully conducted and responsibly promoted."
 * The number of on-the-record favorable comments from identifiable former participants is in fact much larger than the number of critical ones, so this paragraph as it stands is a bald statement of a minority viewpoint.
 * Also, the use of the word "observers" gives a misleading impression of objectivity and authority. Almost all of those commenting negatively other than "former participants", have not in fact observed anything; they have based their comments on hearsay, gossip and rumour. DaveApter (talk) 11:03, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * On the marketing issue -- are there reliable sources that convey the notion that the sessions are responsibly promoted? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 11:08, 3 June 2010 (UTC)


 * A Wikipedian changed the word-order on December 7, 2008. If you regard the word-order as immaterial (despite my previous explanation), we can agree to change it back before discussing other matters. -- The statement as it stands cites 5 sources. Can we adduce some sources of equal of greater merit and independence to support an alternative view to add to the article? -- The claim that the article expresses a "minority viewpoint" lacks statistical support. Produce some sources and add them to the article. Then we can deal with any issues of undue weight fully in the light of evidence. -- If the concept of "observers" of the effects of Landmark Education seems unduly objective and authoritative, let's change it to "commentators". -- Pedant17 (talk) 12:34, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
 * "Observers" or "commentators"; the wording is trivial at this point. The article does express a minority viewpoint, sources that show this indeed should be sought out and added to the article.Rolyatleahcim (talk) 21:28, 7 June 2010 (UTC)


 * The five references cited do not provide adequate justification for including this sentence at all, especially in the lead.


 * The Neutral Point of View policy states:


 * "When we want to state an opinion, we convert that opinion into a fact by attributing the opinion to a person, organization, group of persons, or percentage of persons, and discuss the fact that they have this opinion, citing a reliable source for the fact that the person, organization, group or percentage of persons holds the particular opinion.’"


 * So do these references establish that either of these opinions are held by substantial proportions of observers or of former participants?


 * ref 12 is a website published by a partisan self-appointed "anti-cult expert", and thus is not a Reliable Source at all and should be removed.
 * ref 13 is a news report which mentions the fact that an individual accused the proceedings as being a "hard sell". There is no mention of mistreatment.
 * ref 14 is a magazine article which alleges that participants are subjected to "verbal attacks".  There is no mention of Marketing methods.  The article also makes manifestly false assertions on points of fact, which renders its credibility suspect.
 * ref 15, the Boston Globe article carries no accusation of mistreatment. And the only reference to marketing methods is an offhand remark about "seemingly endless plugs for other courses". In general it’s fairly even-handed and quotes opinions from both critics and supporters.
 * ref 1, the Background Briefing article carries no accusation of mistreatment, nor does it comment about marketing methods. It does deal extensively with the controversy over the use of unpaid volunteers, and presents comments from both points of view.  Again, it’s fairly evenly balanced and carries more comments from Landmark supporters than from detractors.
 * In short, these references, separately and together, do not justify the assertion of one end of the spectrum of opinion on these two points, and the whole sentence should be removed. DaveApter (talk) 11:36, 10 June 2010 (UTC)


 * In view of the fact that no-one has disputed my point that these five references do not adequately support the claim made in this sentence, does anyone object if I delete it? DaveApter (talk) 15:39, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
 * As no-one has contested this point, I have removed the sentence. DaveApter (talk) 15:35, 22 June 2010 (UTC)


 * We do not have the task of proving or disproving whether "either of these opinions are held by substantial proportions of observers or of former participants" - just whether reliable sources have evidenced criticism. The sources given include many more than two opinions -- since the lede summarizes the topic, we conflate and generalize the published criticisms (not opinions) expressed by a sampling of individual persons. -- Let's examine each of the references in this more WP:NPOV light and with reference to (as the article actually put it) "sales/marketing techniques and treatment of seminar participants":
 * Jan Groenveld at http://www.culthelp.info/index.php?option=com_content&task=category&sectionid=8&id=73&Itemid=12 simply classifies and links to a series of articles published elsewhere. We can helpfully target more specific references courtesy of this page -- regardless of the gratuitous and unsupported character-assassination of the publisher as 'a partisan self-appointed "anti-cult expert"'. First up from Groenveld's page: the Mother Jones article, for example, writes of "the in-your-face, hard-sell ethos embedded in the corporate DNA [Landmark Education] inherited from est.  Forum grads are urged to stay involved and 'invite' friends and family." Check criticism of sales/marketing techniques. And lo and behold, Groenveld provides a reference which readily leads us to a WP:RS citable reference in the archives of the original publisher of the McClure's article:  Thank you to the late Jan Groenveld! -- But wait! McClure also offers us backhanded criticism of formalities: "'Break' is a misleading term at an all-day workshop that offers no snacks, no drinks other than Dixie cups of water, a single mealtime, and only loosely scheduled pauses to use the bathroom."  Check criticism of the "treatment of seminar participants", too. So here we have a case of a person offering criticism of Landmark Education's practices. We can replace the deleted reference, and mine the rest of Groenveld's references some other day.
 * Graham Rayman's article "Suit Against Sperm-Bank Firm Claims Sexual Harassment and Cult-Like Behavior" in Village Voice (20 May 2008) does a little more than 'accuse[...] the proceedings as being a "hard sell"'. Let's quote: '"At some point, I got their pattern down," Glasgow says. "They work you, find something emotional, and then pitch you more classes. I walked out."'. Check criticism of sales/marketing and criticism of the treatment of attendees. (Note that this counts as "criticism of treatment" -- as distinct from "mistreatment", which didn't get a mention in the deleted sentence in our former Wikipedia lede.) So we can re-instate another deleted reference. We can spell it out and put in the quote lest people overlook it:
 * clearly documents the activities of "a critic of Landmark Forum" who just happens to provide video evidence of "verbal attacks on participants who remain with organizers for 72 hours and can't leave unless first gaining permission. Those tactics have led many, including the Australian Cult Awareness & Information Centre to label the group a cult." Chalk up another case of criticism of the treatment of participants. And we can separate out such criticism from the other criticisms of sales/marketing, rather than drop the whole reference. -- As for the alleged "manifestly false assertions on points of fact", do we have a citable reference for those assertions in their turn? Do we expect all sources to present the facts absolutely impeccably, or do we rather rely on the weight of multiple sources of evidence and counter-evidence?
 * . This article, helpfully reproduced at http://www.boston.com/globe/search/stories/reprints/soultraining062199.htm, actually speaks of "seemingly endless plugs for other Landmark courses" rather than "seemingly endless plugs for other courses" -- the criticism of Landmark Education sounds just that little bit more sharp. But that comes in the main article, titled "Soul training: at the Forum, a retooled version of the controversial Est movement, seekers of many stripes set out on a path of self-examination". The reference (since deleted on inadequate grounds), clearly related to the Boston Globe sidebar text headed "The Forum: Cult or comfort?", which reads in part: "[...] the Forum has been dogged by claims that it comes close to being a cult. And the primary root of such allegations is the large number of people who work for Landmark unpaid.[...] Landmark has only 400 paid employees. But it has 7,500 unpaid volunteers, graduates of Landmark seminars, who help market the program and staff each workshop, assisting the Forum leader at every step of the way (even to the point of opening and closing doors for people who have to go to the bathroom so that no one is distracted by noise)." -- Here we clearly see Bass documenting criticism ("claims" and "allegations") of Landmark Education's marketing and of Landmark Education's treatment of participants. So this reference too supports the statement now deleted from our Wikipedia article. Yes, Bass writes "fairly even-handed[ly]" - a journalistic virtue. We can quote her accordingly.
 * -- The transcript of this broadcast may not use the word "mistreatment" but clearly refers to criticism of the treatment of those who participate: "[Landmark Education's] critics say they have concerns about Landmark's business model and its reliance on volunteers." And the broadcast equally acknowledges the criticism of Landmark Education's marketing: "Problems can arise for some participants when the philosophy morphs into a recruitment drive. Our research found that people who do the courses, which can cost anything between $80 to more than $1,000, are encouraged to enrol as many people as possible. They're told this is an important part of their breakthrough or personal transformation to be whole and complete. [...] Landmark Education has an unusual business model that continues to attract attention, mostly for the way it has contractual work agreements with volunteers, and concerns by some for what is seen is their hard-selling methods." Then we find the expressed dissatisfaction of Harvard University with one of Landmark Education's marketing/publicity techniques: "This would be a matter of concern, and yes, I will confer with the appropriate people at HBS, and at Harvard University, to see how we would go about requiring them to cease and desist." And the broadcast also implies criticism of Landmark Education's marketing technique of pointing to celebrity endorsements: "Background Briefing contacted these people to confirm. Cathy Freeman's spokesperson told us Ms Freeman has not given permission to Landmark to use her name and that she considers her participation or lack of it, personal, and does not want her name associated with Landmark." -- The combined criticism of marketing and of the treatment of participants becomes evident in the statement of a would-be reformer of Landmark Education: "And I think I had concerns about the appropriateness of having people who were very excited and confused and tired, and have just taken in a lot of new information, and at that point pitching them a new course. You know, I think it's inappropriate to sell a new course to people who are in a vulnerable state." As for criticism of the corporate image component of marketing, we find: "Nancy Zapolski: [...] In the years where there were surpluses, we the employees voted [...] to invest these surpluses into making Landmark programs and services more widely available, you know, including providing scholarships for the Landmark Forum [...] Hagar Cohen: But my question is, why not open up this documentation and prove these claims once and for all? [...] Nancy Zapolski: It's completely available. Like any company, we're very transparent. [...] people have come to us and we're open and transparent, as I said. [...] Hagar Cohen: Background Briefing asked Landmark to provide evidence by way of documentation of the scholarships it funds. Landmark Education sent us a reply which stated that their scholarships are offered by word of mouth and that no records are kept of who has accepted." And a former participant stated re corporate image marketing: "Landmark is promoting itself as a transformational organisation, [...]. And I think that there's a gross misalignment of what their values are and what their stated purpose is and how they're conducting themselves as a business. It just doesn't match [...]." As for sales, a former participant in Sweden "says he was taken aback by the [Landmark Forum] leader's hard selling methods". Also from Sweden comes a report on Landmark Education's treatment of participants: "The people who did not want to invite their relatives were harangued." -- This reference too covers criticism of sales/marketing and criticism of the treatment of participants (along with other criticism and some (balancing) favorable endorsements). We can certainly reference it with regard to its content -- especially as it doesn't fall into the trap of simplistically subdividing the world into "Landmark supporters" and "detractors".
 * All in all, we can add/substitute a few enhancements (mainly indicative quotes) to the deleted sentence and its references and slot it back into the Wikipedia article as a well-referenced and multiply-supported statement of fact: people have criticized these aspects of Landmark Education. User:DaveApter: would you like to do the honors? -- Pedant17 (talk) 05:18, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi Pedant 17, thanks for your extensive comments. I don't really understand what you mean by your assertion that these are "criticisms (not opinions)" - what on earth is a criticism if it isn't an expression of someone's opinion?
 * Nobody would dispute that some people have voiced the critical opinions you are so keen to include, but neither is there any doubt that this is one end of a spectrum of views on the matter. Having said that, I'll comment on your specific points in relation to each of the five references...
 * I dispute your characterisation of my description of Jan Groenveld as 'a partisan self-appointed "anti-cult expert"' as being "gratuitous and unsupported character-assassination". It's a simple statement of fact.  She undoubtably positioned herself as an anti-cult authority, and since no-one else appointed her as such, she is clearly self-appointed.  The word partisan was used in the sense employed in the Wikipedia WP:NPOV policy, and I don't see how anyone could characterise her site in any other way.  If any of the references on her site meet the criteria as reliable sources, they should be cited directly.  The Mother Jones article you mention is essentially an expression of the personal opinions of the journalist who wrote it, backed up by the opinions of a handful of non-notable individuals whom she (selectively) chose to quote.
 * This article quotes the opinions of one particular individual - a Mr Glasgow, who has no claim to expertise in the matter of the evaluation of personal development programs. The context is a legal dispute with his former employer who - he claims - forced him to attend a Landmark Forum event.  Clearly he would have a vested interest in portraying Landmark Education in a negative light.
 * Any article which baldly states that "participants ... remain with organizers for 72 hours and can't leave unless first gaining permission" cannot be taken seriously. This is typical of the nonsense which is repeated over and over again without any foundation in fact.  At the end of each day the participants go home or to wherever they are staying for the weekend, and in addition they leave for breaks every three hours or so.  Anyone can leave at any time without gaining anyone's permission and some (very occasionally) do.  Half a day into the Forum, everyone is offered the opportunity to leave and receive a full refund of their fees.
 * As you concede, the Boston Globe article provides examples of contrary opinions as well as the ones you wish to include.
 * Similarly with the Background Briefing item - it presents the spread of opinons on the matters, and not just one end of the spectrum.
 * These issues might warrant a brief - and more even-handed - mention in the body of the article, but are quite out of place in the lead. DaveApter (talk) 18:32, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

As a passing reader, the criticism and response lead-in comes off rather silly, so I echo the criticism of the criticism sentiments, 1. It states that because some vague 'observers' have questions, it immediately follows that somehow this leads to an over-reaching opinion that because there are questions, by vague observers, whether the observer has experience, the benefit of individual participants is at the mercy of those same observers, regardless of the individual's possible positive experience from the program, and 2. The same bad reasoning follows the criticism of volunteers; if they did not want to volunteer, they do not have to, and if it's not voluntary on their part, then it's no longer volunteering, thus the criticism contradicts itself leading to more questions than it's many-questions fallacy answers, and 3. I really do not understand the 'overzealous' bit-- the article states multiple times it's a private for-profit company, which implies a marketing scheme to sell the product, which, again, leads to more of a question regarding the critics' knowledge of economics than it does feigning some naive humanitarian concern. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.105.184.93 (talk) 23:56, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Rubbish
"The company's standard introductory course is The Landmark Forum." If this were true, why would they have a program called "The Introduction to the Landmark Forum?" I thought that the introductory course is "The Introduction to the Landmark Forum." I sure hope anyone coming here for the facts is not confused by the lack thereof. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.232.192.77 (talk) 20:45, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Introduction are if you will the sales pitch for the Landmark Forum, The Landmark Forum is the introductory course Jasonfward (talk) 00:22, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Mission Statement
Landmark Education states the reason for their existence is, "As an enterprise, we exist to empower and enable people in fulfilling those matters that are of interest or importance to them, and in the process leave them transformed with more power, freedom, self-expression, and peace of mind." Is there anything about that statement that's not factual? Landmark does, in fact, state that's the reason their enterprise exists. While it's certainly valid to debate/discuss whether Landmark follows their mission statement, it's not debatable that it IS what they say they exist for. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.240.81.234 (talk) 01:37, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

explaining my change
My edit was not intended to be vandalism. I merely moved something to a more appropriate section and then added a fact related to the reference used. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.17.108.54 (talk) 18:42, 19 January 2011 (UTC)


 * For what it is worth, my personal opinion is that your edit could not remotely be described as vandalism. In fact I would agree with you that it is a fair amendment and one which makes a marginal improvement to the article.  The comment about Terry Giles being Werner Erhard's attorney is of tangential relevance at best and certainly does not merit being in the Lead section.


 * I also agree with your change to indicate the context of the New York Times article which had been referenced to his inclusion.


 * It seems to me to be a violation of Wikipedia's policy that we should assume good faith for anyone to accuse you of vandalism.  However, if you wish to contribute to Wikipedia, I suggest that you register yourself with a user name and participate more widely. With best wishes DaveApter (talk) 17:09, 24 January 2011 (UTC)


 * While I think these edits are in good faith and clearly not vandalism, at the same time I don’t particularly agree with explaining the New York Times story about Landmark’s chairman – in fact, I don’t really think that trivia about a company’s chairman is useful to the article at all.


 * The point of having this in here seems to be to make it plain that Landmark has its roots with Werner Erhard and the est training, a point that’s already abundantly clear in the article. This connection is clearly stated in many places, to the point where it’s awkward and odd. Multiple references to attorneys that have worked for both Werner Erhard and Landmark seem gratuitous, and it’s strange that the only pull quote in the entire article is a non-sequitur about Landmark buying back the rights to operations in Mexico and Japan.


 * I think there needs to be some cleaning up of the history section so it reads fluidly and isn’t dominated by trivia. Thoughts, anyone? Nwlaw63 (talk) 05:05, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Identifying the Chairman of the Board of the company, in the article about that company, does not consist of "trivia". -- Cirt (talk) 20:43, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Naming a company's chairman might not be trivia, but giving extraneous information about him and various company employees probably is. You haven't responded to anyone's point here. Nwlaw63 (talk) 02:50, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Identifying the Chairman of the Board of the company, in the article about that company, as the personal lawyer for the founder of the company's prior incarnation, is not "extraneous information". It is indeed quite the opposite. It is vital information, that is educational and encyclopedic. -- Cirt (talk) 15:36, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Identifying the Chairman of the Board of the company, in the article about that company, as the personal lawyer for the founder of the company's prior incarnation, is not "extraneous information". It is indeed quite the opposite. It is vital information, that is educational and encyclopedic. -- Cirt (talk) 15:36, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Vital? As I said earlier, that Landmark has its roots in est and Werner Erhard is already spelled out extremely clearly in the article. This particular fact is vital? I don't understand - perhaps you want to explain. Nwlaw63 (talk) 01:15, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I find myself in agreement with Nwlaw63 on this one, I don't object to the information, but I don't see it as needed, and if you want to demonstrate the heritage of the company well by all means, but that seems well catered for already Jasonfward (talk) 01:21, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I think calling this information "vital" is an overstatement, but the CEO's background in the predecessor organization is relevant and appropriate, and hardly "trivia". Rlendog (talk) 01:59, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * As I say, I have no objection to the information, but I do not find it vital or trivial, I feel in the context of the article the information could be put in or left out without harm, but if it is to be included, especially if the justification is to show the history of the company, then efforts should be made to integrate the information, the edit was out of place and not needed Jasonfward (talk) 21:58, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Reverted edit to lead
I reverted the recent addition to the lead as it gave undue weight to a minority opinion which is already given a more than adequate airing in the body of the article itself. It is also a misleading synopsis of the facts. Although true that the French government did mention Landmark Education in it's list of 'Sectes', there is no reference therein to any judgement of it as being "dangerous" - in fact it is simply listed without comment (along with a large number of others, many of them clearly innocuous, such as the Quakers) in a lenghty appendix. DaveApter (talk) 14:52, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

(see also the comments in the section below)DaveApter (talk) 12:19, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

We seem to have a problem with neutrality – there is a lengthy criticism section with multiple sources which should be reflected somewhere in the lead; in addition, it would help to solve the glaring fault with the lead, which is that it sounds like a promotional leaflet written by the organisational itself. Jprw (talk) 16:40, 28 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Try that version, less corporate speak, less verbose, contains all the information of the original (save for the Landmark forum being the "standard introductory course") and lets teh reader know that Landmark is/was/can be controversial. The intro is supposed to be just that, the intro, if people want to know more they can read the article. Jasonfward (talk) 00:22, 29 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm not going to make a change just now, but on reflection, a great deal of corporations are controversial in some way, and nearly all medium corporations having been involved in some lawsuit or other. It appears to me that people that Landmark are "more" or "especially" controversial just because of their chosen area of commercial endeavour, i.e. that of human endeavour and whilst many may get angry about a company illegally terminates and employee or which causes some environmental damage it is never really feared, whereas because of Landmarks looking into what it is to be human, what makes us tick, and how we may be different from that, it invokes a fear response in people.  For me, it is Landmarks chosen field, and the reaction and response of people to that, that is of interest and importance, whereas a few law suits here and there are... well just that, law suits most likely only of interest to the parties and lawyers Jasonfward (talk) 00:34, 29 March 2011 (UTC)


 * That's as maybe, but can we stick to solving what appears to be a real problem with the lead: that in tone it does not resemble a Wikipedia article but reads more like a self-promotional text from the company's own marketing materials? After digging around a bit, I'm afraid that there does seem to be quite a lot of criticism/litigation associated with this organisation, and making at least reference to this in the intro, would appear to be justified and necessary for a balanced and objective/appropriate sounding lead. Jprw (talk) 13:54, 29 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Clearly you didn't bother to actually read the rewrite I did then? As far as I'm concerned I have addressed all those issues. Jasonfward (talk) 17:29, 29 March 2011 (UTC)


 * This article has had a long history of disputes between editors who felt it too favorable towards the organisation and those who felt it too critical. The lead paragraph as it stood a few days ago was the outcome of an extensive sparring between these camps, and had been stable for a while.  No-one previously has suggested that the lead "reads more like a self-promotional text from the company's own marketing materials", and maybe this is no more than your personal opinion?  In any event the recent edits may perhaps have addressed your concerns? DaveApter (talk) 20:03, 29 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Sorry I may have missed the interim edits that were made. Yes, it does seem more appropiate sounding now. Regarding my statement "reads more like a self-promotional text from the company's own marketing materials", yes I was of course expressing my opinion, which was that the lead had a distinctly non-neutral feel to it. I can scarcely believe that what was there was a compromise following extensive sparring between different camps. Perhaps a fresh pair of eyes was needed? Cheers, Jprw (talk) 07:17, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

No mention in cited ref
I searched Cults, Religion, and Violence, by David G. Bromley and J. Gordon Melton and could find no reference to Landmark Education at all, much less to its being listed as "dangerous" by government commissions in Belgium  and France. Therefore I removed that claim, pending anyone being able to indicate the relevant passage. DaveApter (talk) 12:01, 30 March 2011 (UTC)


 * You removed this link: . If you go to that page and use CTRL+F and do a search for "Landmark" you will find this text in French:

Les adeptes des sectes

Même s'il est difficile de procéder à un chiffrage précis, tant il est ardu de distinguer le véritable adepte du disciple occasionnel ou du simple sympathisant, les Renseignements généraux estiment à 160.000 le nombre d'adeptes au moins occasionnels, et à 100.000 le nombre de sympathisants. Il est cependant nécessaire d'affiner ces résultats en faisant valoir que 80 % des mouvements regroupent moins de 500 adeptes, près de 60 sectes comptant même moins de 50 adeptes. On constate donc une concentration du phénomène sectaire sur une quarantaine de mouvements, dont on verra, de surcroît, que ce sont ceux qui répondent le plus souvent à un grand nombre de critères de dangerosité. Les listes suivantes présentent, classées par ordre alphabétique et pour chaque classe d'effectifs définie, le nom des mouvements pouvant, à l'aune des critères définis, être qualifiés de sectaires.

Google translate provides the following rough translation:

The Cult

Although it is difficult to make any precise figures, it is more difficult to distinguish the real enthusiast or casual follower of single supporter, General Intelligence estimates at 160,000 the number of followers at least occasionally, and that 100,000 sympathizers. However, it is necessary to refine these results by arguing that 80% of movements fewer than 500 followers, nearly 60 sects number even less than 50 followers. There is therefore a concentration of the cult phenomenon in forty movements, which we will, moreover, that it is those who usually respond to a number of criteria of dangerousness. The following lists, arranged alphabetically and for each size classes defined, the names of the movements which, in terms of criteria to be classified as sectarian.

And then if you look a little further down the list you will see "Landmark education international - Le forum".

The reference seems to check out fine, and the clear inference is that the French government commission set up to investigate cults in the mid 90s considered this organisation a cult, although it was vague about the exact level of danger it posed. Jprw (talk) 15:50, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

It's more than vague - see the subsection below. Thanks DaveApter (talk) 12:19, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Also see here. Jprw (talk) 16:06, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Context in Cults, Religion, and Violence
Thank you for clarifying the reference within the book. I stand corrected and apologise. When I searched it I only found the reference to a "cultural landmark", and I missed the listing in the table on pages 114-116. However, it remains problematic as a source for the statement in this article. A reading of the associated text indicates that point being made by Bromley and Melton is entirely different.

They were not endorsing the government classifications of Landmark Education, or any of the other organisations listed in the table. On the contrary, they were casting a sceptical eye on the tendency of Governments to have a paranoid reaction to "new religious movements" in general. This is underlined by the fact that many of the groups mentioned in the list (eg the Quakers, Tai Chi and Tao Yoga - all also drawn from the French commission report) would not remotely be considered to be "dangerous cults" by any normal standards.

In any event there are problems with the French report itself (see below) DaveApter (talk) 12:19, 4 April 2011 (UTC)


 * As no-one has disputed the above point, I've edited the sentence to give a more accurate summary of the point the athors were making in the cited reference. I also removed the final sentence in the section on Evaluations which has been flagged as needing a citation for some time, and was in any case somewhat weasel-worded.  At the same time, I've changed the wording of a couple of sentences to render them more neutral and accurate.


 * I also removed the mention of the Cult Information and Awareness Centre (again!) which is not remotely a Reliable Source, being a self-published website propagating the opinions of its owner; nor is it made reliable by being quoted elsewhere. DaveApter (talk) 10:20, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

French commission listing
Those who wish to disparage Landmark Education often refer to the French commission report of 1995 to justify their labelling of it as a Cult. However this is problematic for a number of reasons:

DaveApter (talk) 12:19, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) The pre-amble to the list refers to 40 "sectes which may be considered dangerous", but does not specifically identify which of the 190 or so "sectarian movements" listed are the dangerous ones.  Presumably they would be ones that are dealt with more explicitly elsewhere in the report (which Landmark Education is not).
 * 2) The list includes a number of plainly innocuous groups (eg the Quakers, Tai Chi and Tao Yoga).
 * 3) The Report explicitly disclaims that a mention of any group implies any criticism of it (and the Belgian government report includes a similar disclaimer).
 * 4) There were no published criteria for mention in the Report, nor is there any appeal process or any review mechanism.

It's not a matter of disparage. The truth about Landmark is available for all to read. DaveApter seems to be on a mission to whitewash Landmark; see how he does with this. WikiLeaks: US Dept of Labor Investigation of Landmark Education

The french debate is circular at this point. I am dissappointed to not have any reference here to what happened in Sweden? My personal experience of Landmark was bad and I think it is an organisation that should be regulated more closely and any employer promoting their employees participation Is i think misguided.I would like to add a reference to the Swedish experience of this organisation in the critisism section and will revert with a suggestion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RogerGLewis (talk • contribs) 07:23, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry Roger, but your opinion is irrelevant, as is mine, if you want something in the article find a reliable source for it. I don't know if Wikipedia has a policy about wikileaks, but I don't think it's a reliable source, indeed by the very inclusion on wikileaks you can conclude the authors never intended the material for publication, and whilst that maybe because they wanted to keep it secret, it equally be because the authors upon review found the material to be inaccurate.  So having no way to know or judge why that report wasn't published, or even for sure that it is even what it claims to be it cannot be included here as a reference Jasonfward (talk) 21:57, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

I think that including the information from wikileaks in the proper context is appropriate. Including it as a citation to make a point about Landmark being cult-like isn't appropriate as per Jasonfward's comments above. But the WikiLeak about the DOL investigation is not necessarily insignificant information. I remember some weeks that I put in more than 40 unpaid hours of labor for Landmark. I took many courses from Landmark about 10 years ago, but I haven't taken any courses for many years, and I can sort of see the good and the bad in perspective, looking back. I definitely think that Landmark is psychologically dangerous. Why else would they require a letter from the therapist of any potential participant who is in therapy first, in order to even let that participant into the course? Landmark Education should take some more responsibility for their reputation as a cult, and stop saying that it's a preposterous label. That said, the benefit of a fresh perspective on issues that are hard to see objectively is probably worth the risk for most people.. I might go in and try to objectify this article from that point-of-view... although, I do fear that if I were to review any of their courses now, I would, in all likelihood, lose the psychological objectivity from which I could do so, for the next year or two at least. Fulvius (talk) 02:18, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Recent edits
There have been a dozen or so edits recently which have had a cumulative effect of reducing the quality of the article by introducing subjective opinion, biased interpretations and unreferenced assertions, which I have now reverted. Bearing in mind that this is a controversial topic, please discuss any proposed significant changes on this talk page and ensure that they gather some degree of consensus.

An examples of violations of the neutral point of view policy is the replacement of 'A significant minority of newspaper articles about the Forum mention rumours or allegations that it is in some sense "cult-like".' by 'Many participants and significant newspaper articles about the Forum mention rumours or allegations that it is in some sense "cult-like". ' The original statement was factual and accurate, whereas the revised one adds subjective assessment by the editor which is not supported by any reference to reliable sources. DaveApter (talk) 10:57, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Legal actions
This article appears severely biased.

For instance 'their 2002 book Cults, Religion, and Violence, authors David G. Bromley and J. Gordon Melton noted that some governments were overly restictive towards New Religious Movements and Personal Development groups, illustrating this by the appearances of Landmark Education and many other organisations in lists of "Sectes" published by government commissions in Belgium and France.'

However this appears to be POV pushing. The book in fact makes NO direct mention of Landmark Education, merely noting it in a very long list of groups that include everything from the Salvation Army to the Order of the Solar Temple. No conclusions about Landmark Education can be drawn from the book. Also it would be less biased to document the fact that France and Belgium list the group as a cult rather than to mention it only en passant in an attempt to show the group is persecuted....


 * Thanks for your comments, and I would encourage you to register a username and get involved with editing articles which interest you as part of the on-going collaborative enterprise of Wikipedia. You should appreciate that this particular page deals with a contentious topic and the present state of the article is the result of a long process of interaction between editors who hold a wide spectrum of viewpoints on the subject.


 * With regard to the specific instance of Bromley and Melton's book, I think this passage is a fair summary of the point they were making in their reference to the French and Belgian lists of 'Sectes', and their listing of the extensive and varied organisations which had appeared therein. Critics of Landmark Education like to flag up the appearance in that list as implying an authoratitive judgement that Landmark is a "cult" and therefore insidious or destructive in some sense.  However, as your own point above makes clear, these lists cover such a broad range of movements from clearly innocuous ones such as the Salvation Army and the Quakers to obviously dangerous ones like the Solar Temple, that no reliable conclusions can be drawn from the fact of an organisation's being included in the list.  This is compounded by the fact that no criteria were ever published for inclusion on these lists and neither is there any appeal or review process. DaveApter (talk) 20:24, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

The legal action page appears also to be severely whitewashed and includes lots of weasel words like 'admitted'. Salient facts such as the fact that Margaret Singer had appeared as an expert witness in ten cases issued against est and The Forum, as well as testifying for Erhard's ex-wife in his divorce are omitted.

The extent of the dispute with the CAN is also understated cf. Cult_Awareness_Network

The total omission of ANY detail on the nature of the legal actions is also biased.

Looking at the legal action page, there is a shocking difference between 'In September 1989 Stephanie Ney attended a session of "The Forum", conducted by Werner Erhard (doing business as Werner Erhard & Associates (WE&A)). In 1992 Ney sued Landmark Education Corporation (LEC, seen as the successor-organization of WE&A) for $2,000,000, claiming that three days after attending the Forum she "suffered a breakdown and was committed to a psychiatric institute in Montgomery County". [19] The trial court dismissed Ney's suit on summary judgment, and the appeals court upheld the decision.' and the article Ney v. Landmark Education Corporation and Werner Erhard (which is not linked, which provides:

'Judge James C. Cacheris entered a default judgement in favor of the plaintiff.' — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.175.56.179 (talk) 11:17, 5 December 2011 (UTC)


 * A more appropriate place to discuss the Landmark Education litigation article would be on that Talk page, but since you have raised these points here, I will respond to them here:
 * 'Admitted' seems to me a reasonable verb to use in the case of someone who claims to be an expert on a topic who then agrees that they have had no first-hand observation of it. However, if you want to go and edit it for a verb more acceptable in your view, we will see whether anyone wants to contest your change.
 * I cannot see the relevance of Singer's history of expert witness appearances to the discussion of Landmarks libel suit against her, still less her testimony in Erhard's divorce hearings.
 * I agree that a brief summary of the legal cases might be an improvement, and I may add that shortly. I would say though that it is my opinion that the whole litigation issue is somewhat overblown.  I cannot see that it is a particularly pertinant fact that in the course of 20 years Landmark has issued about a dozen libel actions and has had three damages claims made against it (all of them unsuccessful).
 * I don't see the omission to mention the default judgement against Erhard in the Ney case to be significant. This was a technicality occasioned by Erhard's non-appearance to defend the suit, since he was never personally served.  The case against Landmark was dismissed, as was the case against the leader of the course which caused the alleged damage. DaveApter (talk) 20:24, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

This article on Landmark Education is an example of why I woud NEVER EVER donate to Wikipedia. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.160.38.183 (talk) 05:32, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Proposed merges
This article already covers in its History section, most of the material found in articles for the defunct Werner Erhard and Associates and Erhard Seminars Training corporations. As this article's size (current prose size 9k) could well handle the additional text, and could better establish the continuity of the superseded organizations with the present entity, I have proposed that the referenced material found these 2 articles be merged into the History section of this article. Searches for those articles would be redirected to the History section. &bull; Astynax talk 20:52, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I suggested this a while ago. I support a merge mainly because most of the information in the two smaller articles is already in this one. Steve Dufour (talk) 02:51, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The coverage of these two other entities here is adequate and appropriate to this article, and it would be difficult to make a case for expanding it. I don't see that the mention here renders the two other articles redundant, as they deal with entirely separate organisations; but if you think it does, you could nominate them for deletion at WP:AfD and see what the community consensus is. DaveApter (talk) 15:07, 19 March 2012 (UTC)


 * The proposal for merger is evidence of wikipeidans' young age, I guess. Est was a cultural phenomenon of some importance in the 70s; the idea that Wikipedia would not have a separate article on it is, frankly, ludicrous. The est article is pretty paltry, but that suggests that we need to find an editor to beef it up, not delete or merge it. Strong NO vote on the merger proposal from me, obviously.jackbrown (talk) 02:03, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I am against any merger, Est and The Landmark Forum are two very different course, even if one has it history in the other, the same goes for the organisations Jasonfward (talk) 17:54, 8 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I am also against the merger; I think only links to Landmark Forum should be provided in this article. I think there is historic interest in keeping and maintaining the article on est with regard to the era it existed.  Discussion of est occurs in literature from the 70s, and I think including Landmark Forum information would confuse readers locating further information. Thelema418 (talk) 22:07, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Jargon
The article contains several instances of Landmark Education jargon, such as "incomplete", that are not defined or explained. These should either be defined or removed and reworded in everyday English. (For example, being "incomplete" with someone here means having unresolved issues with someone, such as resentment towards them because of perceived negative interactions with them in the past, that interfere with having a good relationship with that person.) &mdash; 212.139.232.221 (talk) 09:50, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

est Training and The Forum Two Different and Distinct Trainings
The est Training offered by Werner Erhard and Associates was a completely different and distinct training from The Forum offered by Landmark Education.

I was an est Training Supervisor, in New YorK City, from 1982 to 1984. I was the Logistics Supervisor for the last rest Training which was offered in New York City in 1984. The Trainer was Randy McNamara.

I was a Forum Supervisor, in New York City and then in San Francisco, from 1984 to 1990.

The Forum was a less intense, more refined training, based on the est Training. but expanded and enhanced by the work of Dr. Fernando Flores of Chile and his "Conversations For Action" workshops.

Dr Flores also invented "The Coordinator" which was released in 1984 and was the first groupware software, that ran on Local Area Networks (LANs) allowing groups of people to work together in a 'committment-based email environment. I was also a member of the developmnt team of "The Coordinator.

"The Coordinator" contained two important patents, MHS (Message Handling Service) which became the core of Novell's Netware 2.0, and permitted communication between LANs (Local Area Networks) of different manufacturers and different protocols. The second was the "Action Workflow Engine" which became the core of both Lotus Notes and IBM's Business Process Definition and Business Process Management products.

Joeq2k (talk) 08:18, 29 April 2012 (UTC) joeq2k

Controversies
This talk page has been marked as 'controversial' and there are 28 pages of archives, so I don't think I am saying something new when I say that the lead paragraph (WP:LEAD) necessitates mention of this organization's various controversies and lawsuits. This is especially true when we have a whole article about the subject. I have tried this myself, and hope other people will discuss and improve it if necessary. However, outright deletion of any controversial material from the lead, which seems to have been done some time before my edit, should be considered tendentious. 64.134.100.26 (talk) 21:41, 6 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Agreed. The lead should mention the lawsuits and litigation as well as the (disputed) status of being a cult. Right now it looks as if the majority of the critical content has been forked into the litigation article. The recently reverted addition to the lead read:

"Landmark has been involved in frequent controversies, with observers criticizing its methods for recruiting and treating clients, which one journalist described as 'brainwashing'. Government commissions such as the Parliamentary Commission on Cults in France have designated the organization a cult or sect, while some academics have likened Landmark to a new religious movement. Landmark has responded to this criticism by filing about a dozen international lawsuits against cult-watchdog groups, academics, and journalists for defamation."


 * I support restoring this and expanding the section on litigation to summarize the Landmark Education litigation article. Gobōnobo  + c 10:35, 14 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I also agree. I can't help wondering why this well referenced material is continually removed.  It should be restored. Gillyweed (talk) 11:54, 14 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Frequent is a weasel words things, and one I would disagree with, given that nearly all the cited examples are now well over 10 years old. Jasonfward (talk) 17:08, 14 September 2012 (UTC)


 * The exact wording doesn't matter; it can always change. The bigger problem is that, a self-identified consumer of "Landmark Education", has reverted this change (and others), and has posted a talk message, which
 * Insinuates that I and other editors who want to summarize this material have "an agenda of introducing a particular spin".
 * Denies my (and others') humanity by tarring us as "anonymous IP addresses", rather than as coequal editors, which we in fact are. (Gee, I wonder why anybody would request anonymity from such a tolerant corporation...)
 * Asks that someone "suggest proposed changes here on the talk page and discuss" - ignoring the fact that I have already done this - and achieve a "consensus" over the material, despite the fact that multiple users here have shown their support, and he is the only one opposing it.
 * It is also of note that in his original reversion and subsequent revert, DaveApter conflates my edit with that of an unrelated user which removed material. As a result, if we're looking solely by byte count, DaveApter appears to be restoring material, rather than removing it, allowing him to effectively co-opt the services of anti-vandalism drones which revert anyone who completely reverts DaveApter.
 * Well done! Grade A POV pushing. I'm not really dedicated to this subject, but I've written this account for posterity. No doubt I am not the only person who is aware of Landmark Education's history; no doubt DaveApter & co. have suppressed this material many times before. My suggestion to anyone with a conscience who wants to pursue this: separate my edits from those of the other IP; be adamant about discussing content, rather than personalities; and be familiar with Wikipedia norms, which are more conducive to the exposure of information, rather than the suppression of it. 64.134.100.26 (talk) 18:56, 14 September 2012 (UTC)


 * This has been discussed at great length in the past, and that conclusion was reached regarding cult claims that a clearly minority view based on almost no reliable sourcing didn't belong in the lede of the article, as per the lede policy. The majority of reliable secondary sourcing we have, such as in the Guardian, Huffington Post, etc., states that Landmark is not a cult. The French secte list is the only reliable source that makes this claim, and it has own problems as a source - the commission hasn't existed for over 15 years, and it never issued any details on why this and the hundreds of other organizations listed in the reports were on the list in the first place. Given this, it's hard to make a credible case for such a controversial claim being in the lede of an article.


 * Regarding the lawsuits, it doesn't really seem unusual that a company that has been around for more than 20 years and has a couple million customers has been involved in some litigation. Given that, as far as I can tell, none of them resulted in any monetary payouts, and only two were directed at the company itself, it doesn't seem very noteworthy, certainly not enough for the lede. (I wonder about the existence of the 'Litigation' article at all - it seems like it would be easy to create a litigation article for almost any sizable company as a means of attacking it, but that's an argument for another article). Nwlaw63 (talk) 01:48, 15 September 2012 (UTC)


 * "it doesn't really seem unusual that a company that has been around for more than 20 years and has a couple million customers has been involved in some litigation" Indeed, never thought about that before, but when I think about other companies I know with millions of customers they are almost continuously involved in some court case or other, or at least in pre-litigation and no one writes great long articles about those Jasonfward (talk) 11:35, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

It looks like people have been chatting about this fore some time. Now (April 2013) the lead is not in compliance with Wikiepdia's standards: "The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points—including any prominent controversies."

It was one thing to hear people talking about it over the years in my neighborhood but to see that we actually do have numerous RS discussing it while it is still not in the lead raises an eyebrow. I am adding (reinstating?) at least a line. I welcome any IP (IPS are the only conclusion I come to because I cannot fathom Wikipedia editors white washing it to this extent) to bring any concern to the talk page.Cptnono (talk) 05:06, 7 April 2013 (UTC)


 * No idea who or what IP/IPS is, but I presume your accusing me of being one since I disagree with your edit. There are many people who have never described Landmark as a cult or scam and there appears to be no evidence of Landmark using or threatening to use courts to stop people saying what they want for many years now, yet your edit makes it seem like a great many of people have made cult/scam claims and that Landmark leaps in the direction of its lawyers at the slightest provocation.


 * BTW, much as you say "It looks like people have been chatting about this fore some time." I respectfully suggest you look again, as before your comment the both the first and last comment in this section were in a period of 6 days which took place 7 months ago. Jasonfward (talk) 11:07, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I am removing the two sentences which have been added recently to the lead, as they are in violation of Wikipedia's policies, regarding Original Research, Synthesis, and Undue Weight. The second sentence is misleading, as in fact there have only been two such court cases in the last fourteen years. The two references given for the first sentence do not support the statement (the second one does not include a claim that Landmark is or has been described as a 'Cult', and the first one only attributes it in scare quotes). In fact there are no reliable sources reporting authoratitive attributable opinions the Landmark is a cult or scam. DaveApter (talk) 17:33, 8 April 2013 (UTC)