User:Chrislintott/sandbox

Notes on [|mediation]
OK, so I've read what you all had to say. As far as I see it, there are three seperate issues here. Firstly, whether Landmark can be described as a cult, sect or neither of these terms. Secondly, there are disputes over which criticisms of Landmark should be incorporated into the article. Thirdly, even where there is agreement that such criticism should be incorporated in the article, there is dispute as to how prominent it should be, and how much space it should take up.

We'll deal with each of these, but I'm going to defer the third dispute for now. This should be easier to deal with once we have some more concrete to stand on. Let's start with my first point.

Landmark's status
As an outside editor, it seems to me that the fact that such a lively debate is possible over whether Landmark is a cult, or a sect, or both, or neither is clear enough evidence that a definitive answer is not possible. It is also inherently non-citable, as no source is likely to be definitive. As a starting point for debate, I propose 1. That we need a few sentences on whether Landmark has been described as either a cult or a sect, when such descriptions have been applied and the importance of such a classification. 2. That outside of this small section, neither the word 'cult' or 'sect' are used.

Perhaps several of you should suggest a possible form of words, and then we can try and draw them together.

Disputed edits
Translation of sektum, secte

2005 Austrian list of Sektum Cultic studies article in Denmark Reaction in Sweden and closure of group Belgian parlimentary enquiry Berlin report

References to loaded language

Religious implications

Internal report

Three court cases - note a litigation article exists

the article will only be balanced when everyone is dissatisfied with it. - Ckerr I have come to believe strongly that many of this article's issues could be solved by moving the "Controversies" section into a separate article, the way "Litigation" has.