Wikipedia:Peer review/List of new religious movements/archive1

List of new religious movements
This peer review discussion has been closed. I've listed this article for peer review because there's been extensive discussion and an RfC on the talk page about whether or not it is appropriate for Landmark Worldwide (a personal development training company) to be on this list of "New religious movements". It seems to me that this issue has important implications for the way in which Wikipedia lists are conducted. Thanks, DaveApter (talk) 12:56, 14 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Do you want the entire article reviewed or is this a question about whether Landmark Worldwide should be on the list?
 * Looking at the Article Talk Page (which is a lot to absorb), it seems like there are several ongoing conversations about the content on this list and the sources used. Is this request for a review intended to get some fresh eyes on the article or to bypass the discussions on the Talk Page? Liz  Read! Talk!
 * Thank you Liz; to answer your questions:
 * Yes, I'm primarily asking about whether Landmark Worldwide should be included as this seems particularly anomalous, although any other observations would be welcome;
 * Yes, this request is to get some fresh eyes on the matter rather than to bypass the existing discussion, although I brought it here because that discussion seems to have become stalled with the various participants having become entrenched in their positions;
 * And yes, I agree it's a lot to absorb, and the issue essentially turns on whether the cited sources do provide adequate justification, and much of the debate on the page revolves around that point. The matter is complicated by the fact that many of them are not readily accessible online, although I've managed to track down enough extracts to form my own opinion;
 * Finally, I am aware that my own reading of the sources is inevitably coloured by my personal perspective as a former satisfied customer who took several of Landmark's courses during the period 2002-2005, and saw nothing that could remotely be characterised as religious. DaveApter (talk) 07:13, 15 September 2013 (UTC)