Talk:Landmark Worldwide#Recent addition of sources

{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1732723276}}

Is Undue Weight being given to the issue of "Cult accusations" in the light of the references cited in support of these claims? DaveApter (talk) 15:10, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

:Please don't waste people's time with pointless RfCs. You have wasted an insane amount of time of our volunteers.

:If I was a member of a group that got repeatedly labeled as a cult I wouldn't spend more than 19 years and 10 months trying to remove all negative information from its Wikipedia article. That proves the point, right?

:If you dislike the fact that reliable sources have published negative information about Landmark/Est/Erhard then you should contact those sources, not WP:CPUSH on Wikipedia. Polygnotus (talk) 15:34, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

:@DaveApter No, there is not undue weight being given to its accusations of being a cult.

:It provides multiple sources and explanations as to why some experts believe this characterisation to be fair. Neither does the characterisation appear to be fringe.

:However, I do think that the section on its characterisation as a cult be put later in the article. Imo the sections about it's characterisation as a self-help corporate training should come first. When reading the article and learning of it's characterisation as a cult, I was unsure as to what the group actually did. I think the subsection under 'history' should be moved under 'reception'.

:FropFrop (talk) 22:20, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

::The cult/NRM stuff is probably the most important part of its history, because Landmark is a successor to another cult/NRM. Currently the focus is far more on making money and less on the culty-stuff. Hiding all negative information in a section near the bottom of an article is discouraged. Polygnotus (talk) 10:30, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

::{{re|FropFrop}}, Thank you for joining with the debate, but I am puzzled: which "{{tq|experts believe this characterisation to be fair"}}? I did not see anybody named - "expert" or not - in the cited refs (relevant extracts quoted recently a little higher up this page). Furthermore, almost all of the writers went on to say that in their opinion, it was 'not a cult. Did I miss something? Did you actually read those refs? DaveApter (talk) 12:06, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

:::@DaveApter

:::Apologies, I was a bit flippant in my response.

:::It would have been better for me to say "Various sources, including some cult-experts, have characterised it as cultish, cult-like, etc."

:::Even though most/all went on to retract or amend their statements, I think the section is well balanced and contains encyclopedically-relevant info.

:::FropFrop (talk) 23:07, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

::::See [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Landmark_Worldwide#c-Polygnotus-20241008055800-Avatar317-20241008055000 this comment]. There are, as far as we know, only 2 scholars who said it was not a cult, one was a grandmother who got sued by Landmark and bullied and threatened by Scientologists who said {{tq|she would not recommend the group to anyone, and would not comment on whether Landmark used coercive persuasion for fear of legal recrimination from Landmark.}} and one is an economist who credits Landmark with restoring the relationship with his daughter and is therefore not independent. Turns out Abgrall says he never expressed an opinion one way or the other in the documentary (and he got paid over 45.000 euro by Landmark). Every independent commentator calls it either a cult or a New Religious Movement (a newer term that some sociologists use). Polygnotus (talk) 23:20, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

:I'm don't think the issue here is "undue weight", since a large portion of what makes Landmark notable is that it tends to attract either very negative or very positive opinions of those who have interacted with it. So the "cult allegations" are a key part of the notability. Our presentation leads something to be desired, however, as a whole this article does not do a great job at explaining this. PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:01, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

:I am glad to see this RFC. I see people talking about references saying Landmark is a cult, but I don't see the actual references. I recall a NPOV message board thread I commented on about a year ago that started with the assertion the Landmark is a cult stated as a fact. Since then there has been an attempt to incorporate that into the article. That is original research if I am not mistaken. If there are actual reliable sources that unequivocally call Landmark a cult, they can easily be copy and pasted here for everyone to discuss. Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 15:39, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

::This has been debated over and over for years. References have been provided many times. To demand that everything is spelled out for you yet again in 2024 after 20 years of debates, when you can simply check the article or the talk page history (or use Google) is unreasonable. No sources will ever be good enough for the cult members. Not even the Parliamentary Commission on Cults in France (1995, 1999) and the Senate of Berlin (1997). I understand that people like their favourite soccer team or country or religion or hobby or cult or whatever, but why deny the reality that others have a different opinion? You have my full permission to dislike my favourite music artists/movies/country/et cetera. Why can't the cultmembers agree to disagree?

::Proving or disproving that it is a cult is not what we do here on Wikipedia. That would fall under original research. So we only need sources to prove that it has been called a cult. And you already know that it has. Polygnotus (talk) 15:54, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

:::Now that you’ve resorted to name calling, revealing a decided lack of neutrality, it is clearly appropriate that DaveApter has requested another RFC.   I initially found myself in some agreement with you ("proving or disproving that it is a cult is not what we do here on Wikipedia"), but only to a point.  As an editor, haven’t you agreed to validate the edits you make?  To assess cited resources for accuracy and credentials? Or have you merely looked for “evidence” to support what your “cult members” references reveal to be an obvious point of view?     Ndeavour (talk) 18:15, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

:::I agree with Ndeavour. Openly insinuating that other editors are "cult members," without a shred of evidence supporting such a remark, would seem to clearly demonstrate your own bias in this matter and belie your statement that this argument is not about proving whether Landmark is a cult. If you're calling others cult members, then it seems clear that you believe this organization is a cult and, therefore, cannot claim neutrality in this discussion. Coalcity58 (talk) 18:23, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

::::{{tq|Interesting pattern. Accounts lay dormant, often for months, and suddenly there is a flurry of activity where they all show up to support eachother. Not suspicious at all.}} [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Landmark_Worldwide#c-Polygnotus-20241010214000-Elmmapleoakpine-20241010170700 Original here]. Time is a flat circle. Polygnotus (talk) 21:03, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

::::You'll forgive me for being a bit jaded, because I have seen this all before. Multiple times. Polygnotus (talk) 21:08, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

I'm disappointed that this RfC has generated so much in the way of accusations and aspersions, and so little discussion of how to address the question within the framework of Wikipedia's policies. In particular, the relevant section of the WP:NPOV policy states:

{{tq|* Avoid stating opinions as facts. Usually, articles will contain information about the significant opinions that have been expressed about their subjects. However, these opinions should not be stated in Wikipedia's voice. Rather, they should be attributed in the text to particular sources}}.

Undoubtedly, some people do hold the opinion that Landmark is a "Cult", but who are they? If they are no more than anonymous internet discussion commenters or bloggers, do they deserve this prominence in an encyclopedia? If they are notable individuals, then it should be possible to find reliable sources who identify them and attribute the opinion to them. None of the existing references do so. Several assertions have been made in the foregoing discussion for which no sources have been offered, for example: {{tq| "Various sources, including some cult-experts, have characterised it as cultish, cult-like, etc."}} So what are these sources and who are these cult-experts? I could not find either of these terms - 'cultish' or 'cult-like' in any of the refs. DaveApter (talk) 13:36, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

:You keep repeating your claims over and over again, but that does not make them more true. Your repetitive questions has been answered many times over the past decades.

:Wikipedia's role is to summarize existing reliable sources rather than create new content. If you disagree with how a topic is currently covered, the most effective approach would be to:

1. Work with reliable, independent sources to publish new, more positive, coverage
2. Request corrections from existing sources if there are factual errors

:Once new coverage exists in reliable sources, it will then be incorporated into Wikipedia articles.

:I have read many Wikipedia articles I (partially) disagree with. But I can't remove well-sourced neutral information just because I think it is bullshit. And I can't go around deleting the research of scientists I dislike, or the quotes from politicians I dislike, or the mention of groups I dislike.

:This damnatio memoriae-approach is incompatible with Wikipedia's goals.

:If you want more information about FropFrop's statement you should contact FropFrop on their talkpage. Polygnotus (talk) 15:14, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

::You keep saying that Wikipedia must summarize what the sources say, but the section on cults goes far beyond what is stated in the cited refs. Yes, "some people say" is commonly accepted in some quarters as authoritative - but not when it comes to providing an impartial record. If some people say you are a giraffe, are you a giraffe? What does it say about the poster who inserts that in an article? "Some people say" is an excuse to insert opinion. I don't read where anyone is saying that the accusation against Landmark be removed - rather that it be acknowledged and given the weith of gossip. Put in perspective. Ndeavour (talk) 17:50, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

:::If basically every independent observer who has ever written about me mentions that I am considered to be a giraffe, then that fact is worth mentioning in the Wikipedia article about me, no matter if you or I agree with it. Most giraffes lack artistic ability, although their tails look deceptively like paintbrushes. The article does not say that Landmark is a cult. Do you think we should remove all negative opinions about all article topics everywhere on Wikipedia? Or just about the topics you like? You stated you have {{tq|done Landmark's programs}} and {{tq|have participated for quite some time}}, but perhaps (since the word "worldwide" is in the name) your experience differs from that of others? I am happy for you that you had a positive experience, but other people have a more negative opinion and experience and there is no reason to exclude them (or to pretend their opinions are based on "gossip"). Polygnotus (talk) 18:48, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

::::Unless you are about to make an argument that everyone everywhere has the same experience, then of course my experience differs from that of others. As it happens - in the case of Landmark - I am in agreement with the vast majority (over 3,000,000) who found it favorable, and, at the same time, I am aware that that was not the experience of every participant. In all the responses here on the talk page, I don't see any evidence that responders are calling for the elimination of contrasting opinions - only that they be put into context, and not given undue weight bolstered by less than authoritative supporting articles. And, by the way, I completely disagree with any who might accuse you of membership in ANY other species! They need to check their sources! Ndeavour (talk) 15:53, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

:::::I think we can agree that it would be unfair to frame the negative experiences of others as "[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Landmark_Worldwide#c-Ndeavour-20241027175000-Polygnotus-20241026151400 gossip]", it feels rather gaslighty to act as if they didn't experience what they did and as if their feelings are not real. I of course do not believe the 3 million number, but there is no company on Earth that has exclusively 100% satisfied customers if they have more than 100. And if you check online you'll find the astroturfed 5 star fake reviews (and people telling you they were pressured to write them), but also [https://www.trustpilot.com/review/www.landmarkworldwide.com?page=3&stars=1&stars=2 many 1 and 2 star reviews]. Polygnotus (talk) 12:57, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

::::::My, my, my, you are certainly an inventive individual. Who said anything about gossip? Or discounting the opinions or experiences of others? I certainly did not. As for whether or not you "believe" that Landmark has had over 3 million participants, do you have any evidence that the number is inaccurate? Again, no one is denying that some people had unfavorable experiences; nor is anyone saying that they shouldn't be included in a Wikipedia article. As to reviews, in this age of bots and AI I suggest they are less than reliable and don't belong in Wikipedia articles. Ndeavour (talk) 16:27, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

:::::::Thank you! Have you not noticed that the word gossip is a link to a statement the account you are using made earlier? {{tq|Who said anything about gossip?}} The Ndeavour account did. {{tq|I certainly did not.}} [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ALandmark_Worldwide&diff=1253749977&oldid=1253551433 Your account did]. And giving the experiences and opinions of those you disagree with the weight of gossip would certainly be a form of {{tq|discounting the opinions or experiences of others}}. Polygnotus (talk) 17:19, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

::::::::Why, so I did - I used the word. But what I said was that comments without valid sources (e.g., articles where the sole use of "cult" was in the title AND where the author refuted the use of the term) are no better than "someone said" and the equivalent of gossip. That doesn't discount otherr's experiences - only faulty references. . Ndeavour (talk) 16:19, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

:::::::::Nope, you wrote: {{tq|I don't read where anyone is saying that the accusation against Landmark be removed - rather that it be acknowledged and given the weith of gossip. Put in perspective.}} Treating the accusation as gossip is discounting the experience of others. Polygnotus (talk) 19:36, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

:We have another dispute over the use of cult language at Talk:International Churches of Christ, which means we have another group of editors who have already spent some time thinking about the meaning of cult. I therefore ping/dragoon/beg assistance here from a few of those editors: Valereee, Cordless Larry, North8000, Nemov, ProfGray, and Levivich.

:Friends, this RFC question is phrased as a yes/no, but I suspect that a more general answer would be helpful (e.g., "we should keep all the stuff about the lawsuits" or "all that stuff about the lawsuits should be condensed by 50%" or whatever). WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:01, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

::Thank you. The question is not "is this a cult" (which would be WP:OR) or "should we call it a cult in wikivoice" (which we don't) but "should we allow members of the cult to hide the fact that Landmark was called a cult by pretty much everyone including the Parliamentary Commission on Cults in France (1995, 1999) and the Senate of Berlin (1997) and by many cult experts and commentators.". But COI editors don't get to decide what we should focus on. As Wikipedians we should make up our own minds about what needs to be improved most. If there is one area of the article that is most in need of improving it is the part about what Landmark actually is and does. The heart of the article. They offer a bunch of seminars and training courses; what are they and what do they teach? It may also be a good idea to explain where these ideas come from (e.g. Mind Dynamics, Scientology, Buddhism, various books like Think and Grow Rich) and how they fit in compared to the rest (e.g. the human potential movement and large-group awareness training). Polygnotus (talk) 22:47, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

:::I sense a conflict between {{xt|"The question is not "is this a cult" (which would be WP:OR)"}} and {{xt|"should we allow members of the cult to..."}}.

:::If your main concern is about editors with a COI holding a discussion about whether the article has struck the right balance, then you're in luck: I just pinged half a dozen editors who are (a) unlikely to have any connection to this subject and (b) already aware of how the word cult was used in the wake of the Satanic panic vs how it might be used today. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:35, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

::::Wikivoice is very different from my personal opinion. You would never read {{tq|Harley-Davidson, Inc. (H-D, or simply Harley) is a shockingly incompetent American manufacturer of the worst motorcycles ever built}} in a Wikipedia article, although that that opinion is factually correct. Thanks for the pings; I checked their userpages and I have asked ProfGray to take a look at Efrat (organization). Polygnotus (talk) 18:28, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

I just made an edit to the 'Accusations of being a cult' section to more accurately express what the sources say, and it was instantly reverted without explanation even before I could finish correcting the citations. It seems clear to me that the article is being guarded against any edits that do not reflect a certain point of view.Coalcity58 (talk) 22:21, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

:We can discuss this below; but we could make more progress if you would recognize/admit your own bias when you accuse others; your edit summarized/removed a LOT of the info about cult accusations, and you didn't use an edit summary either. ---Avatar317^(talk) 22:30, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

The extent of the coverage of the "cult" issue is not undue, in light of the sources. I do think, however, that the placement is undue (at least in [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Landmark_Worldwide&oldid=1254384461 the version that is current as I write]). The introductory section should be, well, introductory. It should give the reader a quick overview of the subject. Polygnotus writes, "Hiding all negative information in a section near the bottom of an article is discouraged." I agree. The opposite extreme, however, is to launch right into a discussion of the pros and cons of the accusation. It's too much detail for the intro section. I would rewrite the second graf along these lines:

:Landmark does not use advertising, but instead pressures participants during courses to recruit relatives and friends as new customers. This and other features have caused some observers to characterize Landmark as a "new religious movement" (NRM) or as a cult, which the organization denies (see Accusations of being a cult).

My editing one of the other sentences in the graf doesn't mean that I think it should be that prominent. That sentence and the rest of that graf should be moved to the detailed subsection.

Incidentally, that "Accusations of being a cult" subsection summarizes the substance of the accusations (maybe "characterizations" would be more neutral) and summarizes the actions taken by Landmark in response, but it's light on summarizing the substance of Landmark's response. Surely Landmark has issued some statements along the lines of "Here's why we're not a cult"? If so, the subsection should be improved, not by deleting any of what's there, but by paying more attention to Landmark's side of the merits of the question. JamesMLane t c 00:12, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

:It would probably be wise to keep the view of sociologists and religious scholars, who describe it as an NRM, separate from those who describe it as a cult, which is basically every other independent commentator (like journalists), cult experts, groups/organizations and parts of various governments (France/Berlin/Belgium).

:The reasons that it is an NRM are not the same as the reasons that it is a cult; its a different set of boxes to tick.

:The method of recruiting perhaps qualifies it to be an MLM, or something similarly word-of-mouth based, but it is afaik not a defining feature of cults or NRMs. Polygnotus (talk) 00:52, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

• No, I don't think this is undue, given the amount of coverage of this issue in reliable sources. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:31, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

LOL. It's not a cult. Cults take you away from people and try to make you cut people off. Landmark encourages you to reach out to other people who you see their lives not going as they want-it and see if the course helps them. Everybody's journey through the course is different. And they have other followup classes you can get enlightenment in new areas.

I can see how that might look like a "cult" to an outsider but it's for two entirely different reasons. The other reason is after you take the class you'll move on to more challenging things in life. And friends who are content in not moving anywhere in life and just complain become boring energy killers. You thusly move on two different wave lengths. Ofcourse if they take the class and you can hold frank discussions with them on anything and they no longer get offended, that's when that relationship shifts again. 108.20.240.158 (talk) 19:48, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

:Wow. Anyway, Wikipedia talk pages are not a forum for sharing your personal opinions or first-hand observation. This discussion should focus on how to proportionately summarize reliable and independent sources. Grayfell (talk) 20:54, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

I have created a new version of the article, based on a previous version that I've updated with material from the current one. I'd like to invite everyone to take a look, make suggestions, and have a collaborative conversion for improving it. The new version is in my sandbox, which can be viewed here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Coalcity58/sandbox Coalcity58 (talk) 21:58, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

:That is clearly not an improvement, and it is unclear why you made it because it can't be a starting point for any good-faith discussion. Look, I get it: there are many articles on Wikipedia I disagree with. There is negative information about stuff I like on Wikipedia, and positive information about stuff I strongly dislike. But I can't just go around removing and de-emphasizing what I don't agree with; that is not the role of a Wikipedian. Writing an article means finding reliable sources and then summarizing them. What you did is taking an old version of an existing article and then deleted/hidden everything you disagree with. You haven't specified which version you used but that page contains errors that were fixed in November 2023, so it must be even older than that. If someone deleted all positive and most neutral information, kept all negative information, and hid the remaining neutral information at the bottom, you wouldn't find that a goodfaith starting point for a discussion either, so it is unclear to me why you try the opposite. Polygnotus (talk) 22:03, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

::Well, I think it needs to be the starting point. This war-room discussion has been going on for months at this point, and I have yet to see any constructive progress on improving this article or creating any true collaborative conversation around it. If you seriously want to do that, then participate, make your suggestions for the article, and discuss it. I took the time to create this in good faith in the spirit of collaboration. Is that really what you're interested in? If so, then take the opportunity. Coalcity58 (talk) 15:18, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

:::Please read WP:POVFORK. ---Avatar317^(talk) 23:13, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

::::Thanks for the reference - it was an interesting read. As someone with an acknowledged background with Landmark and its predecessors who has been part of these discussions (but who has refrained from any edits for that reason), the approach that CoalCity58 took was - to my eyse - truly a move towards collaboratoin and consensus building. Perhaps more importantly, his rewrite has the article appear more in keeping with other articles on Wikipedia about other businesses. None of the articles abouty GM, for instance, prominently feature their failings and fialures - and the same goes for any other organization. (Take a look at the Tony Robbins page: Tony Robbins as an example). Ndeavour (talk) 16:17, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::The people who want to get rid of all criticism already collaborate and already agree with eachother.

:::::I agree that the Tony Robbins article does not meet our NPOV standards. I have tagged it as such and I have listed reliable sources on the talkpage. Thank you for pointing that out, if you know of any others please let me know.

:::::It is unclear to me what you mean with GM. General Motors? The General Motors article contains quite a bit of criticism (the various labour conflicts/strikes, using forced Uyghur labour, apartheid, ignition switch recalls, dangerous designs, unfair trade practices et cetera). If there is an aspect of the criticism of General Motors that you feel is not represented fairly on the General Motors article, please post it on the relevant talkpage with a handful of reliable sources. Thank you, Polygnotus (talk) 17:12, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::This 'war room' conversation, per my understanding, was started with a view of resolving this long-standing chatter in a space of cooperation to produce an article in keeping with Wikipedia standards. But I don't see it happening. Since you initiated the discussion, I assumed you would be interested in that. Was I mistaken? Coalcity58 (talk) 19:48, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::What I am saying is that it makes no sense to post a draft that you know only one side of a debate agrees with and pretend that that is a reasonable starting point for a discussion. It is just a waste of time. Polygnotus (talk) 00:45, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::::I would say that what makes no sense is to flatly refuse to engage with an offer of collaboration on a new version in the context of a conversation that purports to be about dialogue and collaboration. In that light, it seems clear to me that you had no such intent in creating this 'war room' conversation. That begs the question: What is your real intent? I see Ndeavor has asked similar questions below, which you've ignored in your usual manner. If this is really about dialogue and meeting of the minds re the article, then prove my doubts wrong. Speak your mind. Speak to what you're really up to. Coalcity58 (talk) 20:05, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::I replied [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Landmark_Worldwide#c-Polygnotus-20250421202600-Coalcity58-20250421154800 here]. Polygnotus (talk) 20:26, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

{{outdent}}I'll choose to concur with User:Polygnotus a bunch. The current version is the starting point; everything else is merely nostalgia, copyvio, and attribution error. Creating an entirely new draft utilizing existing, old, and found sources, THAT would constitute a reasonable new starting point. BusterD (talk) 15:34, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

Under the rules of Wikipedia. Anything on wikipedia that makes a claim especially any far reaching claims needs references under the rules of :Wikipedia:Reliable sources. If theres' so called scholars who believe that Landmark is a religion it should be well referenced under the rules of Wikipedia. They at least one or two should be on the record here so folks can critique their work. Under the rules of Wikipedia anything not properly reference and attributed may be deleted as WP:OR.

Someone claimed this? Well who? At least one or two should be on the record to show who claimed this?

Many companies & institutions[https://www.vantogroup.com/clients/] like NASA, Reebok[https://www.vantogroup.com/client/reebok/], Lockhed Martin, Johnson & Johnson, and others offer their employees the option to take classes at Landmark's alternate corporate name VANTO Group.[https://www.landmarkworldwide.com/about-us/newsroom/press-releases/vanto-forbes-announcement] Why would the HR of those big companies send people to a "cult"? Or religious body? Most "cults" seek to isolate people from others, their family, their friends etc. What would HR at those companies get out of that? Your wild claims need references. CaribDigita (talk) 07:51, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

:{{ping|CaribDigita}} See Landmark_Worldwide#Scholars and Talk:Landmark_Worldwide/to_do#sociology for more. This has been properly referenced. It is common on Wikipedia to have a lead section without refs summarizing referenced information in the body of the article. Polygnotus (talk) 08:02, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

::So are these the references which should be the basis for the claim? CaribDigita (talk) CaribDigita (talk) 08:13, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

:::{{ping|CaribDigita}} I am not sure I understand what you are asking. Polygnotus (talk) 08:20, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

::::{{ping|Polygnotus}}Gotcha. The sources that are listed under these article section areas you've put forward, are these sources the best ones (that you know of) as references of the claim made in the lead section?

::::In other words, are the claims being made in the lead section attributed off of these ones down below? CaribDigita (talk) 08:58, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

:::::{{ping|CaribDigita}} Yes, those are the sources for those claims. Polygnotus (talk) 09:07, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

::::::{{ping|Polygnotus}} Perfect, thanks! CaribDigita (talk) 09:17, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

:::::::{{ping|CaribDigita}} Are you familiar with {{tl|Leadcite comment}} and WP:LEADCITE? I just discovered that template. Polygnotus (talk) 09:38, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

Removed [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Landmark_Worldwide&diff=1285834677&oldid=1285833477 this bit].

That says there was a "study" and explicitly mentions his job.

But looking at what he actually wrote there was no study (only 4 pages of text wherein he writes about himself), and he didn't just show up (ideally "undercover"); they requested his presence. We have an article about him, Raymond D. Fowler, and he says it {{tq|does not in any way reflect the views of any university or organization with which I am or have been associated. I am not submitting this report as a representative of any organization}} so it is misleading to use his job title.

https://www.psychegames.com/landmark-education.htm says {{tq|Raymond D. Fowler, PhD, who observed sessions of the Landmark Forum, wrote in a report commissioned by Landmark Education}}...

He certainly didn't have to pay, and they knew he was coming and would write a report about his experiences.

{{tq|At the request of the Landmark Education Corporation, I undertook an evaluation of the effectiveness, safety and appropriateness of the procedures followed in conducting the Landmark Forum program.}}

Later Fowler was asked if he was paid but he refused to answer.[https://culteducation.com/group/1020-landmark-education/12434-a-landmark-encounter.html]

And according to that same page Landmark had a good reason to want such a report: {{tq|But this is not as bad as professional authority selling out. Raymond Fowler, Ph.D., executive vice-president and CEO of the American Psychological Association, wrote a report declaring Landmark seminars harmless and having nothing to do with psychotherapy. (If they had, their unqualified purveyors could be arrested, not to mention having their pants sued off them.)}} which explains why the text is so awkward. Polygnotus (talk) 03:05, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

:How does your assertion differ from those made about articles published where the sole mention of "cult" was in the title (and which actually assert that it is NOT), yet they are being epitomized as valid material? You've found an example of what seems to be poor attribution while at the same time retaining at least three (that I remember) articles of equally spurious value. It truly appears as if you have some sort of vendetta against Landmark but have yet to reveal it. There are many things on Wikipedia - many that you have edited - but somehow you keep coming back to this one and finding ways to disparage and disrupt it. It would be valuable to hear your intention and motivation, beyond "for the good of Wikipedia." What is it about Landmark that has you constantly picking away at it? Ndeavour (talk) 16:10, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

::{{Reply|Ndeavour}} I suggest that you take an approach other than whataboutism and personal attacks, especially as you have disclosed a conflict of interest on your talk page. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:21, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

:::Is "whataboutism" a Wikipedia term? Is pointing to a seeming discrepancy between very similar issues what you are talking about? That is more frequently referred to as hypocrisy - but as I see it, saying that would be a personal attack instead of an attempt to reveal diametrically oppositional approaches by someone. I am asking questions - not attacking. I have a long history with all the iterations of Landmark, from participant to person who assisted to staff member - and for that reasoin, my only participation is here on the talk page. I have a vested interest -- distinct from a conflict of interest - in seeing that what gets said represents Landmark and adheres to the principles of consensus editing on Wikipedia. Having been following this talk page for six months, I assert that the single biggest obstacle to presentiig an article built by consensus has been the reluctance of one user to engage in meaningful conversation and cooperative work. That puzzzles me and there has to be a reason for it that has yet to emerge in all the lengthy talk on this page. It looks like a point of view that is denying that of others. Ndeavour (talk) 17:13, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

::::Whataboutism in the general sense, also known as "pointing to a seeming discrepancy between very similar issues." A vested interest is a conflict of interest in this context. If you have an issue with a specific user's conduct you take that to ANI or similar, it doesn't really belong here. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:54, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

::What I wonder is why, when asked a direct question re his/her motivations and any issues he may have with Landmark, user Polygnotus always either fails to answer or responds with some nonsense statement or obscure reference. The one thing he never does is provide a straight answer to such a question. Further, given said user's flat refusal to work together on the alternative version of the article I proposed, just what is the true purpose of this so-called 'war room' conversation? My understanding is that it was initiated with the purpose of fostering discussion and collaboration to resolve a long-standing dispute. But it seems clear to me that the conversation does not really exist for such a purpose. Else, why refuse offers to collaborate. I notice the same ringing silence in response to this most recent request for a candid response. Coalcity58 (talk) 15:48, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

:::Can you please stop it? Every time I get one of these notifications and then I click it and its another pointless ad hominem rant about how I am evil or whatever because I don't let cultmembers censor Wikipedia. It is a waste of time. Thank you. Polygnotus (talk) 20:26, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

::::Can I please stop? Stop what? Asking you questions? No, I'm not going to stop asking you for a straight answer to my questions. Look guy, what needs to stop is you insinuating that I'm some kind of cult member. I'm not associated with Landmark. And even if I was, my research tells me that this this is a company that offers self-help programs and business consulting services. I'm here because I've been trying to help, to contribute to this article that caught my interest when I began editing on Wikipedia. You posted this 'war room' conversation, supposedly to foster better understanding on an article that has been the subject of controversy. But that's not what I'm seeing, so I'm asking you to explain what your real intent is. That's all that's going on here. I'm not ranting at you or saying you're evil. However, you reply does seem to indicate a certain bias. Coalcity58 (talk) 15:48, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::@Coalcity58 The people who are affiliated with Landmark have wasted an insane amount of time and energy from the Wikipedians over the literal decades. Everything has been explained over and over and many people have very politely tried to help the Landmarkians understand how Wikipedia works and why Wikipedia articles sometimes contain negative information. In return, the Landmarkians have stonewalled all feedback and repeated the same nonsense over and over again, using many sockpuppets and meatpuppets.

:::::{{tq|I'm here because I've been trying to help}} Well, I am sorry, but you are not helping. If you want to help, we got 6 million articles where you can have a positive impact. If you want to contribute to those articles and you need some advice, let me know and I'll be happy to help. Unsure where to start? I can point you in the right direction. But we gotta stop making the same moves on the same chessboard. And since Wikipedia is not going to change its NPOV policy, the Landmarkians are going to have to accept that reliable sources have published information about Landmark that they consider to be negative. And move on. And stop beating the dead horse. Polygnotus (talk) 15:55, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::If you want me to I can explain how to install MediaWiki on a server and then you can have your own article on your own website and you can allow only those who agree with you to edit it, if you want. I have a todolist that is very long so if you want to help me I would really appreciate it. Wikipedia got a giant backlog and there are many areas that need help. Look at WP:TASKCENTER and WP:BACKLOG and WP:MAINT for example. Polygnotus (talk) 15:57, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::{{Ping|Coalcity58}} these repeated personal attacks are uncivil and only further the appearence of COI that your edits create. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:55, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::Asking questions and pointing out the appearance of bias are uncivil personal attacks? That's an interesting interpretation, and convenient if the interest is in stifling a straight conversation. Coalcity58 (talk) 17:33, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

:I agree with the removal. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:19, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

Having been acused of "canvassing" when I went to find editors to take a look here, I've done what I consider to be a deep dive into how to bring the uncivility and lack of responses to the attention of others with standing in the Wikipedia community. I've initiated a new issue on the ANI, and I have also notified the user it concerns. I'm not happy that we weren't able to resolve differences of opinion here and that I felt forced to operate this way - but my intention is to bring the eyes of others who I expect to be objective in the matter. Ndeavour (talk) 15:51, 12 May 2025 (UTC)— Ndeavour (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. {{#if:|A sockpuppet investigation is open at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/{{{spi}}}.{{sp}}|}}