Talk:Landmark Worldwide#rfc 84EEC3E

{{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)

The recent reversion by {{U| Avatar317}} amounts to vandalism. Please discuss the reasons for proposed changes here, rather than simply reverting to a preferred version. The two sections that I reinstated had been part of the article for many years. They had been removed without explanation by a drive-by editor with no history of involvement in this topic. The removal of the reference to the Amelia Hill article was particularly egregious, as this is one of the more sober and responsible pieces of journalism on this subject, in a well-respected London broadsheet, the Observer; and multiple citations to that source throughout the page had also been removed.

On the other hand I feel that {{U|Coalcity58}} was excessive in removing the opening statement entirely: clearly Landmark has faced these accusations (or "characterizations" as one editor above suggested), but the wording does misrepresent what the sources actually say, and the Barker ref is irrelevant since it does not mention Landmark.

Please do not revert again before discussing here. DaveApter (talk) 13:39, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

:Are you joking? {{tq| Please do not edit war}} you and the other Landmarkian accounts have repeatedly editwarred for years. Tagteaming with multiple accounts does not hide that fact. The perspectives of the Landmarkians and the Wikipedians are so far apart it is silly. {{tq|amounts to vandalism}} false {{tq|They had been removed without explanation}} false. Which Landmarkian account will be woken from its slumber next to report me to some noticeboard? Polygnotus (talk) 13:52, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

::No, I am not joking. I just note that you have reverted these edits yet again without explanation. The Amelia Hill article in a quality British newspaper has been cited for over twelve years on this page without anyone objecting to it. Neither you or Avatar317 nor the editor who removed these references a week or so ago has provided any discussion here about reasons for the removal. Also you removed my small edit to correct the misleading summary of the sources in the cult section. Again, please discuss this if you disagree with it. DaveApter (talk) 16:57, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

:::I have read the archives of this talkpage and various related pages. On the one hand the Landmarkians, as a group, are not interested in a civilized discussion where people with differing viewpoints reach a middle ground; they want to get rid of anything negative and add a bunch of positive stuff (devoid of its context). On the other hand, the Wikipedians, as a group, are also not interested in reaching a middle ground because NPOV is policy and Wikipedians don't make exceptions to it, even when someone WP:CPUSHes or WP:BADGERs for a decade or two. So it is impossible for both groups to reach a middle ground. At some point the Landmarkians need to drop their stick or they need to get blocked for IDHT reasons. If I die tomorrow there will be another Wikipedian who removes promotional material. And another. And another. Wikipedians will always remove POV material and add information from reliable sources, no matter if its positive or negative. What is the relationship between you and the other Landmarkian accounts? Which are the socks and which are the meatpuppets? Would they stop if you tell them to? Why do you care so much about a Wikipedia article about a cult? Jensen credited Landmark with restoring the relationship with a family member; maybe you have a similar reason to care? I am not a mindreader. Can we perhaps have a normal conversation instead of this weird stuff where there are no winners and we just waste each-others time? I can imagine how frustrating it must be if you work for Landmark for decades and then you feel like outsiders smear its name, but I am not an evil person and I only care about Wikipedia, not about Landmark. In all this time a normal conversation where two adults with opposing viewpoints try to understand each-other hasn't been tried yet, maybe that would help? Polygnotus (talk) 17:05, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

::::Once again, you have reverted without providing an explanation, and resorted to accusations of bad faith without any justification. You have made your own POV on this topic abundantly clear and you have been assiduous in working to have it represented in this article in violation of the WP:NPOV policy which you claim to uphold. DaveApter (talk) 17:27, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

:::::My offer stands. Are you willing to have a normal conversation as adults where we try to understand eachothers point of view? Perhaps we can break this cycle. If not, then at least we tried. Polygnotus (talk) 17:28, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

::::::I'm wondering where/when/how you would propose to hold such a conversation; it would seem to me that it is a very valid suggestion, but given the tendency we can see throughout these pages to have content quoted without context, I would think it would be worthwhile to consider the logistics of such a conversation in order to ensure that what emerges is NOT "he said"/"they said", but rather an accurate rendition. What medium would you propose? Ndeavour (talk) 18:06, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

:::::::The medium would be Wikipedia. Perhaps a subpage of this page? That way its easy to refer to things and the conversation is open and accessible to all. The goal is not to have yet another fight; it is trying to work towards mutual understanding. Understanding each-other does not mean we have to agree. Ideally we would have a normal respectful conversation. So we need to be a bit openminded and willing to forgive because it is difficult to unlearn bad habits. Polygnotus (talk) 18:12, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

::::::I for one would be delighted if we could accomplish this, and put an end to the adversarial nature of the recent conversations. I think that this page is the appropriate location for this discussion, and I don't see that a 'sub-page' is necessary. The normal conventions of Wikipedia to assume good faith and avoid casting aspersions or making ad hominem remarks should suffice to keep the conversation civil. DaveApter (talk) 19:35, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

:::::::The reason I suggested using a subpage is to have a clear demarcation. Any hostilities/fights/arguments/unpleasantness can remain here, and we can use the other page to try to understand each-other better. It would be difficult to have a civil, perhaps even friendly, conversation when surrounded by unpleasant stuff imo. We have to avoid falling in the same trap over and over again and I think a change of venue would help. A new page can symbolize a fresh start. Polygnotus (talk) 19:39, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

::::::I am open to having any conversation that stands a chance of being fruitful. As previously stated, I think that here - rather than any sub-page - is the appropriate place. Let me start by stating that I have never intentionally and deliberately made any assertion that could be interpreted as {{tq|" WP:CPUSHing and WP:BADGERing and sealioning" or "ad hominems" or "bullying"}}. If you can point to any such instances, I will be happy to repudiate them. My interest in editing this page is in having it conform to Wikipedia's policies of NOT being advocacy for a specific minority viewpoint, and of accurately summarizing such sources as exist on the topic. On another point, I note that another editor has claimed that I have declared a COI - which is not the case. Being open about the fact that I have been a customer of Landmark does not amount to having a "close connection". Does the fact that I have bought Apple products prohibit me from editing the Apple page? Are all of Landmark's three million customers to be outlawed from editing here? DaveApter (talk) 17:28, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

:::::::Apples and oranges, clearly not equivilent products. Seems disengenous to even make the comparison. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:58, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

:::::::You spent 20 years trying to remove all negative information about Landmark and related entities from Wikipedia. It is not about having a "close connection" it is about the fact that you have a conflict of interest. WP:EXTERNALREL explains all that. Have you ever admitted that you('ve) work(ed) for Landmark (either as a volunteer or paid employee), now or in the past? People who do a bunch of Landmark courses always get pressured into volunteering/working for them. {{tq|As previously stated, I think that here - rather than any sub-page - is the appropriate place.}} I already explained why that is a bad idea. Is the fact that its a different page really a reason for you to not try to have a civil conversation? I can embed it here if you insist. Polygnotus (talk) 19:11, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

::::::::So this is an example of your idea of 'a normal conversation to try to understand each-other better'? DaveApter (talk) 10:30, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

:::::::::{{ping|DaveApter}} No, as explained before, that would be in the War Room. At the bottom of this page. And you are invited. We got tea and cookies. Polygnotus (talk) 11:49, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

::::Well, were it not for your history of lobbing sideways insults and nonsensical responses, plus your perfectly clear point of view that this organization is a cult, i might actually be willing to have a 'normal conversation' with you. In fact, you and I might have become new acquaintances, collaborators in editing, or possibly even friends with time. But you chose instead to create enmity within a day or two of my first editing here by reversing a minor edit I made without explanation or discussion, and then attempting to create difficulties for me with Wikipedia when I restored the edit and objected to your arbitrary actions. In addition, I have repeatedly requested you explain your interest and point of view on this article and have been met with further stonewalling and nonsensical remarks such as how you dislike unloading the dishwasher. Given that history, it's difficult to take your suggestion of a normal conversation seriously. It might still be possible, but from my point of view the onus is now on you to demonstrate some good faith. Coalcity58 (talk) 19:31, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

:::::Everyone is invited but no one is forced to attend. From my point of view the onus is on the Landmarkians. I believe the Wikipedians have, in general (there are exceptions), been kind to the Landmarkians. Polygnotus (talk) 19:45, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

::::::This is rather disappointing. In this brief note, you are making it abundantly clear that you have no intention of following {{tq|"The normal conventions of Wikipedia to assume good faith and avoid casting aspersions or making ad hominem remarks"}}. Without adhering to these, there is no possibility of useful and constructive dialog. You have previously referred to editors who do not share your viewpoint as "cult members" (which is absurd anyway because there is no such thing as "membership" of Landmark), and you now refer them as "Landmarkians". Is this even a word? Did you make it up? And then you compound the insult by indicating that such editors are somehow not Wikipedians. There is clearly no authentic intention on your part to {{tq|"try to understand each-other better"}}, and in any case the point of this page is to discuss the merits of proposed changes with a view to improving the article. The discussions should be framed in the context of adherence to the policies of Wikipedia. As noted several times above, the article content regarding cult accusations completely misrepresents what the cited sources actually say. You have simply refused to answer the direct questions on this point and also those about the two valid references which you edit warred to remove. DaveApter (talk) 16:28, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

:::::::Look, if you want to keep going for another 2 decades, getting more and more frustrated, then that is up to you. I was hoping to have a normal conversation to try to understand each-other better. If you keep posting these rants then that is not possible. Polygnotus (talk) 16:34, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

::::::::DaveApter's note is not a rant. It makes several good points. He, and others here, have consistently attempted a balanced, good faith dialogue - and you have just as consistently resisted those efforts at every step. For my part, despite your negative history, I'm willing to have that 'normal conversation' with you. But for that to happen, as I said, you need to demonstrate some good faith. What that looks like is drop the name calling and accusations, the nonsensical gaslighting, and the instantaneous reversal of edits that you don't agree with. Actually step up and have a real dialogue, state your positions, and make your case honestly. When i see that, I'll be happy to come to the table. Take DaveApter's words to heart, answer people's questions, present your arguments. You said you're not an evil person. Well, act like it and earn some respect. Seems to me you're getting some olive branches extended to you. Accept one. Coalcity58 (talk) 21:47, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

:::::::::Au contraire, the Landmarkians have spent literal decades WP:CPUSHing and WP:BADGERing and sealioning. They have wasted an insane amount of time of the Wikipedians. Not to mention the ad hominems, the bullying, the tagteaming, the socking and meatpuppeting, the editwarring and the bad faith accusations. As I said above, most are {{tq|not interested in a civilized discussion where people with differing viewpoints reach a middle ground; they want to get rid of anything negative and add a bunch of positive stuff (devoid of its context)}}. If anyone gets to make demands of the other party it is the Wikipedians, because this is Wikipedia and not Landmarkipedia. Despite all that I am still willing to talk to the Landmarkians. I don't think we are going to fully agree on everything, and I don't think it is useful to make long lists of who did what when and demand apologies and all that. I have spoken to all sorts of people, including people with whom I have very fundamental disagreements. It can be interesting to learn about others POV. And communication is easier when you understand each-other a bit. And I am certain the Landmarkians don't understand the Wikipedians, and vice versa. We can bicker about this for 48 years or we can make the decision to try to have a normal polite conversation. I am willing to give it a try, and it seems unlikely that the relationships between the Landmarkians and the Wikipedians can get soured any more than they already have been in the past decades, so I don't think we have much to lose by trying to understand each other. Polygnotus (talk) 22:10, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

:::::::::I boldy created Talk:Landmark Worldwide/thewarroom. Polygnotus (talk) 22:18, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

::::::::::Well, I think you just reiterated DaveApter's points. You know, I can only speak for me, not others. I've indicated willingness to have the civilized discussion you're talking about. When you're ready to set aside your positionality and engage in a genuine, human conversation, you're welcome to reach out. Oh, and by the way, you might want to check your mirror before you accuse other people of being bullies. Coalcity58 (talk) 23:12, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

:::::::::::Well, I started the civilized discussion I proposed. If others are unwilling to join a friendly conversation with the goal of improving mutual understanding then that is telling. I have read the archives, they are publicly available, and anyone who wants to take a look can easily figure out who is interested in having a balanced and fair Wikipedia article (neutrally presenting what is written in reliable sources, both the good and bad) and who isn't. Polygnotus (talk) 23:21, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

:::::::::::{{ping|Coalcity58}} For the record, maybe I was unclear, but the fact that I am willing to have a friendly conversation in the War Room does not mean that I am somehow not allowed to debunk false claims and point out faulty reasoning on this page. That is not how this works. When you are ready to {{tq|set aside your positionality and engage in a genuine, human conversation, you're welcome to}} join me in the War Room. In an ideal world the mutual understanding and friendship created in the War Room would lead to this talkpage becoming a harmonious Utopia at some point in the future; but we haven't reached that point yet. It would be awesome if the Landmarkians could demonstrate some good faith by stopping the ad hominems and false accusations, the nonsensical gaslighting and badgering, and the attempts to remove all negative information. But I don't demand that they do that as a prerequisite for entering the War Room; I am hoping to convince them during a friendly conversation in the War Room that they should stop doing that. Polygnotus (talk) 23:35, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

{{Talk:Landmark Worldwide/thewarroom}}

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)

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