Talk:Landmark Worldwide

Citation style

The citation style used here drives me mad. it's inconsistent, and also a mixture of short form and long form citations, which can be justified sometimes for sources that aren't paginated but we are using them inconsistently with no rhyme and reason for whether they are or aren't paginated. Some of the sources are in the footnotes section, some are in the references section, some are in both duplicated, some are in one when they should be both. While given the contentious nature of the topic I can see why quotes are needed even more contentious topics don't have quotes on everything, much less free to read online news articles that you can click on (and maybe the same problem could be dealt with by holding POV pushers to account). Is anyone in agreement with me that there is an issue here? PARAKANYAA (talk) 06:44, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

@PARAKANYAA: I had to use wikEdDiff to see what actually changed. Of course more consistency is always good. Have you seen https://en.wikipedia.beta.wmflabs.org/wiki/Sub-referencing ? They say it will be made available soon. Polygnotus (talk) 08:24, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

@Polygnotus "soon" can mean many things for the WMF. Could be six months could be ten years. Not holding out hope.

As far as I see it, the standardization options we have are

1 - Standardize as sfns (harvnbs for citations that need quotes, which we should only be using for offline sources). The page uses a handful of these. Has the advantage of being able (with harvnb tags) to use multiple quotes for different references, however using non-paginated sources with this is weird to me

2 - standardize with r templates. I personally do not like r templates, but they are usable, and what most of the page uses already.

3 - mix of either r or sfns for paginated sources and long cites for non paginated ones, e.g. web sources. For an example of what this looks like with sfns, see any of the Order of the Solar Temple pages which I have worked on. Some people hate this, but I think it looks good

I would contribute to this page more if it didn't use the most cursed referencing ever. I am willing to do work to get it to whatever we want to standardize on, but we have to choose something. I personally would prefer option 3 with sfns. Thoughts?

I also think we should cut down on the amount of quotes, especially for free to read online sources. For ones that are offline or hard to access it makes sense but do we need a quote for the ones that you can read in a click? The whims of bad faith editors should not make it so we have to include a massive quote on every. single. reference. PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:47, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Very true. I was led to believe it would happen this year, but no guarantees! I am here as a lightning rod for Avatar317; I haven't actually done anything with the article except remove some WP:PROMO. @Avatar317: what do you think? Polygnotus (talk) 03:28, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

I am the one who has included quotes on every. single. reference. - that is my work; my reason being that in contentious articles like this I have often seen well supported text removed by those who don't like it, (maybe IP editors) and withOUT source quotes, uninvolved editors who are unfamiliar with the topic are unlikely to revert such removals unless the supporting text (the quote) is readily available in the viewable diff. Articles like this often see NON-good faith edits, where an editor will remove something with an edit summary like "not supported in the source" when in fact it is clearly and indisputably supported in the source.

Yes, the citations are inconsistent. The inconsistent style is something I was hoping to fix, and had thought of moving to sfn style (because of my (over)use of quotes), but editor Grayfell had commented that the r style is easier for new editors, so I hadn't gotten around to consistentifying the references.

The reason for the reference mess, from what I've seen from the ancient history of this article, is that a lot of this article (before I came to it) was written WP:BACKWARDS, whereby someone added a statement, and later people would add "sources" and then someone else would move those sources around.

Maybe choice 3 above? The Footnotes and References sections do need cleanup, and I never got around to de-duplicating those sections.

Thanks for your help here! ---Avatar317^(talk) 19:39, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

One additional comment: in comparison to the Order of the Solar Temple article, about a group with ~70 DEATHS from mass suicides means that there have probably been 10-100x the number of academic investigations into that group, vs. Landmark with >2M attendees and 0 known deaths. Most of the mentions in academic sources I have found on Google Books have been just mere mentions of Landmark as to where or what type of org it is classified as. There is some Israeli study specifically on the group, and the book Evaluating a Large Group Awareness Training, but other than those, I've not seen academic research for which the entire focus of the work was a study of Landmark. ---Avatar317^(talk) 21:51, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

There used to be an article about this courtcase. https://horizonsmagazine.com/blog/estate-of-jack-slee-vs-werner-erhard-death-during-est-training-set-a-precedent-for-the-james-ray-lawsuits/ There were also a bunch of psychotic breakdowns attributed to the Landmarkians but they were mostly mine I think. Polygnotus (talk) 21:55, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

@Avatar317: Here ya go: Estate of Jack Slee v. Werner Erhard. Look at that AfD... now where do I remember those names from... Polygnotus (talk) 21:56, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Psychiatric disturbances associated with Erhard Seminars Training: I. A report of cases

Psychiatric disturbances associated with Erhard Seminars Training: II. additional cases and theoretical considerations

Observations on 67 patients who took Erhard Seminars Training

A psychotic episode following Erhard Seminars Training. Polygnotus (talk) 22:02, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Given the apparent bias AGAINST Landmark displayed by Polygnotus, Avatar317 and now PARANKANYAA, I feel compelled to question the intent of your edits. You found four abstracts from 1977 about participants in the now defunct est training - one of which even says that of 49 patients in treatment, 30 showed positive movement in their therapy following their participation. What point are you trying to make? You've moved the article from a balanced piece that includes mention of past controversy to one that has become heavily weighted with obscure references alleging evil intent. These arguments and citations all seem designed to prove a point - but nowhere have you been willing to state the rationale behind your continuing efforts. What are you trying to prove? Ndeavour (talk) 16:53, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Facepalm Thanks for dropping by after 5 months to let us know your opinion. Polygnotus (talk) 17:01, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

You're welcome. And thank you for once again refusing to account for your point of view and engage in any discussion of it. Ndeavour (talk) 20:32, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Check out the Wikipedia:Task Center for suggestions on how to improve Wikipedia. Polygnotus (talk) 20:45, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Oh, the biased editors aren't going to come out and account for their point of view, and a real discussion of that or the quality of the article is the last thing they want. Predictably, they will continue their tradition of replying to questions with sideways insults and nonsensical statements - and using Wikipedia policies to bully editors who do not support their POV. But if you keep standing for truth and accuracy, the gaslighting and manipulation will eventually fall down. Coalcity58 (talk) 16:52, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Documentary notability

For context there was a deletion discussion in 2014 that came to the consensus to merge the documentary to this article. See here. This article was an utter disaster so honestly I can't blame anyone for deleting it, it was a coatrack where almost none of the sources in the article actually talked about the documentary, it had random unsourced asides about the BLPs contained in the documentary, was full of OR and was generally a disaster (also the writer was later topic banned from NRMs and alleged NRMs). However I think it might be notable and an article about it that doesn't suck can be written. I just want to see what people think of these.

Some sources were brought up in the nomination that were not yet in the article, but, they were assessed as merely pre-release pieces which is not true (for some of them). For the purposes of notability we can count all the lawsuit related pieces about the eff/google as one source, though there are a lot of them, so I am not going to address those.

Here are the sources brought up in the afd and my assessment

• Le Parisien - short statement, pre release announcement), doesn't cover content that well so not helpful, maybe good for a few details
• Le Point short but still evaluative imo, better than the above piece, contributes to notability i think, but not amazing
• L'humanite provides context, sigcov, but little evaluation on the documentary
• Le Soir not very long, but an actual review with commentary, and definitely long enough to be sigcov.
• Huffpost there is sigcov but this is kind of weirdly personal so idk how we would use it in the article

I am pretty decent at finding French sources, so are additional reviews/sources I have found:

• a 450 word piece from Le Monde, probably the most reliable paper in France; not very evaluative annoyingly, but discusses it and the context
• this from tele-satellite, reliable and sigcov but not very evaluative
• about a one paragraph mention in The New Heretics of France (OUP book) about a different lawsuit that resulted from this documentary, not sigcov but interesting
• some sigcov (partly about the censorship admittedly, but some not) in a phd thesis (?)
• retrospective article from telerama in 2010, discusses the documentary and its effects on Landmark in France, listing it among "The documentaries that changed the world"

It's not really a pressing need but I think an article that doesn't suck could be written from it. Thoughts? PARAKANYAA (talk) 08:10, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

I read the AfD you linked (the third attempt). I don't know whether it would be worth (re-)creating an article about the documentary; I think it would be easier/better to improve/grow the current paragraphs we have in THIS article, as the notability of that specific documentary in itself is still probably borderline notable. A large bit of the publicity/notability that the documentary received (at least in the US) was because of Landmark's attempt to suppress the internet distribution of it, the Streisand effect.

The US sources I've seen document Landmark's attempts to suppress the wider internet distribution of the video because it was critical of them, even though they had no copyright to the content, which is why the EFF got involved and why Landmark withdrew its case. The fact that Landmark had no IP rights to the documentary, yet they were suing as if they did purely to suppress negative publicity, should be elaborated on and explained in this article, and was part of the motivation for the creation of the Anti-SLAPP laws.

We might be able to find some legal sources (not court cases but papers by legal scholars) which mention this case as a motivation for the Anti-SLAPP laws.

Here's an LA Times source (listed in the AfD discussion) [1]. ---Avatar317^(talk) 17:35, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Popular culture

Should each article have its own popular culture section, or should we consolidate all of it in EST and The Forum in popular culture? I think chronologically its EST => The Forum => Landmark Forum => Landmark Worldwide.

We got EST_and_The_Forum_in_popular_culture#Six_Feet_Under and Landmark_Worldwide#In_popular_culture. Polygnotus (talk) 01:01, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Chronology: you are correct.

Consolidation: it is already consolidated in that article, I put this here as a mini-excerpt, rather than a "See also" link since that article was not linked from this one. But we could just have a "See also" link if you'd rather. ---Avatar317^(talk) 01:06, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

To be honest I don't really have an opinion on what is best, and I am not even sure what the convention is on Wikipedia. I think this is fine, because the {{main}} template is similar (in function) to a "See also" link. I was thinking more along the lines of renaming the article to make it more clear that it also encompasses Landmark, but that is probably a bad idea because it would end up with a very long and clunky title like Est and The Forum and Landmark in popular culture or Werner Erhards New Religious Movements in popular culture or whatever. Polygnotus (talk) 01:11, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Has the neutrality of this article been improved or compromised, by changes made since the lifting of Discretionary Sanctions in February 2022? Current:Landmark Worldwide Feb 2022: [2] Diff[3] DaveApter (talk) 14:02, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Dave, I recognize that you've dedicated two decades to removing negative information from Landmark-related articles on Wikipedia. While I respect your level of commitment, I respectfully suggest that redirecting our energies to other pursuits may be more beneficial for all parties going forward. More than 620861637 seconds (172461 hours, 7185 days) have passed since you first started pov-pushing and you are still unhappy with what you've achieved. If you are looking for a way to help Wikipedia, check out the Wikipedia:Task Center. Thank you. Polygnotus (talk) 01:27, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

On the RFC question, I think that some of the changes are fine, and others might benefit from some review, but I doubt that it's perfect. For example, the lead says this group is called a cult because it pressures current customers to recruit future customers. If that's the standard for a cult, then Melaleuca is a cult. If enthusiasm is enough to earn that label, then Tupperware is a cult. (As Dave Barry wrote, Tupperware dealers give standing ovations for plastic dishes.) There's more to being a cult than recruiting, and I don't feel like that is explained well in the body of the article.

But overall, I would not say that the article is worse now than it was then. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:29, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

I agree that the reason it is considered a cult by some can be worded better. The reason is that it meets certain criteria. Polygnotus (talk) 04:56, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

What are the criteria you are referring to and what are the reliable sources that state that?Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 19:47, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, I'd like to hear some specifics about those 'criteria' as well. Coalcity58 (talk) 20:10, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

What? No answer as usual? Coalcity58 (talk) 16:03, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Please read WP:INDENT. And I could, in theory, explain some things to you but I am not so sure you'd be really all that interested, and it wouldn't be a very productive use of our limited time on this planet. Polygnotus (talk) 17:00, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Interesting comment, considering the amount of your 'limited time' you blow on this. Coalcity58 (talk) 18:46, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. Polygnotus (talk) 18:59, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

• This isn't a neutral RFC. For the past several years I've contributed to discussions about the many problems with this article, and DaveApter has, superficially at least, accepted these comments. To now imply that the old version was better basically ignores those past discussions. It's honestly a bit difficult to assume good faith for this kind of behavior. To restate what I said last year, the article is significantly improved from where it was in past years. Obviously, as with every article, there is still plenty of room for improvement, but this improvement would be much better discussed based on specific and actionable proposals. Grayfell (talk) 20:27, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Yeah the goal of the RFC appears to be to punish Avatar317 and others who worked hard to improve this article. Can we just close bad-faith RfCs or what is the procedure? Polygnotus (talk) 20:51, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

It's a bit of a stretch to interpret my reply to you as "superficially accept[ing] your comments" (ie, implying that I accepted the state of the article at that time). What I actually said was:

"::I also agree with Grayfell that a total re-write of the piece may well be the way to go. The article is a mess, largely as a result of its history as an uneasy compromise from the battle between two factions with widely varied viewpoints on the subject. It is also handicapped by the fact that most of the "sources" are lifestyle and opinion pieces rather than factual reporting. Also many of them are written from a sensationalist and biased perspective, and rarely give clear indications of the primary sources on which they are based. DaveApter (talk) 09:51, 30 November 2023 (UTC)"

Furthermore, the article has changed considerably since last November, diff: [4], amongst other things giving greatly expanded comment on the already undue weight dicussion of "cult accusations". DaveApter (talk) 09:38, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

That is not the first or only time we have interacted on this talk page. I was referring to Talk:Landmark Worldwide/Archive 32#Recent activity on this page where you at least halfheartedly acknowledged that the article had a problem with promotional language and filler. As asked, the RFC says nothing about about if the cult section was undue, and presenting that claim as an accepted fact in this discussion is misleading. If that is the main issue, you should've framed the RFC to be about that. As I said, this RFC is not neutral. Grayfell (talk) 19:34, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

I never said it was the first or the only time we discussed this; I thought that was what you were referring to, since I did mention agreement (that a re-write might be a good idea). I see nothing in the link you gave here that implied that I was happy with the state of the article at that time, even if I did agree with a few of the points you made. I even made one minor edit at your suggestion, and that was instantly reverted by Polygnotus. DaveApter (talk) 16:54, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if you were happy with the article, because the RFC is not about your level of happiness. The article was unacceptably bad before for reasons that you have at least partially agreed with. Grayfell (talk) 19:35, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

In this day and age, anyone can say anything and if it is repeated loudly enough, people believe it. The only way to counteract that is to provide evidence - and even THAT needs to be qualified. When writing for an encyclopedia, then at the very least every claim of "cult" that's been added should reference who made it, what qualifies them as an expert, what they mean by the term as used, exactly what evidence they provide and just what makes their opinion worth being referenced. With that kind of research, the reader can make informed decisions without the excessive sway of an author's point of view. Ndeavour (talk) 15:46, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

What you are proposing would introduce Wikipedia:No original research issues, among other things. Grayfell (talk) 19:34, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing to that link - but after reading through it, I mut ask: why do you think what I suggested falls into the pool of "original research?" My understanding of research includes sources such as textbooks, academic papers and the like as primary sources, versus magazine articles that range from using the world cult in the title but denying it in the article to essentially "some people say" where there's no mention of who or why their opinions are notable. Which, as I read it, makes it appear that those citing them are actually inserting "original research" into the article. Ndeavour (talk) 16:06, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a tertiary source and as such, we strongly favor WP:SECONDARY sources. Further, textbooks etc. can be either primary or secondary sources depending on how they are used, and being a magazine article doesn't make a source inherently any less reliable. Additionally, if enough reliable sources repeat something loudly enough than Wikipedia will also repeat that, because Wikipedia summarizes sources. If we're asking editors to deep-dive into sources to evaluate the 'evidence', or so we can imply that a source is not a qualified expert, or so we can attempt to divine precisely what they mean by 'cult', we are introducing our own research into the article. There is a very important distinction between attributing sources and casting doubt on those sources based on our personal understanding of the topic. Grayfell (talk) 19:26, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

@Grayfell, I apologize for failing to express myself clearly; you actually expressed the point I was attempting to make. But I still have to ask, if a source fails to cite a primary source for the assertion that "some people say" things like "Landmark is a cult," how do they qualify as satisfactory secondary sources? What am I missing? Ndeavour (talk) 23:07, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Sources are considered reliable if they have a positive reputation for accuracy and fact-checking. Pragmatically speaking, this is usually achieved via editorial oversight, a history of retractions and corrections, and similar. Being cited by their peers can also demonstrate this reputation.

Sources are not, however, required to cite their own sources for any particular claim they make (nor would those sources be required to cite their own sources, etc.). Grayfell (talk) 20:58, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Everything you say there is correct Grayfell, but with regard to Ndeavour's first comment to which you responded, what they propose is not WP:OR, but very much the opposite, and broadly considered best practice by the community. Specifically, when they say "When writing for an encyclopedia, then at the very least every claim of 'cult' that's been added should reference who made it, what qualifies them as an expert, what they mean by the term as used, exactly what evidence they provide and just what makes their opinion worth being referenced.", that is is not original research but rather attribution. Now as you point out, we are not in a position to interrogate every secondary source as to their primary sources (or their methodology in general), and other than sources that are deprecated through RSN or other means because they have shown a consistently unacceptable level of reliability in terms of editorial control or some other red flag, we don't "look behind the curtain" into a source's reasons for making most claims.

But certainly where the information is highly controversial or otherwise WP:Exceptional, if we do have that information that Ndeavour was referencing (primary sources relied upon by the RS, what they mean by the term, the evidence they relied on) we should provide it, to some extent. And there are times where we might deem a label inappropriate (that is not to have passed a WP:WEIGHT test for inclusion), unless we have that extra context and/or unless multiple high quality RS use it. And needless to say, the other thing Ndeavour mentions there (attributing who the expert is an why their opinion on the issue has weight)--that is just common best practice and backed by multiple policies. So yes, there is a line that can be crossed in questioning sources where we dip into OR territory, but what Ndeavour is suggesting is not really that--or at least, not per se that.

Now what does that say for the "cult" label? Eh, that's complicated, and I'm not going to lodge an opinion on this page at this time. But I will say that, having seen this subject come up no less than five times over the last couple of months, and connected to as many different groups (at ANI, AE, and on talk pages for individual articles--guess the issue is just having a moment right now), I can tell you that my sense is that the community wants claims of a group being a cult to be both robustly sourced before the label even comes in, and then the opinion directly attributed to the parties making the claim, and with inline attribution, mostly. Take that impressionistic read for what you will. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 22:51, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

I suggest that people commenting here read through the Arbcom case that created the discretionary sanctions - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=643800885#Motion_.28Landmark_Worldwide_discretionary_sanctions.29 Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 17:07, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

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. Polygnotus (talk) 21:40, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

And who's talking here? The word pot, kettle and black come to mind... Coalcity58 (talk) 16:02, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

I recently created the User:PolygnotusTest account. It is pretty interesting to see all the linkspammers. Polygnotus (talk) 16:11, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Who knows, PG--you could be right. But regardless, this is not the place to discuss it, and it's somewhat ABF and WP:aspersion-leaning to just make the implication. If you have proof, or even very substantial suspicions, that someone active on this article is violating policy, then take the matter to ANI, AE, or SPI, as appropriate. Some degree of comparing notes may even be acceptable in user talk, if it's for purposes of sock-busting. But here, that kind of commentary accomplishes very little other than to tip-off bad actors if you are correct and unnecessarily poison the dialogue if you are wrong. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 22:59, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

• DaveApter, I believe this RfC was created in good faith, so I'm not attacking it on the same terms others have raised here, but I do think it is sub-optimal regardless. Ideally RfCs should have as narrow a scope as possible and address very discrete issues which, if a consensus is reached, could lead to an immediate solution. In most cases, this means making a very specific proposal that respondents can !vote up or down or a very straight-forward question about a specific editorial dispute. It's not strictly speaking a necessity that your prompt contain one of those two things, but the very, very broad question you have asked (essentially "Have all the changes made to this article in the last three years mad it more neutral/accurate?" is not well-calculated to lead to any immediate concrete improvements. It's more likely, actually, that it will just inflame opinions further and make the parties more polarized and entrenched. Perhaps you can withdraw it and consider a couple of more concrete questions about specific changes that respondents could provide feedback on, and then hold one RfC at a time on each? SnowRise ^{let's rap} 23:11, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Cult explanation in body

Rather than discuss this in the RfC I'll start a new section:

@WhatamIdoing: What do you feel like is lacking in the BODY about the cult explanation? (I'm not saying you are wrong in any way.) Should we include what experts say are some central/defining features of cults? The current body statement Several commentators unrelated to Landmark have stated that because it has no single central leader, is a secular (non-religious) organization, and it tries to unite (and re-unite) participants with their family and friends (rather than isolate them) that it does not meet many of the characteristics of a cult. lists characteristics of cults but in the negative, (why Landmark isn't) which may be confusing...should we have a preceding statement listing the common characteristics of cults? (There is enough sourcing to do that.)

Do you have any other suggestions?

Additionally, here's what I see as a complication: Landmark has been described in media as having a public reputation as a "cultISH" organization, and that reputation seems to be more among the general public than among scholars; scholars have characterized it variously: NRM, etc., and many scholars have explicitly said that it does not meet cult characteristics, though Landmark did get kicked out of France and listed as a cult there.

Maybe once we improve the body wording, it will be easier to apply a concision function to that for the lead statements. ---Avatar317^(talk) 05:50, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

many scholars Who are we talking about? Singer said she did not consider it a cult after getting sued, but also that 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 Abgrall got a decent sum of money: Abgrall wrote a report on the organization arguing that they were not a cult, arguing that they were a "harmless organization", though did conclude by recognizing that the group may have had some warning signs. They were removed from the list; from the period of 2001 to 2002 Abgrall had been paid €45,699.49 by Landmark.. We could also count Jensen, although he does not claim to be an expert in this matter he is a scholar, but Jensen credits Landmark with restoring the relationship with his daughter so I don't think he is independent. had taken a Landmark course in Boston at the suggestion of his daughter, who mended a rocky relationship with Dr. Jensen after taking the course herself. Pretty much every independent scholar considers it an NRM. People in academia don't really use the word "cult", they use "New Religious Movement". I don't think we have to include a list of defining features of a cult, that would be more ontopic in the article cult. We can simply say it meets certain criteria which is why some people and organizations consider it to be a cult, and it does not meet others which is why some disagree. Its a bit like the DSM, you don't have to check all the boxes in order to get a label. Polygnotus (talk) 05:58, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

What I noticed was much simpler than that. The lead says:

Landmark has sometimes been described a cult, because of their attempts to convert participants to a new worldview and their recruitment tactics: they do not use advertising, but instead pressure participants during courses to recruit relatives and friends as new customers.

but Landmark Worldwide#Accusations of being a cult says nothing about "attempts to convert", "a new worldview", "recruitment tactics", "advertising", "pressuring participants", or "recruiting relatives and friends".

There are complaints in the article about (e.g.,) recruiting pressure, but those complaints are not related to being a cult. It may be true (and explained in the body) that they have sometimes been described as a cult. It may be true (and explained in the body) that they try to change people's ways of thinking and pressure paying customers into recruiting more customers. But there's no "because of" in the body to connect the parts of this sentence. WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:10, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing: Sorry, I should be more clear. I agree with you, in the RfC section above, and here I responded to Avatar317's use of the words "many scholars". I did dive into the sources and for example people like Dinesh Bhugra (a well-known expert) describe Landmark as a NRM (in Psychiatry and Religion Context, Consensus and Controversies). Looking at the Sociology sources, the large majority uses "NRM". The only exceptions I can find is Renee Lockwood who describes Landmark as a corporate religious form, a religio-spiritual corporation and a corporate religion (which is less standard terminology). Outside of academia everyone (journalists, writers, cult experts, every Tom, Dick and Harry) uses "cult". If we want to give a reason why it is considered a cult, which I am not sure it is necessary, then it would be that it meets certain criteria to be classified as such. But its probably easier to leave that out. Polygnotus (talk) 07:19, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

We could separate the two halves of the sentence. Instead of "it's called a cult because recruiting pressure", we could say "It's called a cult. Also, there's recruiting pressure." WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:02, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Polygnotus (talk) 03:33, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps the next editor (whether you or someone else) who thinks this would be an improvement would implement that change. It should be pretty simple just to split it into two sentences. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:48, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

I’m very busy right now so I can’t be much help with this but I think it would probably be much clearer if we expanded on what it is they actually do that people don’t like, vs terminology. PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:29, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Your point - expanding on behaviors by Landmark that people have complained about instead of slapping a non-objective label on them - makes very good sense.  I find that in the sources cited, there are two primary issues: 1) asking participants to invite guests, and 2) asking participants to register into another Landmark program.  Are there any other constant and consistent complaints from reliable sources? Landmark claims over 3 million participants since its inception; one would expect that if those behaviors were truly insidious then volume of complaints would have taken the business down.  But it still exists. Ndeavour (talk) 16:50, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

What you are trying to do is WP:OR. The sources explicitly say that Landmark is "cultish" or "has characteristics of a cult", and because sources say that, that is what the Wikipedia article should say.

When doctors say that the symptoms mean that the patient has disease X, than that is what we report on here. Your attempt to say: but they only have symptoms of "sore throat and runny nose" doesn't mean you get to write a Wikipedia article that says things contrary to what the sources say.

You have clearly not read enough sources to understand that there are many more reasons that Landmark has been seen as a cult; some of those additional reasons are that they try to convert participants to a new worldview, and they use high pressure techniques to try to "break down" participants' resistance to change/acceptance of this new worldview.

Again, per policy, we paraphrase sources. ---Avatar317^(talk) 23:50, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

I haven’t read much of this, and am hellishly busy ATM, while I’m not disputing that, adding that they’re called a cult while not adding the reasons they’re called a cult is a bit of putting the cart before the horse. So that should probably be done to improve the article, why they are criticized. Will make more sense. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:03, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

@PARAKANYAA, no worries: we'll be here when you're back, even if that's weeks from now.

@Avatar317, I don't think I've quite understood your comment. You say The sources explicitly say that Landmark is "cultish" or "has characteristics of a cult". Are you arguing that it's a violation of NOR for the lead to say (as it currently does) "Landmark has sometimes been described a cult"? There is a gap between "cult-ish" or "cult-like" or "characteristics of a cult" and saying that it's actually been labeled a cult – a straight-up cult, with no "-ish" about it and no weaseling about it only having some "characteristics of". If we're going to say "cult" instead of something a little vaguer, then we do need sources that say this explicitly.

More relevant (to my original point above), we currently have some language in the lead that says "a cult, because of". The reasons given in the lead are flimsy (they're a cult because they don't pay for advertising? Seriously?) and are not described in the body per WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY.

I want to be clear: I've got no inherent objection to calling them a cult (assuming reliable sources support it, etc.). I'm primarily concerned about the "because of" part of the sentence. Are reliable sources seriously calling them a cult because of their choice not to pay for advertising? If not, then we should fix that so it sounds less like the Wikipedia article was written by some shadowy Advertising Illuminati. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:46, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. The only mention of the word "cult" in the sources cited are as follows:

The Colorado Springs article says:

"It is this rapid, often uncontextualized sea-change that friends and family see in Forum graduates that has led some to call Landmark a cult, a claim which Landmark has vigorously disputed... On this point, at least, I agree with Landmark. Having thoroughly researched the company over the past month I have come to the conclusion that they definitely aren’t a cult,"

The Observer article (possibly the only sober balanced piece of journalism in the list) says:

"Landmark has faced accusations of being a cult, but I saw nothing of that. Far from working to separate us from our families and friends, we were told there was no relationship too dead to be revived, no love too cold to be warmed."

The Eileen Barker essay doesn't actually mention Landmark, but says:

"Erhard Seminars Training (est) and other examples of the human potential movement joined indigenous new religions, such as the Emin, Exegesis, the Aetherius Society, the School of Economic Science, and the Findhorn community in the north of Scotland, and a number of small congregations within mainstream churches were labelled 'cults' as they exhibited some of the more enthusiastic characteristics of new religions and their leaders"

The Spears article says:

"And now to that important question: is it a cult, brainwashing and evangelical? Cross out the first two; tick the third (but not in a literal, bible-bashing way — it’s just that there’s a lot of American hard sell)."

The Mother Jones article, although generally disparaging, does not mention the word "cult" at all.

Does this amount to adequate support for the extensive editorialising on this issue, much less its inclusion in the lead?

It is worth mentioning that one of the findings of the Arbitrators ten years ago was that

"2) As discussed by editors providing evidence in this arbitration case, rigorous academic sources for the topic are few and far between,[35] meaning claims more often rest on weaker sources or claims from the organization in question."

These references are, indeed, mostly somewhat sensationalist and cynical in tone. Furthermore, this handful of source are cited for about a dozen assertions in the page, and not just the cult issue. DaveApter (talk) 11:38, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to check all those sources and post the quotations. I really appreciate it.

It sounds like the "because of" aspect is a complete {{failed verification}} problem. We therefore cannot say that. Whether we should use the word cult at all is a separate question, but since zero sources give a "because of" statement, we can't actually state our own conclusions about why this label was (sometimes?) applied. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:39, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

I agree with all of your improvements, Thanks!! and I think the article is better now, so I'm NOT suggesting any changes to the lead here.

I just wanted to point out though, that the quote from above It is this rapid, often uncontextualized sea-change that friends and family see in Forum graduates that has led some to call Landmark a cult, does give a "because of".

Also, this quote, which has to do with brainwashing, another characteristic the public often associates with cults: Even professional cult buster Ross agrees that Landmark isn't one. "I'm a relative conservative on the issue of defining a cult," he says. "In my mind, I look for an absolute authoritarian leader . . . I just don't see any parallel with that type of leader in Landmark." The company does not meet many of the conventional definitions of a cult. Landmark does not require its members to turn over their personal assets, except the cost of tuition. Landmark does not cut people off from family and friends, there is no communal living situation, nothing to worship, and participation must be voluntary. But does Landmark wash brains? That is an entirely different question. In an article titled "Coercive Persuasion and Attitude Change," Richard J. Ofshe, professor of social psychology at UC-Berkeley and co-recipient of the 1979 Pulitzer Prize, defines coercive persuasion, or brainwashing, as "programs of social influence capable of producing substantial behavior and attitude change through the use of coercive tactics, persuasion, and/or interpersonal and group manipulations. [and more in the following paragraphs]" https://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/news/drive-thru-deliverance-6419949

Again, this is just to respond to the "failed verification" question, not a suggestion for changes. Thanks again WhatamIdoing! ---Avatar317^(talk) 22:28, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

"Is this a cult?" book by Anne Peterson

"After nearly twenty years inside a popular self-help organization, Landmark Worldwide, Anne Peterson finally confronted the big lie behind the transformative work she believed in. What she had taught as empowerment, it turned out, was also being used to exploit.Is This a Cult? offers hope to all who wonder whether their quest for growth has a dark side. If you’ve ever questioned leaders you once believed in, you’ll find insight in Anne’s inspiring tale of rebuilding integrity in the shadow of charismatic leaders." https://isthisacultbook.com/ https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0CWZG6R39/ Kistano (talk) 07:32, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Interesting, however it is self published and not considered a reliable source on Wiki. Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 19:31, 14 October 2024 (UTC)