| Revision as of 01:26, 26 February 2015 editManul (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers8,647 edits →top: add Tgeairn as connected contributor; contact Callanecc for more information← Previous edit | Revision as of 03:45, 26 February 2015 edit undoThirdright (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers45,531 edits Undid revision 648873019 by Manul (talk) rmv, WP:RD4Next edit → | ||
| Line 13: | Line 13: | ||
| }} | }} | ||
| {{To do|collapsed=yes}} | {{To do|collapsed=yes}} | ||
| {{connected contributor|Tgeairn}} | |||
| {{User:MiszaBot/config | {{User:MiszaBot/config | ||
| |maxarchivesize = 250K | |maxarchivesize = 250K | ||
Revision as of 03:45, 26 February 2015
 | Voyage au pays des nouveaux gourous was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 23 September 2014 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into Landmark Worldwide. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here. |
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Landmark Worldwide article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32Auto-archiving period: 30 days  |
Error: The code letter lw for the topic area in this contentious topics talk notice is not recognised or declared. Please check the documentation.
 | The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information. |
| This page is not a forum for general discussion about personal discussions about the subject. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about personal discussions about the subject at the Reference desk. |
 | Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute. |
 | This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
Requested move 10 January 2015
- The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the move request was: No consensus. There seems to be a good-faith disagreement on what this article should be about, the company or the products. If any resolution is found on that, a new move request might be submitted. One editor mentioned concern about COI, but it's unclear how that would affect a move discussion one way or the other. Their web site doesn't make their real name easy to discern. The URL is http://landmarkworldwide.com but the contact information wants you to write to 'Landmark'. The copyright notice says that the owner is 'Landmark Worldwide'. EdJohnston (talk) 02:48, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
Landmark Worldwide → Landmark Forum – The current official product name and the most recognized COMMONNAME for this topic. Ties into previous incarnations of the seminar product as well. This article was subject to an ArbComm case and suffers from COI POV pushing issues. Legacypac (talk) 19:06, 10 January 2015 (UTC) Legacypac (talk) 19:06, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
- Support pursuant to the discussion in the above section about merging content into a single article, and the comment made from one of our more knowledgable editors dealing with matters of corporate content in that discussion that maybe this would be the best name for an article on the primary product of the legal entities involved. John Carter (talk) 19:09, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
- Support not my idea, just listed the move request. Note the proposed title is currently a redirect to the current title. We would reverse that so Landmark Worldwide would redirect to Landmark Forum. Also since there are many Landmark subsidiaries and branches worldwide, a change of title to the official name of the primary product of these organizations makes a lot of sense. Legacypac (talk) 19:15, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose - The majority of the article content is about the company, not the product. WP:TITLE is clear that the article title "indicates what the article is about and distinguishes it from other articles". If there is sufficient content to have an article about the product (Landmark Forum) then that article should be created. At this point, it appears that most sources (and the majority of the content here) are about the company. --Tgeairn (talk) 19:28, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
- According to the page history, your primary role here is removing anything negative about the company or the product. Therefore your opinion is quite expected. Some new non-Landmark related editors without a clear bias POOV are trying to have a discussion here. Legacypac (talk) 19:36, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
- How does opposing a move that is against policy (specifically WP:TITLE) equate to removing something negative? Yes, I have edited this article somewhat frequently recently. Have you actually looked at the edits made? What do you base your statement on? The Arbitration Committee reviewed my edits as a part of the recent case and did not see any issues. The majority of edits were to incorporate the results of RfCs, merges, etc., and were fully supported by (and frequently reinstated by) admins and other editors. So, where is your clear AGF? Who has the bias here? What is the POV? Please check your facts and support your accusations in the future. This is not the venue to make attacks. --Tgeairn (talk) 19:45, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
- I came here because the ArbComm requested more input from uninvolved editors. Now your buddy has dragged a bunch of us to ArbComm seeking to eject us from the article. I hope the move and merge requests pull in more uninvolved editors to comment. Pretty clear ArbComm felt there were COI editors here, and you are one of them evidently. You dodged my question about your connection to Landmark, pretty much confirming you are bias. Hence my comments. Legacypac (talk) 20:03, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
- How does opposing a move that is against policy (specifically WP:TITLE) equate to removing something negative? Yes, I have edited this article somewhat frequently recently. Have you actually looked at the edits made? What do you base your statement on? The Arbitration Committee reviewed my edits as a part of the recent case and did not see any issues. The majority of edits were to incorporate the results of RfCs, merges, etc., and were fully supported by (and frequently reinstated by) admins and other editors. So, where is your clear AGF? Who has the bias here? What is the POV? Please check your facts and support your accusations in the future. This is not the venue to make attacks. --Tgeairn (talk) 19:45, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
- According to the page history, your primary role here is removing anything negative about the company or the product. Therefore your opinion is quite expected. Some new non-Landmark related editors without a clear bias POOV are trying to have a discussion here. Legacypac (talk) 19:36, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
- Tentatively support If anyone can provide an in-depth profile story about one of these organizations, where the source suggests the company is substantially involved or known for matters not related to Landmark Forum, this would demonstrate that there is a substantial amount of material from secondary sources that would not fit on the product page. In that case I would change my mind. However, my limited knowledge of the subject matter from glancing at the articles suggests this is the right path to go. The new article should probably say "previously known as EST training" and the exact best structure may be difficult to figure out. CorporateM (Talk) 21:01, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
- Support. As the companies have always been closely held, with little information available in independent references for the corporate governance, structure, etc. (not so regarding the programs offered based in est), this seems a reasonable course. The company does have a multitude of follow-up courses and services based on the Forum, directed at different markets, but those would barely flesh out a stub. • Astynax 00:39, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
- This also seems to be a reasonable application of WP:COMMONNAME. • Astynax 21:43, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
- Based on google searches, COMMONNAME would indicate "Landmark Education" - which makes sense, as that was the name before the company recently changed to "Landmark Worldwide". I opposed the rapid change of the article name from LE to LW at that time, but now "Landmark Worldwide" appears to be consistently used (again, just based on COMMONNAME criteria). --Tgeairn (talk) 05:39, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
- This also seems to be a reasonable application of WP:COMMONNAME. • Astynax 21:43, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose I'm confused as to why we would want to change the name of a company article to that of one of its products. It seems about as sensible as changing the name of the Apple article to iPhone. This article seems to be mostly about the company, not the Landmark Forum course, which would make the name doubly strange. Nwlaw63 (talk) 14:32, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
- @Nwlaw63 Is the Landmark Forum "just another product" or is it the primary product they are known for? When I go to their website, it seems heavily focused on the Landmark Forum. I'm guessing they are private though, because I cannot find an annual report, which would be helpful as it would offer a revenue breakdown that might establish the significance of its other training programs. The New York Times says "The Forum is the cornerstone workshop of Landmark Education". The source seems to be about the Landmark training and covers its prior corporate owners in that context. CorporateM (Talk) 21:54, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
- I'm not sure about "main" - it's their first, introductory course, so the one talked about most often, but I don't think it's the dominant or "main" thing about the company. Maybe there should be a section about their other courses. Nwlaw63 (talk) 03:43, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
- @Nwlaw63 Is the Landmark Forum "just another product" or is it the primary product they are known for? When I go to their website, it seems heavily focused on the Landmark Forum. I'm guessing they are private though, because I cannot find an annual report, which would be helpful as it would offer a revenue breakdown that might establish the significance of its other training programs. The New York Times says "The Forum is the cornerstone workshop of Landmark Education". The source seems to be about the Landmark training and covers its prior corporate owners in that context. CorporateM (Talk) 21:54, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose The article is clearly about the organisation. 'Landmark Forum' is the name of one of the several dozen courses it offers. In any case, Landmark Forum redirects to here. DaveApter (talk) 17:26, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
- Landmark, as a corporation, may not like it but Misplaced Pages works on the basis of what reliable secondary sources say as we don't do original research. If enough reliable secondary sources say that Landmark has clear links to other corporate bodies then we write and structure things as per those sources. AnonNep (talk) 21:34, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
- The redirect will be reversed, so Landmark Worldwide redirects to Landmark Forum. Considering the company website barely mentions its name while heavily emphasizing Landmark Forum, DaveApter's superiors should like this move as it promotes the groups major product, from which all other products are derived. You want to check on that and get back to us Dave?Legacypac (talk) 04:06, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
- Referring to "my superiors" is a deliberate and unwarranted smear. Please retract it and apologise. DaveApter (talk) 10:43, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
- Interesting you did not say "I'm not employed or a volunteer with Landmark." Thank-you. Legacypac (talk) 10:53, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
- Actually I've already said on numerous occasions that my sole relationship with the company is as a customer who did several of their courses some years ago. Since no-one has produced any evidence to the contrary there's nothing to respond to. Naturally if the Arbitrators had any questions for me I would have answered them. DaveApter (talk) 15:13, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
- You have also, repeatedly, pointedly refused to address the issues of whether you are related to individuals who are or have been employees. It is also, of course, possible that, given your habit of rigorous definition, you might be a contracter assigned to Landmark, but not employed by them directly, or perhaps in some way some sort of shareholder, particularly if you were an employee under an early version of the organization. Given the tendency to very deliberately parse words which you have displayed, including in the recent arbitration, I think it is reasonable that your words be taken to say only what they absolutely literally must mean, and that's all. John Carter (talk) 15:35, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
- Another carefully parsed answer only adds to the impression of COI. Everyone here should be aware by now that WP:COI guidelines encompass a host of interests apart from employment. As I recall, arbs suggested that the matter of COI be brought to WP:COIN, rather than them indicating that there was no COI. After this matter being raised repeatedly by different editors over the years, that is likely the place further discussion should occur. • Astynax 18:55, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
- OK y'all--DaveApter's possible COI need not be elaborated here. The only thing that the closer of this move request should care about is the strength of his argument; the rest is neither here nor there. To all: please be mindful of WP:NPA--play the ball, not the man. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 16:51, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
- Actually I've already said on numerous occasions that my sole relationship with the company is as a customer who did several of their courses some years ago. Since no-one has produced any evidence to the contrary there's nothing to respond to. Naturally if the Arbitrators had any questions for me I would have answered them. DaveApter (talk) 15:13, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
- Interesting you did not say "I'm not employed or a volunteer with Landmark." Thank-you. Legacypac (talk) 10:53, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
- Referring to "my superiors" is a deliberate and unwarranted smear. Please retract it and apologise. DaveApter (talk) 10:43, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
- The redirect will be reversed, so Landmark Worldwide redirects to Landmark Forum. Considering the company website barely mentions its name while heavily emphasizing Landmark Forum, DaveApter's superiors should like this move as it promotes the groups major product, from which all other products are derived. You want to check on that and get back to us Dave?Legacypac (talk) 04:06, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
OpposeReading through the article as-is it is more about the company than about the product, and it feels more natural in this case to have an article about a company that also mentions a specific product than it does to have an article about a product with information about the company in it. Specifically the Corporation and Litigation are far more relevant to the company than to the product, and the History and Religious Characteristics sections are somewhat more relevant to the company. The Course content and Public reception are product specific, but on the balance I still think the article has the appropriate title already.
- I think a separate question is whether we should have an article about the company at all or only about the product. I don't currently have an opinion about that, but I'm basing my opinion on what the article is now. Chuy1530 (talk) 21:46, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
- @Chuy1530: The reason for the proposed move is to allow for the merger of the content in the three extant articles which, in one form or another, deal with what has been called the "Landmark Forum" among other things in a single article, as that seems to be the primary topic to which the individual companies which have separate articles are more or less subtopics. That merger is proposed separately above. I acknowledge that there might be some basis for keeping est as a separate article, maybe, if there is sufficient difference in content between it and the later incarnations, but according to the sources produced above there doesn't seem to be much difference between the various forms that have been clearly documented in independent reliable sources, and several sources which seem to indicate that the various companies and forms are basically continuations, to some degree, of the original. John Carter (talk) 22:00, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
- I've stricken my !vote, because reading into it what you say makes sense and an article focused on the forum (haven't read enough to have an opinion on est) is probably the best outcome. I think it'll need worked on once it is moved because the current article doesn't make much sense at what would be the new title but in the grand scheme of things we'll get to the right place. Chuy1530 (talk) 23:37, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
- @Chuy1530: The reason for the proposed move is to allow for the merger of the content in the three extant articles which, in one form or another, deal with what has been called the "Landmark Forum" among other things in a single article, as that seems to be the primary topic to which the individual companies which have separate articles are more or less subtopics. That merger is proposed separately above. I acknowledge that there might be some basis for keeping est as a separate article, maybe, if there is sufficient difference in content between it and the later incarnations, but according to the sources produced above there doesn't seem to be much difference between the various forms that have been clearly documented in independent reliable sources, and several sources which seem to indicate that the various companies and forms are basically continuations, to some degree, of the original. John Carter (talk) 22:00, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose: This article is about the company, this company (Landmark). Per the Search results section below, COMMONNAME might indicate moving to "Landmark Education", but that is the old name of the company. The discussion above is confusing as some editors are talking about companies and some are talking about products. --23.25.38.121 (talk) 19:02, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
Search results
"Landmark forum" = 161,000 results while "Landmark Worldwide" = 46,200 results. At 750% 350% greater search results, WP:COMMONNAME is "Landmark Forum" Legacypac (talk) 22:20, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
The current article seems stuck in "its about THIS company" loop that has prevented a proper presentation on the product. The product, not the assorted versions of the company is what most readers are interested in. As in, "I got invited to attend Landmark Forum - what is it about?" If this does not pass, how about we develop a separate article about the Landmark Forum at what is now a redirect only. Legacypac (talk) 22:14, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
- There is certainly actual (if not for the purposes of legal liability) continuity between both the various product{s} over the years, and between the various iterations of the organization. Reliable sources report that there was/is continuity, the convoluted method of the buyout between WE&A and Transnational Education (aka, Landmark) notwithstanding. • Astynax 09:25, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
- There is also continuity of people. The founder continues to be involved (in some ways anyway) and his brother is the CEO of Landmark today, not withstanding the corporate name changes. Legacypac (talk) 03:07, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
- And "Landmark Education" yields 394,000 results. I have no idea what calculator you're using that says that 161k is 750% greater than 46k, but I can certainly see that 394k > 161k. So apply COMMONNAME, and then change it to reflect the name change of the company. --Tgeairn (talk) 04:48, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
- Obviously the wrong key. The company still uses metatags that say Landmark Education on its website. Legacypac (talk) 05:50, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
- My comment looks a little snarky from here, I apologize for that. I only meant to point out that it was not 7.5x. On the meta tags, are you talking about the Landmark Worldwide website? I randomly checked a few pages and did not find "Landmark Education" in the source other that a link to their twitter feed. Can you provide a link? It shouldn't matter much though, we're still left with a significant majority for "Landmark Education" in search results. Thanks --Tgeairn (talk) 06:18, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
- Obviously the wrong key. The company still uses metatags that say Landmark Education on its website. Legacypac (talk) 05:50, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
Erhard's lawyer
The article currently states "Terry Giles is Chairman of the Board and Erhard's lawyer." and is sourced to a piece about Giles that says "Werner Erhard, the creator of EST, is a client." It may be a stretch to say Giles is Erhard's lawyer based on that source. Air France is one of my clients, but I am certainly not Air France's solicitor. I recommend a better source or a reword. --Tgeairn (talk) 17:00, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
- It does show a continuing business relationship (and since you pointed it out, it is/was the same attorney-client relationship between Erhard and Art Schrieber), particularly given the past corporate history, plus the marketing spin putting at arm's length of any relationship between Erhard and Landmark. If you are an attorney who represents Air France, and are appointed to the board of an Air France spin-off, it is wrong to posit that there is no relationship. There may be other reliable sources that explain this more fully, at which point it could be expanded upon. • Astynax 17:55, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
- You are again speaking of the "marketing spin putting at arm's length of any relationship between Erhard and Landmark". Editors continue to make this (and similar) statement, but I have not seen this in the sources. I am genuinely interested, as I have not found this. Do you have a reliable source saying that Landmark is doing this? --Tgeairn (talk) 18:55, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
- I'm surprised you don't recall, as there are several statements to this effect in sources that have already been discussed. Perhaps this needs to be explained in the article as part of the narrative you seem to think is needed. It is an interesting point. • Astynax 00:01, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
- I only recall asking repeatedly (such as at #Werner Erhard Navbox above), without ever receiving an answer. Again, what sources do we have for this company narrative/marketing spin/company line? --Tgeairn (talk) 20:49, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
- I'm surprised you don't recall, as there are several statements to this effect in sources that have already been discussed. Perhaps this needs to be explained in the article as part of the narrative you seem to think is needed. It is an interesting point. • Astynax 00:01, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
- I am not saying that there is no relationship. The NYT article clearly says there is. I am asking if it is reasonable for us to say something beyond what the source is saying. Why not just have the article say what the source says? Why must we twist the language? --Tgeairn (talk) 18:58, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
- Here Boingboing has published a letter, signed by Terry M. Giles, received September 24, 2009, following a blog-post titled "Wikileaks re-publishes 60 Minutes piece on est/Landmark cult leader Werner Erhard". In this letter you'll find the assertion: "I am a lawyer and have represented Werner Erhard since 1990 so am familiar with the true facts about the matters discussed in your blog post at http://www.boingboing.net/2009/08/31/suppressed-60-minute.html." 81.206.112.118 (talk) 11:39, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks for that link. We obviously cannot use what our own article calls a "group blog" as a source, but this seems to support the idea that Giles is (or at least was five years ago) Erhard's personal attorney. I'm not sure how to reconcile that with other statements that say that Schreiber is Erhard's attorney, but I guess a guy can have more than one. I have no idea how any of it is relevant in this article anyway. --Tgeairn (talk) 20:14, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
- Well of kind of debunks the idea that Erhard is not involved when his attorney since 1990 and his bother are the organization leaders. If we remove everything that does not exactly match the company line why not just redirect the article to the company website? Legacypac (talk) 03:14, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
- And again, what is "the company line"? Show me. Do you have a source for it? You, and others, keep using that phrase (company line, corporate spin, etc) without anything whatsoever to back it up. Please say what the "company line" is, with sources. --Tgeairn (talk) 04:43, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, it is clearly impossible to draw a straight company line regarding Landmark's acknowledgement of the facts and the strategies with respect to its public image, but who is to blame? The company has changed time and again its publicity policies and name. The company line as it is now, you can find on the website. Nowadays Landmark Worldwide acknowledges more or less that it owes a great deal to Erhard, but only partially (the est-episode is either left out or put at the greatest possible distance), and not in a straightforward and unambiguous manner. What is more: this was not always so. Landmark Education has firmly denied that Landmark Forum had anything to do with est and the Forum (see for example Lockwood), it has denied that Landmark Forum could reasonably be categorized as a Large Group Awareness Training (a denial which was plainly absurd), it denies up till now that it has (had) anything to do with (alternative) religious movements, which is, to say the least, in strong contrast with the picture presented in scholarly literature.
- Every scholar worth the name considers est, the Forum and Landmark Forum as three appearances of the same phenomenon, a phenomenon that belongs to the Human Potential Movement, is a Large Group Awareness Training, and most of them also assume that the phenomenon has religious charactistics, including for example a sacralized Self as the bearer of divine truth, rituals, enlightenment, salvation, even a kind of transcendence.
- Since 1982, when Steven M. Tipton published his sociological study Getting Saved from the Sixties: Moral Meaning in Conversion and Cultural Change (University of California Press), est and its descendants are considered frequently as constituting an alternative religious movement. Quotations from Tipton's Preface:
- "Religious movements arise and people join them for a mumber of reasons. Sixties youth have joined alternative religious movements basically, I will argue, to make moral sense of their lives." (Opening sentences)
- (...)
- "I describe the transformation of moral meaning for sixties youth who have joined a millenarian Pentecostal sect (The Living Word Fellowship), a Zen Buddhist meditation center (Pacific Zen Center), and a human potential training organization (Erhard Seminars Training, est)." (p.xv)
- (...)
- "As representatives of the three major types of alternative religious movements that have flourished in our society since the 1960s (conservative Christian, neo-Oriental, and psychotherapeutic), these three cases can be identified as evaluative outlooks adopted by the young in response to their experience of discontinuous cultural change in America during the 1960s." (p.xv)
- Times have changed, publicity was not always favourable, the company was rebaptized (with the same leading officials still in charge), and the training program has been adapted accordingly (a little).
- All this has been pointed out to you before at great length by Astynax who knows a lot, writes in a clear and unambiguous way, without resorting to ad-hominems and without quarreling with reliable sources. See also this bibliography/list of quotations compiled by Astynax. Based upon my reading of scholarly literature, I happen to share nearly all of Astynax' conclusions. I did not know Astynax before I joined the discussion, and I have never contacted him/her. The IP that provided the BoingBoing quotation, was me. Theobald Tiger (talk) 11:34, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
- And again, what is "the company line"? Show me. Do you have a source for it? You, and others, keep using that phrase (company line, corporate spin, etc) without anything whatsoever to back it up. Please say what the "company line" is, with sources. --Tgeairn (talk) 04:43, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
- Well of kind of debunks the idea that Erhard is not involved when his attorney since 1990 and his bother are the organization leaders. If we remove everything that does not exactly match the company line why not just redirect the article to the company website? Legacypac (talk) 03:14, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks for that link. We obviously cannot use what our own article calls a "group blog" as a source, but this seems to support the idea that Giles is (or at least was five years ago) Erhard's personal attorney. I'm not sure how to reconcile that with other statements that say that Schreiber is Erhard's attorney, but I guess a guy can have more than one. I have no idea how any of it is relevant in this article anyway. --Tgeairn (talk) 20:14, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
- Here Boingboing has published a letter, signed by Terry M. Giles, received September 24, 2009, following a blog-post titled "Wikileaks re-publishes 60 Minutes piece on est/Landmark cult leader Werner Erhard". In this letter you'll find the assertion: "I am a lawyer and have represented Werner Erhard since 1990 so am familiar with the true facts about the matters discussed in your blog post at http://www.boingboing.net/2009/08/31/suppressed-60-minute.html." 81.206.112.118 (talk) 11:39, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
- You are again speaking of the "marketing spin putting at arm's length of any relationship between Erhard and Landmark". Editors continue to make this (and similar) statement, but I have not seen this in the sources. I am genuinely interested, as I have not found this. Do you have a reliable source saying that Landmark is doing this? --Tgeairn (talk) 18:55, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
Recent addition of sources
Astynax (re)added a number of sources with this edit. Of these, only one source appears to be a reliable source, with the rest being inaccurate, suspect, or at least raising questions.
- A&K staff (8 June 2004). "Irrationalism, mysticism och ockultism: Landmark Education lägger ned verksamheten". Tidskriften Analys & Kritik (in German). University of Zurich and University of Düsseldorf. ISSN 0171-5860. Retrieved 23 January 2015.
- This is listed as being published by "University of Zurich and University of Düsseldorf" in the citation. The linked article is published in the "Journal of Analysis & Criticism", which was published by "Steve Hall". There is no indication of editorial oversight or of reliability of this source.
- Case Financial (2000b). "Pacific Biometrics, Filings Form SB-2". Scribd. Retrieved 23 October 2008.
- This is appears to be a scribd duplicate of a document and is not verifiable or reliable.
- DIKE staff (2000). "Landmark Education renamed". Digitales Informationssystem in der Evangelischen Kirche in Hessen und Nassau. Mühlheim am Main. Archived from the original on 8 February 2007. Retrieved 22 October 2008.
{{cite web}}: Unknown parameter|deadurl=ignored (|url-status=suggested) (help)
- This is an anonymous passage from an anti-cult editorial website, which states "The personal opinions of the individual authors do not represent the opinion of SINUS" it is not a reliable source.
- Kronberg, Robert; Lindebjerg, Kristina (2002). "Psychogroups and Cults in Denmark". Cultic Studies Review. 1 (1). International Cultic Studies Association.
- This claims to be published by the International Cultic Studies Association, which did not exist at the time of publication. The actual document shows that it was published by the AFF (a predecessor to the ICSA). The Cultic Studies Review did not have (and did not claim) an editorial review, and the TOC of the issue clearly shows which articles were peer-reviewed (this one was not). A copy of the article is found here, and does not support the cited passage in any way. The passage says "Other observers have noted relationships between the training programs and religion or a spiritual experience", the source says "we have also had many inquiries about the American psychogroup, Landmark, which is associated with cults because of the high level of one-sided sales pressure that many people report." The source is calling Landmark a psychogroup (not religion or spiritual) and then says "Tvind is another non-religious organization...", effectively saying the opposite of that the passage in the article claims. And again, there was no peer-review or editorial review. Simply a statement by a self-trained "Exit Counselor".
- Tessier, Odine (20 May 2004). "Voyage au pays des nouveaux gourous". Le Point (in French). Retrieved 21 September 2014.
- This looks like a generally reliable source (a mainstream French newspaper), and the cited article (a "blurb" about the upcoming episode of Pièces à Conviction) supports the claim that the episode was "highly critical of its subject".
I recommend that the first four citations above be removed and reliable sources be found. In some cases we already have other sources for the passages, so there should be no problem simply removing these unreliable ones. --Tgeairn (talk) 19:01, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
- I merely restored references that had been blanked on 25 January. Those citations were already in the article, I added no new sources. As to the objections you raise: 1) Analys & Kritik is today published as footnoted. The Swedish edition in the archived link was edited by Göran Hallén (not sure where you found a "Steve Hall"). 2) There are 2 filings referenced, not duplicates. 3) Go ahead and provide a better source, but no need to remove this one, as it is not used to reference anything controversial or exceptional. Nor can I find the disclaimer you've quoted, but rather that they are "responsible for the Sinus webpages including the editorial section by chairman Otto Lomb." (in the archived version) and "Despite careful control we assume no liability for the content of external links. We are solely responsible for the content of these linked pages." (in the current version). 4) ...And yet the publication is listed at ICSA in CSR Vol. 1, No. 1 (2002). 5) Again, I did not add this, but simply restored a citation that had been summarily blanked earlier. • Astynax 23:54, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
- I apologize, I thought I was clear in saying that you (re)added the sources. I acknowledge that you did not newly add these, but rather that you added them without explanation after another editor removed them.
- As Arbcom said, "Parties to the case are reminded to base their arguments in reliable, independent sources and to discuss changes rather than revert on sight." In that spirit, your blanket reversion of the IP's removals is unfortunate. That aside, I am interested in our getting the best sourcing we can here. I can take each of these (the first four, at least) to WP:RSN if you like, but I find it hard to believe that you would (for example) argue for scribd.com as a RS.
- To address your statements about my objections:
- 1) The actual published issues (see here for an example show "Steve Hall" as publisher, and do not mention Zurich or Düsseldorf at all as you claim.
- 2) There may be more than one filing, this purports to be a duplicate of one of those filings and someone has placed it on scribd.com (a user-content-generated website with no oversight on content).
- 3) I don't need to produce a better source, you (re)added it (BTW, the disclaimer is on https://web.archive.org/web/20070225061941/http://www.dike.de/SINUSsekteninfo/lec/, as the IP indicated in their edit summary).
- 4) I linked to the actual document, which does not show ICSA anywhere on it (which it couldn't, since ICSA did not exist at the time).
- 5) I agreed that the release about the upcoming show (I think, my French is only as good at Google's) should be left in. I do find it disingenuous to say that the IP "summarily blanked" it. They provided an edit summary indicating it is a duplicate, and simply looking at the references section I can see that there are two references (Lemonniera19_May_2005 and Tessier20_May_2004) that have the same URL. The IP removed a duplicate, as they said.
- My concerns with these sources (which mostly came from the IP's concerns shown in the edit summaries when they removed them) are valid. Please stop simply pasting chunks of copy into the article without addressing the concerns of other editors. --Tgeairn (talk) 20:10, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
- Note: I have corrected the duplicate URL in the Lemonniera19_May_2005 reference. --Tgeairn (talk) 20:24, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
- And Astynax reverted my correction. Please, let's read what we're putting into articles before blindly reverting. Astynax has now twice reintroduced an error into the reference, after having it politely pointed out three times. This is near-textbook WP:TENDENTIOUS editing. --Tgeairn (talk) 20:42, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
- Blanking referenced information, as the IP did, is reverting. The references were not challenged, merely blanked. As I said, Analys & Kritik is currently hosted by those universities (see the website). Scribd is quoting a corporate filing, which is a primary source, but perfectly acceptable to support the limited statement it is being used to reference. Have a better source, then go ahead and cite it. The "disclaimer" at dike.de refers to the "following" links, none of which go to the page being cited. Again, the ICSA website lists the paper as being among its articles, and the website also claims that it was founded in 1979. That there has been a corporate name change is irrelevant. The article is still available through the cited entity. As for the IP blanking "a duplicate", s/he removed a citation pointing to a unique reference. Finally, the url "correction" was a dead link that did not go to the original page, but redirected to another site that required a flash player (which even then did not show the article when I attempted to verify). • Astynax 21:22, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
- Fine, if you want to call the IP's removals reverting then what there was to do was to follow WP:BRD and discuss - not just go and revert again yourself. They provided explanations in their edit summaries, so I don't see how you can say they "merely blanked" things.
- It does not matter who hosts an archive now. The actual pdf or other copies of the actual printed materials are what matter. That applies to analyskritik, sekteninfo, and icsa. In all three cases, we have the electronic representations of actual documents. In the case of scribd, it is not a reliable source for anything at all. Why fight for its inclusion?
- Lastly, in the case of the duplicate citation - you are wrong. You have blindly reverted and reintroduced an error into the article at least twice now.
- This url: "https://web.archive.org/web/20090121000653/http://hebdo.nouvelobs.com/hebdo/parution/p2115/dossier/a268827-chez_les_gourous_en_cravate.html" is the archive of this url: "http://hebdo.nouvelobs.com/hebdo/parution/p2115/dossier/a268827-chez_les_gourous_en_cravate.html" on 21 January 2009.
- That is simply how archive.org functions.
- You have changed this to say that "https://web.archive.org/web/20090121000653/http://hebdo.nouvelobs.com/hebdo/parution/p2115/dossier/a268827-chez_les_gourous_en_cravate.html" is an archive of "http://www.lepoint.fr/culture/2007-01-17/voyage-au-pays-des-nouveaux-gourous/249/0/28932".
- This is patently false and is not how archive.org functions. After being told about the error once, I thought you had made an accidental error. After being told twice, it looked like you were being belligerent but still in error. Now, it looks like you have intentionally inserted a misrepresentation into the article and are arguing to keep that lie in place. Please stop the blind reverts and start actually reading what the sources and other editors are saying. --Tgeairn (talk) 21:43, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
- The link you inserted is a redirect to another site which does not display the article. It fixed nothing. • Astynax 21:55, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
- The url I put in the URL field is the original URL that the archive url is an archive of. That is how archive.org urls work. This is no different than any other archive urls. Look, for example, at the citation for "DIKE staff (2000)". --Tgeairn (talk) 22:16, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
- The link you inserted is a redirect to another site which does not display the article. It fixed nothing. • Astynax 21:55, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
- Blanking referenced information, as the IP did, is reverting. The references were not challenged, merely blanked. As I said, Analys & Kritik is currently hosted by those universities (see the website). Scribd is quoting a corporate filing, which is a primary source, but perfectly acceptable to support the limited statement it is being used to reference. Have a better source, then go ahead and cite it. The "disclaimer" at dike.de refers to the "following" links, none of which go to the page being cited. Again, the ICSA website lists the paper as being among its articles, and the website also claims that it was founded in 1979. That there has been a corporate name change is irrelevant. The article is still available through the cited entity. As for the IP blanking "a duplicate", s/he removed a citation pointing to a unique reference. Finally, the url "correction" was a dead link that did not go to the original page, but redirected to another site that required a flash player (which even then did not show the article when I attempted to verify). • Astynax 21:22, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
- And Astynax reverted my correction. Please, let's read what we're putting into articles before blindly reverting. Astynax has now twice reintroduced an error into the reference, after having it politely pointed out three times. This is near-textbook WP:TENDENTIOUS editing. --Tgeairn (talk) 20:42, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
This discussion does not appear to be getting anywhere. Although I believe that the references should be left out until consensus finds them reliable, I am not going to revert Astynax's reverts. I have taken the four sources under discussion to WP:RSN here: Misplaced Pages:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Multiple_Landmark_Worldwide_sources. I encourage editors to participate at that noticeboard. --Tgeairn (talk) 04:08, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
Categorization of Landmark as 'religious in nature' does not belong in article lead
In reviewing the forest of material that's recently been added to the talk page, I notice that none of it seems to addressing the question that Arbcom called the locus of the dispute on this article - the characterization of Landmark as a new religious movement. I am proposing that we remove the text that refers to Landmark as religious or quasi-religious in the article lead, which for the reasons I give below is both misleading and violates undue weight, and instead allow the reader to decide for his or her self about this issue based on the copy that follows.
Here is why this claim doesn't belong in the article lead:
1) No contemporary news account that I can find – we have dozens of reliable media sources - refer to Landmark as religious in nature, at all (in fact, some explicitly refute this). If Landmark had religious components, it seems impossible that these dozens of sources, such as New York Times and Time Magazine, would completely fail to mention this.
2) Some writers in the field of new religious movements have listed Landmark as belonging in their field, and in usually just that way – as one sentence as a name on a list, and not a detailed argument for any claims of religiosity. This is very relevant, because the most cited writers in the field don’t actually require explicit religiosity as part of their definition of a new religious movement – any group they wish to study can be considered.
3) The one writer (Lockwood) who makes a detailed, substantial case for Landmark having some clear religious elements (Lockwood herself notes the "stark void of academic discourse in the group") is someone who was a graduate student when writing this paper, is not a professor or other recognized expert, has no cites of their work that I can find, and uses as the crux of their argument an attack on the opinion of Chryssides, one of the most cited writers in the field, who she acknowledges has "doubts as to the religious nature of the group". In other words, to accept her novel theory of modern religion that includes overtly secular human potential movements such as Landmark, we have to accept her view over that of a much more highly regarded source.
4) The aforementioned sources that put Landmark on a list, tend to all be primary and tertiary sources, tend to source circularly, or source to previous comments on a different version of the company (est) which may or may not be accurate today.
5) Thus to put assertions of Landmark as religious or quasi-religious in the lead of the article is to give undue weight to a minority (Lockwood) view. Again, it's worth repeating the point: a brief sentence mentioning Landmark on a list of new religious movements is NOT the same as claiming Landmark is overtly religious, as Astynax has acknowledged, since the definition of 'new religious movement' used by these writers doesn't actually require overt religious characteristics, or any clear religious characteristics at all, for that matter. Thus, a claim of being religious or quasi-religious in the lead is misleading to the reader, who would be likely to naturally assume that something 'religious' actually has been said to have clear religious characteristics.
6) As a modern pop culture phenomena, Landmark is covered in much greater detail in media sources than in academic sources (Arbcom noted the lack of detailed scholarly sourcing in its case discussion about Landmark, and Lockwood herself mentioned the same), and thus my first point - the fact there are no claims that Landmark is religious in these sources - should carry a good deal of weight.
7) A previous RFC was closed by an admin with the conclusion that Landmark does not belong on the List of New Religious Movements.
8) All of this adds up to the conclusion that Landmark in the context of new religious movements deserves a passing mention in the article, but not its own section or a place in the lead. Nwlaw63 (talk) 15:05, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
- This has been discussed ad nauseum, and nothing has changed, including the rationalization you have used above. Scholarly sources cited, including recent sources, do discuss the religious and quasi/parareligious aspects, and as you no doubt recall from the recent arb case, there are far more sources for this this than are currently used in the article. Your arguments seem to rely on your personal WP:OR. I am mystified as to why anyone would so insistently argue for dismissing scholarly sources (including a rather contorted dismissal of Lockwood's paper, which has been published in at least 2 RS journals and which is hardly the only scholarly source for this aspect of Landmark) in favor of "lifestyle" type newspaper accounts. Even so, the religious/cult aspect also has garnered mentions in the news accounts, and such could certainly be added, though I personally think the scholarly sources are better. Indeed, the premise that the religious aspects are not in news stories is also false. The legitimate mention in the lead has, yet again, been summarily blanked, and I will restore it, as even the latest attempt did not garner any support. Destructively blanking referenced material based on OR is no more legitimate than inserting OR material. • Astynax 20:28, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
- Please stop using reverts to force your preferred content. You boldly added that content to the lede, then you and others edit-warred to keep it in place. Nwlaw63 has reverted your addition. How about a discussion before reverting again? As cautioned above, this pattern of blind reverts is something that Arbcom specifically reminded editors not to do. --Tgeairn (talk) 21:13, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
- I resent your characterizing as "edit warring" the inserting and defending of well-referenced material against summary blanking. As Begoon, in my link above, and others have repeatedly stated in previous attempts to purge this and similar material from the lead: "The lead summarises the article, so it needs to be there. Some readers only view the lead when visiting a page, and to remove it would do them a disservice, and contravene WP:LEDE." Nwlaw32 was fully aware, based upon previous blanking of this and similar information, that there would be serious objections to summarily reverting/blanking the lead section material, as well as to dismissing referenced sources and their citations based upon OR argumentation. • Astynax 22:05, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
- Please read WP:EDITWAR. It is policy, and it clearly describes the only situations where repeatedly reverting is not edit warring. --Tgeairn (talk) 22:23, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
- I resent your characterizing as "edit warring" the inserting and defending of well-referenced material against summary blanking. As Begoon, in my link above, and others have repeatedly stated in previous attempts to purge this and similar material from the lead: "The lead summarises the article, so it needs to be there. Some readers only view the lead when visiting a page, and to remove it would do them a disservice, and contravene WP:LEDE." Nwlaw32 was fully aware, based upon previous blanking of this and similar information, that there would be serious objections to summarily reverting/blanking the lead section material, as well as to dismissing referenced sources and their citations based upon OR argumentation. • Astynax 22:05, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
- Please stop using reverts to force your preferred content. You boldly added that content to the lede, then you and others edit-warred to keep it in place. Nwlaw63 has reverted your addition. How about a discussion before reverting again? As cautioned above, this pattern of blind reverts is something that Arbcom specifically reminded editors not to do. --Tgeairn (talk) 21:13, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
- Support mentioning religious/quasi-religious overtones of the organization in the lead. It is an important facet of what makes the organization notable and controversial. Leaving it out would be a whitewashing that deprives the reader of information. It's not necessarily even negative, depending upon how you look at it. Considering that the text has apparently been in there for months, it is a stretch to say that keeping it is WP:BOLD. Manul ~ talk 22:35, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
- The statement itself is certainly controversial. It is not what reliable sources that speak about Landmark say (other than occasionally to refute the idea itself). No one is saying to leave something out of the article entirely, but there is a strong argument for leaving it out of the lede. The text has been there for months following a lengthy string of reverts to force it there, and Arbcom itself found that this is a focus point of contention and dispute.
- WP:ONUS is very clear that "The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content." This is a policy, and it is being disregarded here. --Tgeairn (talk) 02:55, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
- As the text reads now, it is a very weak suggestion, or rather an attack on the idea that LM is a NRM. It would be very POV to totally remove it. Legacypac (talk) 03:19, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
- Tgeairn, that's a misuse of WP:ONUS. The material has already been included in the article . From here, we follow WP:LEAD and related policies/guidelines saying that the lead should summarize the article. WP:ONUS doesn't fit as a reason to remove something from the lead. WP:WEIGHT would be the thing to cite for that, however there is in fact a strong weight of reliable sources saying there are religious/quasi-religious overtones. It's just not true that "It is not what reliable sources that speak about Landmark say". The paragraph in question balances opposing views; it's a properly written NPOV paragraph and should be included per WP:NPOV. I see no convincing argument for its removal; indeed its removal looks like a violation of NPOV. Manul ~ talk 04:00, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
- So you're effectively saying that reverting that text into the lede over a dozen times in the past 4 months means that now it's "already been included", and the burden is on others to get it removed? So edit-warring is the correct way to get disputed content into an article? You misunderstand ONUS and BURDEN. --Tgeairn (talk) 04:39, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
- It is Tgeairn that keeps trying to remove anything that hints at any controversy around Landmark. Coming to my talk page trying to get me to bow to this POV pushing is off side. Perhaps the Landmark connected editors who keep removing this are the edit warriers. Legacypac (talk) 04:45, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
- I came to your talk page to give you an opportunity to explain why you reverted my edit. That's standard AGF. Your statement above is not. Further, who are the "Landmark connected editors" you are speaking of? Show evidence. Lastly, the edit warring I referred to is what I provided diffs of above in this very conversation. There's no need to say "perhaps..." anything. The diffs are there. --Tgeairn (talk) 04:49, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
- It is Tgeairn that keeps trying to remove anything that hints at any controversy around Landmark. Coming to my talk page trying to get me to bow to this POV pushing is off side. Perhaps the Landmark connected editors who keep removing this are the edit warriers. Legacypac (talk) 04:45, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
- So you're effectively saying that reverting that text into the lede over a dozen times in the past 4 months means that now it's "already been included", and the burden is on others to get it removed? So edit-warring is the correct way to get disputed content into an article? You misunderstand ONUS and BURDEN. --Tgeairn (talk) 04:39, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
- Tgeairn, that's a misuse of WP:ONUS. The material has already been included in the article . From here, we follow WP:LEAD and related policies/guidelines saying that the lead should summarize the article. WP:ONUS doesn't fit as a reason to remove something from the lead. WP:WEIGHT would be the thing to cite for that, however there is in fact a strong weight of reliable sources saying there are religious/quasi-religious overtones. It's just not true that "It is not what reliable sources that speak about Landmark say". The paragraph in question balances opposing views; it's a properly written NPOV paragraph and should be included per WP:NPOV. I see no convincing argument for its removal; indeed its removal looks like a violation of NPOV. Manul ~ talk 04:00, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
- Tgeairn, you have misunderstood: "The material has already been included in the article" was referring to the body of the article. The material is already in the article; that's a fact. Hence the next sentence: "From here, we follow WP:LEAD...", meaning, "Now that's in the body of the article, we follow WP:LEAD..." Manul ~ talk 04:57, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
In all of this talk, there's not much discussion of my actual arguments, which I encourage editors to read. As I noted there, among the countless media sources on Landmark, I have never encountered a media source that claims Landmark is religious in nature - I invite editors to check this out for themselves and reach their own conclusions about what these sources are saying. Again, this is important because media sources discuss Landmark in great detail, whereas academic sources don't (Arbcom noted the lack of in-depth scholarly sources). And again, despite the seemingly large number of sources Astynax presents, a deeper look shows that they are mostly not saying what is claimed, and are relying on a definition of a new religious movements that doesn't require actual overt religiosity, so that these writers may include in their field of study whatever they wish.
As a side note, I'm confused by the claim that Landmark's supposed religiosity is an important part of what has it be notable. What reliable source says that? Nwlaw63 (talk) 15:56, 28 January 2015 (UTC) Nwlaw63 (talk) 15:56, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
- Looking back in the article history, I found many media sources calling the Forum "cult-like". The "never encountered a media source" doesn't make sense; the touting of WP:ONUS doesn't make sense, as explained above; now there is a demand for a source that says something to the effect of "Landmark is notable for..." These arguments for removing the paragraph from the lead simply aren't compelling.
- Again, there no question of WP:WEIGHT here. The lead doesn't even mention that some governments have labeled the group as dangerous, as was done in past revisions. Removing the current paragraph from the lead amounts to removing prominent and significant points of view -- in other words, an WP:NPOV violation. I move to close the conversation now, with further deletions of this lead paragraph being treated as straightforward violations of NPOV. Manul ~ talk 17:27, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
NPOV
I restored some text describing Landmark as "cult-like", which was backed by a good number sources. It is somewhat amazing to me that such prominent and public criticism would be deleted. Also, as I wrote above, the lead used to mention that some governments have called the Forum dangerous. When governments condemn something, that has significant WP:WEIGHT and should merit (re-)inclusion in the lead.
We aim to cover all significant points of view, and the removal of some views amounts to a less balanced, less NPOV article. I expect there is more material to restore. Any suggestions? Manul ~ talk 18:13, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
- Welcome to the Landmark article. I wanted to explain why I am reverting your edits and why I see them as completely inappropriate in this article. First off, you restored material that had been discussed extensively in the past and removed for reasons I'll get into below.
- Regarding what you added newly, let me start with the Stephen Kent quote. This quote embodies a distinct minority view of the anti-cult community, of which Kent is a leading advocate, namely that 'coercive persuasion', the newfangled term for brainwashing, can be done in a relatively short period of time, such as during a personal development course. That this view is rejected by the academic community is shown both in the intense criticism Kent has received from his colleagues for promoting this minority view, and the fact that when psychologist Margaret Singer tried to make the case for common 'coercive persuasion' in these kinds of circumstances, she was actually reprimanded by the American Psychological Association and couldn't find work as an expert witness after that. You can look it up - you will find that the case for coercive persuasion and harm in a short time period is scoffed at in the psychological community and the academic community as a whole - it is a distinct minority view that would violate undue weight in having as a main academic quote for the article, any more than giving an advocate of cold fusion the main quote in an article on that topic.
- You also added more to the mention of the Swedish news piece. Quoting an anti-cult organization is another undue weight violation, in the same way it would be promotional to put glowing testimonial quotes about Landmark made by individuals quoted in the media. There's a ton of quotes, positive and negative, that people have made in the media regarding Landmark - if we really want an NPOV article, like you discuss, we shouldn't be using partisan quotes.
- One thing you re-inserted from the past was a claim that media sources called Landmark cult-like. Aside from the fact that 'cult-like' is a weaselly term, and one that's mostly not used by the referenced sources, it's a fundamentally false claim, in that the media sources are NOT saying Landmark is cult-like - they are mentioning that certain other people think they are. This is a critical distinction - if the New York Times quotes somebody about an allegation, you can't say that the New York Times is making that allegation. It's completely deceptive and untrue. And, in fact, even the people quoted in the sources you give are mostly not saying Landmark is a cult. For instance, the most critical of your sources that I looked at, the Phoenix New Times article, quotes Landmark hater and anti-cult movement leader Rick Ross as saying that as much as he dislikes Landmark, he does not consider them a cult, at all. So if Rick Ross isn't even saying this, why have an edit saying newspapers are saying it?
- Finally, there's your line about 'governments', which seems to be your source for adding claims about 'danger' to the article lead. The real danger here seems to be the misuse here of primary sources. All of the sources seem to come back to one thing: the French Commission list from the 90s, which was repeated in Belgium (their report having the same author) and was later briefly picked up by Austria, as far as I understand it. The French list, largely a work of two people who did not consult with any scholars or academics in the field, and which received intense criticism around the world, and was not renewed for that reason. A good source on this list is The New Heretics of France, which when I read it a couple of years ago helped cement my interest in this subject - I strongly recommend reading it. (By the way, even if we bought the validity of these lists, no list in the last 10 years has listed Landmark - the French Commission was disbanded over 15 years ago after intense criticism of it).
- This is a textbook example of relying heavily on primary sources - there's no one giving detailed interpretation here, providing context (such as the problems I mentioned above). Before we make incendiary claims in the article, we need secondary sources for these claims that weigh any issues with the primary source, which is clearly not happening here - reliable secondary sources in the academic world basically say the French list is full of it. By the logic of this edit, we should discuss the cultic nature of the Quakers in the lead of the article, since they are on the same list. And for you to say that you are 'restoring prior consensus' by putting this lead, you are promoting a complete fiction - there was no prior consensus for that, at least as long as I've been following the article.
- Some on Misplaced Pages have promoted such claims of the anti-cult movement, around the project and on this article in particular - in fact an editor and former administrator who I believe originally put in some of the material you re-inserted was topic banned from this area for POV pushing. But our articles should reflect the consensus of the academic community wherever possible, and the academic community and scholars of new religious movements holds the dubious creations of the anti-cult movement - fast 'coercive persuasion', government 'cult' lists, etc. - in extremely low regard.
- Instead of putting these dubious claims in the article, there is actually well-sourced criticism of Landmark regarding their marketing practices that should be in the article - I think we had a line about the overzealousness of their marketing or some such that got removed somewhere along the way. That would be worth recovering. Nwlaw63 (talk) 02:54, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
- You make a good point of "cult-like" not being properly attributed. The text should say something to the effect of: "A number of critical newspaper articles have reported complaints that the Forum is 'cult-like'".
- You begin by arguing that the perspective offered by Stephen A. Kent, an expert in this area, should be removed from the article wholesale. You assert that Kent's view is "rejected by the academic community". The link you gave doesn't even mention Kent. Because all this seemed odd to me, I decided to investigate, and the first hit of my first google search led me to religiousfreedomwatch.org, a Scientology website. It contains an anti-Kent rant making much of the same points you make -- Margaret Singer and all. (I am not suggesting anyone here is connected to Scientology, only that the line of argumentation bears some resemblance.)
- I am less than impressed with your characterization of Kent. It is not even clear that Kent represents a minority view, but even if that is true, it is still significant and thus should be included per WP:NPOV. WP:WEIGHT may be invoked to remove singular/negligible views, such as a claim that Landmark is run by reptilians, but not established views in scholarly literature.
- You called the Swedish group FRI an "anti-cult organization", which is your own labeling. Even if a source is deemed biased, it may still be included if properly attributed. Opposition to Landmark as represented by FRI should be included per WP:NPOV. We wish to include all significant views, and lots of people oppose Landmark. This is not a singular/negligible view and therefore cannot be excluded per WP:WEIGHT.
- There is at least one secondary source, Wright, for the text about governments. That governments have condemned the organization is very significant -- enough for the lead.
- On Misplaced Pages we don't "promote" claims of any movement or organization. We simply report all significant points of view. Removing significant points of view is violation of NPOV, and for that reason your deletions are a violation of NPOV.
- I am less then impressed with User:Nwlaw63's "welcome" to this article, the (WP:OWN dissertation on which views deserve zero weight, and lecture on what has been discussed here before. This topic went to ArbComm and one of the recommendations was encouraging uninvolved editors. This type of WP:OWN behavior does the opposite. I will pursue the new Discretionary Sanctions against editors who act in such inappropriate manners. It is clear that a group of editors here will use all tactics to bully out any editor that is not part of Team Landmark (being dragged to ArbComm after only two minor edits showed me that). Legacypac (talk) 07:06, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
- Please strikeout that remark which is a clear violation of the policies to assume good faith and to avoid personal attacks, and regarding which you have recently been warned on this page by @Drmies:. Thanks DaveApter (talk) 18:58, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
- I am less then impressed with User:Nwlaw63's "welcome" to this article, the (WP:OWN dissertation on which views deserve zero weight, and lecture on what has been discussed here before. This topic went to ArbComm and one of the recommendations was encouraging uninvolved editors. This type of WP:OWN behavior does the opposite. I will pursue the new Discretionary Sanctions against editors who act in such inappropriate manners. It is clear that a group of editors here will use all tactics to bully out any editor that is not part of Team Landmark (being dragged to ArbComm after only two minor edits showed me that). Legacypac (talk) 07:06, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
- The editor that dragged me to ArbComm trying to stop me from editing here as soon as I started - is the LAST person entitled to lecture me on AGF User:DaveApter. Legacypac (talk) 00:32, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
- Please refrain from personal attacks and discuss the edits at hand - discuss the edits, not the editor. Nwlaw63 (talk) 17:58, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
- Given that NPOV is under discussion (again), I have tagged the article (again). --Tgeairn (talk) 18:08, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
A few things:
Wright simply repeats the France list - there is no interpretation of the primary source. All Wright's doing is confirming the existence of the original source, which we already knew existed. The reason for a secondary source goes way beyond confirming the existence of the primary source, it's about putting it in context, which this fails completely to do. If you look at Wright's list, you will also see the notation of the Quakers, of all things, as a dangerous group, the absurdity of which gives a clue as to why the list was so heavily criticized by everyone from academics to the U.S. government. Of course it would be absurd to make mention of this in the lead of the Quakers article, yet you are arguing for using it for making a controversial claim in the lead of the Landmark article.
Regarding Kent, you don't have to go to any blogs - simply read the work of leading scholars such as Dawson ("Raising Lazarus: A Methodological Critique of Stephen Kent's Revival of the Brainwashing Model", 2001), Melton, and Lewis to see the disdain Kent's contemporaries have for his work. And regarding the theory of coercive persuasion he's pushing in the quote, we only have to read our own article on the APA task force looking into the topic to see the rejection of this theory by mainstream sources.
I'm also scratching my head as to why you're question my characterization of the Swedish group, since that's pretty much how you characterize it in your edit to the article. Nwlaw63 (talk) 18:26, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
- There is no prohibition against careful use of primary sources. The material cited was not used to support anything beyond what the source said, and insisting on its removal is unwarranted. Regarding Kent, who seems to be a noted academic on the , it is equally unwarranted to characterize him as fringe using your own original research, which frankly seems to require huge leaps of logic to follow. He is a reliable source, period. Your argument here appears to be that the article ignore all coverage which conflicts with the reportage that you deem more significant and/or that conflicts with a narrative you prefer to present. If there is alternative coverage in reliable sources, then it is perfectly fine to also present that, but it is not OK to blank well-sourced material under various pretexts. • Astynax 19:25, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
Let's stick to the facts
During the recent Arbitration case, one of the Arbitrators suggested that the article would be served best by concentrating on facts rather than opinions. In recent days there has been a flurry of intense activity in the opposite direction. Perhaps it would be helpful in creating a neutral informative encyclopedia item if we trimmed it back to matters of fact, and then discussed how much in the way of opinions should be added and in what balance?
It seems to me that key factual statements might include the following:
- Landmark is a business founded in 1991 which offers personal development training courses.
- It offers courses in 115 locations in 24 countries around the world.
- It has had over 2.2 million customers since its foundation.
- Some of its customers are satisfied with the results they got from the courses, and others are not.
- Independent surveys demonstrate that over 90% of the customers report being “highly satisfied”.
Perhaps other editors can suggest other firm facts that they feel should be included? DaveApter (talk) 19:04, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
- Facts include that Landmark is a direct continuation of the business founded in the 1970s with the brother and the lawyer of the founder now at the head. All the name changes and reorgs don't change that fact. Another fact is that there have been many critical things said and written about this organization, it's product and founder/management. We need balance and I fear that connected editors here are unwilling to allow either the history or the balance. Legacypac (talk) 00:40, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
- It has been pointed out to you (repeatedly) that making unfounded accusations such as "connected editors" is a personal attack. Please cease. --Tgeairn (talk) 00:48, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
There has never been any secrecy about the sequence of companies and courses, this article has always stated it clearly and explicitly. Of course there have been "many critical things said and written", (although much of this is uninformed, and a good deal of it deliberately malicious) and it is entirely correct to report that with due weight - alongside reporting the many positive things that have been said and written (which there seems to have been a concerted drive to remove lately). DaveApter (talk) 15:14, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
- If there is a lot of negative stuff published about a topic we report it accurately, especially when written by academics, journalists and experts. We don't whitewash the topic because you think it is uninformed or deliberately malicious. I have yet to see anything positive deleted here. Legacypac (talk) 09:30, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
Extensive merged information added to article in violation of recent discussion
There was a recent thread on this page ] proposing that this article be merged with the est and WEA articles, and this thread was closed with no consensus to merge.
Yesterday's massive edit by Astynax seems to violate that decision by introducing a large block of text which (if it deserves inclusion in Misplaced Pages at all, which is doubtful) clearly would belong in the est article, or possibly the Werner Erhard article but not here.
This is a repetition of the behaviour by Astynax whereby he initiated an RfC a year ago, did not like the outcome, and unilaterally introduced a massive block edit in contradiction to it ]
The material is highly suspect in any case, derived mostly from Pressman's book Outrageous Betrayal which is a heavily biased attack piece which contains many anecdotal accounts from individuals antagonistic to Erhard, and which provides no references to identifiable sources for its assertions. DaveApter (talk) 19:24, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
- Astynax has expanded the history section with information that, by and large, seems to me both relevant and factual. For the first time the story is told as a whole, in agreement with scholarly literature. The complexity of the subject matter - and hence, the elaborateness of the historical paragraph - is not entirely Astynax's fault: the lack of transparency, the fear of bad publicity, the company intricacies, the aggressiveness towards critics are inextricably part of the est/Landmark story, as even a quick glance at reliable literature amply testifies. Of course, the story is displeasing for Landmark adherents, but that is simply a corollory of Landmark's persistent lying about its past, and we cannot blame Astynax for that. The conjecture that the story is derived mostly from Pressman's book is mistaken: there are many references to publications that have appeared in the years after Pressman's book was published. Pressman's book is biased, no doubt, but it is only one of many sources, and, moreover, the book is not without critical merit. Bartley (1978) for example, also one of the sources, is an extremely biased source as well, an hagiography in fact, portraying Erhard passim as a hero and a genius. But, of course, it contains interesting facts as well. The historical paragraph is not a "violation of a closed discussion" - it demonstrates that those who were opposed to an article that would provide an overview, were wrong.
- A last critical remark: the exposé regarding the financial transactions and the account of all those companies and the manoeuvres of Erhard to evade taxes, might better be transferred to another article. It can easily be left out, and it will take away the (false) impression that the historical account is compiled to accuse. Theobald Tiger (talk) 22:04, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
- I agree with the last remark above. The statements regarding various companies and relationships would best serve the reader if they were included in the articles for those entities. Of course, that is probably unsurprising as it is my opinion that almost none of this belongs in this article about this company, and that it is confusing to the reader to have this wall of text that is not even about the term they searched for. --Tgeairn (talk) 23:34, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
- It is a little difficult to accept that this was intended to be a neutral addition to the article. Phrases like "Erhard had no formal training in psychology or psychiatry..." So? He probably didn't have training in neurosurgery or astronomy either, he didn't claim to have any of those. There is no reason for this statement except to attack, and it certainly doesn't add to the reader's understanding of Landmark or its history. Or "...and had previously been an encyclopedia salesman", again So? What does that tell us about the history of Landmark? Suddenly having over half of the article be about Erhard certainly looks like a merge attempt to me, despite the merge request being closed as no consensus. --Tgeairn (talk) 22:30, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
- As Landmark Forum/est is frequently described as a self help movement with both a religious and a psychotherapeutic tendency, it is not so strange to tell something about the (lack of) education of its founder. Erhard is in large part an autodidact and a dreamer. Theobald Tiger (talk) 23:04, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
I am removing the newly added history section from this article. Aside from it not being info about Landmark, and against the spirit of consensus to not merge this article with the est, WE&A articles, the writing is most certainly not neutral in it's handling of a living person and clearly violates WP:BLP Biographies of Living Persons policy .MLKLewis (talk) 23:30, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
- I will seek sanctions against anyone that does a one sided removal of info from this article. Rolling out BLP is absolute hogwash - I read the insertions and they appear well sourced. Legacypac (talk) 00:45, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
- I agree that claiming BLP violation for this edit is not very valid (I won't call it "absolute hogwash")--but that does not mean there cannot be other, more valid reasons for that edit/that kind of edit. MLKLewis, I don't know if you were warned about the ArbCom case/sanctions; if you weren't, you should be. Drmies (talk) 02:05, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
The section as added was completely inappropriate:
- For the most part it is not about Landmark at all, and deals with events many years before the corporation was even formed.
- It is ridiculously lengthy , out of all proportion - about the same size as the whole of the rest of the article put together.
- The earlier version was concise, accurate and appropriate; and it clearly stated the historical continuity from est to the (WEA) Forum to the Landmark Forum, so I don't understand what all this beefing about "trying to cover up the connection" is about.
- With due respect to the opinions expressed above, several points are in clear violation of WP:BLP - to take the two most obvious examples, implying that Erhard was a tax evader and that he diverted $95m of charitable donations for his own purposes without adequate evidence is totally unacceptable. DaveApter (talk) 14:42, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
- The years before the current iteration of the company are part of its history, as the several references I provided in the first sentence of the body demonstrate. Nor did you leave unchallenged previous material that linked Landmark to the former corporate entities. Indeed, that Landmark had anything to do with previous iterations of the company has been repeatedly challenged and a narrative of that was demanded. Nowhere is Erhard accused of being a tax evader. The IRS ruling on deductions for the circular load is noted, and it is also noted that charges of tax fraud were dropped and both are reported in reliable sources. • Astynax 18:50, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
- BLP issues aside (and still relevant, as this whole passage reads like a hatchet piece), that still leaves the other points that DaveApter raised. I suggest editing this thing down significantly, and addressing the issues with the sources. --Tgeairn (talk) 18:59, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
- I don't see where Dave Apter's points are based in independent sources, and I'm completely uninterested in constantly responding to arguments based in original research. If you think a piece of text reads like a "hatchet piece", then suggest ways to make the language more NPoV rather than repeatedly blanking and incrementally reverting well-sourced information that should be reported. That the section is long (but I suggest not overly long, given the complexity) can be addressed by fleshing out the section that follows (The Landmark Forum) it; for which there is also much discussion in reliable sources and considerably more information that should be added. The legal section also needs to be reconstituted after the over-drastic pruning following the material from that article's merger into this. • Astynax 19:52, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
- I do think I have a valid point in raising BLP issues regarding the material added. The language is heavily biased against Erhard and very subjective. It ascribes motives as if the writer is inside his head, (which is how the Pressman book is written despite the fact that Pressman never interviewed Erhard - how would he know what "Erhard decided" etc.) Actually this whole entry read as if someone pulled Pressman's incendiary tone straight from his book. A major objection re:BLP is the part about tax fraud. ("Werner Erhard and Associates was faced with lawsuits, tax fraud investigations (later dropped), a flood of bad press and declining enrollments....") This is a damaging accusation to make and it is completely untrue. The IRS never accused Erhard (or WE&A) of tax fraud. What the IRS did was to irresponsibly make false statements to the press, whereupon Erhard sued them, and won. See: http://www.thefreelibrary.com/LEADER+OF+EST+MOVEMENT+WINS+$200,000+FROM+IRS.-a083966944 MLKLewis (talk) 20:14, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
- I don't see where Dave Apter's points are based in independent sources, and I'm completely uninterested in constantly responding to arguments based in original research. If you think a piece of text reads like a "hatchet piece", then suggest ways to make the language more NPoV rather than repeatedly blanking and incrementally reverting well-sourced information that should be reported. That the section is long (but I suggest not overly long, given the complexity) can be addressed by fleshing out the section that follows (The Landmark Forum) it; for which there is also much discussion in reliable sources and considerably more information that should be added. The legal section also needs to be reconstituted after the over-drastic pruning following the material from that article's merger into this. • Astynax 19:52, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
- BLP issues aside (and still relevant, as this whole passage reads like a hatchet piece), that still leaves the other points that DaveApter raised. I suggest editing this thing down significantly, and addressing the issues with the sources. --Tgeairn (talk) 18:59, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
- The years before the current iteration of the company are part of its history, as the several references I provided in the first sentence of the body demonstrate. Nor did you leave unchallenged previous material that linked Landmark to the former corporate entities. Indeed, that Landmark had anything to do with previous iterations of the company has been repeatedly challenged and a narrative of that was demanded. Nowhere is Erhard accused of being a tax evader. The IRS ruling on deductions for the circular load is noted, and it is also noted that charges of tax fraud were dropped and both are reported in reliable sources. • Astynax 18:50, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)MLKLewis certainly has valid point points here. As for not seeing where DaveApter's points are based in independent sources, we have a large number of sources in the article that say that Landmark started in 1991. How is DaveApter's point that "not about Landmark at all, and deals with events many years before the corporation was even formed" not in those sources? --Tgeairn (talk) 20:43, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
Again, if the language used in describing referenced facts is the problem, then suggest ways to make the text more neutral. Blanking entire swathes of text is not how to accomplish that. I suggest you re-read the sources, which directly support what I wrote. WE&A was indeed the subject of disallowed deductions based on an intricate circular-loan scheme set up by Margolis (this was later upheld) and similar actions. The tax fraud investigation was later dropped, as the article noted (Erhard won a judgment based on IRS leaking information, and that might also be included, though it involved him and not the company). While Pressman does get more than a bit touchy concerning certain subjects, he is an experienced legal journalist who one imagines was both keenly aware of the potential for libel accusations careful with his facts. Pressman is widely cited. Morevover, I provided multiple backup citations, including Pressman, for anything I thought would be particularly vulnerable to being challenged. Nothing you have raised justifies the blanking. • Astynax 20:33, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
- I have copyedited and abbreviated the section retaining most of the salient points. If Astynax or anyone is more familiar with the sources referencing transactions by Erhard which are by him or by overseas companies and trusts acting on his behalf so as to better distinguish between the 2 types as a corporation is a seperate legal entity.Cathar66 (talk) 21:15, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
- Are you aware that you've left the section a complete mess? Typos, duplicated pieces of copy, unclosed templates, etc? In your rush to attack, you've left a complete disaster for others to clean up. You have "created" half of the article, and this is the first time you have ever commented on the talk page of an article that has volumes of discussion here and in 29 pages of archives. --Tgeairn (talk) 21:22, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
- you exaggerate somewhat. I think the section is now written in NPOV language. Not violating WP:BLP. It also ends a ridiculous edit war. You do not own this article despite your obvious affection for the subject mater. Your tagging is pernicious.Cathar66 (talk) 22:04, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
- So you're saying that even though you have never edited this talk page, and even though you had not until the past couple days ever edited this article, that you are somehow completely familiar with all of the thousands of lines of history of the article and this talk page and archives? Those of the other articles related (WEA, est, Erhard, etc)? You have somehow already read the dozen or so sources you used for your edit? You're completely familiar with the history of multiple people and several companies over the course of 45 years? Impressive. --Tgeairn (talk) 22:11, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
- As Oscar Wilde said sarcasm is the lowest form of wit- get a a life.Cathar66 (talk) 22:24, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
- You can be as nasty as you like, but you do realize that you just placed references to a 1993 book and a 2003 web page on a statement that something happened in 2013 - right? --Tgeairn (talk) 22:31, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
- Less time to fix than to comment on it. Is that it??Cathar66 (talk) 22:40, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
- You can be as nasty as you like, but you do realize that you just placed references to a 1993 book and a 2003 web page on a statement that something happened in 2013 - right? --Tgeairn (talk) 22:31, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
- As Oscar Wilde said sarcasm is the lowest form of wit- get a a life.Cathar66 (talk) 22:24, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
- So you're saying that even though you have never edited this talk page, and even though you had not until the past couple days ever edited this article, that you are somehow completely familiar with all of the thousands of lines of history of the article and this talk page and archives? Those of the other articles related (WEA, est, Erhard, etc)? You have somehow already read the dozen or so sources you used for your edit? You're completely familiar with the history of multiple people and several companies over the course of 45 years? Impressive. --Tgeairn (talk) 22:11, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
- you exaggerate somewhat. I think the section is now written in NPOV language. Not violating WP:BLP. It also ends a ridiculous edit war. You do not own this article despite your obvious affection for the subject mater. Your tagging is pernicious.Cathar66 (talk) 22:04, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
- Are you aware that you've left the section a complete mess? Typos, duplicated pieces of copy, unclosed templates, etc? In your rush to attack, you've left a complete disaster for others to clean up. You have "created" half of the article, and this is the first time you have ever commented on the talk page of an article that has volumes of discussion here and in 29 pages of archives. --Tgeairn (talk) 21:22, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
- I have copyedited and abbreviated the section retaining most of the salient points. If Astynax or anyone is more familiar with the sources referencing transactions by Erhard which are by him or by overseas companies and trusts acting on his behalf so as to better distinguish between the 2 types as a corporation is a seperate legal entity.Cathar66 (talk) 21:15, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
Before you edit further on this article you should read this
I used to edit on this article and other related articles and much of what is happening right now is why I lost interest.
I am breaking a long silence because I think it is important for current editors to be aware of the following.
Much of the material that editors are attempting to add to the article in the name of balance has a significant problem. These items have been removed by the community in the past for poor and inaccurate sourcing as well as undue weight. These were originally added by a now notoriously de-sysoped and topic banned editor named CIRT/Smee/Smeelgova and a second sanctioned and now inactive editor Pedant17. The two single biggest contributors to the article by a wide margin. You can see some of their history:
here. Arbcom said:
“Cirt, According to statements in Evidence, and by his own admission, Cirt has, against policy, placed "undue negative weight in topics on new religious movements and political BLPs" and followed poor sourcing practices.
And Cirt admitted the following:
“I agree that my sourcing practices were inadequate, and that I’ve unwisely included undue negative weight in topics on new religious movements and political BLPs.”
The second biggest contributor to the article was also sanctioned for endentious and disruptive editing. Both Cirt/Smee/Smeelgova and Pedant17 had a similar level of involvment on the Werner Erhard article The Est Article The Werner Erhard and Associates Article
Please Note: I am not making any accusations about anyone currently editing the article. I do believe that the history I have provided is relevant to current discussions on the article. Spacefarer (talk) 00:29, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
- Thank you for the timely and convenient link to what I assume is the case that some editors have been hinting at to users who disagree with their PoV. Yes, there are some things that can be taken from reading through the accusations on that case, although I am not sure which items the arbs thought compelling and which they dismissed. The problems identified where that case touches on Landmark seem to rest on things like mischaracterization of both sources and what sources say, blanking referenced edits under various pretexts, and intransigent resistance to reflecting the weight found in reliable references. Blanking sourced statements that do not fit with one's PoV is not "restoring balance", but rather, pushing an unbalanced version. If there is reliably sourced (even from the same reliable source) information that depicts another significant point of view, then as I have said before the solution is to add that material; not to blank referenced information. Not all viewpoints, however, have significant, reliably sourced counterpoints, and it is not legitimate to demand that alternative viewpoints not based in significant reliable sources be included. Using WP:OR to advocate one's PoV is equally invalid.
- In the history section, for example, either significant reliable sources say something happened, did not happen or disagree. The article can and should include the information, no matter what editors' viewpoints may be. There is frankly, little disagreement among sources regarding the history. It does get more complex when approaching the product ("Forum"), as there are widely differing views that need to be included when that topic is reworked to address its current sorry state. The same principles, however, should apply.
- Despite repeated statements here, there are many reliable sources for the subject of this article, both explored and cited in academic literature. Some sources portray the subject in what appears to be an over-rosy light, some in darker tones. Regardless, the point is to factually report all significant points of view resting in reliable sources, not to ignore them. It is invalid to second-guess reliable sources, critique them based on personal editorial criteria, or twist what they say or dismiss them because of what they report. What we are not to do is use the encyclopedia's voice to present a skewed picture that does not reflect all significant viewpoints as reported by reliable sources. Repeatedly and incrementally blanking, information that does not sit well with a particular point of view can leave encyclopedia users with a biased article, such as existed last July. Expunging wide swaths of significant reportage does readers who come to the encyclopedia no favor. • Astynax 04:21, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
- Looking through the history of this article and related articles I agree that there seems to be cycles where it approached a NPOV and then any balance was worn out by a continuous process of attrition. It is probable that this will happen again but it is our duty to ensure that the article can be improved to where it is reasonably balanced.Cathar66 (talk) 22:49, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
- This is not a new problem with this article and suggest interested editors should read this | Misplaced Pages:Mediation Cabal 2007-05-21Cathar66 (talk) 04:44, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
- I can't figure out whether Astynax and Cathar66 have completely missed the point of Spacefarer's comments, or whether they are deliberately "playing dumb". The editors who were blocked, de-sysopped, and/or topic banned (eg Cirt/Smee, Pedant17 and Jeffrire) were the ones who were POV-pushing the anti-Landmark line similar to the one favoured by Astynax and his collaborators now, not the ones who were trying to establish a factual and fairly-balanced account. DaveApter (talk) 11:50, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
- ...and I'm unsure why DaveApter continually and uncivilly brings up sanctioned editors here. Having read the decision provided, it doesn't appear that their bans were at all prompted by content edits here. Nor are past editors relevant to current discussions. Repeatedly bringing up these lists of sanctioned editors to suggest that other editors may be banned due to including material that runs counter to Landmark's PoV is itself highly offensive, as is your current impugning the motives of editors. • Astynax 19:00, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
- I just stated the facts; the assumptions of what is "suggested" are just that: assumptions. For the record, Cirt's topic ban and de-sysop was explicitly for NPOV editing and source misrepresentation in relation to, inter alia, Landmark, est, WEA, numerous related articles, and may other items relating broadly to the Human potential movement. DaveApter (talk) 13:08, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
- Re-read the case. There was no such finding with regard to Landmark, est, WEA, related articles or the Human potential movement. Unless you have evidence that these editors have been making edits here, your continued and irrelevant harping on these users is WP:HARASSMENT and an explicit violation of civility policy. Moreover, the perceived implication that editors here will be topic-banned because of the unsubstantiated linkage between adding material which runs counter to your PoV and other editors' behaviors is equally unwarranted and irrelevant to discussions here. Please stop it. • Astynax 19:02, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
- I can't figure out whether Astynax and Cathar66 have completely missed the point of Spacefarer's comments, or whether they are deliberately "playing dumb". The editors who were blocked, de-sysopped, and/or topic banned (eg Cirt/Smee, Pedant17 and Jeffrire) were the ones who were POV-pushing the anti-Landmark line similar to the one favoured by Astynax and his collaborators now, not the ones who were trying to establish a factual and fairly-balanced account. DaveApter (talk) 11:50, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
- This is not a new problem with this article and suggest interested editors should read this | Misplaced Pages:Mediation Cabal 2007-05-21Cathar66 (talk) 04:44, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
- Looking through the history of this article and related articles I agree that there seems to be cycles where it approached a NPOV and then any balance was worn out by a continuous process of attrition. It is probable that this will happen again but it is our duty to ensure that the article can be improved to where it is reasonably balanced.Cathar66 (talk) 22:49, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
Remarkable degradation of this page
I have been gone for a while and just came back and am amazed by what a mess this page is right now. It has been totally trolled. I helped arbitrate getting this page back into policy and into a reasonable shape a few years ago and it does look like it has been torn apart. The above conversation by Spacefarer is RIGHT on the mark and any interested editor should carefully review that! Alex Jackl (talk) 03:11, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
Page Integrity
I have re-looked at the pages here and there is a clear attack on this page. It has degraded in the accuracy of the facts on the page, the gutting of any actual relevant content, and an obvious non-adherence to Misplaced Pages's policies on POV, Fringe theory advocacy, notability of facts, and the complete elimination of content that does not support the recent editors' POV.
It may be so bad that the logical next step is to restore the page to a point in time before the fringe trollers started hitting it and then carefully managing it from that point on for balance and relevance, etc. I am not sure that I want to do that too quickly and I will check with some Admins I know to make sure I don't do anything too abrupt.
I would love to hear some commentary on that idea- especially from experienced Wikipedians who have seen this kind of trolling behavior before- and ways to move forward to pull this page out of the mess it is in.
Thank you, Alex Jackl (talk) 21:31, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
- Could you please be a bit more specific? "The accuracy of the facts"? "Fringe theory advocacy"? "The complete elimination of content that does not support the recent editors' POV"? I have read that it is (or was) your opinion that Landmark "is certainly not a 'new religious movement'". Is that still your opinion on this topic? What kind of 'mess' do you refer to? Personally I am suspicious of Misplaced Pages articles afflicted by more than five footnotes (those articles are nearly always the product of OR, unbalanced all the way through, and ludicrously twisted by POV-pushing from both sides). In my view, encyclopedic articles should not be equipped with a critical apparatus - that belongs to the realm of (original) research, and rightly so. In an encyclopedia I prefer a good selection of widely acknowledged notable sources - the best that can be found - which provide the facts and the framework.(I know my opinion is a minority viewpoint.) Anyway, could we agree upon the sources that have the notability and the quality to provide the article's facts and framework? I think, that would be the best way to move forward. Theobald Tiger (talk) 09:04, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
Response to Tiger and Reversion
Yes- I am looking at the content of the article prior to the surge of what I would consider to be vandalism over the last six months. I generally agree with your view point, Theobold. One of the things I struggle with over all of Misplaced Pages is how do you manage the distortion that gets created by multiple-POVs "wrangling " over a page. It is hard to sort through unless you are an expert on the subject matter and then if you state any conclusive statements you are then attacked for being POV. Very challenging.
Just in the last day an anonymous user went into the page and then added a series of clearly negative POV comments designed to press the POV they are advocating. I have reverted it to the pre-vandalism copy form yesterday but that is not a long term solution to do that back and forthing. This is not about this page in specific but about any Misplaced Pages article where there is either trolling or extreme advocacy.
Thanks for the comments Alex Jackl (talk) 13:49, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
Article Review
I have been reviewing this article since I came back across it last week and going through some of the history. It is clearly contentious (as it has been since back a few years ago when I last was involved). It seemed like it had reached a fairly tolerable level of balance- not perfect but not over representing any particular POV until the last six months or so when it began to be targeted by what appear to me to be POV warriors.
Below is what I think the current issues with the article are from a Misplaced Pages policy standpoint. I believe these need to be handled fairly quickly to even get the article to a place where it can be worked on by people together.
I will make some of these changes - not with new material but material from the page when it was stable and prior to these radical changes. Before I did that though I wanted to get some responses and comments before I did anything.
Here are my thoughts as to some of the issues:
Misplaced Pages: Relevance and Misplaced Pages: Coatrack
Much of the material on Werner Erhard and est predates the actual creation of Landmark Education. A good clue that content is not relevant if a majority of the content in the article is dated BEFORE the creation of the subject of the article. :-)
In fact that leads me to think that in fact most of these recent edits have been "coatrack" edits. They are ostensibly about Landmark Education but seem primarily a venue for them to grind an axe about one of the founders of previous organizations to this one. (speaking of course about Werner Erhard and est).
Misplaced Pages: Reliable sources and undue weight
In the page on reliable sources and undue weight it says:
As an example, the entire section on the religious aspects of Landmark's programs does not even belong in this article at all- it is given far too much weight. Even the references that mention it often end with qualifications like "well it clearly is not religious but it has some attributes of it" or it turns out that that organization had to remove it from its sites. Many of the sources are websites from people who make their living by generating fear and worry in order to do their business. The fact that most of the references are from the last century and pre-date the formation of the organization that the article is about put the final coffin nail on this in my opinion.
Misplaced Pages: Synth
The leads me to the whole question of original research and the synthesis of that. These edits - as past ones have been- appear to be driven by fringe thinking that somehow these three organizations are the same organizations and that Werner Erhard is somehow still involved lurking behind the scenes like a sinister puppet master. There is no question that the organizations are related or that there is a common thread and evolution of content, product and people linking them but the record is also clear that Werner Erhard dissolved Werner Erhard and Associates and that some of the employees created a new company. This seems to be classic Synth thing. There are no reputable or majority sources supporting these theories and indeed there are considerable counter facts to it.
Misplaced Pages: Biographies of Living Persons
On top of the above Werner Erhard is a living person not currently in the public eye and not formally associated with Landmark Worldwide in any way except a historical and familial one (his brother and sister hold senior leadership roles in the company). Much of the added content tends to focus on the issues like accusations made against Werner Erhard (that were later recanted) and tax issues (which the IRS later publically acknowledged involved no wrong doing by Mr. Erhard, and indeed settled with Werner Erhard) . It will often include paragraphs on the accusations and then one small sentence saying "and oh yes it turns out that none of that was true" after going on about it for paragraphs.
This seems to be a direct smear against a living person who is not really directly relevant to the article in the first place. None of that stuff belongs here, and I wonder if it belongs on Misplaced Pages at all!
All of these combined lead me to believe that this article needs to be returned to the stable state it was in and had been arrived at by long fought for consensus.
Comments welcome.
Respectfully, Alex Jackl (talk) 03:18, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
- I agree with most of the points you're making here, particularly regarding the undue weight of the 'religious' material - as I've already said at great length here, the argument for Landmark as 'religious' doesn't hold up to close scrutiny of all the available sources - it's more an issue of how new religious movements are classified by writers than any serious claims that Landmark fits any reasonable definition of religion or religious.
- Regarding your other points, the one that stands out to me is relevance. There's now a history section that seems twice as long as any other part of the article that devotes itself entirely to complex tax structures that predated Landmark's existence. It's of no relevance to Landmark and turns the article into an unreadable mess. I assume it's been put there to grind some kind of POV axe, but all it does is put the reader to sleep. Nwlaw63 (talk) 14:51, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
- Can you identify a date on which you consider the article to have been "stable"? As to the other points in your review:
- The history of an entity is relevant, both things that led up to its formation, its formation and subsequent development. It is not undue weight for an entity's history to occupy a large portion of an article, especially where this is the coverage in sources. That does not mean that coverage of other aspects should not be reported for expanding other sections. Even Landmark, in its early days, explicitly acknowledged itself as the continuation of WE&A (regardless of whether it later denied inheriting the legal responsibilities incurred by WE&A). No one is "grinding an axe" by reporting what reliable sources state.
- The suggestion that the references regarding the treatment of Landmark as a NRM are insignificant or predate the formation of Landmark is false. Take another look.
- You say that it is obvious that Erhard and Landmark are related, yet are somehow opposed to detailing the relationship. Again, the references used are not fringe, and you have not pointed to any instance of synthesis. If there is material that you believe to be synthesis, question it or ask that a direct quote be footnoted.
- In fact, Erhard has a continuing association with Landmark (as a paid consultant, licensor, speaker at company functions, etc.). The situation regarding his relationship with Landmark Worldwide is similar to his previous association with EST Inc. and EST, An Educational Corporation, where Erhard seemingly had no ownership participation or control. Regarding the tax issues: there were multiple investigations, and WE&A was required to pay back deductions based upon circular loans and other invalid deductions. The article already reports that Erhard was cleared of personal responsibility in a later tax fraud investigation. The latter is noted in several sources as one of the reasons for his transferring WE&A assets to TEC/Landmark and leaving the United States, and is thus a significant part of the narrative. It is not a slur against Erhard.
- None of the items in the review support indiscriminate blanking of cited material. • Astynax 19:38, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
- The last paragraph particularly is simply wild speculation. It is well known and undisputed that Erhard owned the various EST and WEA businesses, led the management of them, and led many of their training programs, and trained the other program leaders. It is well established (and nowhere contested) that he consults from time to time with Landmark's development team and that he licensed certain intellectual property to the company, and has no involvement with the ownership and management of it. The rest of what is stated above is pure speculation, whether on the part of Astynax, or on the part of others who could not conceivably be party to relevant information. What RS supports these assertions? As for the farrago of confused comments about taxation matters, what is the relevance of any of that to the subject of this article, and what could be the motivation in dwelling on it, if not to leave a misleading impression of wrongdoing and sleaziness? DaveApter (talk) 13:08, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
- No, it is not speculation at all. As the article describes, Erhard never directly owned the EST entities. As he later did when Landmark was formed, he only retained ownership of the est/Forum product "technology" through overseas shell companies, and thus reaped the profits through a licensing arrangement, but had no direct ownership of EST, Inc. or EST, An Educational Corporation. At first, he only acted as a consultant to EST (again, as at Landmark), and later became a mere employee when his employment contract was transferred from Presentaciones Musicales S.A. to EST. He also controlled substantial loans to both EST and Landmark, so of course, he exercised considerable influence over EST, but it is completely fictitious to claim that he exercised direct ownership of EST, Inc. or EST, An Educational Corporation. He only took direct ownership when WE&A was formed to buy out EST using a circular loan to EST to fund the transfer. The material was cited in the article. As you appear to agree that he has indeed continued to have considerable involvement with the company, it is also disingenuous to claim that he has had no involvement. The relevance of the 2 separate tax investigations is that the first regarded the means of financing his buyout of EST (using a circular loan to reap tax benefits in the process of buying out a company he only controlled indirectly up to that point), and the second regards the widely acknowledged reasons for selling up and leaving the US. You are the person suggesting painting this as wrongdoing and sleaziness, not the article. • Astynax 18:48, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
In Response to non-RS assertions
I have not seen any RS that establishes as fact that Erhard is paid as a consultant or has ever spoken at a company function. And to state that Erhard was not involved in est has no basis in reality at all. In anything I've ever read it says Erhard was very hands on with est, he created it, led all the initial courses, trained others to lead the course and no one to my knowledge has ever said otherwise. But what really stands out in your statement the most is that you allege that Erhard was investigated for tax fraud and this is simply untrue. Erhard was never accused of nor investigated for tax fraud. That there was false reporting in the media about tax problems was actually the crux of the lawsuit that he filed and won against the IRS.
"...several IRS spokesmen were widely reported as saying that Erhard owed millions of dollars in back taxes, that he was transferring assets out of the country, and that the agency was suing Erhard. The implication was that Erhard was a tax cheat who refused to pay his taxes that were lawfully due. In fact, Erhard, 61, contended that he never refused to pay a lawfully due tax and has not refused to pay millions in back taxes. He alleged that not only did the IRS spokesmen illegally disclose confidential tax return information, but that their statements were false. The founder and head of San Francisco-based Erhard Seminars Training Inc., popularly called est, filed a wrongful disclosure suit against the IRS in 1993. IRS spokesmen subsequently admitted that statements attributed to them about Erhard's supposed tax liability were false, but that they did not ask the media to correct the statements." (http://www.thefreelibrary.com/LEADER+OF+EST+MOVEMENT+WINS+$200,000+FROM+IRS.-a083966944)
In other words, the IRS agents admitted that their statements about Erhard's supposed tax liabilities were false and they also admitted that they didn't go back to the press to ask them to correct their false statements. Their false statements are the same ones you are now trying to cite. We can't now cite those old media reports of tax misdeeds that the IRS has since admitted were false.
This is also all talking about a living person in a negative manner and has little relevance to the article about Landmark Education. Thanks, Alex Jackl (talk) 05:49, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
In light of all of this I will make some modifications that are consistent with what we have been speaking about.
- That you have not looked at the references is no reason to blank cited information. You have also twisted what I said in my previous response. I never said anything faintly suggesting that Erhard was not involved with EST, but only that he was not the owner of EST, Inc. or EST, An Educational Corporation. I urge you to re-read my posts, as you are tilting at non-existent issues. Nor, as I previously explained, did the article state that Erhard was convicted of tax fraud, and in fact, explicitly stated that he was cleared of personal responsibility in the matter you mentioned. • Astynax 10:43, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
- If your version of the article "explicitly stated that he was cleared of personal responsibility", what was the point of mentioning tax issues in the first place, if not in an attempt to smear Erhard by implication? And what is the relevance of all that to the subject of Landmark Worldwide? And what is the relevance of whether he did or did not technically "own" the est companies ten years or more before the formation of Landmark? And - while the various feature articles in free newspapers and satirical magazines may be reliable as sources for the opinions and impressions of their authors - they cannot possibly be reliable as sources for supposedly factual assertions about offshore companies, asset transfers, recruitment numbers and other details which few outside the company would know? DaveApter (talk) 11:13, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
- Yet again, the tax investigation was a significant factor in triggering Erhard to look to dissolve WE&A. It is relevant because it directly contributed to the formation of the current iteration of the company. Nor is your mischaracterization of the sources either accurate or appropriate. Much information in reliable sources is based upon interviews with those directly involved and upon documentation that is part litigation involving Landmark. Using original research again to dismiss and raise doubts about reliable sources is not a function of editors, nor a justification for re-inserting blatant puffery. • Astynax 19:38, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
- If your version of the article "explicitly stated that he was cleared of personal responsibility", what was the point of mentioning tax issues in the first place, if not in an attempt to smear Erhard by implication? And what is the relevance of all that to the subject of Landmark Worldwide? And what is the relevance of whether he did or did not technically "own" the est companies ten years or more before the formation of Landmark? And - while the various feature articles in free newspapers and satirical magazines may be reliable as sources for the opinions and impressions of their authors - they cannot possibly be reliable as sources for supposedly factual assertions about offshore companies, asset transfers, recruitment numbers and other details which few outside the company would know? DaveApter (talk) 11:13, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
In particular, to assist with the establishment of a consensus, could you please indicate what are the reliable secondary sources for the following statements in your controversial edits, and what are the primary sources on which they draw? Also could you indicate how these sources establish the relevance of these assertions to the subject of this article?
- ”Erhard was employed at a very modest salary while and license fees were made to offshore companies”
- ”At the same time his intellectual property was transferred from the Panamanian company to, a new company in the Netherlands named, Welbehagen. which licensed the foundation to present the seminars.”
- ”A Jersey Charitable Settlement to own the foundation with a Swiss entity, the Werner Erhard Foundation for est, was set up to control it.”
- ”Werner Erhard and Associates (WE&A)was established,... which purchased the assets of the various corporations and charities. This was arranged through a series of loans”
- ”In its first 18 months, Transformational Technologies licensed over 50 franchises at a $25,000 licensing fee with revenue based royalties”
- ”Erhard replaced the est seminars with a slightly modified and less authoritarian program which he "rebranded" as The Forum.”
Pending clarification of these points, I think it best that the article be reverted to the version of Alex Jackl, which I will now do. Please address these issues before re-reverting. Thanks. DaveApter (talk) 16:20, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
- The citations were in the article before you again blanked the fully-referenced material. Reverting to what is represents the same PoV status that existed prior to the article being tagged for puffery by Lithistman last July. In the process, you and AJackl have blanked significant and fully sourced material and other interim edits. • Astynax 19:38, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
Updates to Page
I made some updates to restore the page based on the breaches of Misplaced Pages policies that the page seemed to be full of. See the above statements. If you want to tlak about any of those please discuss here . Thank you! Alex Jackl (talk) 06:13, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
- I have reverted most of the material you blanked. No "breaches of Misplaced Pages policies" have been shown, and the material blanked was fully-cited. I retained some of the material you pasted from older versions, though this has removed by several editors in the past for various rationales. Again, if you have reliably referenced material to insert, do not use this as a pretext to blank cited material. • Astynax 10:59, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
- After reading the discussion here on the talk page, it is increasingly clear that claims that all this newly added history material regarding taxes and corporate structures is somehow relevant to Landmark ride on the extraordinary and dubious assertion that Erhard plays the same role with Landmark as he did with est. In fact, we have overwhelming reliable sourcing that says that for al intents and purposes, Erhard ran est and its later iterations until he sold it in 1991, and after that, he left the country and has had no control over Landmark's operations since that time. Therefore, I have removed this material that would only have relevance under this clearly false assertion. I have also removed a couple of sources that were either blogs, newsletters or primary sources, which are wholly inadequate for making factual claims. Nwlaw63 (talk) 14:59, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
- It is increasingly clear that you are mistaken. Theobald Tiger (talk) 15:10, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, you are mistaken. The sources say what the sources say, and the article reported it. Please stop using speculative OR as a pretext for blanking cited material yet again. • Astynax 18:53, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
- Nwlaw63 is indeed mistaken, and should not be blanking sourced material that does not fit with his version of reliable or important. Erhard is obviously very involved in Landmark, despite the corporate reorgs. It is the same business through various incarnations. Legacypac (talk) 05:51, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
- Erhard ran est - he doesn't run Landmark. This is what the reliable sources say. There is no denying it - black is black and white is white. Even the cursory look for sources I made makes this abundantly clear:
- After reading the discussion here on the talk page, it is increasingly clear that claims that all this newly added history material regarding taxes and corporate structures is somehow relevant to Landmark ride on the extraordinary and dubious assertion that Erhard plays the same role with Landmark as he did with est. In fact, we have overwhelming reliable sourcing that says that for al intents and purposes, Erhard ran est and its later iterations until he sold it in 1991, and after that, he left the country and has had no control over Landmark's operations since that time. Therefore, I have removed this material that would only have relevance under this clearly false assertion. I have also removed a couple of sources that were either blogs, newsletters or primary sources, which are wholly inadequate for making factual claims. Nwlaw63 (talk) 14:59, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
- From Cosmopolitan, June 1975, quotes Erhard's most senior employee as saying: “If Werner disappeared tomorrow, we’d disappear the day after. Pressmen, who is being relied on for the majority of the history section, makes it abundantly clear that, in his words “everything revolved around Werner”. He goes out of his way to make the point that whatever the tax structuring is, Erhard is the one running everything.
- Contrast this with Erhard's dealings with Landmark Landmark, where there is zero reliable sourcing saying anything similar. According to the sources, Erhard sold the property to Landmark, left the country, and “went into exile”. The Skeptic’s Dictionary says “Apparently, however, Erhard is not involved in the operation of LEC.”
- All we do know from reliable sources regarding Erhard’s current involvement with Landmark is that (according to Landmark) he consults with them from time to time. That he is somehow in charge or "very involved" is an idea that appears to be pure speculation on the part of a couple of editors on this talk page.
- This speculation is just a weak attempt to justify the relevance of Erhard’s taxes to the Landmark article. Specifically, the comments by Astynax that “The situation regarding his relationship with Landmark Worldwide is similar to his previous association with EST Inc. and EST, An Educational Corporation” and the one by Legacypac that “Erhard is obviously very involved in Landmark, despite the corporate reorgs” appear to have no basis in reality. If you have reliable sources saying Erhard is somehow pulling the strings at Landmark, now would be the time to produce them, or else stop asserting your opinions as fact. Nwlaw63 (talk) 03:46, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
- Again, you have twisted what the article and sources indicate, which is simply that he did not have any direct ownership of EST, Inc. or EST, An Educational Corporation. What he did own (through a foreign entity) was the "technology" that EST licensed, and the same relationship was again employed when WE&A was dissolved, with Erhard again licensing his "technology" to TEC/Landmark. The straw man assertion that the article says that Erhard is "pulling the strings" is irrelevant, as is mischaracterizing what the article says about the tax case, which is an important part of the history in establishing the combination of factors that led to the transition from WE&A to TEC/Landmark. • Astynax 06:27, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
Additions deleted?
Hello, all! I had added some additional references to this page the other day, and it seems they were deleted? I'm not sure why? Thanks for your attention! Captkeating (talk) 20:56, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
- See the edit summary here. This material had been previously deleted. You may want to ping the editor who removed for further information. • Astynax 01:44, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
- Well the fact that something was previously deleted begs the question of whether or not the original deletion was justified or not (something Astynax should be the first to acknowledge, given the frequency with which he re-inserts deleted material!). In this case the original deletion was not justified (it was claimed that the Irish Daily Mail was not a reliable source, wheras it was agreed at a recent Reliable sources noticeboard thread that it was entirely adequate for establishing the opinion of the writer, which is what is being asserted.
- The other deletion made at the same time was even more wide of the mark: the deleting editor jumped to the conclusion that the source was the 'Mayfair' porn mag, wheras actually it was The Mayfair Magazine, the upmarket London Lifestyle journal ! DaveApter (talk) 15:45, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
Sent to WP:AN/I from WP:COIN
The problems here were referred to WP:COIN, as a conflict of interest issue. This article has been a long-term headache and a subject of ArbComm sanctions. That's more than we can handle at WP:COIN. So I passed the buck to the administrators' noticeboard, at WP:AN/I#Landmark Worldwide heating up, again. They have the big hammers that will probably be needed to resolve this. Thanks. John Nagle (talk) 20:48, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
Minor changes to incorporation and history section
I made some minor factual cleanups and weasel word removal from the incorporation and history section of the article. There is a lot more unreliable and POV stuff in there but I removed the most egregious just to make it more factual and accurate. Also - I don't know what some of these editor's fascinations are with Werner Erhard but they should go to the Werner Erhard or some other page about that guy to air their grievances or keep it off Misplaced Pages entirely given WP:COATRACK and WP:BLP.
Thanks, Alex Jackl (talk) 21:27, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
Also removed a small paragraph that was talking about some history about the EST and Werner Erhard that was at least a decade before Landmark was even formed. I agree there needs to be some historical context in this article- but this article is very little about Landmark itself and mostly about things that happened before it even existed, Undue weight, relevance, etc. I am trying to make only absolutely obvious no-brainer edits. Any issues- please comment. Thank you Alex Jackl (talk) 04:32, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
- In the same section, I have removed three citations (a blog and two self-styled "investigative" websites). In two of the three cases, the article already had another source cited for the passage. Thank you, Tgeairn (talk) 17:47, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
- Misplaced Pages controversial topics
- All unassessed articles
- C-Class psychology articles
- Mid-importance psychology articles
- WikiProject Psychology articles
- C-Class Religion articles
- Mid-importance Religion articles
- C-Class New religious movements articles
- High-importance New religious movements articles
- New religious movements articles
- WikiProject Religion articles
- C-Class WikiProject Business articles
- Mid-importance WikiProject Business articles
- WikiProject Business articles
- Unassessed company articles
- Unknown-importance company articles
- WikiProject Companies articles
- Unassessed education articles
- Unknown-importance education articles
- WikiProject Education articles
- Misplaced Pages pages with to-do lists